1
Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

I voted today!Follow

#127 Nov 11 2016 at 5:15 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,404 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I had a competitive state senate seat to vote for which, given how the federal side went, is of even more outsized importance. So there's that.


Gbaji and I got to vote for/against the recreational use of marijuana in our state. Not sure how Gbaji felt, but it passed.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#128 Nov 11 2016 at 6:24 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
I had a competitive state senate seat to vote for which, given how the federal side went, is of even more outsized importance. So there's that.


Gbaji and I got to vote for/against the recreational use of marijuana in our state. Not sure how Gbaji felt, but it passed.


Eh. Don't really care one way or the other. I voted against, but not because I want pot to be illegal, but because I find it problematic to legalize it in the state, while it's still a prohibited substance at the federal level. While I'm usually the one arguing against taking action at the federal level, in this case, the "problem" here is a classification that already exists there, and the correct solution is to reclassify marijuana into a controlled substance just like alcohol. Then you let the states make whatever adjustments they feel like making from there. But you really have to fix that classification at the federal level first, or you're just creating problems.

Oh. And also, pot heads insisting that pot is perfectly safe just **** me off. So there's that too. I'm all for legalizing, just not lying to yourself while doing it. Of course, I'm also for legalizing pretty much all recreational drugs, so I may not be the best case example here. I'm a firm believer in individual freedom and individual responsibility. You should be free to put whatever junk you want in your body. But when you're in a veritable gutter unable to walk or talk because of said drugs, don't expect anyone else to pull you out. Harsh? Sure. But that's just how I feel on the subject. Sure would weed out the stupid people pretty quickly IMO (hah! weed them out? I kill me!).

Oh. You forgot the most important choice we had. Picking a new Senator from California! And because of a dorked up process, the choice was between Democrat A and Democrat B. Yup. Two Dems were the only two choices allowed. That's some messed up system right there. At least my choice won. Yay!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#129 Nov 11 2016 at 6:47 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Allegory wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Except, I suppose, for the vast number of people who clearly don't.

Which includes both of you, because neither of you understand why the EC came to exists or continues to exist. It is a product of compromise and tradition, not intent.


I'm well aware of how the EC came to be. The point is that this country has *never* elected a president by popular vote. Somewhere along the line, folks started tracking said popular vote, but it has never been more than an interesting footnote. The original intent was for the state delegations to elect the president. That's why it's not a coincidence that the number of EC votes for each state match with each states representatives in congress (well, with concessions to territories that are not yet full states, of course).

It was always the intent that the president represent a majority opinion of the delegations from the states of the United States, and never just a majority of the raw population. This mirrored the original constitutional congress, where each state was granted delegates based on population size. You can argue that this was a matter of convenience due to the difficulty of trying to count up all of the people, but it's a lot more than that. Technically, the states delegations could be created via any process the state wanted. They could be appointed, picked at random, voted for, etc. The assumption that "the people" vote is just a convention that has developed over time, but is by no means a requirement at all.

Each state is granted a delegation size based on the size of the state's population (mirroring the representation in Congress, plus 2 for each state (mirroring the two senators from each state). How each state determines who it's delegation is, is entirely up to each states. The people do not actually elect a president. We never have. We chose the state delegation. That's it. I get that some people want the president to be elected by popular vote, but it has never been done that way, and frankly, there are a host of very good reasons to *not* do it that way.


One of the things more people also don't get is that terminology aside, we do not actually have federal elections in the US. Well, not that "the people" vote in. Each state elects its own representative to congress. That's a state wide election, not federal. Each state elects its delegates to the electoral college. Again, a state by state election process, not federal. The only actual federal election is conducted by the electoral college members when they cast their votes for president. That's it. Oh. And I suppose you could technically call votes by members of congress on various things (like confirmations) to be "federal elections" as well, but we typically don't. We don't live in a Democracy. We live in a Republic. Always have.

When you vote for president, you aren't actually voting for a given president or vice president. You're voting for the electors representing that party's pick for president and vice president. This actually used to be more clearly labeled on the ballot itself, although I've noticed they've gone to just putting the actual names down on the ballot (probably to avoid confusion). But the fact is you're voting for an electoral college representative from that party, who has pledged to vote for that candidate. That may seem like a silly technicality, but it's actually significant and put in place for a number of practical reasons (like, say the candidate dying somewhere along the way, for example).

It's a good system. And there's nothing at all wrong when the EC result does not match the raw popular vote.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#130 Nov 11 2016 at 7:14 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,915 posts
gbaji wrote:
It was always the intent that the president represent a majority opinion of the delegations from the states of the United States, and never just a majority of the raw population.

That's not intent, that's a compromise. The states with greater populations wanted proportional representation. The states with lower populations wanted equal state representation. Neither wanted the current system. It arrived as a minimax solution to a temporary dispute.
gbaji wrote:
It's a good system. And there's nothing at all wrong when the EC result does not match the raw popular vote.

No it's not, for the very reason that Hillary could still become president as a legitimate result of the system. Although electors typically vote the result of their state, they are not bound to do so. No one who supports the EC could complain if that was the result.
#131 Nov 11 2016 at 7:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
***
3,404 posts
gbaji wrote:
Oh. You forgot the most important choice we had. Picking a new Senator from California! And because of a dorked up process, the choice was between Democrat A and Democrat B. Yup. Two Dems were the only two choices allowed. That's some messed up system right there. At least my choice won. Yay! The measure to make condoms mandatory in pornographic movies, which didn't pass, so you're welcome everyone!


FTFY Smiley: lol
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#132 Nov 11 2016 at 7:27 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,404 posts
Allegory wrote:
No it's not, for the very reason that Hillary could still become president as a legitimate result of the system. Although electors typically vote the result of their state, they are not bound to do so. No one who supports the EC could complain if that was the result.


I was actually going to bring up faithless electors, as I just read about them yesterday. Faithless Elector wiki link

Man, would that cause a wild rumpus, if it happened in this election! I know that it won't, but as a thought exercise, it's pretty crazy.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#133 Nov 11 2016 at 8:56 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Allegory wrote:
gbaji wrote:
It was always the intent that the president represent a majority opinion of the delegations from the states of the United States, and never just a majority of the raw population.

That's not intent, that's a compromise. The states with greater populations wanted proportional representation. The states with lower populations wanted equal state representation.


But both of them wanted the president to be elected by a state delegations and not by total popular vote of the country as a whole.

Quote:
Neither wanted the current system. It arrived as a minimax solution to a temporary dispute.


And again, how the exact number of delegates from each state was decided isn't the relevant point. The fact that each state sends a delegation and has its own rules for deciding how said delegation votes is what's relevant here (that's what makes it an election by the "electoral college" rather than by "popular vote", which is what we're discussing here). Even if we appointed delegations to the electoral college on a strictly population basis (so toss out the whole "every state gets 2, then more based on population" compromise you're speaking of), we could still get results where the popular vote and the EC results differ. Because when you have very large states (like say California) with a very high percentage voting for one party (again, like say California), and a much larger number of smaller states, but where the voting margin is much smaller (like, say NC, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Michigan, etc), you can easily award more EC votes to the party that won a large number of small states by a narrow margin versus the one that won a small number of large population states by a large margin. And that can result in a popular vote that differs from the EC vote.

Again, how the delegations are apportioned isn't the issue. It's the fact that we send delegations in the first place (and that most of them are "winner takes all") that causes the potential for the popular vote and the EC vote to differ. And that's not broken. That is 100% by design.



Quote:
gbaji wrote:
It's a good system. And there's nothing at all wrong when the EC result does not match the raw popular vote.

No it's not, for the very reason that Hillary could still become president as a legitimate result of the system.


Huh? Well, technically anyone could, since the EC representatives could decide to vote for anyone they want. You know... technically.

Quote:
Although electors typically vote the result of their state, they are not bound to do so. No one who supports the EC could complain if that was the result.


Sure. I think you're repeating a mistake I've seen lots of people make (same deal with the primaries as well). The EC representatives are not just random people picked up off the street and handed some awesome responsibility or something. These are well regarded members of the parties themselves, that have taken pledges to vote according to their party's wishes. It's not like a state has a EC delegation picked out, then they wait to find out how they're supposed to vote, but they're free to vote any way they want if they don't like the results (Um... that can be the case in primaries, but obviously not in the general, since the one party nominee is already known when the delegations are picked). Each party picks its delegation for each state via its own internal process (which one can assumes involves a whole lot of "make sure these are people who will 100% vote for our nominee"). If the Democrats win in a state, they send the Democratic delegation to the Electoral College to vote. If the Republican's win, they send their delegation. In states with split delegations, as one might expect, the Democrats send a number of their own party faithful equal to the number they won, and the GOP does the same.

I get that this idea of the EC voting contrary to who "won" is a popular one, but it just doesn't pan out. Yes, occasionally an EC delegate chooses to vote for someone other than his party's nominee, but that typically only happens when their party lost the election, or the numbers are such that it wont matter. And it's done as a protest. For example, I believe that Reagan got one electoral vote in the 76 election because that one guy, whose vote didn't matter, wanted to express his opinion that Reagan should have been the nominee instead of Ford. I'm sure there's a few other examples, but I don't believe this has ever actually affected the result of the election itself, like ever. Most likely because people only do this when they know it wont actually affect the outcome. You know, because when you are a staunch member of a political party, it's kinda not likely you're going to intentionally do something to hand the presidency over to the other party.


You aren't honestly suggesting that GOP party delegates are going to chose to vote for Clinton, are you? Cause that's... kinda insane.

Edited, Nov 11th 2016 7:08pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#134 Nov 11 2016 at 10:01 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,915 posts
gbaji wrote:
not by total popular vote of the country as a whole.

That is exactly what the most populous states wanted.
gbaji wrote:
And again, how the exact number of delegates from each state was decided isn't the relevant point.

It's the only relevant point besides the faithless electors debacle. If the exact number of delegates from each state was exactly equal to their proportion of the population then there would be no discussion to be had.
gbaji wrote:
Huh? Well, technically anyone could, since the EC representatives could decide to vote for anyone they want. You know... technically.

Yes, and that's a flaw. Ultimately the popular vote is irrelevant, and the presumed electoral vote is irrelevant. The electors can and have voted against their assigned vote. I guarantee you most people would be upset if multiple electors were to break from their assign votes and elect someone other than the president elect, and yet this is a legitimate, Constitutional result. Why continue to support a system that is designed to fail?
#135 Nov 12 2016 at 10:32 AM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
If Montana's population spikes, do they get more EC representatives?
#136 Nov 12 2016 at 10:57 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Yes. They'll have to wait for the next census but EC reps are based on the number of congressional districts (plus senators). More people = reallocation of congressional districts to higher population states = more EC votes.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#137 Nov 12 2016 at 11:05 AM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
So, it seems that the first step is to figure out how to draw congressional districts correctly and independently.
#138 Nov 12 2016 at 2:44 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,264 posts
Allegory wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Except, I suppose, for the vast number of people who clearly don't.

Which includes both of you, because neither of you understand why the EC came to exists or continues to exist. It is a product of compromise and tradition, not intent.

Edited, Nov 11th 2016 2:56pm by Allegory


All, did you eat your breakfast today? Did you listen to audio book by Irons or you are just trolling, because you do realize that compromise and tradition often involve intent and want to see who jumps on it.

What did I win?
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#139 Nov 12 2016 at 2:49 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,264 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Oh. You forgot the most important choice we had. Picking a new Senator from California! And because of a dorked up process, the choice was between Democrat A and Democrat B. Yup. Two Dems were the only two choices allowed. That's some messed up system right there. At least my choice won. Yay! The measure to make condoms mandatory in pornographic movies, which didn't pass, so you're welcome everyone!


FTFY Smiley: lol


Glory be to Altana. It is a slippery slope. Next thing we know, we have Japan style **** that has ***** and pussies blurred and entire population resorts to a new form of uncensored ****. I heard PS4 has a neat VR approach. I can see great things for the human race.

Hah. Pussies are not blocked anymore. We have progress. Maybe Trump is not so bad after all.

Edited, Nov 12th 2016 3:52pm by angrymnk

Edited, Nov 12th 2016 3:53pm by angrymnk
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#140 Nov 12 2016 at 3:00 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,404 posts
I find it interesting that you can't say P O R N*, but you can say pornographic

Edited, Nov 12th 2016 2:32pm by stupidmonkey
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#141 Nov 12 2016 at 3:32 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,230 posts
you can say porn
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#142 Nov 12 2016 at 4:30 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,404 posts
*without breaking the filter.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#143 Nov 12 2016 at 5:58 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,915 posts
Almalieque wrote:
So, it seems that the first step is to figure out how to draw congressional districts correctly and independently.

Oh, we know how, but the group in control of districting has no incentive to do so.
angrymnk wrote:
compromise and tradition often involve intent and want to see who jumps on it.

No? Not in the sense used here at least. No one wanted to current system. They settled on it.

If I think the answer is "7" and you think the answer is "3", then we might decide to submit "5" as our collective answer, but neither of us thinks it is correct.

Assuming that a voting system created more than two hundreds years ago as a result of groups with different goals vying for temporary power gains is the pinnacle of democracy is preposterous. We can do better.
#144 Nov 12 2016 at 6:56 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,906 posts
Allegory wrote:
If I think the answer is "7" and you think the answer is "3", then we might decide to submit "5" as our collective answer, but neither of us thinks it is correct.


Well, that's compromise. You don't get everything you want... that wouldn't be compromise. Purely popular vote would just be a "fuck the smaller States" in favor of big cities.

Edit:
I'm just glad I don't live in a big city full of protestors, and my life can go on like normal.

Edited, Nov 12th 2016 8:03pm by TirithRR
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#145 Nov 12 2016 at 8:02 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,915 posts
TirithRR wrote:
Well, that's compromise. You don't get everything you want... that wouldn't be compromise.

That's my point. It was a result of compromise, not intent. No one walked into the discussion wanting what they got out of it. The EC was not designed to be the best, most fair voting system. It was designed to sate the ephemeral and petty power struggles of a few individuals.
TirithRR wrote:
Purely popular vote would just be a "fuck the smaller States" in favor of big cities.

Only in proportion to the number of people they have. One could argue a purely state based voting system would ***** over people who live in more populous states, and that the current system screws over both.

Yes, when it comes to allocating votes to people, it is necessarily a zero sum game. The question is what system makes the most sense. In my opinion it's 1 person 1 vote. In the current system it is 1 Wyoming to 3.5 Texas votes, except that neither mattes because all votes can be thrown out on a whim as a legitimate result of the system.

Edited, Nov 12th 2016 8:06pm by Allegory
#146 Nov 12 2016 at 8:16 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,906 posts
Allegory wrote:
TirithRR wrote:
Well, that's compromise. You don't get everything you want... that wouldn't be compromise.

That's my point. It was a result of compromise, not intent. No one walked into the discussion wanting what they got out of it. The EC was not designed to be the best, most fair voting system. It was designed to sate the ephemeral and petty power struggles of a few individuals.


The compromise was the intent. The result was the intent, and it was compromise. The results may not have been what each group wanted, but that is not the same as not being the intent.

Quote:
In my opinion it's 1 person 1 vote. In the current system it is 1 Wyoming to 3.5 Texas votes


Yet, 1 person 1 vote ends up with Wyoming 1 vote, Texas 54 votes (No, I didn't bother looking up what percent of the population is eligible voters, just illustrating here)... So the EC gives Wyoming more of a say in the presidential election than a popularity vote does?

Quote:
except that neither mattes because all votes can be thrown out on a whim as a legitimate result of the system.


And a president can win an EC election where all EC delegates vote for the "correct" person while getting some 20-some percent of the popular vote. Doesn't mean it's going to happen. Those people in the EC are elected officials who do have a re-election concern.

Edited, Nov 12th 2016 9:20pm by TirithRR
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#148 Nov 12 2016 at 9:58 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts
Allegory wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Except, I suppose, for the vast number of people who clearly don't.

Which includes both of you, because neither of you understand why the EC came to exists or continues to exist. It is a product of compromise and tradition, not intent.

Make no mistake, i know what's going on. Gbaji just always thinks he has a unique and true perspective on things that nobody else understands. In reality, he's no smarter than the typical college graduate, and his arguments are completely tired and predicted by right wing mainstream media.

I think you've been in this forum long enough to realize he doesn't deserve more than a flippant response.



Edited, Nov 12th 2016 10:09pm by trickybeck
____________________________
Na Zdrowie
#149 Nov 12 2016 at 10:53 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,915 posts
TirithRR wrote:
The compromise was the intent. The result was the intent, and it was compromise. The results may not have been what each group wanted, but that is not the same as not being the intent.

I disagree, but I don't really want to play semantics.

More importantly, the EC fails to achieve the goals people purport it to. It doesn't protect flyover states, because they are just as if not more so ignored now based on how safe they are. It doesn't keep politicians from only focusing on larger states, because if those states are in play there is even a greater incentive to focus attention on them. In fact, due to the all or nothing nature of most states politicians are possibly caught in a dollar auction where nearly all their attention could be monopolized by a single state.

The EC can and is gamed. Politicians don't merely play around the desires of their constituents, but the arbitrary rules of the system. A pure popular vote forces politicians to cater to demographics regardless of geography and to only spend as much time on them as their proportion is worth.

The EC is a fundamentally contradictory system. It doesn't think either the two methodologies built into is good, so it splits the difference hoping that at most it only 50% flawed. And it doesn't even trust its own results because again, and I think this should be the sticker, the electors can ultimately do whatever the fudge they want.
TirithRR wrote:
Yet, 1 person 1 vote ends up with Wyoming 1 vote, Texas 54 votes (No, I didn't bother looking up what percent of the population is eligible voters, just illustrating here)... So the EC gives Wyoming more of a say in the presidential election than a popularity vote does?

A popular vote gives each resident in Wyoming the same say as any resident in Texas.

How is saying a Wyoming resident's vote should count 3.5 times that of a Texan all that much different than saying a men's votes should count 3.5 times that of women?
TirithRR wrote:
Those people in the EC are elected officials who do have a re-election concern.

I don't know if maybe you made a typo, but electors cannot hold federal offices. They aren't elected officials, but appointees, which the populace has no direct control over and to which they owe no allegiance.
trickybeck wrote:
I think you've been in this forum long enough to realize he doesn't deserve more than a flippant response.

He does. To the best of my knowledge, Gbaji engages genuinely in discussion (as much as anyone else really), and even if I'm wrong about that it's a risk worth taking. He deserves exactly the amount of respect afforded to him by his particular comments on a particular topic at a particular point in time, no more or less. Too many people generalize Gbaji and dismiss him even before he has said anything worthy of dismissal.

Further, and this is an important lesson in general, the first rule of dealing with hecklers is not to ignore them.

Edited, Nov 12th 2016 11:03pm by Allegory
#150 Nov 12 2016 at 11:46 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,906 posts
Quote:
A popular vote gives each resident in Wyoming the same say as any resident in Texas.

How is saying a Wyoming resident's vote should count 3.5 times that of a Texan all that much different than saying a men's votes should count 3.5 times that of women?


Because they'd want to make some equalization of the interests of the individual States. The issue being that the population of Texas is so much larger than that of Wyoming, and the issues important to Texans and the ones important Wyoming may be (probably are) different.

Maybe if there were 54 times as many men in the US as there were women, women would feel a bit let down by a purely popular vote? Wouldn't they want to attempt to equalize the interests of both men and women? While the men would want their majority to still hold some power.



Quote:
I don't know if maybe you made a typo, but electors cannot hold federal offices. They aren't elected officials, but appointees, which the populace has no direct control over and to which they owe no allegiance.


I'll concede a bit of ignorance there, but I was thinking the Electors were placed there by the officials in the States, and if they started putting people there that changed their vote it'd reflect poorly on them. But it doesn't really matter. The "they can change their vote" just seems like fear mongering, something that just won't happen.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#151 Nov 13 2016 at 12:36 AM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,915 posts
TirithRR wrote:
Maybe if there were 54 times as many men in the US as there were women, women would feel a bit let down by a purely popular vote? Wouldn't they want to attempt to equalize the interests of both men and women? While the men would want their majority to still hold some power.

But we as a nation have agreed this is ok. Within an individual state, men's and women's votes do count the same, even if one group is in the majority.

States to me are largely artificial governing constructs. Wyoming has 3 electoral votes. Montana has 3 electoral. If the two states decided to merge into a single state, then they would not have 6 electoral votes, they would still have 3. They would still have the same constituents with the same interests, but now their amount of representation has changed based on where the boundaries have been drawn.

I see the ultimate goal of voting systems as to achieve as accurate a translation of people's interest to government as possible. Simplistically, the amount of people who want something multiplied by the degree to which they want it should be reflected in the government to exactly that degree. Any more or less is a failure in the translation process.
TirithRR wrote:
The "they can change their vote" just seems like fear mongering, something that just won't happen.

It has happened 157 times. It has yet to effect a presidential election, but were it to do so it would be a legitimate result. Even if you like everything else the EC does, do you also agree that they can Constitutionally ignore any input from the entirety of U.S. voters? What purpose does this serve or benefit does it achieve?

What if it was built into the rules of baseball that the umpire could change the score at any point in the game on a whim? Even if in the history of MLB no umpire has used it to effect the outcome of the game (although they have messed with scores before), why have this rule?

Edited, Nov 13th 2016 12:39am by Allegory
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 1 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (1)