Is it unfair for Ohio to be so important?

[ChinaBandit]

Honestly, the EC has to go.

I, for one, don't think it's fair for Cuyahoga County versus Hamilton County to decide who the fuck the POTUS will be. It's become ridiculous.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

If you get rid of the EC, then even fewer states will have any say what-so-ever.


Do you love Democracy that much that you will tolerate mob rule?


Two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch?


California in charge of economics?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Fair is a subjective term and as such, should not be used in political or economic discourse.




Fair tends to the tyranny of the majority.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Plus, I just saw over on NRO, there is a path for Romney that excludes Ohio.

 

[ChinaBandit]

If you get rid of the EC, then even fewer states will have any say what-so-ever.


Do you love Democracy that much that you will tolerate mob rule?


Two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch?


California in charge of economics?

There is nothing wrong with a straight out popular vote to decide it all. California is overweighted already because of the EC. Let the fly over states equalize things.

 

[kbate]

A simple change in the EC would lessen the impact of "swing states". Tie the Electors to congressional districts rather than states.

Ohio could slit 9/9 or 9/8/1 or however it happens to work out. States that consistently vote one way (CA, TX) would then add electors to the other party rather than giving their whole electorate to just one.

Until then - candidates will spend time sucking up in Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania and sometimes Virginia.

 

[kbate]

There is nothing wrong with a straight out popular vote to decide it all. California is overweighted already because of the EC. Let the fly over states equalize things.

If it went to direct popular vote, the candidates would visit: California, Texas, New York and Florida and the rest of the country wouldn't know there was a race (and wouldn't matter anyway). I suppose in close races they might visit PA and OH also.

 

[Sean]

If it went to direct popular vote, the candidates would visit: California, Texas, New York and Florida and the rest of the country wouldn't know there was a race (and wouldn't matter anyway)..

And I suspect there would be much rejoicing in the forty odd states spared the circus.

 

[Sean]

FTR, I've always thought the EC system was anti-democratic.

 

[kbate]

And I suspect there would be much rejoicing in the forty odd states spared the circus.

In truth, that's about how it works now but the fight is for the state's entire electoral vote rather than by district - which would force them to visit more places and spread out the love (money).

 

[ForkedTongue]

Hm.

http://world.hawaiinewsdaily.com/2012/10/will-ohios-h-i-g-owned-e-voting-machines-give-romney-the-white-house/

 

[Liar]

If it went to direct popular vote, the candidates would visit: California, Texas, New York and Florida and the rest of the country wouldn't know there was a race (and wouldn't matter anyway). I suppose in close races they might visit PA and OH also.

So just like now, but other states.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

If it went to direct popular vote, the candidates would visit: California, Texas, New York and Florida and the rest of the country wouldn't know there was a race (and wouldn't matter anyway). I suppose in close races they might visit PA and OH also.

You want some people,
Well they got the most...

The upshot would be that all the major cities would actually be calling the shots, and we see how well they are run.

Rural folk, small states, suburbs, fuck you!

It's wolves we want!

Then you would have majority rule for everything! The Administration, The House, the Senate and by default the Judiciary and, if you read Federalist or JS Mill, you know that this is exactly what the Founders tried to prevent, a base for a permanent ruling political oligarchy pandering to its base, the mob; a loyalty easily purchased with bread and circus.

 

[kbate]

FTR, I've always thought the EC system was anti-democratic.

No worse than proportional representation with majority rule.

Yeah, you got 49% of the MPs, but we've got 51 so suck it!

Basically I think we should do it the Roman way and anyone who can get their army across the Potomac should get a triumph and be declared dictator for life.

 

[kbate]

So just like now, but other states.

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=42242223&postcount=10

Echo?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

FTR, I've always thought the EC system was anti-democratic.

It is, and rightly so.

Democracy is not mentioned in the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence.

Its four mentions in Federalist are all negative.

"A pernicious evil."

The Republic can only last as long as the mob does not discover that it can vote itself the largess of the treasury.
DeTocqueville [para]

 

[Liar]

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=42242223&postcount=10

Echo?

Just chiming in.

 

[kbate]

Just chiming in.

And in a timely manner as well.

 

[Sean]

You want some people,
Well they got the most...

The upshot would be that all the major cities would actually be calling the shots, and we see how well they are run.

Rural folk, small states, suburbs, fuck you!

It's wolves we want!

Then you would have majority rule for everything! The Administration, The House, the Senate and by default the Judiciary and, if you read Federalist or JS Mill, you know that this is exactly what the Founders tried to prevent, a base for a permanent ruling political oligarchy pandering to its base, the mob; a loyalty easily purchased with bread and circus.

Why do you hate Americans, AJ?

The people in rural areas, small states and the burbs would have exactly as much influence on who becomes the prez as the people in big cities, big states and central New York; one vote.

It's been a while since I read John Stuart Mill, but I'm pretty sure he was a one man one vote advocate.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Sean, why do you go stupid and mean on purpose?


The main difference between Mill and the Founders is that he only saw need for one house, but then England is not a group of states needing representation with the crown.

 

[Sean]

Sean, why do you go stupid and mean on purpose?


The main difference between Mill and the Founders is that he only saw need for one house, but then England is not a group of states needing representation with the crown.

I'm not being mean, you're the one calling the American people a mob.

 

[ChinaBandit]

No other elected office in the country depends on an "electoral college" concept.

It is majority rule.

Given the existing Red-Blue divide there is clearly an arguement that supports targeting both the majority under populated (Red) states AND the minority but populated (Blue) states. Meaning, the successful candidate should do both. Everyone is in the mix, and more so than today.

I don't want my President tied to districts and which party controls the House of Representatives.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I'm not being mean, you're the one calling the American people a mob.

Grow up.

I am calling Democracy mob action. Any nation that tries to scale up Democracy past the city-state level will become various mobs competing for the spoils of government.

The more distant and powerful your government, the more likely it is to be dominated and controlled by just a very small group of people.
A_J, the Stupid

When the government gets powerful enough to fight over, the people will fight over it, and to the victors go the spoils, thus setting up the next fight.
A_J, the Stupid

When Government gets so powerful that its purchase price is cost effective, even imperative, to business, then business will purchase government indulgences.
A_J, the Stupid

Nowhere has a Democracy ever worked well without a great measure of local government, providing a school of political training for the people at large as much as for their future leaders. It is only where responsibility can be learned and practiced in affairs with which most people are familiar, where there is awareness of one's neighbor rather than some theoretical knowledge of the needs of other people which guides action, that the ordinary man can take real part public affair because they concern the world he knows.
FA Hayek
The Road to Serfdom, Chapter 15 p. 234

 

[ChinaBandit]

Grow up.

I am calling Democracy mob action. Any nation that tries to scale up Democracy past the city-state level will become various mobs competing for the spoils of government.

The more distant and powerful your government, the more likely it is to be dominated and controlled by just a very small group of people.
A_J, the Stupid

When the government gets powerful enough to fight over, the people will fight over it, and to the victors go the spoils, thus setting up the next fight.
A_J, the Stupid

When Government gets so powerful that its purchase price is cost effective, even imperative, to business, then business will purchase government indulgences.
A_J, the Stupid

Nowhere has a Democracy ever worked well without a great measure of local government, providing a school of political training for the people at large as much as for their future leaders. It is only where responsibility can be learned and practiced in affairs with which most people are familiar, where there is awareness of one's neighbor rather than some theoretical knowledge of the needs of other people which guides action, that the ordinary man can take real part public affair because they concern the world he knows.
FA Hayek
The Road to Serfdom, Chapter 15 p. 234

Why should the majority not rule? That's how every other country in the world does it as well as every other elected contest (ward, city, county, state, federal) in America.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

No other elected office in the country depends on an "electoral college" concept.

It is majority rule.

Given the existing Red-Blue divide there is clearly an arguement that supports targeting both the majority under populated (Red) states AND the minority but populated (Blue) states. Meaning, the successful candidate should do both. Everyone is in the mix, and more so than today.

I don't want my President tied to districts and which party controls the House of Representatives.

That is the damage that the 17th Amendment has done to the political thinking of the nation.

Your president will be tied, without the EC only to who got the most votes and that will mean one party rule. That party will only answer to the passions of the majority. Right now, the majority want abortion outlawed, for example...

What if we never again had to pay attention to any of the little rat-fuck issues the liberals love to try and divide us on? If the courts were also beholden to the majority because of majority voting from here on out?