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

Zero2Cool
Elite Member Topic Starter

13 years ago

#11

:sigh:

had to look up 'whence'

rabidgopher04
Member

13 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

13 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

13 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

13 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

13 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

13 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

12 years ago

#18

I can't see a reason not to.

wpr
Preferred Member

12 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

12 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

Martha Careful (16m) : I hope it is colder than a well-diggers ass on Thanksgiving night.

Zero2Cool (8h) : doubt he wants to face the speedsters

beast (8h) : Dolphins offense can be explosive... I wonder if we'll have Alexander back

Zero2Cool (10h) : No Doubs could be issue Thursday

Mucky Tundra (14h) : Bears. Santos. Blocked FG

Zero2Cool (24-Nov) : Bears. Vikings. OT

Mucky Tundra (24-Nov) : Thems the breaks I guess

Mucky Tundra (24-Nov) : Two players out and Williams had an injury designation this week but Oladapo is a healthy scratch

Zero2Cool (24-Nov) : Packers inactives vs 49ers: • CB Jaire Alexander • S Kitan Oladapo • LB Edgerrin Cooper • OL Jacob Monk

TheKanataThrilla (24-Nov) : Aaron Jones with a costly red zone fumble

Zero2Cool (24-Nov) : When we trade Malik for a 1st rounder, we'll need a new QB2.

packerfanoutwest (23-Nov) : Report: Aaron Rodgers wants to play in 2025, but not for the Jets

beast (23-Nov) : That's what I told the Police officer about my speed when he pulled me over

packerfanoutwest (23-Nov) : NFL told Bears that Packers’ blocked field goal was legal

packerfanoutwest (22-Nov) : 49ers are underdogs at Packers, ending streak of 36 straight games as favorites

Zero2Cool (22-Nov) : 49ers might be down their QB, DL, TE and LT?

packerfanoutwest (22-Nov) : Jaire Alexander says he has a torn PCL

Zero2Cool (20-Nov) : Even with the context it's ... what?

Mucky Tundra (20-Nov) : Matt LaFleur without context: “I don’t wanna pat you on the butt and you poop in my hand.”

beast (20-Nov) : We brought in a former Packers OL coach to help evaluate OL as a scout

beast (20-Nov) : Jets have been pretty good at picking DL

Zero2Cool (20-Nov) : He landed good players thanks to high draft slot. He isn't good.

Zero2Cool (20-Nov) : He can shove his knowledge up his ass. He knows nothing.

beast (20-Nov) : More knowledge, just like bring in the Jets head coach

Zero2Cool (19-Nov) : What? Why? Huh?

beast (19-Nov) : I wonder if the Packers might to try to bring Douglas in through Milt Hendrickson/Ravens connections

Zero2Cool (19-Nov) : The Jets fired Joe Douglas, per sources

packerfanoutwest (19-Nov) : Jets are a mess......

Zero2Cool (19-Nov) : Pretty sure Jets fired their scouting staff and just pluck former Packers.

Zero2Cool (19-Nov) : Jets sign Anders Carlson to their 53.

Zero2Cool (19-Nov) : When you cycle the weeks, the total over remains for season. But you get your W/L for that selected week. Confusing.

packerfanoutwest (19-Nov) : the total and percentage are the same as the previous weeks

packerfanoutwest (19-Nov) : the totals are accurate..nrvrtmind

Zero2Cool (19-Nov) : I don't follow what you are saying. The totals are not the same as last week.

packerfanoutwest (19-Nov) : ok so then wht are the totals the same as last week?

Zero2Cool (19-Nov) : NFL Pick'em is auto updated when NFL Scores tab is clicked

Martha Careful (19-Nov) : The offense was OK. Let's not forget the Bear defense is very very good.

packerfanoutwest (19-Nov) : Who updates the leaderboard on NFLPickem?

beast (19-Nov) : Has the Packers offense been worse since the former Jets coach joined the Packers?

Zero2Cool (19-Nov) : Offense gets his ass in gear, this could be good.

Zero2Cool (19-Nov) : Backup QB helped with three wins. Special Teams contributed to three wins.

bboystyle (18-Nov) : Lions played outside thats why. They scored 16 and 17 in the only 2 outside games this year

Zero2Cool (18-Nov) : The rest of the NFL is catching up to Packers ... kicking is an issue throughout league

packerfanoutwest (18-Nov) : Packers DL Kenny Clark: We knew 'we were going to block' Bears' game-winning field goal attempt

Zero2Cool (18-Nov) : Lions seem to be throttling everyone, but only (only) got 24 lol maybe the rain is why

Zero2Cool (18-Nov) : Packers vs Lions game doesn't seem so bad.

beast (18-Nov) : Dennis Green "They are what we thought they were, and we let them off the hook!"

Martha Careful (17-Nov) : comment of the day Z2Cool "Bears better than we want to admit. Packers worse than we think. It's facts."

Mucky Tundra (17-Nov) : my worst case scenario: Bears fix their oline and get a coach like Johnson from the Lions and his scheme

Please sign in to use Fan Shout

2024 Packers Schedule

Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM

Eagles

29 - 34

Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM

COLTS

16 - 10

Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM

Titans

30 - 14

Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM

VIKINGS

29 - 31

Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM

Rams

24 - 19

Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM

CARDINALS

34 - 13

Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM

TEXANS

24 - 22

Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM

Jaguars

30 - 27

Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM

LIONS

14 - 24

Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM

Bears

20 - 19

Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM

49ERS

38 - 10

Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM

DOLPHINS

Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM

Lions

Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM

Seahawks

Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM

SAINTS

Sunday, Dec 29 @ 12:00 PM

Vikings

Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM

BEARS