No true democracy with [antiquated] US Electoral College system

Discussion in 'Campaign & Political Reform' started by Bic_Cherry, Nov 7, 2012.

  1. Bic_Cherry

    Bic_Cherry Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2012
    Messages:
    597
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    28
    The communications technology upon which the USA presidential elections were first expected to rely upon is best described as smoke signals (just like the Vatican does to announce the selection of the new Pope): its either a yes or no answer, no way to accurately transmit complex information like per candidate votes, just the colour symbol of the candidate voted for: black or white smoke...

    No wonder the USA political system is like a bull in a china shop today, totally inept and UNFIT for purposes where global democracy + leadership is concerned.

    The USA political establishment should be ASHAMED of itself.
     
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2017
  2. Just_a_Citizen

    Just_a_Citizen Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2016
    Messages:
    9,298
    Likes Received:
    4,133
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I guess I'd be willing to read the specifics, or discuss options for the changes.

    Not tonight mind you, LOL, have a Dr.'s Appt. in the A.M.
     
  3. tkolter

    tkolter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,134
    Likes Received:
    598
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Oh damned grammar Nazi, now I know what I'm dealing with an elitist type. Well average people don't vote in local, county and State level elections where there is no Electoral College either so explain that one. The basic point is still true to change this the way you and others want means an Amendment to the US Constitution there is a slim chance of getting that past the idea stage. Its the only fight you can hope to consider is a State but State fight to split them up which again no one is keen to do. So what is the point lets focus on what one can likely do which is realistically nothing until people act. And I for one don't consider it an issue the local, county and State elections matter more by far than most Federal ones and the President on his own can only do so much damage.
     
  4. yabberefugee

    yabberefugee Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2017
    Messages:
    20,619
    Likes Received:
    8,981
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Who ever said the U.S. Is a true Democracy? Never was and never should be. True Democracy is the dream of collectivists and Communists. I was taught that we are a Republican Democracy. A system of government based on laws to be adhered to by the masses. Two wolves and a sheep sitting down to discuss what is for dinner is the nature of a "true democracy". It isn't any wonder the left always calls for it!
     
    Hotdogr likes this.
  5. yabberefugee

    yabberefugee Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2017
    Messages:
    20,619
    Likes Received:
    8,981
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Exactly why we are the "United States of America".
     
  6. Bic_Cherry

    Bic_Cherry Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2012
    Messages:
    597
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    28
    I just hope that 'Republican democracy' isn't a matter of "Two wolves and a sheep sitting down" to decide the recipie for dinner (i.e. the law of the land).

    U make the USA in its current constitution sound like a giant sorority club with protectionist rules, that also has arcane vote counting methods that remain buried in the era of dependence upon smoke signal communications ... which is hardly reassuring to the rest of the world.

    I think using the current arcane vote counting methods, the Republicans are happy with it because in the last two presidential elections, they managed to win, but though they may temporarily be beneficiaries of this anachronism, their fortunes may easily change at the flip of the coin...
     
    Last edited: Sep 1, 2017
  7. yabberefugee

    yabberefugee Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2017
    Messages:
    20,619
    Likes Received:
    8,981
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Fact is, we are not a "true Democracy". We are not going to have a collective confiscate property from the productive.
     
  8. perotista

    perotista Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2014
    Messages:
    16,902
    Likes Received:
    5,680
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    We are a representative Republic, not a direct democracy. The framers and founders made the House of Representatives the peoples house. A representative elected by the people to represent the people. The senate was designed to represent the states. Each state legislature was to appoint their two senators. Until the passage of the 17th amendment in 1913, that is exactly what the senate did. They represented the state they were from. With the passage of the 17th, with selection of senators by the people of the states, the senate basically became another mini people's house.

    The presidency was designed for each state to choose it electors and have it electors vote for the presidency. It wasn't until after the civil war that all states went to the popular vote to choose which slate of electors would vote. Prior to that, the state legislatures usually decided whom would be their states electors.

    The one thing the framers and founders feared was mob rule. Tyranny by the majority over the minority. This country has been moving away from being a representative republican for a while now. The push is to make it a direct democracy. Like Rome, the republic is dead.
     
    Bic_Cherry likes this.
  9. Bic_Cherry

    Bic_Cherry Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2012
    Messages:
    597
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Guess my point REMAINS that whilst Republicans may TEMPORARILY be happy to have Trump beat Hilary Clinton to be Prez of USA, it was more a matter of luck (and some hard work cos i believe Clinton did ignore some states she thought would be her hard core supporters only to find herself with egg on face), believing that Trump would be more against "collective confiscate property from the productive", the opposite (Clinton win) could be just as likely perhaps if Clinton had made better debated/judgement / didn't have baggage/albatross around neck of relatively sub-par political performance considering her long-in-tooth carreer as incumbent Secretary of state / in politics with the Democratic party .

    There is no doubt that based upon what 'perotista' says in the post immediately above that USA has since 1913 (17th amendment) trended towards being a populist democracy, maybe relying on a vote count result designed based upon pre1861 communications technology ('pony express'/ smoke cloud signalling) has somewhat favoured republican (GOP) strategy (just like Bush beat AlGore in electoral college votes but lost on popular count); but that cannot possibly be called a reliable winning strategy as better communications methods continually modernise. In fact, Trump would indeed have a hard time in office so long as popular opinion remains that the true leader (based upon accurate modern-day popular vote counting methods) should be Hillary Clinton. It is thus just an anachronism of time that based upon the outdated vote count reporting system designed based upon pre-1861 communications technology that Donald Trump was eventually sworn in as President.
     
    Last edited: Sep 1, 2017
  10. Old Man Fred

    Old Man Fred Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2017
    Messages:
    840
    Likes Received:
    253
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    I was not referring to the Presidential election, but the implications eliminating the EC would have elsewhere. Urban areas vote for liberals, and the number of Congressmen representing, for instance Los Angeles, would be cut in half once Congressional districts ONLY represented eligible voters.

    There's a million illegal immigrants in Los Angeles county which are currently represented, not to mention hundreds of thousands of felons and resident aliens. Not to mention that it's irrelevant because a Constitutional amendment requires a vast majority of states, and Wyoming and Alaska ain't about to vote against their best interests.
     
    yabberefugee likes this.
  11. Bic_Cherry

    Bic_Cherry Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2012
    Messages:
    597
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Thanks for your reply although u have since included new facts which only diminish the honour and authority of the USA political system.

    According to what u say that the allocations vz Electoral College determines the congressmen a state may send to the House of Representatives ('House'), and the number of representatives is dependent on the population of eligible voters PLUS illegal immigrants (perhaps slaves included); then one would stand to argue that the states in which there are the most slaves, convicted felons would be what decides the direction of the USA!

    As I have mentioned, the USA seems like one big self entitled sorority club, and certainly, this doesn't give the rest of the world much confidence about USA ability to lead the world. ... if not evidenced by the smoke signals (pre1861) based technology to total up presidential votes; then the obviously biased manner of allocating voter eligibility and the congressmen per state according to obviously skew/ biased Electoral College census method.
     
  12. Old Man Fred

    Old Man Fred Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2017
    Messages:
    840
    Likes Received:
    253
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    If all people are not represented, what do you think happens to people who can not vote?
     
  13. Bic_Cherry

    Bic_Cherry Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2012
    Messages:
    597
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    28
    No point paying LIP SERVICE and add the people who are ineligible to vote to the count. Either they are ELIGIBLE or NOT, no such thing as inbetween (counted but ineligible to vote) unless USA still promotes slavery and thus having more slaves/ illegals gives the state more power by having more Senators / congressmen in the Senate / lower house respectively.

    There would be too much in terms of unpredictability to allow say slave owners to vote on behalf of their slaves, I am no history scholar but i doubt that was the case historically; and even if it were so, that would have probably been one impetus for the American Civil War.

    Do note that too many complexities as well as imponderables such as the fact that the world's greatest democracy DISCOUNTING Clinton's (and Al Gore's) popular vote majority in favour of the electoral college based result of OBSOLETE DESIGN and methodology only serves to DISCREDIT American dominance in the world resulting in greater resistance to USA credibility and policy across the world.

    It is hard to accept USA rule in this day and age when we all know how OBSOLETE and OUTDATED and therefore INACCURATE your electoral vote counting system is.
     
    Last edited: Sep 5, 2017
  14. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: "From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage." (Emphasis added)

    The founders were wary of a true democracy.
     
  15. Bic_Cherry

    Bic_Cherry Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2012
    Messages:
    597
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Granted I dunno the exact details suffice to say that there are many pillars of government in the USA that check and balance each other: Senate, House, Judiciary, White House (president). 'Old Man Fred' added another eccentricity in the electoral college electors/ congressmen quota determination method.

    A tortious and sequential voting system involving elections ever so often: Senate, House, White House (president): can allow for a more balanced government since (from your informative list), different people in a very large country may somewhat differently experience feelings of spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage based upon their station in life: and as such vote differently with the eventual result be an OVERALL STABLE, if not slow moving/ slightly clumsy political system.

    Unfortunately, whilst the a/m is understandable, the fly in the ointment remains the OBSOLETE and INACCURATE (by modern standards) presidential vote counting methods which is INAPPROPRIATE to function in a modern world. Using finger/elbow length might have been appropriate length measurement methods in the stone age but today, such measurement methods would fail almost every industry requirement.

    For the sake of world stability and peace, citizens inside or outside USA have to be concerned and cognizant about the inherent INSTABILITY + UNPREDICTABILITY of USA government at its core.
     
    Last edited: Sep 5, 2017
  16. Old Man Fred

    Old Man Fred Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2017
    Messages:
    840
    Likes Received:
    253
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    The United States is a Federal republic made up of what are essentially 50 independent nations loosely joined by a common language and currency. That Federal government exists because the interests of smaller states were properly served with the Electoral College.
     
  17. DentalFloss

    DentalFloss Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2013
    Messages:
    11,445
    Likes Received:
    3,263
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You realize that the allocation of electoral college votes doesn't require, or even allow, "voters" to have a say, right? As a practical matter, all 50 States have adopted that method, and most, but not all, use the "winner take all" method. But there is nothing that requires that. The State Legislature could decide to use ANY method they chose, the flip of a coin for example, or even only having the Legislature itself vote on the Electors. There is no right for the average person to have a vote at all.
     
  18. Bic_Cherry

    Bic_Cherry Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2012
    Messages:
    597
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    28
    I STILL THINK that the way electoral college votes are totalled and the result transmitted to Washington dc for the determination of whom should be president is more a product of LIMITATION BY DESIGN to the pre-1861 state of available communications technology (i.e. smoke signals, pony express mail service in the era BEFORE telegraph service) and perhaps the infant democracy that the USA was at (blacks and women weren't allowed to vote).

    Why else would a state not accede to accurate transmission of data to the benefit of minority interest but either due to TECHNOLOGICAL LIMITATIONS of the contemporary period or else because many states were ruled by BULLIES who would gratuitously (indecently/corruptly) exploit minority interest in favour of their majority rule. I am already being very lenient in blaming technological limitations for the perceivable injustice since to label state leaderships of being rogue BULLIES would be most incriminating. Costs of elections were also a concern so the focus was on state legislature, the vote for president having much lesser concern since USA was more concerned about intra-contentinental issues with few if any global concerns.

    Perhaps the fact that state legislatures across all states (to my knowledge) opt for statewide voter participation in presidential elections (rather than flipping a coin as u mentioned) alludes to the fact that contemporary justice supported by modern technological progress, the GROWING AMBIT OF GLOBAL ROLE OF USA PRESIDENT, demand for as widespread voter participation as possible. Both technological availability and voter interest mandate that a national vote BEYOND the election of mere state legislators be conducted.

    The 'winner take all' manner of state reporting towards total electoral college votes for president only serves to fuel extremes of citizen participation, from extreme obsession/expression to apathetic absence as 'my vote won't count': which itself adds fuel to creating divisions within a nation/ federation. The current method of USA presidential vote counting remains an anachronism of our time and urgently needs reform if the USA is to remain a leading thought/policy leader in the world, rather than an OBSOLETE /spent force, or a bully which others need to teach discipline to and be put back to its original humble place.
     
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2017
  19. yabberefugee

    yabberefugee Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2017
    Messages:
    20,619
    Likes Received:
    8,981
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Of course we are not a Democracy. We are a Representative Republic. The public schools filled your mind full of crap.....sorry.
     

Share This Page