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

Zero2Cool
Elite Member Topic Starter

14 years ago

#11

:sigh:

had to look up 'whence'

rabidgopher04
Member

14 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

14 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

14 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

14 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

14 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

14 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)

Users browsing this topic

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 (8h) : Both LB Quay Walker and Rookie DB Micah Robinson have passed their physicals

Zero2Cool (8h) : Happy to see site feels more snappy snappy

Zero2Cool (8h) : No sir. I did not.

dfosterf (8h) : You didn't get free childcare when you were at work?

wpr (9h) : These guys make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. Pay for their own childcare.

dfosterf (10h) : 2nd issue. Number 1 issue was no gameday childcare. 1 of 3 teams not providing it

Zero2Cool (10h) : Suppose if locker room is main issue, we sitting pretty

wpr (10h) : I thought so Mucky. In those useless player polls GB always rates high overall. Locker is a part of it.

Mucky Tundra (11h) : Wasn't the locker room just updated like 6 or 7 years ago?

Zero2Cool (11h) : I have forum updated on different site. We'll see how this one goes before going to that

Zero2Cool (12h) : Elgton Jenkins has a back injury, is expect to end contract dispute

wpr (14h) : It's funny the PA complained about the locker room. It wasn't that long ago it was top shelf. Things change in a hurry.

wpr (14h) : The site is much more better.

Zero2Cool (14h) : NFLPA report said Packers lockerroom needed upgrade. Whining bout where you change?

Zero2Cool (14h) : I saw that and thought it was kind of lame.

dfosterf (14h) : Packers new locker room is pretty awesome. Great for morale, imo

Zero2Cool (15h) : Shuffled things on the web server. Hope it makes it faster.

Zero2Cool (15h) : Other times, it's turtle ass

Zero2Cool (15h) : Sometimes it's snappy, like now.

beast (16h) : I feel like it's loading at the top of the next minute, or something like that.

beast (16h) : Also the thanks/heart takes FOREVER to load, and posting in the shout box takes three times FOREVER!

beast (17h) : Thanks for saying something, I thought it was slow, but assumed it was on my end

Zero2Cool (17h) : Yeah, I noticed that too. Is it slow for PackerPeople.com too?

wpr (17h) : I don't know what you IT guys call it but the page loading is very slow for me today.

Zero2Cool (17h) : SSL might be settled now.

Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : Still working through SSL cert issues

wpr (23-Jul) : Glad to be back

Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : I think PH original finally working.

dfosterf (22-Jul) : Can tell you are having a fun day Kev

Zero2Cool (22-Jul) : Yep, I had to manually move them. It'll fix itself after more posts.

Mucky Tundra (22-Jul) : Same deal with the songs/videos thread, says you replied last but when I go there it's what I posted earlier is last

Zero2Cool (22-Jul) : I had to manually move three posts.

Mucky Tundra (22-Jul) : But when I go it, Martha's is the last reply

Mucky Tundra (22-Jul) : Still a little screwy; it shows on the main forum that you were the last person to reply to the Jenkins trade thread

Zero2Cool (22-Jul) : Host issues, been crazy day

Mucky Tundra (22-Jul) : Connect 4?

Zero2Cool (22-Jul) : Connecting to new database

Zero2Cool (22-Jul) : What the hell

beast (22-Jul) : Packershome going to the Whiteout unis again

Zero2Cool (21-Jul) : Oh wait, they got Cam Ward. 1st overall right? haha oops

Zero2Cool (21-Jul) : They could send Packers a 1st for a QB they are familiar with

Zero2Cool (21-Jul) : Titans QB Will Levis to have season-ending shoulder surgery

Zero2Cool (19-Jul) : Their season did kind of start there, so 🤷

dfosterf (19-Jul) : Eagles put an engraved Brazil flag on their super bowl rings

Zero2Cool (18-Jul) : Benton unsigned no more

Zero2Cool (17-Jul) : That's good analysis, yes you are getting old. It'd a blessing!

dfosterf (14-Jul) : *analysis* gettin' old

dfosterf (14-Jul) : One of the best analyisis I"ve ever watched at this time of an offseason

dfosterf (14-Jul) : Andy Herman interviewed Warren Sharp on his Pack a day podcast

Please sign in to use Fan Shout

2025 Packers Schedule

Sunday, Sep 7 @ 3:25 PM

LIONS

Thursday, Sep 11 @ 7:15 PM

COMMANDERS

Sunday, Sep 21 @ 12:00 PM

Browns

Sunday, Sep 28 @ 7:20 PM

Cowboys

Sunday, Oct 12 @ 3:25 PM

BENGALS

Sunday, Oct 19 @ 3:25 PM

Cardinals

Sunday, Oct 26 @ 7:20 PM

Steelers

Sunday, Nov 2 @ 12:00 PM

PANTHERS

Monday, Nov 10 @ 7:15 PM

EAGLES

Sunday, Nov 16 @ 12:00 PM

Giants

Sunday, Nov 23 @ 12:00 PM

VIKINGS

Thursday, Nov 27 @ 12:00 PM

Lions

Sunday, Dec 7 @ 12:00 PM

BEARS

Sunday, Dec 14 @ 3:25 PM

Broncos

Friday, Dec 19 @ 11:00 PM

Bears

Friday, Dec 26 @ 11:00 PM

RAVENS

Saturday, Jan 3 @ 11:00 PM

Vikings