Nader

[epicstruggle]

More Gore vs. Bush: Gore ends up with rougly ½ million more votes than Bush, still loses (due to electoral system). You can call that alot of things, like CRAZY and F*CKED UP. You cannot, however, call it democracy. Broken

Ill call you CRAZY and F*CKEP UP. Do you not know we live in a REPUBLIC and not a democracy. Come on crack open those history/civics books and read up on how our govermnent works. Getting the most votes is not how the president gets elected. There are reasons why this is a good thing. But first i think you should try to find out why on your own first.

later,
epic

 

[Gubbi]

Scenario 1: (moderate) Right wing has 6 good candidates. (Extreme) left has one. You end up with Josef's little brother.

Scenario 2: (moderate) Left wing has 6 good candidates. (Extreme) right has one. You end up heiling whatever you get.

Sounds better or worse?

Cheers
Gubbi

One party - one candidate, and that problem goes away.

Sorry I wasn't clear. Consider multiple parties on one wing (each with one candidate) vs one party with one candidate on the other wing.

In reality you'll get your one party, one candidate on each wing. And your political system is reduced to a two party system again.

Cheers
Gubbi

 

[Gubbi]

More Gore vs. Bush: Gore ends up with rougly ½ million more votes than Bush, still loses (due to electoral system). You can call that alot of things, like CRAZY and F*CKED UP. You cannot, however, call it democracy. Broken

Ill call you CRAZY and F*CKEP UP. Do you not know we live in a REPUBLIC and not a democracy.

Now you're messing things up. While your political system is a federal republic the mechanism used to put people in power is democracy.

Come on crack open those history/civics books and read up on how our govermnent works. Getting the most votes is not how the president gets elected. There are reasons why this is a good thing. But first i think you should try to find out why on your own first.

No. You have to explain it to me. That is exactly the part I dont get, and I have studied it.

You are voting for the chief executive for all of the United States, so why are votes truncated at the state level, ie. votes that don't quite qualify an elector are essentially wasted.

Almost every other federal nation on the planet gets this right. In addition to the direct electors, there are a number of extra electors that are chosen on the basis of the surplus (truncated) votes. That way the guy with the popular vote gets the most electors, as he should, and wins.

Cheers
Gubbi

 

[Gubbi]

Gore ends up with rougly ½ million more votes than Bush,

(Note: statistically inconsequential out of 100+ million votes cast)

That's a very third world view.

Did you know that Schröeder won the german (Germany, a federal republic too) election with just 6000 votes in total, last time ? Of course that was for political and not executive office, but you get the idea.

It can be done

Cheers
Gubbi

 

[epicstruggle]

Now you're messing things up.

How?? By actually stating facts!!!

While your political system is a federal republic the mechanism used to put people in power is democracy.

Sigh. The US govermnent as established by the constitution is a federal republic. We only elect (through the electoral college) one person, and thats the president. The individual states are a different thing all together, completly separate from the constitution, in regards to the election process. Here is a quote from the constitution:

Article 4 Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government,...

You are voting for the chief executive for all of the United States, so why are votes truncated at the state level, ie. votes that don't quite qualify an elector are essentially wasted.

There are pros and cons to different election systems.

Almost every other federal nation on the planet gets this right. In addition to the direct electors, there are a number of extra electors that are chosen on the basis of the surplus (truncated) votes. That way the guy with the popular vote gets the most electors, as he should, and wins.

Cheers
Gubbi

I guess thats why all the other nations are called the bastions of freedom, right??? No, its just the USA? AHH, . It does get complecating, ill find a few links you can read up on. But the founding fathers thought very carefully about what election system they wanted some of the suggestions were:
-let the people vote for the president directly
-let congress vote for the president
-let the states decide who should be president
-and the now famous electoral college

all the above options had their pro's and con's since we are talking about the electoral college here are
the pro's:
*The Electoral College is deeply rooted in federalist principles that founded our country. As a republic, we were not meant to have direct majority rule.

*The electoral system forces candidates to campaign in all states, thus ensuring that smaller states are not ignored.

*Direct voting could make the system even more confusing. With direct voting, close elections could lead to national recounts as opposed to limited state recounts.

the con's:
*Majority rule is denied through the indirect voting method of the Electoral College.

*Smaller states get extra clout over larger states.

*The Electoral College does not allow people to feel that they have elected a president. Therefore, the importance of voting is diminished.

here is a good place to read up on the electoral college and republic-vs-democracy debate:
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3388
http://www.burstnet.com/cgi-bin/ads/bt8518a.cgi/RETURN-CODE/if/100
http://www.avagara.com/e_c/reference/00012601.htm
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_elec.html

Having people directly vote for the leader of a country or for laws are not that good of an idea. Look if we had a vote today on gay marriages we would have 66% voting against it. If i got 50+% to vote for slavery is that good or bad? See a democracy has turned to a MOBocracy.

later,
epic
ps if you still dont get it, please read some of the links provided above. Its worth reading up on this.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

That's a very third world view.

Yes...that's right....and the U.S. is very third wolrd too.

 

[epicstruggle]

Gubbi, here are 2 additional links:
this one is a detailed explanation of the electoral college:
http://www.cnn.com/fyi/interactive/news/10/election.special/teachers/bg.6.html

this one is quite cool:
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3fs8i/air/whowon.html
It shows who might have won depending on what type of election system we might like to use. out of 7 methods, bush wins 3 gore wins 2 and 2 of the methods need a runoff election for a decision. Good reading.

later,
epic

 

[Gubbi]

here is a good place to read up on the electoral college and republic-vs-democracy debate:
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3388

Holy crap. This guy is a complete loon. A little gem:

In the long run though, a democracy will always become a tyranny, either by majority, or if the majority screw things up so badly and a tyrant seizes power from the ensuing chaos.

His incoherent ramblings boil down to It's dangerous to empower the people. I'll bet he does well in "The Bastion of Freedom".

Interestingly, he argues that (direct) democracy turns into a mobocracy, all while promoting a system where winner takes all presidential electors in each individual state (except for Maine and Nevada).

He consistently mixes direct democracy and representative democracy up to fit his arguments.

http://www.burstnet.com/cgi-bin/ads/bt8518a.cgi/RETURN-CODE/if/100
http://www.avagara.com/e_c/reference/00012601.htm

First link doesn't work. The latter is a good read and with good points. However the precautions that are suggested are in to ensure stability in a young nation still in turmoil, it's been 200 years since then.

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_elec.html

Good technical explanation of how the electoral college works. But no arguments why popular vote doesn't directly determine who becomes president.

Having people directly vote for the leader of a country or for laws are not that good of an idea. Look if we had a vote today on gay marriages we would have 66% voting against it. If i got 50+% to vote for slavery is that good or bad? See a democracy has turned to a MOBocracy.

Of course it's a good idea. Who knows better than the people who should govern ? The govenor of some state that tips the balance of the scales ? The supreme court of that state ?

As for directly voting for laws or not: No it's not a good idea except in very special cases (like making a major change to your nations constitution). I vote for (and pay) professionals to take care of that.

BTW. They've had direct democracy in Schwitzerland and they haven't gone down the tubes.

As for not getting it: I understand perfectly well how the eletoral college works. What I don't get is why you think it works well.

edit: Typos

Cheers
Gubbi

 

[Gubbi]

That's a very third world view.

Yes...that's right....and the U.S. is very third wolrd too.

That's a lousy comeback. Try harder.

You stated that ½ million votes are statistically insignificant (and hence irrelevant). Hang out with Mugabe alot ?

Cheers
Gubbi

 

[Gubbi]

Gubbi, here are 2 additional links:
this one is a detailed explanation of the electoral college:
http://www.cnn.com/fyi/interactive/news/10/election.special/teachers/bg.6.html

this one is quite cool:
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3fs8i/air/whowon.html
It shows who might have won depending on what type of election system we might like to use. out of 7 methods, bush wins 3 gore wins 2 and 2 of the methods need a runoff election for a decision. Good reading.

Good reads. Especially the latter one. Thx.

Cheers
Gubbi

 

[epicstruggle]

BTW. They've had direct democracy in Schwitzerland and they've haven't gone down the tubes.

My limited knowledge of switzerland boils down to their unethical role in WW2. turning jews from the border while taking nazi "blood" gold/money. ohh, lets not forget that they didnt want to return jewish money until very recently(and only because of international pressure). In my opinion switzerland has gone down the tubes because of their ww2 actions.

later,
epic

 

[Silent_One]

But no arguments why popular vote doesn't directly determine who becomes president.

epicstruggle wrote:

Having people directly vote for the leader of a country or for laws are not that good of an idea. Look if we had a vote today on gay marriages we would have 66% voting against it. If i got 50+% to vote for slavery is that good or bad? See a democracy has turned to a MOBocracy.

Of course it's a good idea. Who knows better than the people who should govern ? The govenor of some state that tips the balance of the scales ? The supreme court of that state ?

No it's not a good idea (at least in the case for the USA). I suggest you read this - http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf. In particular read the section on pro's and con's of the system. Heres one part of the pro's-

...the Electoral College system contributes to the cohesiveness of the country by requiring a distribution of popular support to be elected president. Without such a mechanism, they pointed out, presidents would be selected either through the domination of one populous region over the others or through the domination of large metropolitan areas over the rural ones...<snip>...Thus, there is an incentive for presidential candidates to pull together coalitions of States and regions rather than to exacerbate regional differences. Such a unifying mechanism seems expecially prudent in view of the severe regional problems that have typically plagued geographically large nations such as China, India, the Soviet Union, and even, in it's time, the Roman Empire.

 

[Gubbi]

No it's not a good idea (at least in the case for the USA). I suggest you read this - http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf. In particular read the section on pro's and con's of the system. Heres one part of the pro's-

...the Electoral College system contributes to the cohesiveness of the country by requiring a distribution of popular support to be elected president. Without such a mechanism, they pointed out, presidents would be selected either through the domination of one populous region over the others or through the domination of large metropolitan areas over the rural ones...<snip>...Thus, there is an incentive for presidential candidates to pull together coalitions of States and regions rather than to exacerbate regional differences. Such a unifying mechanism seems expecially prudent in view of the severe regional problems that have typically plagued geographically large nations such as China, India, the Soviet Union, and even, in it's time, the Roman Empire.

This is the same argument that is in one of Epic's links. We're just going to have to agree to disagree. What the above means is that some citizen's votes carry more weight than others. Inacceptable IMO. -One man, one vote.

Cheers
Gubbi

 

[Silent_One]

This is the same argument that is in one of Epic's links. We're just going to have to agree to disagree. What the above means is that some citizen's votes carry more weight than others. Inacceptable IMO. -One man, one vote.

And what you argue menas that one region of the country can dictate what happens in another part of the country by means of popular vote. One (populous) State can rule over another (less populous) State. And as epic pointed out ius it a good idea if 51% vote against gay marriage? There is no counter balance to what you suggest, no check and balance built in such a system. Maybe a system of "One man, one vote" as you suggest would work in a smaller country, but in the United States, a geographically large nation, the system has worked for over 200 years. As the link I pointed out says "Such stability, rare in human history, should not be lightly dismissed" And as such, the "system" is not "broken"

 

[Gubbi]

This is the same argument that is in one of Epic's links. We're just going to have to agree to disagree. What the above means is that some citizen's votes carry more weight than others. Inacceptable IMO. -One man, one vote.

And what you argue menas that one region of the country can dictate what happens in another part of the country by means of popular vote. One (populous) State can rule over another (less populous) State. And as epic pointed out ius it a good idea if 51% vote against gay marriage?

Very interesting case you put forward there. Considering that Bush want to add a ban on gay marriages to the constitution and he was put in place by your wonderful system.

There is no counter balance to what you suggest, no check and balance built in such a system. Maybe a system of "One man, one vote" as you suggest would work in a smaller country, but in the United States, a geographically large nation

Gimme a break, you haven't had a serious regional dispute since the civil war. You have little confidence in your fellow citizens if you think they'll vote some despotic loon into office. Somehow campaigning on the platform: IF YOU VOTE ME INTO OFFICE I'LL SELL CALIFORNIA TO THE JAPANESE AND SOLVE OUR NATIONAL DEBT CRISIS doesn't seem solid.

Cheers
Gubbi

 

[Silent_One]

Very interesting case you put forward there. Considering that Bush want to add a ban on gay marriages to the constitution and he was put in place by your wonderful system.

And your point being...? Lots of politicians want to add or change things in the Constitution. That it does not happen easily should indicate to you the inherent strength of our system of checks and balances. It would also indicate the likely outcome that the chances of such an admendment is not good.

Gimme a break, you haven't had a serious regional dispute since the civil war.....

And thats because the system is not broken....

 

[Sxotty]

Correction. You cannot call it a "direct" democracy, which we don't. We call it a republic.

but maybe we are sick of that.

The founding fathers said democracy wouldn't work b/c the common man is to dumb to know what is good for them, so now rich people determine the fate of the nation swell.

I for one support democracy over our current government, I mean jeez "we have the technology" ... in any case we need some large changes and soon b/c the US is really tanking compared to other countries, i.e. they are progressing much better than us we are stagnating, why I dont know? Maybe the fear of change, maybe something else.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

but maybe we are sick of that.

Then start your own revolution...or better yet move to California. Though CA is quite the paradox....they have the population "dirct voting" on all kinds of referendums on one hand...and then the "courts" overturning the will of the people if the outcome isn't "right."

The founding fathers said democracy wouldn't work b/c the common man is to dumb to know what is good for them, so now rich people determine the fate of the nation swell.

Really? Is that what they said? That's a new one.

in any case we need some large changes and soon b/c the US is really tanking compared to other countries, i.e. they are progressing much better than us we are stagnating, why I dont know? Maybe the fear of change, maybe something else.

Define "progress", please. (And what would a direct election / democracy do to positiviely impact that?)

 

[Gubbi]

Very interesting case you put forward there. Considering that Bush want to add a ban on gay marriages to the constitution and he was put in place by your wonderful system.

And your point being...? Lots of politicians want to add or change things in the Constitution. That it does not happen easily should indicate to you the inherent strength of our system of checks and balances. It would also indicate the likely outcome that the chances of such an admendment is not good.

My point being, that you said that with direct election of president you run the risk of majority rule where the president with his 51% voter mandate pushes laws through.

In your book this is somehow worse that a president with a 47% voter mandate pushing laws through.

The mind boggles

Gimme a break, you haven't had a serious regional dispute since the civil war.....

And thats because the system is not broken....

Really? The possibility for regional disputes are completely cancelled out by having an electoral college. Wish they'd known that in former Yugoslavia.

By your logic the civil war itself was an impossibility.

Cheers
Gubbi

 

[Joe DeFuria]

My point being, that you said that with direct election of president you run the risk of majority rule where the president with his 51% voter mandate pushes laws through.

In your book this is somehow worse that a president with a 47% voter mandate pushing laws through.

When the president has a 60% state mandaate, with a 47% popular vote pushing laws through, that is indeed better than a president with a 40% state mandate and 51% popular vote pushing laws through.

We'll ignore for the time being that the President only enacts laws, doens't legislate them, which is the job of our representatives in congress.