Speakeasy forum

General discussion

NYTimes shoots at feet....

The Electoral College got a brief spate of attention in 2000, when George Bush became president even though he lost the popular vote to Al Gore by more than 500,000 votes. Many people realized then for the first time that we have a system in which the president is chosen not by the voters themselves, but by 538 electors. It's a ridiculous setup, which thwarts the will of the majority, distorts presidential campaigning and has the potential to produce a true constitutional crisis. There should be a bipartisan movement for direct election of the president.

More....

Well, the NYT makes another dent in it's credibility calling for the end of the Electoral College. I always figured an outfit that big could afford to hire some intelligent leaders. Guess I was wrong.

Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: NYTimes shoots at feet....
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: NYTimes shoots at feet....
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
Hey! If the Constitution gets in the way of a liberal

In reply to: NYTimes shoots at feet....

President, it must be obsolete. Isn't that what judges have been saying as they invented new law?

Collapse -
Re: NYTimes shoots at feet....

In reply to: NYTimes shoots at feet....

Hi, Clay.

A good compromise would be to adopt the approach already used in Maine and Nebraska, where the statewide winner gets two electoral votes, and the others are apportioned based on who wins each congressional district.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
Re: NYTimes shoots at feet....

In reply to: Re: NYTimes shoots at feet....

Shrug, popular vote would be ok with me, if you can ever figure out a way to realistically count it.

We need to hold the election a year in advance though for the recounts.

Shrug, it works decently the way it is. The suggested compromise would be ok too.

Except for one little fact. The method of allocating each state's electoral votes is assigned to the state, not you, me, or the federal government, if I'm not mistaken.

So any state that enough people want to change the way can, if they want to bad enough to get the legislature to do it.

Isn't that correct?

RogerNC

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

Collapse -
Re: NYTimes shoots at feet....

In reply to: Re: NYTimes shoots at feet....

Shrug, popular vote would be ok with me, if you can ever figure out a way to realistically count it.

You do realize that with a popular vote the President could be elected by the population of as few as 9 states with the remaining 41 states left out in the cold? Do you think that would be fair to all?

Collapse -
Re: NYTimes shoots at feet....

In reply to: Re: NYTimes shoots at feet....

True enough that the most populous states could rule the election. Actually it would not be the most populous states ruling the election. It would be the metropolitian areas, even across state lines. A strictly popular vote counting would give the most power to the highest density population centers, regardless of what state, or multiple states, they exist.

And to be marked as prejudiced, given the history of the huge population of California in their local politics, that could be frightening just for that one region, much less others, having a larger voice.

And that is one good reason for the electoral college type process.

And each state is suppose to choose how to select it's representatives I believe. The original senate representation to be selected by the state was to balence the states against the populist power of the House of Representatives along the same lines I believe.

Of course, also some founding fathers didn't trust the common population too much I don't think.

Now the electoral representation of each state is the number of senators plus the number of representatives that state has, as I recall. Since all states have two senators, they're equal in that. Representatives are determined by what share of the national population the state has.

So the electorial college reflects the same balencing act that the Congress is presumely base on I guess. Balencing popularity vs state power?

At first glance, I guess it would be tempting to say all states have 2 senators so that is a wash. But actually a smaller state, or one with a smaller population more accurately, has more influence per state citizen because those two votes represent fewer people.

So yes, the method does keep the specific and particular interest of the large metropolitian areas from overruling the interest of the rural citizens.

All in all I guess not a bad state of affairs. I'm sure some would claim that effectively discriminates against those that live in metropolitian areas.

Of course, the electoral college only affects the Presidental election directly. But since all federal appointed judges have to be nominated by the executive branch before the legislative branch can even say yea or nay, it gives the President as much or actually more influence over the judicial branch than the Congress has. So in the long run it affects that too. And since Congressmen are often said to "ride the coattails" of the President in an off presidental year election, it can even influence the legislature indirectly. Of course, an unpopular President in the off year influences the legislative elections in the opposite way.

As much as I hate to be on record as saying what follows, it's a IMO realistic if cynical (and perhaps unfortunate) truth. While we still argue a lot of state rights, there aint much of such left. The federal government has grown to the point that states are literally no more than political subdivisions, about like which congressional district you officially reside within.

Not a totally good thing, and not 100% accurate, but as I said it's just my rather cynical view of realism.


RogerNC

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

Collapse -
Re: NYTimes shoots at feet....

In reply to: Re: NYTimes shoots at feet....

A good compromise would be to adopt the approach already used in Maine and Nebraska, where the statewide winner gets two electoral votes, and the others are apportioned based on who wins each congressional district.

I think that is a state issue for each to decide how it's electoral votes will be cast. It would erode states rights for that to be mandated at the federal level. I would not be opposed to my state casting electoral votes that represent each of the congressional districts.

Popular Forums

icon
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
icon
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
icon
Laptops 21,181 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
icon
Phones 17,137 discussions
icon
Security 31,287 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
icon
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
icon
Windows 10 2,657 discussions

REVIEW

Sublime suburban chariot

High on style and technology, the 2019 Volvo XC90 is an incredibly satisfying everyday crossover.