Is it time to update the U.S. Constitution?· Page 2

Zero2Cool
Elite Member Topic Starter

12 years ago

#11

:sigh:

had to look up 'whence'

rabidgopher04
Member

12 years ago

#12

I don't know much about this, hence me asking, how does the House of Representatives balance the electoral votes? I've always kind of been baffled how a candidate could get less actual "person" votes and still lose. The article outlined something else that confuses me, how can a state with far less population have the same amount (or more) electoral votes than one that has a larger population?

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool

Two different issues. I meant that the House of Representatives balances out the Senate which are all (mostly) unrelated to the Electoral College.

States with smaller populations do not have the same or more electoral votes as larger states. Electoral votes, just like the number of representatives per state in the House of Representatives, are based on population. The census every 10 years is used to determine how to split the 435 seats in the House; I believe it also determines the number of electoral votes per state.

Amazing Bacon Delivery Service! Never be without good bacon again.

Nonstopdrivel
Preferred Member

12 years ago

#13

Indirectly, yes. The number of Electoral Votes per state is equal to the number of representatives and senators that state sends to Washington, D.C.

By the way, I forgot to mention in my previous post that it is the states' own fault that the Electoral College is not as democratic as it could be. In almost every state, Electoral College votes are apportioned on a "winner-take-all" basis, rather than proportionately according to the popular vote in that state. As far as I know, these rules are established by the state electoral commissions, as opposed to being written into the state constitutions, and thus could be amended at will. If the states wanted to make the Electoral College more responsive to the popular vote, they could accomplish that quite easily.

Porforis
Veteran Member

12 years ago

#14

Originally Posted by: Nonstopdrivel

But what state wants to be THAT STATE that swings an election? Seems like it should be an all or none thing.

Nonstopdrivel
Preferred Member

12 years ago

#15

So you think it is better for one vote to win an inordinately disproportionate percentage of the Electoral College votes? The current process also heavily skews campaigning, because the incentive is to focus primarily on states with lots of Electoral College votes.

I don't understand your logic. Rather than being perceived as a bad thing, I would think states would love to be "that state." It could be seen as a good thing, empowering individual states. I think the main reason for the all-or-nothing systems is simply convenience: in a proportional system, states might be sending Electors from multiple parties. That actually would not be much of a problem (beyond deciding which Electors got sent), since each state partie appoints its own slate of Electors.

Porforis
Veteran Member

12 years ago

#16

First off, sorry if I'm hard to understand. Extremely tired and putting off going to bed.

Originally Posted by: Nonstopdrivel

I don't think it's better, but I don't think that just a small handful of states handing out EC votes based on popular vote is going to do much of anything in the real world to make our country better. Sure, it could mean the difference between having a "bad" guy elected and a "good" guy elected, but that possibility swings both ways. I know that we both swing further to the right on the subject of state rights than most, but I think that without the vast majority of states actually divvying up EC votes based on popular vote, the difference is going to be none to negligible. Maybe I'm too conservative here, but I'd rather not change the status quo unless there's a clear plan to make the status quo better.

I don't understand your logic. Rather than being perceived as a bad thing, I would think states would love to be "that state." It could be seen as a good thing, empowering individual states.

Originally Posted by: Nonstopdrivel

And what tangible, real-world effect would said empowerment bring? Sure, if one state does it, then the next cycle 10 states do it, then the next cycle all (or almost all) the states do it, awesome. Cool. But forgive me if I've lost almost all of my faith in our ability to self-govern. The masses want kings that can make all their problems go away and say things that make them feel good, they don't want to have more control over their own state/country.

I think the main reason for the all-or-nothing systems is simply convenience: in a proportional system, states might be sending Electors from multiple parties. That actually would not be much of a problem (beyond deciding which Electors got sent), since each state partie appoints its own slate of Electors.

Originally Posted by: Nonstopdrivel

I'll admit my knowledge of the history of the electoral college is somewhat lacking (so long since high school already? o_o), but I would not be surprised at all if the "tradition" of awarding votes all to one candidate was born out of convenience.

Nonstopdrivel
Preferred Member

12 years ago

#17

I agree with most of your points. I personally am not necessarily advocating any changes to the Electoral College either. My main point is that many of the current objections to the undemocratic nature of that institution could be addressed by eliminating the winner-take-all system.

This is purely an educated guess on my part (it has been quite a while since I did any reading on it), but I think that originally, most states did apportion their EC votes based on the popular vote. However, the state electoral commissions are appointed (more or less) by the state parties, and thus they have a pretty strong incentive to promote the winner-take-all system, since it helps consolidate the power of the current majority party. They don't have much desire to apportion votes to the opposition parties.

Zero2Cool
Elite Member Topic Starter

11 years ago

#18

I can't see a reason not to.

wpr
Preferred Member

11 years ago

#19

I can't see a reason not to.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool

with the shitheads we have in Washington there is no way they could put together a legal document that would be the centerpiece for the next 10 years little alone one that the nation could follow for the next 200 years. not to mention being a blue print for many nations around the world.

give Congress their millions in pay and perks along with the prestige and power they crave and after 20-30 years of slopping around in the trough get them the hell out of there before they do any real harm like attempt to add an amendment to the Constitution. God forbid they actually try and rewrite it.

Wade
Veteran Member

11 years ago

#20

Frankly, I have seen nothing to change the opinions I set forth and updates I recommended a year ago. Rather than go on again at length and bore everyone, I'll just tell everyone to re-read what I said there if they are interested.

I will only say that I'm even less optimistic than I was then.

While those of you who have pointed out that "we're a republic, not a democracy" are correct as a matter of original intent, I don't think that's relevant any more. Because most Americans (a) don't know the difference, (b) believe in populist/progressivist enable-the-power-of-all "democracy" notions far more than they believe in Madisonian/Jeffersonian "limitation-the-power-of-any" constitutional republicanism, or (c) both.

Any constitutional change today, whether tinkering through individual amendments or radical change through open constitutional convention, facebooking, whatever, is going to follow paths formed from the ideals of populist/progressive/social democracy. Not the paths of Burke/Paine/Madison/Jefferson republicanism.

And we've got far too many people who are perfectly capable of being the next Maximilien François Marie Isidore de Robespierre.

I'm not sure we have any who are capable of being George Washington.

And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)

Important Information:

The PACKERSHOME uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. More Details Close

Fan Shout

Zero2Cool (10h) : WR Marquez Valdes-Scantling to Bills

Zero2Cool (10h) : Jets and Aaron Rodgers open up on Monday Night Football,

Zero2Cool (13-May) : $170 guaranteed. This might impact Jordan Love

Zero2Cool (13-May) : Lions are signing QB Jared Goff to a four-year, $212 million extension

Zero2Cool (13-May) : I know we moved on. That tidbit just makes me a touch happier.

Zero2Cool (13-May) : Sources spoke of many, many times last summer where Hackett called a play, then Rodgers changed it completely at the line

Martha Careful (10-May) : 1. this is true of all our linemen. 2. His run block is fine. 3. If all OL played like he has, we would win SB.

beast (10-May) : Meyers pass blocking is really good, his run blocking is really not.

Zero2Cool (9-May) : Packers have claimed DE Spencer Waege off of waivers from the 49ers and waived DT Rodney Mathews.

Zero2Cool (9-May) : And the OL protections seem to be good.

Zero2Cool (9-May) : I really don't know lol. I don't see him getting blown up.

Zero2Cool (9-May) : -3 buwahhhahaaha

Mucky Tundra (9-May) : 4th

Zero2Cool (9-May) : because he's 1st

Mucky Tundra (9-May) : Myers isn't even the 3rd best C on the roster atm

Martha Careful (9-May) : I am not sure I understand the Myers hate. He was consistently our third best lineman. RG and LT were worse.

beast (9-May) : Just saying I don't think moving Myers would help Myers.

beast (9-May) : Center is usually considered the easiest position physically if you can handle the snap stuff.

Mucky Tundra (8-May) : Bust it is then

Zero2Cool (8-May) : Context. Sounds like Myers won't be cross-trained. C or bust.

Mucky Tundra (8-May) : @BookOfEli_NFL Packers pass game coordinator, Jason Vrable said that Jayden Reed and Dontayvion Wicks shared a placed in Florida while train

Mucky Tundra (8-May) : For now...

Zero2Cool (8-May) : Packers go about evaluating their "best five," OL coach Luke Butkus makes on thing clear: "Josh Myers is our center."

beast (8-May) : Though I'm a bit surprised letting go of CBs, I thought we needed more not less

beast (8-May) : It was confusing with two DB Anthony Johnson anyways

Zero2Cool (8-May) : Packers actually had Ray Lewis on the phone.

Zero2Cool (8-May) : Packers wanted to draft Ray Lewis. Ravens stole him.

Martha Careful (6-May) : Happy 93rd Birthday to the Greatest Baseball Player of All-Time...Willie Mays

Zero2Cool (6-May) : Walter Stanely's son

buckeyepackfan (6-May) : and released CB Anthony Johnson and DL Deandre Johnson and waived/injured WR Thyrick Pitts (thigh-rick).

buckeyepackfan (6-May) : The Green Bay Packers have signed WR Julian Hicks, OL Lecitus Smith (luh-SEET-us) and WR Dimitri Stanley

Zero2Cool (6-May) : Petty, but it's annoying me how the NFL is making the schedule release an event.

Mucky Tundra (4-May) : @mattschneidman Matt LaFleur on how he tore his pec: “Got in a fight with the bench press. I lost.”

Zero2Cool (3-May) : Jordan Love CAN sign an extension as of today. Might tak weeks/months though

TheKanataThrilla (3-May) : Packers decline 5th year option for Stokes

Mucky Tundra (3-May) : @ProFootballTalk Jaylen Warren: Steelers' special teams coach has discussed Justin Fields returning kicks.

Zero2Cool (2-May) : Season officially ending tonight for Bucks ... sad face

Zero2Cool (2-May) : Giannis Antetokounmpo is listed as out for tonight's game.

dfosterf (2-May) : Surprisingly low initially is my guess cap wise, but gonna pay the piper after that

dfosterf (2-May) : The number on Love is going to be brutal.

Zero2Cool (2-May) : May 3rd. Extension day for Jordan Love. (soonest)

Zero2Cool (1-May) : USFL MVP QB Alex McGough moved to WR. So that's why no WR drafted!

earthquake (1-May) : Packers draft starters at safety ever few years. Collins, Clinton-Dix, Savage

beast (1-May) : Why can't the rookies be a day 1 starter? Especially when we grabbed 3 of them at the position

dfosterf (1-May) : Not going to be shocked if Gilmore goes to the Lions.

dfosterf (1-May) : I hear you dhazer, but my guess would be Gilmore Colts and Howard Vikings from what little has been reported.

Mucky Tundra (30-Apr) : S learn from McKinney who learns from Hafley who learns from the fans. Guaranteed Super Bowl

Zero2Cool (30-Apr) : could*

Zero2Cool (29-Apr) : Safeties should learn from Xavier.

dhazer (29-Apr) : And what about grabbing a Gilmore or Howard at CB ? Those are all Free Agents left

Please sign in to use Fan Shout

2024 Packers Schedule