Gerrymandering should be outlawed and the Electoral College repealed

More of America choose Hillary. You can't minimize their vote just because they live here and not there. Totally illogical.

 

More of California choose Hillary. Not a fan of civics?

 

Because hippies are saner than hillbillies.

 

You should google the results of the popular vote.

 

Maybe you are young enough to have never been taught civics.

 

How does civics come into this? You can do your duty as a citizen and still clamor for change in the electoral system. The constitution is not set in stone and can be changed if needed and has been in the past.

 

How far have you taken your efforts to amend the Constitution?

The people do not elect the President for a reason; that reason is as valid today as it was in 1791.

 

No one had their vote minimized; every vote in every election counted equally.

 

I can't amend anything. I'm saying if the population wants to, it's possible. I think I have decent arguments in favor to do so however and I do wonder if people would look at this from a non partisan point of view, whether it might make sense to make a change or not.

The main reason against it, I think, was to ensure the influence of all states. Yet, people back then were smart enough to give more electoral votes to states heavily populated compared to the ones less populated. If population wasn't relevant, all states could have the same number of electoral votes from the start. A step forward would be having the number of electoral votes resemble the population in those states more closely I think. I also don't see why this should be a strong argument. The election is a federal one and not state related.

 

You said you disagree with the current system and you state the system can be changed.
Have you taken any action to this end, or are you satisfied with complaining about it?

The states elect the President because the President is the head of state - a state comprised of 50 states.
Thus, the states were given a say in who is the head of state.
The will of the people is expressed thru Congress, not the President.

You do know you state does not have to let you vote for President, right?

 

I'm not an American citizen. Would it help if I wrote a letter of recommendation to some institution? I am however, interested debating it from a sociological point of view.


I am aware of the current system yes. I'm merely suggesting to change it. I'm also doubting that argument. It's still the people that elect the president, yet indirectly and in an electoral system that doesn't necessarily represents the popular vote. If you update the number of electoral votes, it's still "the states" picking their president, so nothing would change there. I'm also saying it's possible to change it if people want to. Whether they want to I don't know. I'm just saying it might be interesting to poll it.

 

I see.
The system in place, works as intended; the reasons it was put in place are as sound today as they were in 1791.
Thus, there's no reason to change it.

No. The electors elect the President. The states currently let the people vote on which electors are sent to the EC.
The states do not need to put the question to a vote of the people.
Thus, the people do not elect the President. Period.

 

But the electors aren't able to differ from the actual votes right? If that's the case, it's still the people that indirectly vote their president.

On the intend, I just don't agree but that's possible. Would you find my points in favor of change acceptable at least?

 

The electors can vote for whoever the want -- most elections have 1-2 faithless electors; in 2016 there were like 10.

I see we're moved from 'elect" to "indirectly vote for".
This means you understand the people do not elect the President.

As I said: The system as put in place for a reason, which remains sound.
Until that reason is shown unsound, there's no reason to change it.

Few, if any, western democracies popularly elect their head of government -- why should the US so do?

 

I don't see the need of the "middle man" if electors can't ignore the votes from the people inside the states already.

The overlapping argument I'd like to make is that it's a more democratic approach to politics. People not being equally represented by having less influence on 1 electorate vote seems unfair to me.

I would argue against any electorate system that works like that and the argument "others do it too" doesn't seem like a valid one to me. We have a figurehead monarch and directly pick our congress. The largest faction elected will provide the prime minister, but there is no indirect voting or electorate system. France has no electorate system either. Germany doesn't seem to have one either. I know the UK has one, but I honestly can't think of too many Western European nations with a system like that.

 

You continue to miss the point: nothing requires the states to hold elections to seat their electors.

The people are represented in Congress. Thus, you operate from a false premise.

So what have you done to change your system?

 

On paper. What do you think happens if states would cancel presidential elections in their state?

I find it normal you are able to vote for your head of state if he/she has any actual executive power myself. I agree that people should be represented in congress; but I find it equally normal the people are represented by their president. But again, this comes down to popular opinion. I again, would recommend a nation wide polling on this.

Throughout the ages?

- We enabled the rights for women to vote inside the constitution.
- We removed the veto rights of provinces (states) on all levels.
- After being ruled by an appointed Stadtholder (steward), a king had been appointed. We went from republic to monarchy.
- There has been a long battle between "Statists" and "Orangists" on whether how much power the monarch should have. Eventually, the powers of the monarch have been diminished to a constitutional monarch with no actual powers, except accepting a new cabinet. If he would ever try to refuse, he'd be out of power right away.
- Congress' power has been increased accordingly.
- It's been made easier to change the constitution.

If I could change anything, it would be to make the constitution easier to change still. Right now, it requires multiple re elections of parliament to make any changes.

 

Some people will complain, and some of those people will take it to court. The courts will uphold the change.
These people will then try to elect a legislature and governor that will reverse the change.
What do YOU think will happen, and why?

Head of government, not head of state. No western democracy popularly elects its head of government -- and only a few popularly elect the head of state - so such a thing cannot be found "normal".

Head of government, not head of state. No western democracy popularly elects its head of government -- and only a few popularly elect the head of state - so such a thing cannot be found "normal".

No. I mean you, personally.
What have YOU done?

 

I think the same happens. If the governor will attempt to cancel presidential elections, it will be political suicide.

France and Germany elect their head of government. Apart from that, there's a lot of monarchies around still. It doesn't make sense necessarily to remove them to replace them with presidents, because they would still not have any real executive power unless there's a major overhaul of the political systems in these countries. Why pick a new figurehead head of state each x years?


I voted in favor of parties willing to change the constitution. As a sociology student, I've released a Dutch opinion piece on the university paper. I also don't see why it's relevant what I did. I'm opting the possibility of change and have my arguments for it. I'm also not saying Americans SHOULD do it as I know how sensitive those amendments are, but wouldn't it be interesting at least to have a public discussion and poll on it?

 

The governor cannot do it alone, he can only sign (or veto) legislation that comes from the legislature.
None of them will do this unless their constituents want them to - and so, their political careers are likely safe.

The elect their head of state. The head of government is appointed.
And so, there's no "normal" in the popular election of the head of state or head of government in western democracies - in fact, qite the opposite.

Simple: talk is cheap.

 

The governor will be held accountable right? But I'm sure others would feel the axe too if they would attempt to stop those elections. I'm sure we agree canceling those elections will be hugely impopular.

I did say I personally find it normal to have as much direct democracy as possible; people can disagree. Hence I'm not pushing for a change necessarily. In a way, it's possible, to elect the head of government here at least. If the number 2 on the list receives more "popularity votes" during congress elections, that person will usually take the top spot. People don't just vote on a political party, but can vote on a particular person in that party if they want to.

I don't think you understand what I try to do here. This is a political discussion forum right? I can bring up a topic and arguments in favor for it right? I just happened to do a little in favor for it, but if I didn't, my actions should not be relevant to the actual discussion. Don't make this about the person.

 

As I said:
None of them will do this unless their constituents want them to - and so, their political careers are likely safe.

How can the popular election of the head of state/head of government be 'normal' when it virtually never happens?

When you promote an idea, the question of what you have done to realize that idea is perfectly valid.

 

But we can make an estimation of the current situation right? Do you think any state at this point will have it's constituents tolerate having that election removed? If they do not object, it obviously is their choice, but I just don't see it happen.

It's not what I said. I said I find it normal to strife for as much direct democracy as possible. Might be a European thing. No system is perfect, but these appointed heads of state at least are based on the actual popular vote of an election. No votes are lost and no one's vote counts for less than someone else's.

I don't think we all need to be political activists to be part of a discussion. Do you think everyone here is a political activist?

 

I believe YOU brought up the hypothetical; i responded in the context of the atmosphere necessary for such a thing to happen.

You said:

I find it normal you are able to vote for your head of state if he/she has any actual executive power myself.
I agree that people should be represented in congress; but I find it equally normal the people are represented by their president.

Maybe you mean something else by "normal".

I simply asked a question. When one advocates change and actually does something to affect that change, they can be taken more seriously.

 

One of the most interesting studies of Gerrymandering rightfully advances the thesis that the Democrats lose seats when an attempt is made to ensure the election of a minority Rep.