51 replies to this topic

[Redezra]

I also believe public debt is a good thing, but not for those hugely out of date reasons.

 

The electoral college was designed to try and implement proportionality, it was a good try, but we have better ways of doing it now.

[KiWi]

I also believe public debt is a good thing, but not for those hugely out of date reasons.
 
The electoral college was designed to try and implement proportionality, it was a good try, but we have better ways of doing it now.

^^^^

Which direct popular vote doesn't solve.

(Even if I do NOT want political parties anywhere near involved in the process, I would most likely favor a solution involving them than a direct popular vote)

[Haflinger]

The electoral college was designed to try and implement proportionality, it was a good try, but we have better ways of doing it now.

Huh? No it wasn't.
 
When it was originally designed, there were a pile of restrictions on who could be a member of the electoral college. The idea was to make sure that in order to run for President, a man would have to have at least that many supporters among people who were qualified to serve.

 

In other words, the approval of the political elite.

 

Through time, the electoral college was reformed, and now it's a lot easier to get on it.

[Redezra]

The electoral college was designed to try and implement proportionality, it was a good try, but we have better ways of doing it now.

Huh? No it wasn't.
 
When it was originally designed, there were a pile of restrictions on who could be a member of the electoral college. The idea was to make sure that in order to run for President, a man would have to have at least that many supporters among people who were qualified to serve.

 

In other words, the approval of the political elite.

 

Through time, the electoral college was reformed, and now it's a lot easier to get on it.

 

Yeah it was Haf, the electors were split up between the states in a way that seemed as proportional as well as a group arguing over how to implement a government totally unlike the previous one could manage. It was to give proportional elective power to the states in a way that did not conflict with the congress' responsibilities.

 

Just because those people were well educated and vetted by the people in power didn't mean that the entire system was designed to keep the man down. Nobody gave a fuck about that, a lack of education then didn't mean you had to work at maccas, it meant you couldn't read and couldn't hold a conversation. The elites at that point were the only people that could effectively run the country. I would actually argue that that is the case now.

[He who posts]

[Haflinger]

Wait, you think the elites are better educated?

 

[He who posts]

Wait, you think the elites are better educated?

Back in the day being literate meant you were kind of a big deal.

[Haflinger]

Yeah, well, kinda. It never meant you were part of the political elite though. The United States was never a Platonic republic.

[Learz]

The Electoral College was designed to reward geography. In order to assure a victory, you had to appeal to many people across the nation. You could not focus your attention on a few heavily populated areas. While populated areas do provide more votes, the College established minimums across the states (each state, no matter how small, received several votes). So it would be possible to assemble a coalition of many small states and defeat someone who focused on a few heavily populated states.... much like how Trump defeated Hillary. (This was also radically more important way back when and there were not as many states/votes available).

 

And yes, a system designed by literate, educated white males tended to benefit literate, educated white males. The key words being "literate" and "educated", not "white" or "male", despite what the news media is saying

[Redezra]

Wait, you think the elites are better educated?

 

Um... yes. They have this thing called "money" and in America you need a lot of "money" to get into these things called "good schools", generally in the form of higher end institutions. To believe otherwise would be willfully ignorant.

Also, far more importantly to this argument:

 

Wait, you think the elites are better educated?

Back in the day being literate meant you were kind of a big deal.

^

 

 

Yeah, well, kinda. It never meant you were part of the political elite though. The United States was never a Platonic republic.

 

Once again, being literate tended to mean you had this thing called money, which you had ostensibly because you were a hard working, concerned, useful member of the community. Not saying that's the truth, but it's what they believe. So what are they going to do? The people who believe their class is the brains and spine of the community are going to act as the government of the community because they believe they know better.

 

This is precisely the same way western politics works today. Rich, successful, smart sounding people rank way above intelligent but meager and simple sounding folk.

 

The Electoral College was designed to reward geography. In order to assure a victory, you had to appeal to many people across the nation. You could not focus your attention on a few heavily populated areas. While populated areas do provide more votes, the College established minimums across the states (each state, no matter how small, received several votes). So it would be possible to assemble a coalition of many small states and defeat someone who focused on a few heavily populated states.... much like how Trump defeated Hillary. (This was also radically more important way back when and there were not as many states/votes available).

 

And yes, a system designed by literate, educated white males tended to benefit literate, educated white males. The key words being "literate" and "educated", not "white" or "male", despite what the news media is saying

 

Yes. This precisely. It's a proportionality system. A reaaaaaaaaaaaal simple one based on land.

[the rebel]

I'm sure if the results were reversed and Clinton won via electoral college and Trump the popular vote. This topic wouldn't exist and if it did, its posters would be going "deal with it racists".

If your opinion changes based on outcome, then unfortunately your opinion is worth shit.

[He who posts]

I'm sure if the results were reversed and Clinton won via electoral college and Trump the popular vote. This topic wouldn't exist and if it did, its posters would be going "deal with it racists".
If your opinion changes based on outcome, then unfortunately your opinion is worth shit.

Would still be of the opinion the one party state has to go.

[Redezra]

I'm sure if the results were reversed and Clinton won via electoral college and Trump the popular vote. This topic wouldn't exist and if it did, its posters would be going "deal with it racists".

If your opinion changes based on outcome, then unfortunately your opinion is worth shit.

 

Possibly. The topic might not exist. But my dislike of FPTP voting and love of proportional vote will never die!

 

Then again I'm a diehard nihilist, to the point where my students are starting to guess that I am. So I can't really love anything can I?

[the rebel]

Possibly. The topic might not exist. But my dislike of FPTP voting and love of proportional vote will never die!

Of course you love it, being an Aussie you was brought up with only knowing that type of voting system.
There are advantages and disadvantages to FPTP and Proportional voting systems neither is perfect.

[He who posts]

Possibly. The topic might not exist. But my dislike of FPTP voting and love of proportional vote will never die!

Of course you love it, being an Aussie you was brought up with only knowing that type of voting system.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

The electoral college was designed specifically to prevent someone like Trump from becoming president. Realistically that's not going to happen, because electors are generally people who are active in their state parties and presidential campaigns, so they are unlikely to change their votes. If it were just a handful I might hold out more hope, but 37 electors would need to switch in order to keep Trump from the Oval Office. To call that extremely unlikely would be an understatement. Still, they could do it, and they would be well within their rights. And imagine the reaction if they did?

[Redezra]

Possibly. The topic might not exist. But my dislike of FPTP voting and love of proportional vote will never die!

Of course you love it, being an Aussie you was brought up with only knowing that type of voting system.
There are advantages and disadvantages to FPTP and Proportional voting systems neither is perfect.

 

 

False, we use instant runoff voting. Proportional is still a pipe dream. A pipe dream New Zealand has managed to implement.

 

Trust me on this one, Hybrid Proportional/Preferential is the best kind of voting system implementable.

[Thrash]

[the rebel]

Possibly. The topic might not exist. But my dislike of FPTP voting and love of proportional vote will never die!

Of course you love it, being an Aussie you was brought up with only knowing that type of voting system.
There are advantages and disadvantages to FPTP and Proportional voting systems neither is perfect.

False, we use instant runoff voting. Proportional is still a pipe dream. A pipe dream New Zealand has managed to implement.

Trust me on this one, Hybrid Proportional/Preferential is the best kind of voting system implementable.

False? Either your government electoral site is wrong or you're wrong, I'm thinking you're wrong:

Proportional representation electoral systems are used in Australia to elect candidates to the Senate, the upper houses of NSW, Victoria, South Australia, and Western Australia, the Lower House of Tasmania, the ACT Legislative Assembly and many Local Government Councils.

http://www.ecanz.gov...s/proportional/

As for taking your word on which is better, I won't because I look at the disadvantages of it as well.

[Thrash]

lemme just say I'm glad to see you back rebel.. i know there's things we differ on, but you at least use common sense in your arguments. you see the world for what it is, and not try to play any side and are not concerned at all with being PC or getting points.. much respect.