El_Gringo_Grande

And I don't think the state or the feds need to determine how my vote counts. I vote for a person and that is how my vote counts. How can it be more simple. Why do I need these rednecks telling me how my vote should count? And why do I need some idiot up in Washington telling me how my vote should count.

States do not need any more power than absolutely necessary. Nor do the feds.

If this where to change you don't have to give extra power to the feds. You just take away power from the State and give it to the individual. But can't have that, can we?

__________________
I知 not racists, I have republican friends. Radio show host.
- "The essence of tyranny is the denial of complexity". -Jacob Burkhardt
- "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - Emerson
- "People should not be afraid of it's government, government should be afraid of it's People." - Line from V for Vendetta
- If software were as unreliable as economic theory, there wouldn't be a plane made of anything other than paper that could get off the ground. Jim Fawcette

CingularDuality

Not without an amendment to the Constitution...

__________________

Become a supporting member!

Buy a Tactical Duck!
Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

WhiskeySix

I don't see how individuals, voting for the president of the Federal Government directly, rather than through some "conversion factor", erodes a state's power? I mean.. the EC votes are basically just an equation... a 'transfer function'... each state has their own 'math' that translates popular votes to EC votes. It's not like the state legislature has a 'vote', or that the State's 'will' is in any way reflected? What am I missing about the EC/States Rights link?

__________________




PoE2 Version 2.5 Overview | Get started with PoE2 (for free!)

El_Gringo_Grande

Well, yea, of course. I said earlier that this is not the most pressing issue and it isn't likely to change. But as a matter of ideal the EC is a horrible thing in all but one case

And that case may be the proof of our founding fathers genius. That one, single, far fetched case may just one day save our nation. (And maybe even be our downfall.)

I can live with the less than ideal to protect against the single case. But I can still bitch about the system. It is my American given right.

__________________
I知 not racists, I have republican friends. Radio show host.
- "The essence of tyranny is the denial of complexity". -Jacob Burkhardt
- "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - Emerson
- "People should not be afraid of it's government, government should be afraid of it's People." - Line from V for Vendetta
- If software were as unreliable as economic theory, there wouldn't be a plane made of anything other than paper that could get off the ground. Jim Fawcette

leejo

The number of EC votes is equal to the number of senators and representatives in Congrsss, so smaller states get more EC votes than their citizens would have representation in a strict popular vote. Also, I think the state legislatures' "winner takes all" legislation has a tendency to elevate these states to "battleground state" status, and helps such states extract $$ from the federal government.

Strictly speaking, the only reason why EC votes are linked to popular votes is by state legislation, but such electors are free to vote how they please. Many states have passed laws to punish such "faithless electors" but these laws have never been challenged (or enforced) and have no power to change electors' votes.

I have to believe that the founding fathers made some of these concessions to less populous states in order to get a deal everyone could live with. I'll leave it to others to interpret why they decided to insulate the presidential election from direct popular votes, but the thread about the recent jury decision to award millions to the McDonald's employees who submitted to and committed the illegal strip search and spanking may be relevant. *Cough* morons *cough*

xTYBALTx

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute talk with the average voter.

and

Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.

Both from Winston Churchill. Maybe the American system is a nice compromise.

__________________
A policy of freedom for the individual is the only truly progressive policy. -F.A. Hayek

El_Gringo_Grande

I also think they did the whole EC thing to make sure an evil moron did not come into control due to simplistic populist sentiment. Give the gentry class the ability to override the idiotic common vote.

Not a completely unfounded fear.

Still, I don't like it. And as time goes on not really necessary.

__________________
I知 not racists, I have republican friends. Radio show host.
- "The essence of tyranny is the denial of complexity". -Jacob Burkhardt
- "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - Emerson
- "People should not be afraid of it's government, government should be afraid of it's People." - Line from V for Vendetta
- If software were as unreliable as economic theory, there wouldn't be a plane made of anything other than paper that could get off the ground. Jim Fawcette

leejo

There are some proposals out there that would basically achieve a national popular vote without requiring an amendment. Since "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress", each state is free to direct electors to vote, for example, for the winner of the national popular election.

To paraphrase Boyz 2 Men (in falsetto) "Fat Cha-ya-ya-uh-ay-uh-yay-yay-yay-unce"

But it's an idea that gets around the amendment thingie.

El_Gringo_Grande

@Leejo

I don't like "getting around" an admendment. And that does, indeed, have a chance of a snowball in your state.

__________________
I知 not racists, I have republican friends. Radio show host.
- "The essence of tyranny is the denial of complexity". -Jacob Burkhardt
- "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - Emerson
- "People should not be afraid of it's government, government should be afraid of it's People." - Line from V for Vendetta
- If software were as unreliable as economic theory, there wouldn't be a plane made of anything other than paper that could get off the ground. Jim Fawcette

leejo

I don't see a problem with "getting around" an amendment. If you can accomplish the goal without having to rewrite the constitution, right on. At the risk of jazzing up the thread, that's basically where I am with the same-sex marriage thing: if we can accomplish the goals without redefining "marriage" I'd prefer that. Dig?

If state legislatures want to cede their constituents' power to the national popular vote and aren't summarily drummed out of office for it, fine with me. I just don't want the constitution fiddled with for temporary tactical...t-something that means gain. A temporary tactical take? Sure, whatever.

El_Gringo_Grande

I am not really against it. If that is what they want to do and it is within the law, so be it.

But it is not a solution to my satisfaction. They could just as easily revert to the old way. And it is still the State determining how my vote will count. Just because they determine it will count how I wish does not make me totally happy.

__________________
I知 not racists, I have republican friends. Radio show host.
- "The essence of tyranny is the denial of complexity". -Jacob Burkhardt
- "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - Emerson
- "People should not be afraid of it's government, government should be afraid of it's People." - Line from V for Vendetta
- If software were as unreliable as economic theory, there wouldn't be a plane made of anything other than paper that could get off the ground. Jim Fawcette

leejo

Well I think it's obvious that someone has to regulate how your vote will count, and the state makes most sense, being the state and all. I don't get your vision of voting sans state regulation.

Kerostasis

I'm sorry, I'm still laughing at that. That's just too amusing.

"How is my vote going to be counted?"
"Exactly the way you want it to be counted."
"Well...ok...maybe...but I'm still not happy!"

__________________

El_Gringo_Grande

Yea, well, your mama wears combat boots!

But really. I don't want the blessing of the State. I do not want "We will give you what you want for now. But we reserve the right to revoke what you want at any time we wish." I want the state to have my (and yours and every other person's) blessing.

__________________
I知 not racists, I have republican friends. Radio show host.
- "The essence of tyranny is the denial of complexity". -Jacob Burkhardt
- "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - Emerson
- "People should not be afraid of it's government, government should be afraid of it's People." - Line from V for Vendetta
- If software were as unreliable as economic theory, there wouldn't be a plane made of anything other than paper that could get off the ground. Jim Fawcette

WhiskeySix

Again - can someone please explain to me why States are involved in the process for a Federal election? Seriously, I'm missing something here. For Congress it makes sense to have representation based on your state size + 2... because there it would be in the state's (the people living within a state that benefit from state government services) interest. If there's some specific legislation or funding decision that would positively/negatively affect your state and not others, you want a proportional vote in that. In that situation, it's not D vs R - it's my state versus yours for that new navy shipyard/museum funding/research grant.

On the other hand, picking a president isn't state vs state - it's "one [person] to rule them all"... so whether I live in Rhode Island, Alaska, or NYC, the president is my president. Should my vote carry the same weight as someone in Ohio's?

__________________




PoE2 Version 2.5 Overview | Get started with PoE2 (for free!)