|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The Electoral College
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
That depends on what you mean by big states. By my reckoning, the largest 11 states currently control the necessary 270 EC votes. It would be considerably less difficult to get an agreement among 11 states than the needed three-fourths of the states for a Constitutional amendment.
By my calculation the 11 biggest states are:
- California - 55
- Texas - 38
- New York - 29
- Florida - 29
- Illinois - 20
- Pennsylvania - 20
- Ohio - 18
- Michigan - 16
- Georgia - 16
- North Carolina - 15
- Virginia - 13
Which adds up to 269. So The 11 biggest versus the 39 others results in an electoral college tie.
New Jersey is more populous than Virginia and controls 14 electoral votes.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
By my calculation the 11 biggest states are:
- California - 55
- Texas - 38
- New York - 29
- Florida - 29
- Illinois - 20
- Pennsylvania - 20
- Ohio - 18
- Michigan - 16
- Georgia - 16
- North Carolina - 15
- Virginia - 13
Which adds up to 269.
You need to substitute New Jersey, with 14 votes for Virginia with 13, and we're in agreement.
--Tom Clune
[ 14. November 2012, 16:02: Message edited by: tclune ]
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
...I am feeling cynical perhaps, and somewhat doubt both parties will remain in favor of any change the other is in favor of.
And even if they were will they stay that way if it seems to go agains their likely interests? You can imagine the campaign to repeal the NPV Act in this or that state already:
Its dishonest. Changing the constitution though the back door. If it was really the right thing to do, then why not try to get a constitutional amendment? Are Americans that stupid that they can't understand the amendment? Or at least try to get it through Congress! The way we did this, forcing it through the large states, over-rode the views and interests of the small states. The populous states ran arond the constitutional checks and balances that are there precisely to stop them dictating to the less populous states! There are reasons the framers wanted two senators from every state, regardless of size...
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
This Slate article presents a pretty traditional set of arguments for the electoral college. They seem to be kind of post hoc, but there they are. FWIW
Thank you for that. It's interesting, though I have to say unpersuasive. I don't know who Posner is, but two of his arguments 'Everyone's President' and 'Big States' would work better as arguments for simply adding up the total vote nationwide.
So also does, 'Certainty of Outcome'. He seems to be arguing that the Electoral College is a good thing because it means the President can claim a mandate of 62% instead of the 51% that actually voted for him. So it's better that there is 'a result', preferably one that fools the electorate, rather than 'a representative result'.
I regret that 'completely stupid' is a better compliment than his 'Swing State' argument deserves. That argument would be just as good a one for disenfranchising all those who voted in primaries, on the ground that 'we already know how they are going to vote. Let just the floating voters decide'.
'Avoid Run-Off Elections' is a different argument altogether. If Nixon and Clinton both became President with only 43% of the vote, that's only a problem if someone else got more than 43%.
If you have more than two candidates, there is a case for preferential voting. However, having an Electoral College because that conceals from the public that their President got more than the other candidates but less than 50% of the poll is treating the electorate as both stupid and the legitimate object of deception.
No Mr Posner. 'Must try harder, γ-'.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Thank you for that. It's interesting, though I have to say unpersuasive. I don't know who Posner is, but two of his arguments 'Everyone's President' and 'Big States' would work better as arguments for simply adding up the total vote nationwide.
So also does, 'Certainty of Outcome'. He seems to be arguing that the Electoral College is a good thing because it means the President can claim a mandate of 62% instead of the 51% that actually voted for him. So it's better that there is 'a result', preferably one that fools the electorate, rather than 'a representative result'.
Posner is a senior (read "retired") judge and former Chief Judge of the United State Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit (Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin), lecturer at the University of Chicago School of Law and author of many books and article. I think it's safe to say he is a well- and widely-respected legal scholar. At least one legal journal has claimed that he is the most cited American legal scholar of the 20th Century. Whether that gives his opinion any particular weight is, of course, up to you. But he's not just an average joe on subjects like this.
And I think you misread what he means about certainty of outcome. (And I have no idea what you mean about "fooling" the electorate. While some may be ignorant of how the EC works, I doubt anyone is fooled about it.)
What he is saying is that if the popular vote was determinative, a close election could generate the possibility of a recounts and challenges all over the country that could keep the outcome in dispute for some period of time. Under the EC, such disputes are typically limited to 1 or 2 states. The 2000 election probably can serve as a good example. That election was very close, but because of the EC numbers, the recount and challenges were limited to one state -- Florida. Gore won the popular vote 50,999,897 to 50,456,002, a difference of only 543,895 or about 00.5%. Depending on how close the vote was state-by-state, that could potentially lead to challenges and recounts all over the country to try and make up that 00.5% difference, making the process after the election much more tumultuous than it was just with the Florida situation.
Again, you may not find that persuasive, but that's the point he's trying to make, not anything about claiming the mandate or fooling the electorate.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
The 2000 election probably can serve as a good example. That election was very close, but because of the EC numbers, the recount and challenges were limited to one state -- Florida. Gore won the popular vote 50,999,897 to 50,456,002, a difference of only 543,895 or about 00.5%. Depending on how close the vote was state-by-state, that could potentially lead to challenges and recounts all over the country to try and make up that 00.5% difference, making the process after the election much more tumultuous than it was just with the Florida situation.
Wait, "ONLY" half a million votes? I find it very hard to believe that anyone would find it convincing that there were half a million uncounted votes for George W. Bush in 2000 just lying around somewhere. If you want to argue that was the case, I'd say that was the real scandal of the election, and one that went unreported.
I guess it comes down to the question of "can Americans count?" While I can see that the ongoing difficulty of states like Florida to conduct what most would be considered an honest and fair election might raise some doubts on this issue, I'm hard pressed to think of non-presidential elections (which are decided by popular vote) that regularly suffer from the problem you describe. When was the last time a Gubenatorial or Congressional race was still undecided two and a half months* after election day? I'll admit I haven't made an extensive study of the question, but an example isn't readily coming to mind. If accurately counting ballots is such a difficult proposition, wouldn't such cases be commonplace?
--------------------
*The approximate timespan between election day and the Presidential inauguration.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Wait, "ONLY" half a million votes? I find it very hard to believe that anyone would find it convincing that there were half a million uncounted votes for George W. Bush in 2000 just lying around somewhere.
I never said anything about uncounted votes. And "only" in the sense of being about 00.5% of the total vote. In my state, if the margin is smaller than 00.5% for statewide elections, a recount is required if requested by the losing candidate. I do not know off the top of my head, but I would not be surprised if other states have similar provisions, more stringent or more generous perhaps.
Then there are the matters of challenges and protests. Provisional, absentee and spoiled ballots in particular are fertile ground there. In the 2008 presidential election, 1,746,338 provisional ballots were cast, of which more than 38% (663,608) were not counted. In that same election, of 25,276,095 absentee ballots cast 407,862 were rejected.
Every presidential election, both parties have observers and legal teams all over watching for things to protest or challenge if they think it will help them. In that context, half a million votes, out of over a hundred million, could well be seen as worth making challenges wherever possible. These are the kinds of votes people make livings arguing about -- provisional or absentee ballots that shouldn't have been counted and were, or provisional, absentee or spoiled ballots that should have been counted and weren't.
Again, one certainly may not find this a persuasive reason for holding on to the EC. That's fine. But in the context of a presidential election with over 100 million votes, I have no trouble at all imagining fights aimed at whitling away a half a million vote difference.
ETA: As for when a gubernatorial election dispute has run on for more than 2 months, there was the 2004 Washington state gubernatorial election. In North Carolina, we had a race for State Superintendent of Public Instruction that garnered lawsuits and wasn't decided for about 6 months, all because of some malfunctioning machines in one county.
But I'd submit that presidential elections are a different animal, and what might not seem worth fighting about in other elections could well seem worth fighting about if the White House is involved.
[ 14. November 2012, 20:24: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Again, one certainly may not find this a persuasive reason for holding on to the EC. That's fine. But in the context of a presidential election with over 100 million votes, I have no trouble at all imagining fights aimed at whitling away a half a million vote difference.
I don't find it persuasive at all, largely because I don't see how the electoral college is supposed to protect against this. You've avoided the two main questions.
1) If it's so easy to move, find, or suppress half a million votes, how does putting those votes through the electoral college meat-grinder prevent this? It seems like the electoral college would encourage such behavior, since it allows you to shift the impact of all the votes cast in a state by shifting a relatively small number of actual ballots. Florida in 2000 is the perfect example of this principle in action.
2) If finding, moving, or suppressing votes is an easy way to shift a popular vote in the election, why do we see it so rarely in those elections that are decided by popular vote? (i.e. every elected position other than president and vice president)
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
But I'd submit that presidential elections are a different animal, and what might not seem worth fighting about in other elections could well seem worth fighting about if the White House is involved.
Your edits appeared after I'd drafted my response. At any rate, I'm not sure the argument that a state political party or a gubenatorial candidate is significantly less willing to fight over ballot counts in a close election than a national party or presidential candidate holds up under scrutiny. Certainly the case you cited of Washington's 2004 gubentorial contest doesn't confirm this. If anything, Dino Rossi was probably more willing to slug it out, contested ballot by contested ballot, than Al Gore was four years earlier. It should also be noted that, despite your contention, the final count of the votes in Washington state was actually completed in about a month and half, not "more than 2 months".
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Again, one certainly may not find this a persuasive reason for holding on to the EC. That's fine. But in the context of a presidential election with over 100 million votes, I have no trouble at all imagining fights aimed at whitling away a half a million vote difference.
I don't find it persuasive at all, largely because I don't see how the electoral college is supposed to protect against this. You've avoided the two main questions.
1) If it's so easy to move, find, or suppress half a million votes, how does putting those votes through the electoral college meat-grinder prevent this? It seems like the electoral college would encourage such behavior, since it allows you to shift the impact of all the votes cast in a state by shifting a relatively small number of actual ballots. Florida in 2000 is the perfect example of this principle in action.
2) If finding, moving, or suppressing votes is an easy way to shift a popular vote in the election, why do we see it so rarely in those elections that are decided by popular vote? (i.e. every elected position other than president and vice president)
I think that the argument by people like Posner are about possibility more than probability. And that being the case, I think you're right that it falls into the category of one being able to use these scenarios to support either side of the argument. Please note that I haven't advanced this argument as my own, though I do, as I've said, see the possibility of such battles becoming reality. My response was prompted by what I think was Enoch's misreading of what Posner said. When I say that some may not find the argument persuasive, I mean that. I can see why they may not. But I think it's worth making sure that what one doesn't find persuasive is the argument someone is actually making rather than an argument they didn't make.
The EC, the theory is, creates firewalls between the states. Thus, the battles will only rage if the conditions in a particular state are ripe for it and if the result could shift the vote in the EC -- like Florida in 2000 -- and the battle won't go beyond that state, "settling" the election everywhere else. (In 2008, similar challenges could have been raised in one or two states, but as it wouldn't have affected the votes in the EC, there was no point in pursuing those challenges.)
If the vote is a popular one, the theory goes, there are no firewalls, and battles could happen in many places if the losing party believed that, between all those many places, it could garner enough votes (or have enough votes for the other party thrown out) to shift the result.
I have said I see value in the EC. But to be clear again, this particular argument is not a reason why I see value in it. I think that this argument could cut either way.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It should also be noted that, despite your contention, the final count of the votes in Washington state was actually completed in about a month and half, not "more than 2 months".
I may be remembering incorrectly, but I believe that the legal challenges went on longer than that. Those legal challenges often go beyond just the counting.
[ 14. November 2012, 21:07: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Posner is a senior (read "retired") judge and former Chief Judge of the United State Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit (Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin), lecturer at the University of Chicago School of Law and author of many books and article. I think it's safe to say he is a well- and widely-respected legal scholar. At least one legal journal has claimed that he is the most cited American legal scholar of the 20th Century. Whether that gives his opinion any particular weight is, of course, up to you. But he's not just an average joe on subjects like this.
And I think you misread what he means about certainty of outcome. (And I have no idea what you mean about "fooling" the electorate. While some may be ignorant of how the EC works, I doubt anyone is fooled about it.)
What he is saying is that if the popular vote was determinative, a close election could generate the possibility of a recounts and challenges all over the country that could keep the outcome in dispute for some period of time. Under the EC, such disputes are typically limited to 1 or 2 states. The 2000 election probably can serve as a good example. That election was very close, but because of the EC numbers, the recount and challenges were limited to one state -- Florida. Gore won the popular vote 50,999,897 to 50,456,002, a difference of only 543,895 or about 00.5%. Depending on how close the vote was state-by-state, that could potentially lead to challenges and recounts all over the country to try and make up that 00.5% difference, making the process after the election much more tumultuous than it was just with the Florida situation.
Again, you may not find that persuasive, but that's the point he's trying to make, not anything about claiming the mandate or fooling the electorate.
I'd say that my not realising that he was respected and august has protected me from being fooled by his reputation into being persuaded by the unpersuasive.
What I thought he was saying (and still suspect that in part he might be implying this) is that getting a big majority in the Electoral College gives the President more right to say 'I have a mandate' than he/she actually has.
What he's actually saying, is that, better that the person who got less votes than the other become President than that there should be scope for arguments about recounts. What sort of mandate does that give anyone?
And this man is a retired judge?
As a matter of curiosity, are state governors elected by electoral colleges of county representatives?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
What I thought he was saying (and still suspect that in part he might be implying this) is that getting a big majority in the Electoral College gives the President more right to say 'I have a mandate' than he/she actually has.
While I'll readily admit that some winning candidates might try that tack -- indeed, Obama did just that last week to try and bolster his bargaining position with the House -- I don't see that at all in what Posner said.
quote:
As a matter of curiosity, are state governors elected by electoral colleges of county representatives?
No, because states are not federations of counties. Counties are political subdivisions of the states, but states are not political subdivisions of the USA; they are separate political entities, having their own constitutions and governments, that participate in a federal union. It is that federal nature of the US that is fundamental to understanding the context for why the Electoral College was created to begin with, and why James Madison (speaking of the original EC system, pre-12th Amendment to the federal Constitution) described the system as a mix of national (meaning all the people of the country) and federal features.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
You are being facetious Enoch, right? Or ironic. State governors are in all cases elected by direct popular vote.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Croesos
My view (expressed earlier) is that decoupling the vote for President from all the other stuff would provide opportunities for
a) more rapid voting
b) use of modern technology
and reduce reasons for delay. It would not eliminate them.
Registration of voters and counting would still require safeguards. A state by state count of vote seems the only practical solution - so it would be necessary to create a central reporting point to total and declare the result. That might not be such a trivial role e.g. over the significance of absentee ballots arriving late, or state administrative delays, or state result queries by candidates, or close calls in a number of states.
All of the above is clearly manageable, but it needs thinking through and the enactment of new/revised state legislation in accordance with any constitutional change.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
As a matter of curiosity, are state governors elected by electoral colleges of county representatives?
No, because states are not federations of counties. Counties are political subdivisions of the states, but states are not political subdivisions of the USA; they are separate political entities, having their own constitutions and governments, that participate in a federal union. It is that federal nature of the US that is fundamental to understanding the context for why the Electoral College was created to begin with, and why James Madison (speaking of the original EC system, pre-12th Amendment to the federal Constitution) described the system as a mix of national (meaning all the people of the country) and federal features.
Outdated symbolism and theories about state supremacy aside, if all the pragmatic arguments being advanced to support the electoral college (less ambiguous outcomes, "firewall" between jurisdictions, protecting the interests of electoral minorities, etc.) are valid, why not apply a similar system to other elections? Instead of voting directly divide the electorate by county, district, cell, or other some other grouping, and tabulate the vote on a per group, rather than per voter, basis? The fact that no one ever advocates for something like this is a pretty good indication that the pragmatic arguments offered for the electoral college system are just so many post hoc rationalizations.
[ 15. November 2012, 00:03: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Outdated symbolism and theories about state supremacy aside . . . .
And i can only hope that this a facetious comment. Otherwise it is hard to consider any opinion you have on the subject an informed one, as you would have to be talking about a country other than the United States.
Surely you know that federalism and "state supremacy" are not the same thing. Surely you know that the United States Constitution creates a federal republic, not a unitary nation. The idea that states bear a relationship to the US fundamentally different from the relationship counties or towns bear to states is hardly a radical or novel one. It's all there in the Federalist Papers and other writings of the Framers, as well as the Constitution itself.
Nor is it difficult to figure out that president and VP are the only offices in the country elected by the country rather than by states or portions of states. POTUS and the VP are sui generis, so it's not a leap of logic to think that different considerations should come into play in electing them. Apples and oranges.
Off course, the easy answer as to why it isn't done for any other elections is that it would violate the constitutional requirement of one person, one vote. And that's the argument to make against the EC -- not that it violates one person, one vote, because something that is constitutionally required can't violate the Constitution -- but that the Constitution shouldn't require anything inconsistent with the principle of one person, one vote. And then the discussion is about what it should be about: Which do we as a nation think is more important in the election of the president, principles of federalism or principles of one person, one vote. Or do we decide that some compromise must be made between the two principles.
But to suggest that federalism (not "state supremacy") is symbolic, outdated or has nothing to do wth the question ignores the fundamental nature of how this country is structured and operates.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Outdated symbolism and theories about state supremacy aside . . . .
And i can only hope that this a facetious comment.
Only in part, since apparently you can't leave those arguments aside and address whether the pragmatic arguments advanced make sense. I was trying to ironically point this out.
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Nor is it difficult to figure out that president and VP are the only offices in the country elected by the country rather than by states or portions of states. POTUS and the VP are sui generis, so it's not a leap of logic to think that different considerations should come into play in electing them. Apples and oranges.
Technically speaking, the Speaker of the House of Representatives is elected nationally as well. The position and its selection process are Constitutionally mandated and if election by the House of Representatives doesn't count as a national election, I'm not sure election by the electoral college would count either.
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Off course, the easy answer as to why it isn't done for any other elections is that it would violate the constitutional requirement of one person, one vote. And that's the argument to make against the EC -- not that it violates one person, one vote, because something that is constitutionally required can't violate the Constitution -- but that the Constitution shouldn't require anything inconsistent with the principle of one person, one vote.
That's always been the argument against the electoral college. Virtually all the arguments against come down to its non-representative nature and the numerous easily-foreseeable ways in which it won't necessarily line up with the will of the electorate. But instead of addressing this directly we get arguments about "firewalls" and how North and South Dakota are so different that they need to have their votes tabulated separately but northern and southern California are so homogenous that they can be effectively lumped together.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
Some small states have also already passed the National Popular Vote
The National Popular Vote bill has been enacted into law in states possessing 132 electoral votes — 49% of the 270 electoral votes needed to activate the legislation.
•Maryland - 10 votes
•Massachusetts - 11
•Washington - 12 votes
•Vermont - 3 votes
•DC - 3 votes
•Hawaii - 4 votes
•New Jersey - 14 votes
•Illinois - 20 votes
•California - 55 votes
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
You need to substitute New Jersey, with 14 votes for Virginia with 13, and we're in agreement.
--Tom Clune
D'oh ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
Should have known you were right.
Hey-ho.
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Barnabas, I am feeling cynical perhaps, and somewhat doubt both parties will remain in favor of any change the other is in favor of. I mean what if Obama supported it, wouldn't that prove it was eeeevil to many people? Still, that is very relevant, and you persuade me this is more likely to happen than any other objection to the EC has, in the last 250 or so years.
Well, after the signs of "business as usual" yesterday i.e implacable GOP opposition to Susan Rice being announced publicly even before a nomination (rather than choosing the option of a private signal) you may well be right, rather than cynical.
But it occurs to me that Obama might take the high ground. Offer Electoral reform as a radical means of shortening queue length at ballots and as a way of taking out a bias which is unfair to the GOP. BUT also seek some reciprocal goodwill say on the budget. If the GOP turned that down, they could end up alienating a whole lot of electors, not just Democrats. It's also a kind of long term Presidential legacy move.
So far as the GOP is concerned, the duty of the opposition is to oppose, but not to be stupid about it.
[ 15. November 2012, 06:44: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Outdated symbolism and theories about state supremacy aside . . . .
And i can only hope that this a facetious comment.
Only in part, since apparently you can't leave those arguments aside and address whether the pragmatic arguments advanced make sense. I was trying to ironically point this out.
I have said:
quote:
I think that the argument by people like Posner are about possibility more than probability. And that being the case, I think you're right that it falls into the category of one being able to use these scenarios to support either side of the argument. Please note that I haven't advanced this argument as my own, though I do, as I've said, see the possibility of such battles becoming reality. . . .
I have said I see value in the EC. But to be clear again, this particular [pragmatic] argument is not a reason why I see value in it. I think that this argument could cut either way.
I think that pretty well covers that the "pragmatic" arguments don't persuade me one way or the other. I don't see any need to address them further.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Nor is it difficult to figure out that president and VP are the only offices in the country elected by the country rather than by states or portions of states. POTUS and the VP are sui generis, so it's not a leap of logic to think that different considerations should come into play in electing them. Apples and oranges.
Technically speaking, the Speaker of the House of Representatives is elected nationally as well. The position and its selection process are Constitutionally mandated and if election by the House of Representatives doesn't count as a national election, I'm not sure election by the electoral college would count either.
Fair point. The Speaker is, in that sense, elected nationally. Both are indirect national* elections.
* When I have been using the word "national," I have used it in the sense that James Madison uses it in Federalist 39, which I quoted upthread -- meaning pertaining to the people of the United States as a whole, rather than "federal," which refers to "the people, not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong."
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
So far as the GOP is concerned, the duty of the opposition is to oppose, but not to be stupid about it.
Being stupid about it may not be their duty, but it is their pleasure...
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
So far as the GOP is concerned, the duty of the opposition is to oppose, but not to be stupid about it.
Being stupid about it may not be their duty, but it is their pleasure...
--Tom Clune
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
In my case, Tom, the reaction was ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
A one-liner to cherish.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
You are being facetious Enoch, right? Or ironic. State governors are in all cases elected by direct popular vote.
No. Why should I be? I'm a foreigner in a far away country. I don't know about these things.
Your answer though confirms me in my opinion.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
