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

packerfanoutwest (4h) : Nick Collins and Morgan Burnett have signed with the PACK

packerfanoutwest (4h) : he won't be wearing #12, maybe he will wear number two

packerfanoutwest (4h) : He will fail this season, should have retired

Mucky Tundra (5h) : Thus the cycle of Hall of Fame Packer QBs going to the Jets and then the Vikings is broken

bboystyle (8h) : Rodgers to steelers on 1 year contract

Zero2Cool (17h) : It's the cycle of civilizations. Get lazier, lazier, softer, softer and vanish.

Martha Careful (18h) : great point. every aspect of society, including art, culture and sports has degraded.

dfosterf (4-Jun) : Green Bay sweep meant something to society about stopping pure excellence. We have the tush push now

dfosterf (4-Jun) : We old Martha.

Martha Careful (4-Jun) : *front four

Martha Careful (4-Jun) : Re frout four, I wish we had some Green "People Eaters" or a fearsome foursome

dfosterf (4-Jun) : *directions*

dfosterf (4-Jun) : Just don't ask him for driving direct

dfosterf (4-Jun) : Jim Marshall was an all-time great DE for the Purple People Eaters. Didn't like him. That's a compliment. RIP

Zero2Cool (3-Jun) : ooppppss

Zero2Cool (3-Jun) : “Kenny Clark played all of last season hurt by the way and got surgery to fix it in January”

Mucky Tundra (3-Jun) : @ByRyanWood How much did the injury affect him last fall? “A lot.”

Mucky Tundra (3-Jun) : @ByRyanWood Kenny Clark said he had foot surgery in January. Injured his foot in opener against Eagles and played through it all year.

Zero2Cool (3-Jun) : Golden is wearing guardian cap again. I bet he plays with it on too.

Mucky Tundra (3-Jun) : All the stuff I'm reading from Lions fans are pointing at his toe; he more or less has permanent turf toe in one of his big toes

dfosterf (3-Jun) : Kenny played through it, and a shame he gets little credit for that, imo

dfosterf (3-Jun) : Big men. I hope it's not the undoing of Kenny Clark

dfosterf (3-Jun) : Probably his toe. Pretty much a great center. Toe injuries are brutal to bigen

Mucky Tundra (2-Jun) : Lions All-Pro C Frank Ragnow retires

wpr (30-May) : It's all good.

beast (30-May) : Yeah, and I enjoyed your comments and just attempted to add to it. Sorry if I did it incorrectly.

wpr (30-May) : Beast I never said Henderson was the salt of the earth. Nor even that he was correct. Just quoting the guy.

Zero2Cool (29-May) : What did you do??

Zero2Cool (29-May) : Whoa

beast (29-May) : OMG the website is now all white, even some white on white text

beast (29-May) : Henderson, who admits to taking cocaine during the Super Bowl against the Steelers, might dislike Bradshaw as he lost two Superbowls to him

wpr (28-May) : Hollywood Henderson said Bradshaw “is so dumb, he couldn't spell 'cat' if you spotted him the C and an A.”

Mucky Tundra (28-May) : Cooper stock=BUY BUY BUY

Mucky Tundra (28-May) : Also notes he’s playing with more confidence.

Mucky Tundra (28-May) : @AndyHermanNFL MLF says there was a time last year where Cooper was at 220 pounds. Now he’s at 240 and still flying around.

Mucky Tundra (28-May) : And don't even get me started on Frank Caliendos "impersonations"

Mucky Tundra (28-May) : I got tired of them being circle jerks with them overlaughing at each others jokes.

Zero2Cool (28-May) : It used to be must watch TV for me. now it's "meh" maybe to hear injury update

Mucky Tundra (28-May) : I haven't watched the pregame shows in years and I don't feel like I've missed a thing

Zero2Cool (28-May) : Love says knee affected him all season, groin injury didn't help matters.

Zero2Cool (28-May) : I used to enjoy him on FOX Pregame. Now it's like a frat party of former Patriots.

Zero2Cool (28-May) : LaFleur on Watson: “Christian is doing outstanding. I would say he’s ahead of schedule.”

Martha Careful (28-May) : Bradshaw is a dumb ass cracker. I am so tired of his "aw shucks" diatribe. He should shrivel up and go away.

buckeyepackfan (28-May) : He wad all butt hurt because Aaron duped the media saying he was immunized.

buckeyepackfan (28-May) : Bradshaw needs to retire. He's been ripping on Rodgers ever since the covid crap. He was all hury

Zero2Cool (28-May) : Terry Bradshaw doesn't want Rodgers in Pittsburgh lol wow

Zero2Cool (27-May) : one day contract, which he also feels is pointless, but if Packers came to him, he would

packerfanoutwest (27-May) : Aaron Rodgers talks possibility of retiring with Packers, just another rumor

dfosterf (27-May) : Go watch 2001

Zero2Cool (26-May) : 1984

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