You are a dipshit if you think making a slight change in how we put in a representative puts as any closer to being a direct democracy.rdx-fx wrote:
You haven't a fucking clue how "popular vote or electoral college?" relates to Direct Democracy versus Representative Republic?Macbeth wrote:
I have not a fucking clue what this has to do with the OP
You cannot see how the quote "A wise man will not leave the right to the mercy of chance, nor wish it to prevail through the power of the majority. There is but little virtue in the action of masses of men." by Henry David Thoreau, relates to your original post?
Yes, I am inclined to believe your claimMacbeth wrote:
I have not a fucking clue[...]
It's representative democracy either way. The electoral college is bound by the popular vote in each state. Removing it doesn't turn our country into a direct democracy where the people vote on every issue.rdx-fx wrote:
You haven't a fucking clue how "popular vote or electoral college?" relates to Direct Democracy versus Representative Republic?Macbeth wrote:
I have not a fucking clue what this has to do with the OP
You cannot see how the quote "A wise man will not leave the right to the mercy of chance, nor wish it to prevail through the power of the majority. There is but little virtue in the action of masses of men." by Henry David Thoreau, relates to your original post?
Yes, I am inclined to believe your claimMacbeth wrote:
I have not a fucking clue[...]
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
And, Macbeth, you're a misinformed, overmedicated, undereducated, insane twit.Macbeth wrote:
You are a dipshit if you think making a slight change in how we put in a representative puts as any closer to being a direct democracy.
Did you not have to take US Government in high school or what?
Look at how we elect congress and the house of representatives - direct election by their constituent voters.
As is befitting their role in government.
How they are elected is reflective of their role in the "checks and balances" of government.
Now look at the Supreme Court, their role in government, and how they are elected.
Now look at the executive branch, their role in government, and the electoral college system.
All four parts of US federal government (taking the House of Representatives and Congress as two parts, Judicial and Executive being the other two) represent a (in theory) self-balancing government.
To change the manner of electing one of those key branches would change the balance of power in government.
This is also a key reason why Supreme Court Justices are elected for life - to make them somewhat immune to the whims of the people and more focused on long-term "justice" and "rule of law".
In contrast, the Congressmen and Representatives, with their shorter terms of office, are subject to the short term whims of the people.
Each plays a role in representing the will of the people and national interests.
Macbeth, before you start throwing random baseless insults around, perhaps you should get a fucking clue, get an education, and try thinking before writing.
Not completely. Above, Spark mentioned a few times where the electoral college differed from the popular vote.Jay wrote:
The electoral college is bound by the popular vote in each state.
Different states have different rules for allocating their electoral votes.
No, but direct election of the Executive branch changes the balance of power. In the current electoral college system, Presidential candidates have to balance their platforms between popular vote, and adequately representing the whole nation. Remove the electoral college, and California & New York effectively dictate policy for the nation.Jay wrote:
It's representative democracy either way.[...] Removing it doesn't turn our country into a direct democracy where the people vote on every issue.
And, really, if you're going to make it so the President is directly elected, it would make more sense to just go with a simple Parliamentary system, with the President simply being the head of the largest Congressional party
Last edited by rdx-fx (2012-09-15 13:06:27)
Look, I'm pretty impressed with your high school level knowledge of how the government works. But the highlighted portion of what you posted is just wrong. The role and power of the president will still be constrained by election decided by eligible 18+ years olds every 4 years. Moving away from the electoral college would just make sure hick middle of nowhere places don't have a disproportionate amount of importance in elections.rdx-fx wrote:
Look at how we elect congress and the house of representatives - direct election by their constituent voters.
As is befitting their role in government.
How they are elected is reflective of their role in the "checks and balances" of government.
Now look at the Supreme Court, their role in government, and how they are elected.
Now look at the executive branch, their role in government, and the electoral college system.
All four parts of US federal government (taking the House of Representatives and Congress as two parts, Judicial and Executive being the other two) represent a (in theory) self-balancing government.
To change the manner of electing one of those key branches would change the balance of power in government.
This is also a key reason why Supreme Court Justices are elected for life - to make them somewhat immune to the whims of the people and more focused on long-term "justice" and "rule of law".
In contrast, the Congressmen and Representatives, with their shorter terms of office, are subject to the short term whims of the people.
Each plays a role in representing the will of the people and national interests.
But I understand that you don't want to move away from a system that privileges hick middle of nowhere places because you live in a hick middle of nowhere place and dream about living in the woods with survival knives.
So, MacBeth, do you classify yourself as one of those snobbish, elitist, metrosexuals who prefers to dream about tending your community garden? (See, stereotypes can go both ways!)
If you can't grasp the fact that the system was designed to give partial power to more and less populous areas, so that neither gets completely neglected, I can't really help you.
If you can't grasp the fact that the system was designed to give partial power to more and less populous areas, so that neither gets completely neglected, I can't really help you.
rdx-fx wrote:
To change the manner of electing one of those key branches would change the balance of power in government.
So, what I posted is somehow wrong, yet in the next sentence you confirm that it is correct.Macbeth wrote:
But the highlighted portion of what you posted is just wrong. The role and power of the president will still be constrained by election decided by eligible 18+ years olds every 4 years. Moving away from the electoral college would just make sure hick middle of nowhere places don't have a disproportionate amount of importance in elections.
But I understand that you don't want to move away from a system that privileges hick middle of nowhere places because you live in a hick middle of nowhere place and dream about living in the woods with survival knives.
So, which is it?
Would it change the balance of power, or wouldn't it?
It is not about giving unfair advantage to rural populations.
It is about balancing national interests.
To oversimplify, rural areas need the tractors and TVs made in industrial urban areas, industrial urban areas need the natural resources and foods from rural areas.
If the government is overrepresented by one side, it become blind to policies affecting the other side.
For another example, look at the difference between local and federal government.
Federal government very often gets accused of being blind or misguided regarding policies they enact towards state and local government.
If you break the balance of power, you end up with (for example) pork barrel policy in one area, and no funding for other areas.
You are a delusional idiot with your fantasy of "you live in a hick middle of nowhere place and dream about living in the woods with survival knives."
You are insane if you think that your delusional fantasies have any valid bearing in your argument.
Seriously, what the fuck are you on?Macbeth wrote:
You know the ones where you talk to yourself and laugh at your own jokes.
And are you sure they got the dosage right?
You're thinking like New York and California would vote en masse for one party when it's simply not true. We have a Republican senate, Republican counties etc. A lot of conservatives dont bother voting in national elections because NY sends all its votes blue even if the majority is by one vote.rdx-fx wrote:
And, Macbeth, you're a misinformed, overmedicated, undereducated, insane twit.Macbeth wrote:
You are a dipshit if you think making a slight change in how we put in a representative puts as any closer to being a direct democracy.
Did you not have to take US Government in high school or what?
Look at how we elect congress and the house of representatives - direct election by their constituent voters.
As is befitting their role in government.
How they are elected is reflective of their role in the "checks and balances" of government.
Now look at the Supreme Court, their role in government, and how they are elected.
Now look at the executive branch, their role in government, and the electoral college system.
All four parts of US federal government (taking the House of Representatives and Congress as two parts, Judicial and Executive being the other two) represent a (in theory) self-balancing government.
To change the manner of electing one of those key branches would change the balance of power in government.
This is also a key reason why Supreme Court Justices are elected for life - to make them somewhat immune to the whims of the people and more focused on long-term "justice" and "rule of law".
In contrast, the Congressmen and Representatives, with their shorter terms of office, are subject to the short term whims of the people.
Each plays a role in representing the will of the people and national interests.
Macbeth, before you start throwing random baseless insults around, perhaps you should get a fucking clue, get an education, and try thinking before writing.Not completely. Above, Spark mentioned a few times where the electoral college differed from the popular vote.Jay wrote:
The electoral college is bound by the popular vote in each state.
Different states have different rules for allocating their electoral votes.No, but direct election of the Executive branch changes the balance of power. In the current electoral college system, Presidential candidates have to balance their platforms between popular vote, and adequately representing the whole nation. Remove the electoral college, and California & New York effectively dictate policy for the nation.Jay wrote:
It's representative democracy either way.[...] Removing it doesn't turn our country into a direct democracy where the people vote on every issue.
And, really, if you're going to make it so the President is directly elected, it would make more sense to just go with a simple Parliamentary system, with the President simply being the head of the largest Congressional party
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Yes, I oversimplified to make a general point.You're thinking like New York and California would vote en masse for one party when it's simply not true. We have a Republican senate, Republican counties etc. A lot of conservatives dont bother voting in national elections because NY sends all its votes blue even if the majority is by one vote.
They should do proportional college assignments rather than winner take all. This would remove the swing state bs and make everyones vote relatively equal. As it stands, people in Florida, Ohio, Virginia etc are the only votes that matter.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Jay, that would make more sense. Make every electoral district actually count.
- Superior Mind
- (not macbeth)
- +1,755|6734
This. Forealrdx-fx wrote:
Jay, that would make more sense. Make every electoral district actually count.
Really? Because right now all the candidates do it visit the swing states with the most electoral college votes.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
I think the electoral college should stay in place. Without it, there's pretty much no reason any presidential candidate would campaign anywhere but the most populous cities and regions. Move to popular vote and you change a lot of states into "fuck you you don't have a say." They would all have to merge into one superstate to have any sort of impact.
Visiting places with the highest populations is way better than just campaigning in Florida every single time...
AussieReaper wrote:
Really? Because right now all the candidates do it visit the swing states with the most electoral college votes.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
I think the electoral college should stay in place. Without it, there's pretty much no reason any presidential candidate would campaign anywhere but the most populous cities and regions. Move to popular vote and you change a lot of states into "fuck you you don't have a say." They would all have to merge into one superstate to have any sort of impact.
Visiting places with the highest populations is way better than just campaigning in Florida every single time...
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ 
Rmoney should have a lock on Florida - rednecks, old people, etc. and it shows how weak a candidate he really is.AussieReaper wrote:
Visiting places with the highest populations is way better than just campaigning in Florida every single time...
he is counting on a straight "R" voter, the one that's racist and the one that's republican. it's why he hasn't yet announced any policy he intends to implement.
The GOP typical has the vote of anyone who thinks an election should be about God, Guns or Gays.13urnzz wrote:
Rmoney should have a lock on Florida - rednecks, old people, etc. and it shows how weak a candidate he really is.AussieReaper wrote:
Visiting places with the highest populations is way better than just campaigning in Florida every single time...
he is counting on a straight "R" voter, the one that's racist and the one that's republican. it's why he hasn't yet announced any policy he intends to implement.
It's hard to judge how badly his chances are hurt with being a Mormon, though. His advantage for those voters, is that Obama is black.
But maybe I've just been following too much lamestream liberal media.
no, if you did that I wouldn't get to hear all the foodstamp conservatives whine about howl the eugene/portland queers make the whole state look like faggoty jig lovers.rdx-fx wrote:
Jay, that would make more sense. Make every electoral district actually count.
lol, here in utah they'd divide by mormon church, do a roll call, and 100% Rmoney. they'd excommunicate any obama voters, or insist they prove they're mormon to vote.
So make half the house first past the post, half by PR.Spark wrote:
Proportional representation has its own range of problems, tbh, such as over-representation of extremist minorities for a start. Plus it encourages the kind of "shady backroom dealing" that many people find somewhat objectionable.
First past the post means ~50% of the population is unrepresented, I agree simple PR gives the marginal parties too much power.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Sheesh, stereotype much?13urnzz wrote:
Rmoney should have a lock on Florida - rednecks, old people, etc. and it shows how weak a candidate he really is.AussieReaper wrote:
Visiting places with the highest populations is way better than just campaigning in Florida every single time...
he is counting on a straight "R" voter, the one that's racist and the one that's republican. it's why he hasn't yet announced any policy he intends to implement.
Well Romney has said he would repeal "Obamacare"
He later clarified that he meant to say "Except the parts that people like..."
He later clarified that he meant to say "Except the parts that people like..."
Jay wrote:
Florida are the only votes that matter.
He's an insecure douchebag. He's doing the same thing McCain did in 2008, playing the base and hoping that counts more than playing the middle. He13urnzz wrote:
Rmoney should have a lock on Florida - rednecks, old people, etc. and it shows how weak a candidate he really is.
he is counting on a straight "R" voter, the one that's racist and the one that's republican. it's why he hasn't yet announced any policy he intends to implement.
's obviously a repressed moderate, just as McCain was, seeing as every other week he'll let something slip implying that he would not do what the rapid GOP base wants him to. Both of them had to take a hard right turn during the primaries and McCain struggled to turn to the middle in time for the election. No one denies Obama might be a radical lefty socialist, but compare him to Romney and suddenly you see the importance of playing to the centrist voters. Obama may have won the election the moment he decided to go with Romney's plan instead of doing single payer (a move the Republicans seem unable to comprehend)
Last edited by Spearhead (2012-09-16 03:27:23)
Funny thing that Obamacare is based off from RomneycareAussieReaper wrote:
Well Romney has said he would repeal "Obamacare"
He later clarified that he meant to say "Except the parts that people like..."
This sounds a lot like the NZ system tbh, though I'm not entirely sure how it works. Ty?Dilbert_X wrote:
So make half the house first past the post, half by PR.Spark wrote:
Proportional representation has its own range of problems, tbh, such as over-representation of extremist minorities for a start. Plus it encourages the kind of "shady backroom dealing" that many people find somewhat objectionable.
First past the post means ~50% of the population is unrepresented, I agree simple PR gives the marginal parties too much power.
Jay's proposal sounds interesting, would like to hear more on that. Personally I quite like our parliamentary system with preferential voting, but it's not for everyone.
Last edited by Spark (2012-09-16 06:50:24)
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
I'm not saying that it's perfect (far from it), but moving to pure majority rules wouldn't "fix" things.AussieReaper wrote:
Really? Because right now all the candidates do it visit the swing states with the most electoral college votes.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
I think the electoral college should stay in place. Without it, there's pretty much no reason any presidential candidate would campaign anywhere but the most populous cities and regions. Move to popular vote and you change a lot of states into "fuck you you don't have a say." They would all have to merge into one superstate to have any sort of impact.
Visiting places with the highest populations is way better than just campaigning in Florida every single time...
yes, i stereotyped it - northern Florida seems to be the deep South, Miami/the Keys seem to be snowbirds/Latin American immigrants, and the middle of the state seems to be where independent voters might be found.RAIMIUS wrote:
Sheesh, stereotype much?
because the primaries for both parties are dominated by the fanatical, right and left feel they need to run to the rail and then back to the center.Spearhead wrote:
He's doing the same thing McCain did in 2008, playing the base and hoping that counts more than playing the middle. He
's obviously a repressed moderate, just as McCain was, seeing as every other week he'll let something slip implying that he would not do what the rapid GOP base wants him to. Both of them had to take a hard right turn during the primaries and McCain struggled to turn to the middle in time for the election.
the difference for Rmoney this time is he feels he can't return to the center - instead of appealing to those that might be right of center, he needs to constantly reassure the far right that reluctantly handed him the primary, and blindly hope that America is more anti-Obama and billionaire king makers put him over in November.