CTH Public Relations

• Torture by CO2HOG [May 02, 2012, 10:19:42 PM]
• China by CO2HOG [March 31, 2012, 02:24:13 PM]
• Global Warming Watch by TonyBlair [October 09, 2011, 06:41:37 PM]
• Solar Panel Doubts by TonyBlair [September 02, 2011, 08:25:23 AM]
• Barack Hussein Obama, Emp... by TonyBlair [August 10, 2011, 08:57:54 PM]
• National Debt Clocks and ... by Counter [August 08, 2011, 10:30:42 AM]
• Scanner or Pat Down? by Vocal Observer [June 28, 2011, 01:09:51 PM]
• Rise of the Police State by Vocal Observer [June 28, 2011, 01:01:03 PM]
• Who can we trust? by Vocal Observer [June 08, 2011, 01:07:59 PM]
• Anthony Wiener's wiener i... by CarolinaBuckeye [June 01, 2011, 11:29:22 PM]
• Democrat's Culture of Cor... by TonyBlair [May 18, 2011, 06:55:46 AM]
• Hey Obama..You want Taxes... by Vince the Fox [April 21, 2011, 03:12:25 AM]
• Obama Policy Watch by TonyBlair [April 20, 2011, 06:56:14 AM]
• George W. Obama by TonyBlair [April 19, 2011, 06:11:57 AM]
• The Religion of Peace Upd... by TonyBlair [April 12, 2011, 06:43:20 AM]

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

Members

• Total Members: 329
• Latest: boborians

Stats

• Total Posts: 40602
• Total Topics: 5158
• Online Today: 19
• Online Ever: 252
• (April 10, 2011, 07:49:21 AM)

Users Online

Users: 0
Guests: 19
Total: 19

EducateWorthington.org

The 912 Project - Glenn Beck

912 Group of Central Ohio

Please let me know if you'd like your link added

Law partners join push to end Electoral College

Pushing for statewide initiative

Former Ohio Democratic Party Chairman David J. Leland and his law partner, Jon Allison, who served as chief of staff to former Gov. Bob Taft, have signed on to help promote a major change in the way the nation elects a president.

This sounds like a great idea. It solves two problems  --- 

The current system permits the candidate the receives fewer actual votes to win the election.
This violates a fundamental principle of democracy that in any election the person who receives the most votes wins the election.

It solves the second problem of equal representation --



         electors         population   pop/elector   
                        
California         55         37,253 k            677 k   
Vermont         3         625 k            208 k   
Texas         38         25,145 k          661 k   


Vermont gets 1 elector for every 208 k people.
Texas get 1 elector for every 661 k people.


Seems to me that the person who basis his judgments on reality and the simple principle that the winner of the election is the one with the most votes is forced to agree with Leland's proposal.

No way, hosea. The idea of an electoral college was gleaned by the founding fathers from examples in ancient Rome, which witnessed instances of mob rule, which is exactly what we would have. This is only one reason why the USA is a federation of states and not a single nation like France or Italy.

• The electoral college acts to protect the interests of the smaller states against the larger states. Presidents would never bother visiting (or even advertising in) places like North Dakota, because their effort would be better spent in high population density areas.  Power would swing pretty dramatically towards cities, where you can get concentrated effects.
• It also acts to protect the interests of minorities. Like in a parliamentary system, where the third-place party holds all the power by choosing which of the first two to swing with, it forces candidates to consider geographically concentrated minorities, like blacks and Hispanics, which may be concentrated in a few states. This can force candidates to address the concerns of a minority, earn their votes, and carry that state.
• The electoral college also acts as a curb on voter fraud and increases accountability. Consider what the Florida 2000 recount would be like nationwide. We would have had to recount every vote in the entire country in a popular election; each side would challenge every voter.  Elections would go on forever.  That only applies to elections close to 50/50, but we've had two of those in a row now.
• Keeps our separation of powers. Under the original framework, only members of the House of Representatives were directly elected by the people, with members of the Senate chosen by state legislatures, the President by the Electoral College, and the judiciary by the President and the Senate. The President was not directly elected in part due to fears that he could assert a national popular mandate that would undermine the legitimacy of the other branches, and potentially result in tyranny.
• Also, if there is a severe weather problem in one part of the country which keeps many people from going to the polls, that shouldn’t decrease the effect of those states on the national election.

And FYI, there is nothing in our (ratified and adopted) Constitution that allows individual citizens to vote for President and Vice-President. The method of choosing is left to the individual states. The electors could just as well be chosen by majority of the state legislators.

Here is what I would like to see:  Keep the Electoral College, but standardize the hours of national elections.  I would keep polls open nationwide for the same 24-hour period (or 20-hour, or whatever poll watchers could support) and forbid releasing any actual results until every poll has closed.  This should prevent voters in the west from feeling that their votes don't matter as much, because election results have already been declared, which greatly skews the results of any local elections being decided on the ballot at the same time.  Also, since preliminary results can sway voter turn-out the rest of the day, I would also (if legally possible) forbid exit polls.

No way, hosea. The idea of an electoral college was gleaned by the founding fathers from examples in ancient Rome, which witnessed instances of mob rule, which is exactly what we would have. This is only one reason why the USA is a federation of states and not a single nation like France or Italy.

I commend your reluctance to change a fundamental electoral process. A scepticism towards change is a sound Conservative trait. I share it and applaud it.

But if arguments in favor of the change outweigh the arguments against the change (by a significant margin) then, I suggest, rationality requires us to accept the change. Of course, in the end your judgment may still disagree with mine.

Yes, there is a way, but only if the arguments justify it.  We changed the Constitution to make slavery illegal that indicates that the Romans and our founders were not right about everything.

Your argument is based on practical a posteriori reasoning. Again, I applaud this approach. It has the form:
If we do A then x, y, and z will happen or will likely happen.
X, y and z are bad.
Therefore, ceteris paribus, don’t do A.

Your argument consists of a claim that allotting electoral votes on the basis of the national popular vote results in

1. mob rule,
2. states with less population will have their interests ignored
3. candidates for national office will not campaign in states with low population,
4. power will devolve to more populous states and cities,
5. minoritty groups such as blacks will suffer loss of power,
6. voter fraud will increase,
7. it would lead to more voter recounts,
8. it would indrease the power of the presidency thus destroying the separation of powers between the 3 branches of government,
9. in cases of low voter turn-out (due to events such as weather), it maintains the balance of electoral power among the states.


1. Doubtful.
2. This is already true.
3. This is already true.
4. Power already resides in the more populous states.
5. Doubtful -- let's ask minority groups what they think.
6. Doubtful -- but voter fraud is hardly a real problem.
7. Doubtful.
8. Doubtful.
9. Incoherent.


My argument for changing the way we elect the president rests on a fundamental principle: This violates a that in any election the person who receives the most votes wins the election.

Maybe you believe that that the person who receives the second largest share of the votes or the third largest share or the fewest votes should be declared the winner.


I am a bit reluctant to call American voters a mob. Perhaps there are always mob-like components of the electorate – such as the Tea Party.  But the only just and true source of political authority resides in the electorate as a collective whole.

If you don't trust the America people's ability to elect a president then I suspect you

No way, hosea. The idea of an electoral college was gleaned by the founding fathers from examples in ancient Rome, which witnessed instances of mob rule, which is exactly what we would have. This is only one reason why the USA is a federation of states and not a single nation like France or Italy.

I commend your reluctance to change a fundamental electoral process. A scepticism towards change is a sound Conservative trait. I share it and applaud it.

But if arguments in favor of the change outweigh the arguments against the change (by a significant margin) then, I suggest, rationality requires us to accept the change. Of course, in the end your judgment may still disagree with mine.

Yes, there is a way, but only if the arguments justify it.  We changed the Constitution to make slavery illegal that indicates that the Romans and our founders were not right about everything.

Your argument is based on practical a posteriori reasoning. Again, I applaud this approach. It has the form:
If we do A then x, y, and z will happen or will likely happen.
X, y and z are bad.
Therefore, ceteris paribus, don’t do A.

Your argument consists of a claim that allotting electoral votes on the basis of the national popular vote results in

1. mob rule,
2. states with less population will have their interests ignored
3. candidates for national office will not campaign in states with low population,
4. power will devolve to more populous states and cities,
5. minoritty groups such as blacks will suffer loss of power,
6. voter fraud will increase,
7. it would lead to more voter recounts,
8. it would indrease the power of the presidency thus destroying the separation of powers between the 3 branches of government,
9. in cases of low voter turn-out (due to events such as weather), it maintains the balance of electoral power among the states.


1. Doubtful.
2. This is already true.
3. This is already true.
4. Power already resides in the more populous states.
5. Doubtful -- let's ask minority groups what they think.
6. Doubtful -- but voter fraud is hardly a real problem.
7. Doubtful.
8. Doubtful.
9. Incoherent.


My argument for changing the way we elect the president rests on a fundamental principle: This violates a that in any election the person who receives the most votes wins the election.

Maybe you believe that that the person who receives the second largest share of the votes or the third largest share or the fewest votes should be declared the winner.


I am a bit reluctant to call American voters a mob. Perhaps there are always mob-like components of the electorate – such as the Tea Party.  But the only just and true source of political authority resides in the electorate as a collective whole.

The mob did pretty well creating this nation. I think we can trust it to elect the President of the United States.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.