If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Addicting Info)   Al Gore proposes move to popular vote. Obvious tag wakes up buried in chads   (addictinginfo.org) divider line 167
    More: Obvious, Al Gore, direct election, state legislators, electoral colleges, universal suffrages, swing states, United States Constitution  
•       •       •

847 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 Sep 2012 at 10:42 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



167 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-02 10:14:50 AM
Typical Democrat libtard trying to turn elections into some type of popularity contest.

WTF is your problem, Dumborats?
 
2012-09-02 10:40:16 AM
I agree. And not just because the electoral college farked this country up 12 years ago. I'd be for the popular vote even if someone I voted for lost the election but won the Presidency.
 
2012-09-02 10:48:42 AM
Alright.. then how do you prevent candidates from running campaigns -just- in CA/TX/FL/NY and advocating programs that only pertain to them.
 
2012-09-02 10:48:49 AM
This is purely superficial and in no way should this line of thinking go into a real debate but the only thing the electoral college has going for it is that it's much more interesting to telecast than a straight popular vote. Dealing with 50 individual clumps of electoral votes as opposed to one giant sea of votes allows for more manipulation, speculation, mathplay, and other ways to waste America's time while the ballots are being counted.

Again, none of this should be taken into account when deciding whether to actually have a popular vote. If we eliminated the electoral college today I wouldn't bat an eye.

But I can't help but wonder how the networks would handle election night...
 
2012-09-02 10:50:08 AM
Not going to happen. The GOP has realized that the EC is its friend, and has promised to "protect" it in this year's platform. Combine it with the restrictive voter laws they're getting passed across the country and they can give themselves just enough margin to continue to be viable for another decade or two.
 
2012-09-02 10:51:06 AM
Oh, for heaven's sake, we can't even get rid of the damned penny!
 
2012-09-02 10:52:37 AM
Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate.
 
2012-09-02 10:53:02 AM
I'd settle for a compromise. Require Representatives to cast their district's majority vote, while Senators continue to cast their state's overall majority vote. It's far from perfect, but it will give a much better representation of the US popular vote while giving the smaller states a reasonable voice.
 
2012-09-02 10:53:43 AM

The Bestest: Alright.. then how do you prevent candidates from running campaigns -just- in CA/TX/FL/NY and advocating programs that only pertain to them.


So, you're against the "one person, one vote" principle? If you live in WY, your vote is worth 4 times more than someone that lives in CA (based on electoral college votes per number of people in each vote represents). Why don't more people see a problem with this?
 
2012-09-02 10:54:08 AM

Mugato: I agree. And not just because the electoral college farked this country up 12 years ago. I'd be for the popular vote even if someone I voted for lost the election but won the Presidency.


We already have that. Candidates ignore the states they have in the bag, as well as those where they have no chance, and the entire campaign ends up being aimed at a few "swing states"
 
2012-09-02 10:54:18 AM
I vote for a representative form of government, not mob rule.

Gore = Anarchist
 
2012-09-02 10:54:47 AM

The Bestest: Alright.. then how do you prevent candidates from running campaigns -just- in CA/TX/FL/NY and advocating programs that only pertain to them.


State populations:
California: 37,691,912
Texas: 25,674,681
New York: 8,244,910
Florida: 19,057,542
Total of above four states: 90,669,045

Total US population: 311,591,917

Yeah, that 29% of the country is really going to win you the popular vote.

Seriously: how would it be any better, worse, or different than the current system of pandering to a handful of swing states?
 
2012-09-02 10:55:56 AM

The Bestest: Alright.. then how do you prevent candidates from running campaigns -just- in CA/TX/FL/NY and advocating programs that only pertain to them.


You can't win a popular vote election just by winning the biggest cities. Let's do a hypothetical situation. Suppose there are only the same two candidates on the ballot in every state. Further, let's suppose that one candidate takes your strategy to the extreme and gets, oh, 88% of the votes cast in every single one of the 5,000 biggest communities in the country and none of the votes cast anywhere else. If there is equal turnout everywhere, will this "urban" candidate beat the "rural" candidate?
 
2012-09-02 10:57:54 AM

ramblinwreck: If you live in WY, your vote is worth 4 times more than someone that lives in CA (based on electoral college votes per number of people in each vote represents). Why don't more people see a problem with this?


You do realize that is the whole point behind having an electoral college? To help massage the inconsistencies into a congruent pattern?
 
2012-09-02 10:57:54 AM
I'd say go for the straight Alternate Vote. All the benefits of switching to national winner-take-all, but with a few more extras. People voting third party can do so safe in the knowledge that if (when) their preferred candidate doesn't win, their vote can pass to their second choice. Second, those third party candidates become a kind of reality show for news networks, with them being eliminated one at a time. This would give the talking heads a bunch of theoretical crap to talk about over whether the Green Party candidate being eliminated first would put the Democrats over the top, and so on. Everybody wins, except state governments in low-population swing states.
 
2012-09-02 10:59:47 AM

clkeagle: I'd settle for a compromise. Require Representatives to cast their district's majority vote, while Senators continue to cast their state's overall majority vote. It's far from perfect, but it will give a much better representation of the US popular vote while giving the smaller states a reasonable voice.


So give all states the Maine/Nebraska system?
 
2012-09-02 10:59:58 AM

IMDWalrus: The Bestest: Alright.. then how do you prevent candidates from running campaigns -just- in CA/TX/FL/NY and advocating programs that only pertain to them.

State populations:
California: 37,691,912
Texas: 25,674,681
New York: 8,244,910
Florida: 19,057,542
Total of above four states: 90,669,045

Total US population: 311,591,917

Yeah, that 29% of the country is really going to win you the popular vote.

Seriously: how would it be any better, worse, or different than the current system of pandering to a handful of swing states?




Places like Chicago will vote for Democrats, even if they are completely ignored.
 
2012-09-02 11:01:10 AM

Rich Cream: ramblinwreck: If you live in WY, your vote is worth 4 times more than someone that lives in CA (based on electoral college votes per number of people in each vote represents). Why don't more people see a problem with this?

You do realize that is the whole point behind having an electoral college? To help massage the inconsistencies into a congruent pattern?


The point was so that we wouldn't have to wait a year for all of the hand-counted ballots to come in and get tallied together back in the 18th Century. You get a rough count to know that the Federalists had a landslide in Massachusetts, and you won't have to worry about the exact margin until after the winner has been figured out. Just send out your electors to vote for him in the Electoral College. Automation and faster travel have pretty much eliminated all the advantages of the system.
 
2012-09-02 11:01:12 AM
A popular vote contest would send election spending through the roof. Instead of concentrating your money on only the battleground states, completely ignoring states that you either can't win or can't lose, you would now have to battle for every single vote.
 
2012-09-02 11:01:39 AM

ramblinwreck: The Bestest: Alright.. then how do you prevent candidates from running campaigns -just- in CA/TX/FL/NY and advocating programs that only pertain to them.

So, you're against the "one person, one vote" principle? If you live in WY, your vote is worth 4 times more than someone that lives in CA (based on electoral college votes per number of people in each vote represents). Why don't more people see a problem with this?


Well, because people in Wyoming (in general) are sane, and people in California (in general) are batshiat insane?
 
2012-09-02 11:01:51 AM

Tusz: I'd say go for the straight Alternate Vote. All the benefits of switching to national winner-take-all, but with a few more extras. People voting third party can do so safe in the knowledge that if (when) their preferred candidate doesn't win, their vote can pass to their second choice. Second, those third party candidates become a kind of reality show for news networks, with them being eliminated one at a time. This would give the talking heads a bunch of theoretical crap to talk about over whether the Green Party candidate being eliminated first would put the Democrats over the top, and so on. Everybody wins, except state governments in low-population swing states.


I've seen a push for this in Europe, but not in the States. Rank on your ballet your first through whatever choice. Sounds like a good idea. It would bring in more votes for third-party candidates, as people wouldn't see a vote for Ralph Nader or RON PAUL as a "throw away" vote.
 
2012-09-02 11:03:31 AM

clkeagle: I'd settle for a compromise. Require Representatives to cast their district's majority vote, while Senators continue to cast their state's overall majority vote. It's far from perfect, but it will give a much better representation of the US popular vote while giving the smaller states a reasonable voice.


This would be fine, except that Gerrymandering is around. It works fine in smallish states like Maine, but with bigger states like Pennsylvania (who considered it earlier this year), it just lets the state legislature artificially tilt the vote in their favor for a ten year stretch.
 
2012-09-02 11:03:46 AM

JJRRutgers: A popular vote contest would send election spending through the roof. Instead of concentrating your money on only the battleground states, completely ignoring states that you either can't win or can't lose, you would now have to battle for every single vote.


And that's bad, right?

/Do Negroes still count as 3/5ths of a vote?
 
2012-09-02 11:03:49 AM
The greatest obstacle would be getting enough states to ratify an amendment to do this. Most of the smaller states certainly are not going not buy into it. Are you really going to get 3/4th sof the states to go along with this? I don't think so.
 
2012-09-02 11:04:27 AM

The Bestest: Alright.. then how do you prevent candidates from running campaigns -just- in CA/TX/FL/NY and advocating programs that only pertain to them.


As opposed to states like Iowa and corn subsidies?
 
2012-09-02 11:06:03 AM
Since inventing the internet, Al has said some really dumb shiat.

/this takes the cake
 
2012-09-02 11:06:54 AM
The Electoral College is definitely outdated.

No other democracy in the world has such a silly system.

It's true that it's only gone against the popular vote once in modern history, but we are still sorely feeling the effects of that.
 
2012-09-02 11:07:00 AM

jenlen: ramblinwreck: The Bestest: Alright.. then how do you prevent candidates from running campaigns -just- in CA/TX/FL/NY and advocating programs that only pertain to them.

So, you're against the "one person, one vote" principle? If you live in WY, your vote is worth 4 times more than someone that lives in CA (based on electoral college votes per number of people in each vote represents). Why don't more people see a problem with this?

Well, because people in Wyoming (in general) are sane, and people in California (in general) are batshiat insane?


While we're ranking "batshiat insane" areas of the country, I've lived in the South most of my life. Not only are most of the people here insane, but they get to vote just the same as everyone else. CA/WY ratio was just an example of the ridiculous imbalance in the current system.
 
2012-09-02 11:07:05 AM

ramblinwreck: Tusz: I'd say go for the straight Alternate Vote. All the benefits of switching to national winner-take-all, but with a few more extras. People voting third party can do so safe in the knowledge that if (when) their preferred candidate doesn't win, their vote can pass to their second choice. Second, those third party candidates become a kind of reality show for news networks, with them being eliminated one at a time. This would give the talking heads a bunch of theoretical crap to talk about over whether the Green Party candidate being eliminated first would put the Democrats over the top, and so on. Everybody wins, except state governments in low-population swing states.

I've seen a push for this in Europe, but not in the States. Rank on your ballet your first through whatever choice. Sounds like a good idea. It would bring in more votes for third-party candidates, as people wouldn't see a vote for Ralph Nader or RON PAUL as a "throw away" vote.


Yeah, the end result tends to still be a two-party system, but with less disenfranchisement and more risk of a party being "replaced" if they go completely nuts. For a real multiparty system, you'd need to go with systems that allow more than one winner (like Single Transferable Vote), but that obviously wouldn't work with a single office like the Presidency. I'd love to see it in practice for the House and Senate, though.
 
2012-09-02 11:08:40 AM

hasty ambush: The greatest obstacle would be getting enough states to ratify an amendment to do this. Most of the smaller states certainly are not going not buy into it. Are you really going to get 3/4th sof the states to go along with this? I don't think so.


SCOTUS has ruled that the Constitution grants the states plenary power to allocate their electoral votes as they see fit. Technically speaking, if a state wanted to put into its constitution that their electoral votes went to the GOP candidate automatically, they can do it. That's the logic behind the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
 
2012-09-02 11:09:02 AM

farkityfarker: It's true that it's only gone against the popular vote once in modern history, but we are still sorely feeling the effects of that.


Actually, not even once, as I don't believe that Bush actually won Florida legitimately in 2000.
 
2012-09-02 11:09:26 AM

Tusz: The point was so that we wouldn't have to wait a year for all of the hand-counted ballots to come in and get tallied together back in the 18th Century. You get a rough count to know that the Federalists had a landslide in Massachusetts, and you won't have to worry about the exact margin until after the winner has been figured out. Just send out your electors to vote for him in the Electoral College.



You're babbling.


The reason that the Constitution calls for this extra layer, rather than just providing for the direct election of the president, is that most of the nation's founders were actually rather afraid of democracy. James Madison worried about what he called "factions," which he defined as groups of citizens who have a common interest in some proposal that would either violate the rights of other citizens or would harm the nation as a whole. Madison's fear - which Alexis de Tocqueville later dubbed "the tyranny of the majority" - was that a faction could grow to encompass more than 50 percent of the population, at which point it could "sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens." Madison has a solution for tyranny of the majority: "A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking."


And when you talk about dissolution of The Republic of the US, you sir are talking treason.

/drops glove and walks out :)
 
2012-09-02 11:12:01 AM

Rich Cream: I vote for a representative form of government, not mob rule.

Gore = Anarchist


So on which days of the week is AAAAAALLLLLLLLL GOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRE! an anarchist, and on which days is he an evul environmentalist pushing zOMG SOOOOOOOOCIALISM! for fun and profit?
 
2012-09-02 11:12:29 AM

Serious Black: hasty ambush: The greatest obstacle would be getting enough states to ratify an amendment to do this. Most of the smaller states certainly are not going not buy into it. Are you really going to get 3/4th sof the states to go along with this? I don't think so.

SCOTUS has ruled that the Constitution grants the states plenary power to allocate their electoral votes as they see fit. Technically speaking, if a state wanted to put into its constitution that their electoral votes went to the GOP candidate automatically, they can do it. That's the logic behind the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.


So, then why haven't the states in the south already done this? It sure would save them money every year in having an actual election (we already know which way their EC votes are gonna go).

My Home of Record district only has a Republican on the ballot, with no choice whatsoever. Guess what? He gets to say and do whatever craziness year in and year out without any sort of consequences. Yay democracy!
 
2012-09-02 11:13:45 AM
I see no reason why the US can't elect its President like Washington State elects its governor.

An open primary in August. Top two vote-getting candidates go to the general and the one with the most votes in that election wins.

That's how France does it.
 
2012-09-02 11:14:08 AM
In other words, Texas and California should decide Presidential elections, while the smaller states shut up and do what they are told, if they know whats good for them.

The point of the Electoral system, clumsy as it is, is to protect smaller, rural states from being bullied by bigger, more urban states. This particular system made more sense back then, when there were far more differences in the interests of the individual states than now. But there are still differences. It is not the best way to do it, but it works.

The problem with direct democracy is mob rule. Simple majority wins and calls the shots. Ask the victims of Prop 8 in California how that worked out.

If a change is needed, and it might, I think a proportional system might work better, allowing areas with similar problems but located in different states to have a say. Farmers in California, Texas, Iowa and New Jersey face similar problems, regardless of the state they are in. And in urban states like NY and NJ, the interests of farmers and rural folks are often overlooked or dismissed as unimportant. You could say something similar about any group that is in the minority. In a proportional system, the less heard or unheard voices that are currently shoved off to the side have a better chance of having a seat at the table and being heard.

One of my favorite pieces of overlooked history that is in plain sight, is at the page for the Clerk of the House of Representatives. Look at the distribution of Congressional Representatives. We had a very lively political scene with many minority parties having representation prior to WWII, using the at-large elections many states had at the time. After WWII we went to an individual district/winner take all system, That essentially outlawed minority parties without explicitly stating it in law.

An at-large system is a not-very-good way to get proportional representation, though a couple major parties still can hold too much power there as well. At the very least, go back to at-large elections so minority parties stand some chance.
 
2012-09-02 11:14:19 AM
New York and Los Angeles must be allowed to dictate how the rest of the country should operate.
 
2012-09-02 11:14:54 AM
would he retroactivly become president then?
 
2012-09-02 11:15:28 AM

Rich Cream: I vote for a representative form of government, not mob rule.

Gore = Anarchist


No, Gore=Mob Rule
 
2012-09-02 11:15:46 AM

jenlen: Well, because people in Wyoming (in general) are sane, and people in California (in general) are batshiat insane?


Is that when they aren't shooting lawyers in the face or justifying torture, or torturing and murdering gays? What exactly is sane about Dick Cheney or farktards who killed Matthew Shepard?
 
2012-09-02 11:15:47 AM

IMDWalrus: The Bestest: Alright.. then how do you prevent candidates from running campaigns -just- in CA/TX/FL/NY and advocating programs that only pertain to them.

State populations:
California: 37,691,912
Texas: 25,674,681
New York: 8,244,910
Florida: 19,057,542
Total of above four states: 90,669,045

Total US population: 311,591,917

Yeah, that 29% of the country is really going to win you the popular vote.

Seriously: how would it be any better, worse, or different than the current system of pandering to a handful of swing states?


Worse.

You'd wind up with plural majorities and the real possibility that a minority party/person/view (34%) could be in charge.
 
2012-09-02 11:18:14 AM

tomWright: Rich Cream: I vote for a representative form of government, not mob rule.

Gore = Anarchist

No, Gore=Mob Rule


Gore = the person Americans elected to be their President in 2000.

But instead they were told they had to take George W. Bush instead.
 
2012-09-02 11:18:52 AM

Mildot: would he retroactivly become president then?


That would be like killing John Connor after the war was already over.
 
2012-09-02 11:20:26 AM
Al Gore sure likes farking that chicken.
 
2012-09-02 11:20:58 AM

Lee Jackson Beauregard: Rich Cream: I vote for a representative form of government, not mob rule.

Gore = Anarchist

So on which days of the week is AAAAAALLLLLLLLL GOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRE! an anarchist, and on which days is he an evul environmentalist pushing zOMG SOOOOOOOOCIALISM! for fun and profit?



Today Al Gore will be playing the role of an Anarchist. It says so quite clearly in your handbill.


tomWright: No, Gore=Mob Rule


Mob Rule = Anarchy

/or does no one realize that?
 
2012-09-02 11:23:25 AM

farkityfarker: tomWright: Rich Cream: I vote for a representative form of government, not mob rule.

Gore = Anarchist

No, Gore=Mob Rule

Gore = the person Americans elected to be their President in 2000.

But instead they were told they had to take George W. Bush instead.


It's not their fault for not understanding how the system worked?
 
2012-09-02 11:23:39 AM

farkityfarker: tomWright: Rich Cream: I vote for a representative form of government, not mob rule.

Gore = Anarchist

No, Gore=Mob Rule

Gore = the person Americans elected to be their President in 2000.

But instead they were told they had to take George W. Bush instead.


Now, now. You butt-hurt libs need to just let it go and admit that the better theif won and move on.

/Voted for Harry Brown
 
2012-09-02 11:23:58 AM

Tusz: I'd say go for the straight Alternate Vote. All the benefits of switching to national winner-take-all, but with a few more extras. People voting third party can do so safe in the knowledge that if (when) their preferred candidate doesn't win, their vote can pass to their second choice. Second, those third party candidates become a kind of reality show for news networks, with them being eliminated one at a time. This would give the talking heads a bunch of theoretical crap to talk about over whether the Green Party candidate being eliminated first would put the Democrats over the top, and so on. Everybody wins, except state governments in low-population swing states.


I would love this, though I fear it would lead to some kind of cluster-fark in tallying the votes.

Otherwise I don't have too much of a problem with a Popular-only system as it makes every vote and state in play.
 
2012-09-02 11:23:59 AM

Rich Cream: Mob Rule = Anarchy

/or does no one realize that?


You think using the popular vote to elect our government leaders is...anarchy?
 
2012-09-02 11:24:03 AM
Gore's life isn't bad. He makes millions per year as a member of the Apple Board of Directors.

Still, being elected President but having the office stolen from you has to sting. Especially considering who became President instead.
 
Displayed 50 of 167 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report