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

Zero2Cool (10h) : Tua’s old DC won a Super Bowl Year 1 with Tua’s former backup

Mucky Tundra (11h) : *winning MVP

Mucky Tundra (12h) : Funny observation I've heard: Carson Wentz was on the sideline for both Eagles Super Bowl wins w/guys supposed to be his back up winning

Zero2Cool (18h) : NFL thought it would get more attention week preceding Super Bowl.

Zero2Cool (18h) : Yes, the Pro Bowl. It was played Sunday before Super Bowl from 2010-2022

packerfanoutwest (18h) : pro bowl

Zero2Cool (18h) : From 2010 to 2022, it was played on the Sunday before the Super Bowl

Zero2Cool (18h) : They moved it to the BYE week before Super Bowl several years ago.

packerfanoutwest (18h) : it was always after the SB.....

beast (10-Feb) : Though I stop following pro bowl years ago

beast (10-Feb) : I thought the pro game was before the Super Bowl?

packerfanoutwest (10-Feb) : ok now for the Pro Bowl Game in Hawaii

TheKanataThrilla (10-Feb) : If I was Philly I would try to end it instead of punting it

Mucky Tundra (10-Feb) : VICTORY! We have (moral) victory!

TheKanataThrilla (10-Feb) : Hey they mentioned that we 3-peted

Mucky Tundra (10-Feb) : seems to me the 49ers should have traded Aiyuk when they had the chance

Mucky Tundra (10-Feb) : if the Eagles get it down to the 1, do they Tush Push or give it to Barkley?

TheKanataThrilla (10-Feb) : 49ers have a money problem if they want to sign their QB

Mucky Tundra (10-Feb) : Wait for real? Didn't he just get an extension two years ago?

Zero2Cool (10-Feb) : 49ers gonna trade Deebo. Interesting

TheKanataThrilla (10-Feb) : Replays always never seem to show the holdings

TheKanataThrilla (10-Feb) : Great throw by Hurts

Mucky Tundra (10-Feb) : Where Carter falls prey to bad off the field influences (to be clear, not saying he'd clip someone though)

Mucky Tundra (10-Feb) : Had Carter not gone to Philly were they already had a lot of old college friends, he ends up in a similar spot to Aaron Hernandez

Mucky Tundra (10-Feb) : I think some of his coaches told scouts to stay away

Mucky Tundra (10-Feb) : the street racing incident+conditioning and motivation problems

beast (10-Feb) : Then Carter was street racing, where the other car crashed and people died... and other teams were scared to pick Carter for some reason

beast (10-Feb) : I think the Saints traded up, giving their next year 1st to the Eagles, and then they sucked and Eagles got the 10th overall pick

packerfanoutwest (10-Feb) : wtf Barkley?

TheKanataThrilla (10-Feb) : Getting Carter and Nolan Smith in the first round in 2023 was pretty darn good

Mucky Tundra (10-Feb) : for some reason i'm thinking of a draft where the Eagles where in the mid 20s and a top player fell all the way to them

TheKanataThrilla (10-Feb) : I think so. I would need to look it up. Think it may have been Carolina's pick.

Mucky Tundra (10-Feb) : i'm not sure who i'm thinking of now

Mucky Tundra (10-Feb) : oh fuck me i messed that up

Zero2Cool (10-Feb) : Jordan Davis was 13th overall

Zero2Cool (10-Feb) : Carter was 9th overall

Zero2Cool (10-Feb) : Eagles had 15th and 10th selections, moved to 13 and 9 to get Davis and Carter back to back

Zero2Cool (10-Feb) : Eagles traded up for Carter, didn't they?

Mucky Tundra (10-Feb) : Obviously he was a huge risk but getting a top 5 talent on the dline in the mid 20s is fortuitous

Mucky Tundra (10-Feb) : Jalen Carter falling into their lap certainly helps

TheKanataThrilla (10-Feb) : And we could only wish to have this type of D

TheKanataThrilla (10-Feb) : It's not like Philly has had low draft picks, but has managed to get themselves a top notch pass rush. We spend so much draft capital of D

packerfanoutwest (10-Feb) : another crap halftime show

TheKanataThrilla (10-Feb) : I think it is over, but then I think of Atlanta and want Philly to go in with the same intensity in the second half

Mucky Tundra (10-Feb) : And with a Pass Rush that might as well be on a milk cartoon and no Jaire

Martha Careful (10-Feb) : I cant help but feel good about how well the Packers D played in Philly during the playoffs

Mucky Tundra (10-Feb) : this game is over

Mucky Tundra (10-Feb) : This might be the kill shot here

Mucky Tundra (10-Feb) : oh that's such a bad penalty for KC after getting the 3rd down stop

TheKanataThrilla (10-Feb) : Philly DL has come to play

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

30 - 17

Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM

Lions

31 - 34

Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM

Seahawks

30 - 13

Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM

SAINTS

34 - 0

Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM

Vikings

25 - 27

Sunday, Jan 5 @ 12:00 PM

BEARS

22 - 24

Sunday, Jan 12 @ 3:30 PM

Eagles

10 - 22