jdkelly
Member
What that would open up is a legal fight, like the BS in FL (in 2000), in every congressional district that had a close race, perhaps hundreds of them.
Respectfully,
jkelly
Why do some people want to directly elect presidents?
- Thread starter The Real Hawkeye
- Start date
- Status
Respectfully,
jkelly
RealGun
Member
That sounds appealing, but in that event, I don't think the Electoral College would serve any remaining purpose. Technically, the delegates, barring a State requirement, can vote any way they want to. The Electoral College is the aristocracy's check point to make sure the little people don't vote for something the aristocrats don't want.
Silver Bullet
Member
graystar,
I went back and did the math, and two ways that a state’s reported popular vote could impact the national result greater than it’s percentage of electors are
1) if the state was brazen enough to claim more voters than what the elector allotment was based on, or
2) the entire nation did not have 100% turnout, but a state padded its numbers as if the state did.
Here’s an example of (2). All the numbers are hypothetical except for the calculations.
A. Total US registered voters: 200M
Total CA registered voters: 20M
CA percentage of US: 10%
Total U.S. electors: 1000
CA electors: 100
Actual cast legal CA votes in election: 10M
Actual CA Dem votes: 6M
Actual CA Rep votes: 4M
B. Reported CA Dem votes: 17M
C. Reported CA Rep votes: 3M
D. National voting turnout: 50%
Electoral impact of result: 10%
Reported popular vote impact of result: 20%
This last figure is (B + C) / (A * D)
In this hypothetical example, California claims an extra 11M Dem votes and reduces by 1M the number of Rep votes, which impacts the national total of 100M by more than their 100 electors.
I went back and did the math, and two ways that a state’s reported popular vote could impact the national result greater than it’s percentage of electors are
1) if the state was brazen enough to claim more voters than what the elector allotment was based on, or
2) the entire nation did not have 100% turnout, but a state padded its numbers as if the state did.
Here’s an example of (2). All the numbers are hypothetical except for the calculations.
A. Total US registered voters: 200M
Total CA registered voters: 20M
CA percentage of US: 10%
Total U.S. electors: 1000
CA electors: 100
Actual cast legal CA votes in election: 10M
Actual CA Dem votes: 6M
Actual CA Rep votes: 4M
B. Reported CA Dem votes: 17M
C. Reported CA Rep votes: 3M
D. National voting turnout: 50%
Electoral impact of result: 10%
Reported popular vote impact of result: 20%
This last figure is (B + C) / (A * D)
In this hypothetical example, California claims an extra 11M Dem votes and reduces by 1M the number of Rep votes, which impacts the national total of 100M by more than their 100 electors.
Graystar
Member
And giving some people greater say than others is a good thing???
Graystar
Member
And therein lies the crux of the situation...what is the likely hood that a state would attempt to create millions upon millions of invalid votes?
The current all-one-way-or-the-other system that most states follows allows far, far fewer numbers of fraudulent votes to shift the outcome one way or another. The 2000 Presidential election is a clear example of the fallacy of the Electoral College.
longrifleman
Member
Graystar, one of the main goals of a republican form of govt is to limit the ability of the majority to abuse minorities throught the ballot box. Any form of direct election without serious safeguards in the law makes the likelyhood of such abuse almost a certainty.
A fair amount of our Constitution was designed to serve as those safeguards. Our pols seem to spend most of their time thinking up new ways to subvert those safeguards.
Without some types of checks on govt power through the ballot box, how much consideration would your neighbors in Brooklyn give to the concerns of those ignorant yahoos in Wyoming? I'm too lazy to check the numbers, but I'm guessing there are more people in greater NY than the whole state of Wyoming. Give the political make-up in NY, I could easily see them voting to turn Wyoming into a park and forcibly removing everyone. All legal, because it was done with the ballot box.
A fair amount of our Constitution was designed to serve as those safeguards. Our pols seem to spend most of their time thinking up new ways to subvert those safeguards.
Without some types of checks on govt power through the ballot box, how much consideration would your neighbors in Brooklyn give to the concerns of those ignorant yahoos in Wyoming? I'm too lazy to check the numbers, but I'm guessing there are more people in greater NY than the whole state of Wyoming. Give the political make-up in NY, I could easily see them voting to turn Wyoming into a park and forcibly removing everyone. All legal, because it was done with the ballot box.
joab
Member
Because someone told them that America was a democracy and they believed them
Don't Tread On Me
Member
The Real Hawkeye
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: CSA, Florida
Posts: 1,270
Nice....
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: CSA, Florida
Posts: 1,270
Nice....
The myth of US stopped being a federation of souvereign States in 1861 - when some states tried to exercise their souvereignity and got crushed.
The federal government does not govern over the states anymore, but over people. It really is a national government now.
In view of that - as long as one subscribes to the silly notions of democracy - it makes sense to have direct voting. So what if the populations of metropolices would hold more sway? That's where most of the people live.
The territory does not vote - people do.
If you do not like the idea that people from metropolices should dictate how you live, maybe you should think why should anyone dictate how you live, as long as you do not agress against anyone.
miko
The federal government does not govern over the states anymore, but over people. It really is a national government now.
In view of that - as long as one subscribes to the silly notions of democracy - it makes sense to have direct voting. So what if the populations of metropolices would hold more sway? That's where most of the people live.
The territory does not vote - people do.
If you do not like the idea that people from metropolices should dictate how you live, maybe you should think why should anyone dictate how you live, as long as you do not agress against anyone.
miko
Don't Tread On Me
Member
This is why we should call it the Central Government, not the Federal Government.
Federal Government is an oxymoron if you think about it.
Federal Government is an oxymoron if you think about it.
Graystar
Member
The main goal of a republican form of government is to insure that the power of government is held by the people, and that elected officials act in the interest of their electorate.
Remember, that the original draft did not have a bill of rights and there were those that even argued against having one.
That’s not a good example. First because that’s exactly what the US does for public projects like the Hover Dam, and second because the Supreme Court just ruled that a state can do that within itself.
But, THERE is a Bill Of Rights, so who cares if the original draft was lacking. Some of the Founders saw that, stood up and argued, and we have a Bill of Rights.
Major population centers are always, almost completely Liberal Left wing in voting, so I sure as hell do not want NYC or LA deciding a presidential election.
Graystar
Member
Because it's important to understand that a bill of rights is not automatic with a republican form of government.
Silver Bullet
Member
Not most of them, but the likelihood of at least one is probably greater than 50%. There doesn't seem to be a limit to the arrogance of politicians: they will do it "for the good of the people."
I'm reminded of the election in the 90s where the Republicans ran on a "Contract With America." As I recall, they scored a big success at the polls and did a surprisingly good job of implementing most of the items in their "contract." Except one: term limits. One of the Republicans stated, "Well, now that we're back in control, maybe the public doesn't want term limits." Politicians act like they've been coronated instead of elected.
In my example, the invalid votes are hidden inside the number of registered voters.
And now we have Diebold voting machines to make it easier for them.
Does it really matter how the president is elected? Regardless of the methodology, we are still going to have a statist who steals our money to spend on things we don't want or need, all the while stripping us of our most essential natural/god given rights.
Sometimes I think the best we can hope for is absolute gridlock, but that will merely maintain the status quo, it will not put things back the way they should be.
Sometimes I think the best we can hope for is absolute gridlock, but that will merely maintain the status quo, it will not put things back the way they should be.
Don't Tread On Me
Member
Senators should not be elected by the public. That Amendment was the final nail in the coffin of Federalism.
Hkmp5sd
Member
The electorial college serves one useful purpose today. It forces the politicians to run for president in essentially ALL states. Without the college, California, Texas, New York and Florida and one or two smaller states would pick the president. No one would waste time in the tiny NE states. The states with smaller populations would never even be visited by a presidential candidate.
The Real Hawkeye
member
Graystar, I'm wondering why they didn't just abolish the Senate in 1913. After all, we already had one body of legislators to represent the will of the people of the States, i.e., the House of Representatives. What do we need two of those for?
Sam
Member
In answer to the posted question, because they are bumb enough to think the population will act in the "common interest"
In reply to The Real Hawkeye, because the more we can do to keep the government moving slowly the safer we all are.
We let anyone with a 98.6 body temp vote and expect they will do a good job of it.? Almost half the population is smart enough to elect a decent dog catcher and we let them vote directly for Senators! And someone wants to let them vote for the President too?
Sam
In reply to The Real Hawkeye, because the more we can do to keep the government moving slowly the safer we all are.
We let anyone with a 98.6 body temp vote and expect they will do a good job of it.? Almost half the population is smart enough to elect a decent dog catcher and we let them vote directly for Senators! And someone wants to let them vote for the President too?
Sam
If you can have a vote 'for', why can't you have a vote 'against'? Just because some doofus is running for an office doesn't mean he's qualified or desirable. How about anybody running needs 60% of the vote for. Until somebody gets that, the office remains vacant.
Works for me.
Works for me.
So that Repubs in Calif will actually go to the polls (unlike now, where they are correct that "my vote doesn't matter", at least with respect to POTUS). Direct Prez election would help repubs some and dems some, but repubs more, for better or worse.
Graystar
Member
They probably should have. I haven't researched the origins of the design of Congress, but I have read that it was based on the Roman Republic, which contained a Senate and assemblies which represented the common people. Parliament also consisted of two houses as well so I’d guess that the framers were predisposed to a two-house system. Maybe a single house didn’t seem “republic” enough...I don’t know.
However, in the Roman Republic the Senate was not a legislative body...the assemblies did that. Also, the Roman Senate, like the House of Lords, represented the privileged class...something that we weren’t supposed to have in this country. It’s possible that the influential people, who’s backing was so important to the success of the Constitution would simply not have accepted a government with a single assembly. Remember, when written the Constitution was as much a political document as a legislative one.
Who knows. In any case, I think it was a bad move.
Graystar
Member
And that's a good reason for under representing the population of a state?
Idaho gets 4 votes for president. That’s 1 vote for every 323,488 people. New York gets 31 votes. That’s 1 vote for every 620,323 people.
That just doesn’t seem right. There is no way anyone is ever going to convince me that 1,293,000 people should have greater representation just because they decided to form their own state. It's still 1,293,000 people.
- Status