No true democracy with [antiquated] US Electoral College system

Discussion in 'Campaign & Political Reform' started by Bic_Cherry, Nov 7, 2012.

  1. Bic_Cherry

    Bic_Cherry Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2012
    Messages:
    597
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    28
    The Straits Times, Published on Nov 06, 2012
    No true democracy with [antiquated] US Electoral College system
    TODAY'S presidential election in the United States raises the question of whether the country is really a democracy with the Electoral College system.
    Does every vote count?
    The US uses the Electoral College, which consists of 538 state electors to elect its president. So it is not individual Americans who vote to pick the president, but the 538 electors of the Electoral College.
    In the 2000 US presidential election, Democrat Al Gore received the popular vote, but lost in the Electoral College vote count to Republican George W. Bush. Technically, Mr Gore won that election as more Americans voted for him than for Mr Bush.
    This has happened three other times in past US presidential elections.
    Will it happen again this time? Will the candidate with the popular vote not become the next US president?
    There cannot be true democracy with the Electoral College system.
    Cho Yan Fatt
    Copyright © 2012 Singapore Press Holdings.
    Source URL: No true democracy with US Electoral College system

    Picts (from : 'The Trouble with the Electoral College' [YouTube07Nov2011])
    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    Source video:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k

    Alternative (video)/ resources:
    - 'The US electoral college explained: why we don't vote directly for a president' [The guardian/video: 28Sept2012]
     
  2. SiliconMagician

    SiliconMagician Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,921
    Likes Received:
    446
    Trophy Points:
    0
    (*)(*)(*)(*) you and your populist agitation.

    The 51% does not have a right to tyrannize, exploit and destroy the 49% through the use of proportional democracy. The minority part absolutely deserves to have every chance to protect themselves from political/social harassment at the hands of the majority.

    This country was not designed to be a pure democracy, it was specifically designed to shut fringe parties and their crazed ideas from ever seeing the light of day. It was designed for stability and gridlock.

    The Founders never intended the USA to be one country under the rule of one centralized Government.

    Now of course I know many progressives will say "(*)(*)(*)(*) the Founders and what they wanted, they were just racist rich white men."

    Well to that there is no answer except:

    (*)(*)(*)(*) You, it'll be a cold day in hell before we ever allow Californa liberals to dictate how the lives of Mississippians should be run or how they treat their poor.

    At some point there WILL be a reckoning. Either it will be a renewed secession movement and a second civil war, or economic collapse in which case there won't be a need for secession as the nation will just tear itself apart through balkanization.
     
    yabberefugee likes this.
  3. Bic_Cherry

    Bic_Cherry Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2012
    Messages:
    597
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    28
    And how does the electoral college system help to "The minority part ..(to) deserves to have every chance to protect themselves from political/social harassment at the hands of the majority." when even if the minority is silenced in every state (electoral votes are counted on a one size fits all way in states)... thus the stinging criticism that "You can be President of the USA with only 22% of the popular vote"

    Just because N Korea's current dictator (Kim Jong Un) stands for the minority interest (that of himself and his immediate family)- does not mean that N Korea government is democratic nor has healthy respect for minority rights... it all depends upon how U define the 'minority', Democracy is built on rule by the masses... ostensibly upon the advise of wise men who speak regularly about whats good for them.
    Democracy is thus built upon freedom of speech and the need for voters to make wise and selfless decisions for their country and its future.

    The current electoral system is antiquated and considers little- to the advances in technology since (technology now allows popular votes to be counted unlike in the 18th century where it was too cumbersome), and thus only adds to the lists of problems that Americans would have to sort out in time to come (their massive public debt amongst other problematic things yet considered).

    "renewed secession movement and a second civil war, or economic collapse in which case there won't be a need for secession as the nation will just tear itself apart through balkanization." and if U don't want to see your premonition happening, why don't Americans then make some effort to update the electoral system so that popular votes can then be taken into account rather than have partisan loyalties be allowed to tear the country apart?
     
  4. SiliconMagician

    SiliconMagician Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,921
    Likes Received:
    446
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Because the entire (*)(*)(*)(*)ing piece of (*)(*)(*)(*) planet has abandoned capitalism except for the USA and anti-capitalist forces within the USA are no importing as many capitalist haters into the nation that they possibly can in order to create a democratic majority strong enough to finally reduce America to yet another mediocre half socialist/half capitalist bastard nation.

    It is going to happen because American Conservatism is a shrinking movement, not because it is morally repugnant or economically wrong, they aren't. It is because an entire global population has fallen for the sweet siren song of Marxism. We didn't fight a 50 year Cold War against Marxism just to import it and adopt it a mere 25 years after we defeated its greatest proponent, the Soviet Union.

    Yes I understand that Democracy is built as you say it, but that doesn't mean that the mass of people are right.

    There is Democracy in Egypt and look at it! Minorities are literally being ideologically cleansed by the majority with laws that make America's Jim Crow laws look tame by comparison.

    You obviously don't understand. I'm not JUST an American. I have a loyalty to other institutions besides to the nation as a whole. I hate half the nation and that half that I hate is rapidly importing more people I hate and advancing an economic system I'd rather see destroyed than become dominant.

    Partisan loyalties are all that remain now. The cultural antagonism is so great now that we are on the verge of civil conflict. Eliminating the electoral college just ensures that at some point 10-20 years from now, my vote for the pro-capitalist candidate will have about as much meaning as a vote for Gary Johnson. A mere protest vote that means nothing.

    What hope is there for a Republican who is watching his nation being subsumed by Bolivarian Socialism that is spreading because Latins are taking over other than Federalism??
     
  5. Space_Time

    Space_Time Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2015
    Messages:
    12,422
    Likes Received:
    1,965
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Here's more:

    http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/264779/media-abolish-racist-electoral-college-daniel-greenfield

    MEDIA: ABOLISH THE RACIST ELECTORAL COLLEGE
    November 10, 2016 Daniel Greenfield 29
    Share to Facebook197Share to TwitterShare to More15Share to Print

    It's the day after.

    That means it's the day that journalists with degrees in gender justice and gay liberation history from Amherst discover to their shock, from Wikipedia articles, that America is actually known as the United States because it's a union of states. And there's an electoral college. And the popular vote doesn't matter.

    So let's abolish the racist electoral college!

    Old media properties that got turned into social justice blogs, the New Republic and Time Mag, led the charge.

    How the Terrible, Skewed, Anachronistic Electoral College Gave Us Trump - New Republic

    Once again, a Democrat has won the popular vote but lost the election. It is time to throw out this badly outdated institution.

    Once upon a time the New Republic was subtle. But now it's just vulgar and stupid. Which is why a "Democrat" is in the subheader as a statement of naked self-interest.



    This attack on the Constitution was inspired by Akhil Reed Amar who insists that the electoral college is racist. Of course it is. Anything that stops a lefty from winning is racist. Also probably sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic and speciest.

    "If Clinton wins popular vote, expect calls to kill Electoral College", USA Today warns.

    Probably the most cynical exponent of the attack is Jonathan Chait over at New York Magazine who insists that Trump didn't really win the election... because of the electoral college.

    Trump’s election cannot be called a decision by the voters to repudiate the liberal status quo because, for one thing, it was not a decision by the voters at all. The voters supported Clinton over Trump. The decision was made by the Electoral College, which as a matter of opinion can be called archaic, and as a matter of objective fact can be called anti-democratic."

    I suppose if you don't quite grasp the "Republic" part. Or that contending that anything short of total direct elections is anti-Democratic makes you an ignorant media buffoon.



    Share

    ABOUT DANIEL GREENFIELD
    Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.

    READ MORE
     
  6. Space_Time

    Space_Time Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2015
    Messages:
    12,422
    Likes Received:
    1,965
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How would the Left react if a Republican won the popular vote but lost the electoral college:

    https://nypost.com/2016/11/09/the-o...d-still-get-hillary-into-the-white-house/amp/

    The one scenario that could still get Hillary into the White House
    By Laura Italiano
    November 9, 2016 | 9:47pm

    untitled-2
    Photo: AFP/Getty Images
    For die-hard Democrats holding out hope that they won’t have to live through a Trump presidency, there is a last, incredibly long shot for them latch on to — a surprise twist in the Electoral College.

    Though Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 200,000, Trump has won the minimum of 270 electoral votes necessary to be elected president. As of late Wednesday, he had 290 to Clinton’s 228.

    According to the Constitution, chosen electors of the Electoral College are the real people who will vote for president, when they meet on Dec. 19 in their respective state capitals.


    However, there is technically nothing stopping any of the electors from voting their conscience and refusing to support the candidate to whom they were bound, or from abstaining from voting altogether.

    There’s even a name for it: becoming a “faithless elector.”

    The idea of electors reversing their vote is rarely discussed — and was most recently bandied about after the incredibly close 2000 election in which George Bush narrowly beat Al Gore. And electors going “faithless” is exceedingly rare.

    Well over 99 percent of electors throughout American history have voted as pledged, according to an analysis done by the New York Times.

    It does happen, though.

    The last faithless elector reared his roguish head back in 2004, when a lone anonymous voter in Minnesota declined to vote for Democrat John Kerry and instead voted for Kerry’s running mate, John Edwards.

    The rogue’s vote was purely ceremonial, as Bush already had 286 electoral votes, more than enough to ensure his reelection.

    Faithless electors are technically barred in only 29 states from ignoring the will of the voters, though the penalties are light. And a faithless elector has never swung an election.

    But given the high dissatisfaction with Trump among Republicans, a few faithless GOP electors could well go rogue next month.

    InsideGov | Graphiq
    One Texas GOP elector, Chris Suprun of Texas, a firefighter, told Politico in August that he finds Trump so unpalatable he’d consider voting for Clinton when he gets to Georgia’s capital on Dec. 19th.

    Baoky Vu, a Decatur businessman, told the Atlanta-based news site AJC.com in August that he couldn’t stomach voting for Trump either, and was quietly convinced by local GOP leaders to resign as an elector.

    Clinton would need more than 20 GOP electors to go rogue and vote instead for her — a mighty tall order.

    Even then, the new, Republican-controlled Congress meets Jan. 6 to approve the electoral college vote, and would certainly vote to void any roguery, handing the victory firmly back to Trump.

    The Founding Fathers created the electoral college because the were “afraid of direct Democracy,” according to FactCheck.org.

    In fact, Alexander Hamilton thought the electors would make sure “the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.”

    It remains to be seen, given Tuesday’s surprise election result, whether Democrats — and even some Republicans — who question the “requisite qualifications” of president-elect Donald Trump will push to revisit the Electoral College system.
     
  7. Tommy Palven

    Tommy Palven Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2013
    Messages:
    2,560
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    38
    In 1976 Republican Presidential elector from Virginia, Roger MacBride, cast his vote for the Libertarian Party ticket, and VP candidate Toni Nathan became the first woman to get an electoral vote.

    So, MacBride set, (Or helped set if there were others) a precedent for shenanigans going on now to get Republican electors to switch to Hillary.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_MacBride
     
  8. Tommy Palven

    Tommy Palven Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2013
    Messages:
    2,560
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Correction. It was in 1972 that the above happened.
     
  9. Tommy Palven

    Tommy Palven Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2013
    Messages:
    2,560
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Correction. The above happened in 1972.
     
  10. Old Man Fred

    Old Man Fred Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2017
    Messages:
    840
    Likes Received:
    253
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    So true democracy is excluding those who can not vote-immigrants, felons, and children, any form of representation?
     
  11. Bic_Cherry

    Bic_Cherry Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2012
    Messages:
    597
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Haha, I'm back after spotting my old thread on the email alert system, sorry about my absence over so many years, I'm from Singapore anyhow.

    The USA presidential electorial system is stuck in pre-1861?

    Anyway, what i think/ my SUSPICION about the USA electoral collage system is that it is an anachronistic system stuck in the post civil war years whereby the FASTED form of ANY USA intra continental COMMUNICATION pre1861 then involved at best, continuous postal service travel vz continuous relay horseback riders to cross the continent to deliver electorial votes to washington in 10days at best ('pony express').
    As usual, the means of secure info transmission, beside stamp and rubber seal etc would involve sending multiple coppies of the same document vz alternative routes to the same address so any hijacking / fraud enroute can be detected and rectified etc.

    BUT none of the more modern technology like even the telegraph had been invented yet.

    Thus the impossibility of actual voter numbers could be transmitted due to the possibility of innumerable disputes arising from vote count numbers (adding an additional digit 'zero' to a count would multiply votes by factor of 10 etc): thus the simplistic option of either a yes or no reply: each state having to decide on just ONE candidate without any subdivision according to individual voter preference.

    Democratic voting methods need to be updated according to technological improvements, unfortunately, the USA presidential voting system seems to have been stuck in the historical era of George Washington.

    That is why the American political system is getting more and more UNSTABLE as time goes on.

    ========
    Morse system
    In the United States, the Morse/Vail telegraph was quickly deployed in the two decades following the first demonstration. The overland telegraph connected the west coast of the continent to the east coast by 24 October 1861, bringing an end to the Pony Express.[30]
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_telegraph
     
    Last edited: Aug 29, 2017
  12. Just_a_Citizen

    Just_a_Citizen Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2016
    Messages:
    9,298
    Likes Received:
    4,133
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Media-Fed Blind partisanism surely plays a larger roll.

    Granted, the EC System helps foster the partisanism, for Presidential Races, but our system as a whole, is more devastated by partisanism.
     
  13. Jimmy79

    Jimmy79 Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2014
    Messages:
    9,366
    Likes Received:
    5,074
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wait. When did the US become a pure democracy?
     
  14. Just_a_Citizen

    Just_a_Citizen Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2016
    Messages:
    9,298
    Likes Received:
    4,133
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Must have been around '12.
     
    PrincipleInvestment likes this.
  15. Jimmy79

    Jimmy79 Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2014
    Messages:
    9,366
    Likes Received:
    5,074
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How the hell did I miss that?
     
    Just_a_Citizen likes this.
  16. Just_a_Citizen

    Just_a_Citizen Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2016
    Messages:
    9,298
    Likes Received:
    4,133
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Obama didn't want a big stink raised.
     
  17. Jimmy79

    Jimmy79 Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2014
    Messages:
    9,366
    Likes Received:
    5,074
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I can understand that. I couldn't imagine how people would react to having most of the country's invalidated by just a couple large cities.
     
  18. Just_a_Citizen

    Just_a_Citizen Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2016
    Messages:
    9,298
    Likes Received:
    4,133
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I sent a link to that antifa thread, just letting you know.
     
  19. Bic_Cherry

    Bic_Cherry Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2012
    Messages:
    597
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Personally, i feel that the greatest flaw is the outdated electoral college system which uses the winner take all counting method due to its antiquated pre 1861 state voting result-communication methods.

    Such a grossly inaccurate counting method (by modern standards) is what gives rise to all sorts of impostors and dishonest tradesmen with less than honourable motives to exploit giant loopholes in prez election system.

    What is happening now is like voting vz show of hands, between candidate A vs B with a winner take all result that is as UNPREDICTABLE as it is grossly INACCURATE : thus the natural reaction by a majority of citizens to be disillusioned with the electoral system and actually treat it like a joke.

    If no action is made to stabilise the foundation, any possible proximate cause like wind, rain, earthquake or even a heavy vibrating air cooling system will demolish the house. The current USA presidential electorial system is designed premised upon the communications limitations circa pre 1861 where all cross continent communications vz the fastest communications method ('pony express') took 10 days to accomplish.

    A redesign of the presidential vote counting method is OVERDUE by more than a century and a half. Or else, American vote counting methods is seriously ailing and outdated and urgently needs a version update.
     
    Last edited: Aug 29, 2017
    Just_a_Citizen likes this.
  20. tkolter

    tkolter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,134
    Likes Received:
    598
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    STATES decide how they divide their electors any one can split them as evenly as possible between the winners or not so most of them are winner take all by choice, if residents don't like that then fine all you need to do is push for a new law, amend your constitution at the State level or use a referendum or whatever process you can to split them up. The Federal Government might be able to do this by law however it might not work if the Federal Courts find it an overreach by them. But with two major parties the system does work, if we had three or more parties splitting up votes it would be a far bigger issue.
     
  21. Old Man Fred

    Old Man Fred Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2017
    Messages:
    840
    Likes Received:
    253
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Communication had nothing to do with the Electoral College. The Founders had intentionally laid the groundwork for what would become "Jacksonian Democracy" and wide spread suffrage, but in most of the original 13 states voting rights were extremely restrictive-typically a white male owning 500 or more acres of arable land.

    The sole intention of the Electoral College still very much applies today, as Federal districts are appropriated based on total population, not eligible voters. Liberals don't realize it, but the EC greatly benefits them, as without it the GOP would unquestionably dominate the House. Most legal residents/citizens who lack voting rights, but are counted when calculating Congressional districts, reside in urban areas. These are resident aliens, felons, children under the age of 18, those not legally competent enough to vote, and even illegal immigrants if they filled out a census form. Texas just attempted to draw districts based solely upon the number of eligible voters, and liberals pounced to get it struck down because it devastated the number of urban districts.

    One man one vote means that Congressional districts can only count eligible voters.

    http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2016/04/04/supreme-court-ruling-on-texas-redistricting-cheers-democrats/
     
    yabberefugee likes this.
  22. Bic_Cherry

    Bic_Cherry Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2012
    Messages:
    597
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Which is why i think USA is in some ways AILING.
    The oxymoronic prez election vote counting system whereby someone with just 22% of the popular vote (see FP video link) could be elected president of USA is an anachronism mired in pre 1861 communications technology vote counting methods: the best that pre 1861 communications technology could provide to an intra-continental democracy.

    Americans are still too proud of their heritage, so much so that they are blinded to how archiac and outdated their system to elect the president is.

    Perhaps it is a system resistant to Armageddon because it is suited to communication vz letter/ parcel delivery vz continuous cross-continent horseback riders but guess Americans forget that by relying on such an outdated and antiquated system, they lose their own (if not others) trust in the USA political system such that war mongers and shallow politicians like Trump, Bush etc get elected to the great detriment of both USA and the world.

    Too bad its probably a severe case of bystander apathy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect that results in zero counting method change even though the communications technology concept being relied upon was OBSOLETE > 150 yrs ago.
     
    Last edited: Aug 30, 2017
  23. Bic_Cherry

    Bic_Cherry Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2012
    Messages:
    597
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Nonsense ...
    Then why is it that BASED UPON ELIGIBLE VOTES Counted, BOTH Al Gore and Hillary Clinton would have won their respective USA prez elections?

    It is exactly due to the 'one name takes all': INACCURATE but less information corruptability method of candidate vote reporting by districts (designed based upon pre 1861 'pony express' (10 days cross continent) delivery service technology where any dispute in intricacies would be too tedious to resolve): that remains the liberals Achilles heel.

    Twice have the liberals been stymied by the OBSOLETE vote counting system: so I think the liberals (democrats) need to so some deep introspection, to see if the liberty of people are actually being constrained by the spanner in the works : the anachronism of the obsolete presidential vote counting system that perhaps favours the old fashioned republicans (GOP) than it suits the liberals.
     
    Last edited: Aug 30, 2017
  24. tkolter

    tkolter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,134
    Likes Received:
    598
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    My view is the point is mute the States would need to vote to accept the popular vote which would still focus most of the election commitments by candidates to the States with the largest populations which have now the most Electors and why would the change bring out more people to vote. I vote because I care, so by voting in my small way I matter, and since elections have sometimes pathetic turnouts it means frankly my one vote has a proportionally higher impact. I don't want people who don't care to vote, who don't study issues and select people and ballot measures with some reflection.
     
    yabberefugee likes this.
  25. Bic_Cherry

    Bic_Cherry Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2012
    Messages:
    597
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    28
    "My view is the point is mute moot..."


    The reason why many eligible to vote DO NOT turn up is perhaps because they have given up upon the system or even find the end result more like a toss of the coin given the insurmountable unpredictability: e.g. the winner takes all counting style per electoral division resulting in a winner having just 22% popular vote such that perhaps even majority eligible voters feel that the presidential elections are such a big, unpredictable joke that staying at home to prepare for the worst would be more productive use of their precious time.

    My take is that the conduct of the USA presidential elections is like an antique car with DAMAGED transmission and faulty brakes: sometimes it starts, sometimes it doesn't, sometimes the petrol spills out and catches fire and other road users get injured/ killed. The car is unfit for road use and should be scrapped/ got rid off, unless of course its occupants can humble themselves, get out, and see what monkey business is happening under the hood.
     
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2017

Share This Page