uscitizen
Villified User
They call themselves rebublics, we call ourselves a democracy, bush calls himself a republican......
The electoral college
- Thread starter FUCK THE POLICE
- Start date
They call themselves rebublics, we call ourselves a democracy, bush calls himself a republican......
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Federalism and Republicanism are very different ideas, WC. You've seemed to confuse them.
A republic is a very broad term that could cover just about ever nation in thew world.
North Korea is a democracy? North Korea is one of the few nations that is not a republic - it is a literal dictatorshiop, in all senses of the word, and doesn't even have a beaurocracy set up to even attempt to hide that fact.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
The USSR was a republic. You don't even know what a republic is.
WC Grouch
New member
Both Maine and Nebraska still allocate votes proportionally. That simply means that one party does not win all the votes. Again, the fear of one party rule is the reason for the College of Electors
We are no longer a Republic as founded. The states no longer have the right of self determination and without that right "Republic" is just a hollow word...Like the "Republic" of Iraq.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
"Both Maine and Nebraska still allocate votes proportionally."
... no they don't. They use the congressional district method. Congressional districts do not award points proportionally.
"That simply means that one party does not win all the votes."
Maine and Nebraska, in their entire existence, has never given an electoral vote to more than one person. Even whenever they used the congressional district method. Whether or not the congressional district method may possibly split electoral votes, it's still a majoritarian, not proportional, method, and it usually doesn't split votes.
"Again, the fear of one party rule is the reason for the College of Electors"
One party rule is more likely under the winner-take-all electoral college.
... no they don't. They use the congressional district method. Congressional districts do not award points proportionally.
"That simply means that one party does not win all the votes."
Maine and Nebraska, in their entire existence, has never given an electoral vote to more than one person. Even whenever they used the congressional district method. Whether or not the congressional district method may possibly split electoral votes, it's still a majoritarian, not proportional, method, and it usually doesn't split votes.
"Again, the fear of one party rule is the reason for the College of Electors"
One party rule is more likely under the winner-take-all electoral college.
WC Grouch
New member
lol...
And North Korea is a democracy.
Do you also believe that Helen Thomas is the hottest babe on the planet?
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Idiot said:
That isn't a rational argument. The USSR was a republic. Prove it wasn't.
Another idiotic comment said:
Strawman argument... not rational.
WC Grouch
New member
lol...Well, all I can say is that the states of Maine and Nebraska disagree with you. You must have some inside info that the rest of us have no access to.
Are you one of those who support Jesse Jackson's claim that the Electoral College is a winner take all system designed to keep women, blacks and the poor from voting?
Battleborne
Terminator
Don't waste your time...........
water is a undergrad at ole'Miss...he has not learned anything except how to play in toilets at the local pizza hut..a sorry state of affairs for our country..he believes everything his weird professors tell him..I suspect he bends over alot for the grades!
water is a undergrad at ole'Miss...he has not learned anything except how to play in toilets at the local pizza hut..a sorry state of affairs for our country..he believes everything his weird professors tell him..I suspect he bends over alot for the grades!
Battleborne
Terminator
Right............
USC come outta the hippie BS...Condi Rice for starters...can ya name a qualified appointed official the Dems have appointed recently...?
Are you one of those who support Jesse Jackson's claim that the Electoral College is a winner take all system designed to keep women, blacks and the poor from voting?
//
Umm no that is the Republican party
USC come outta the hippie BS...Condi Rice for starters...can ya name a qualified appointed official the Dems have appointed recently...?
uscitizen
Villified User
Umm only those in charge get to appoint people...duhhh
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
The proportional vote and the Maine-Nebraska method are completely different systems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College#Reform_proposals
Proportional vote
The primary proposal of this type is for states to implement a proportional vote system. Under such a system, electors would be selected in proportion to the votes cast for their candidate or party, rather than being selected to represent only the plurality vote. As an example, consider the 2000 election, in which the George W. Bush / Richard Cheney (Republican) and Albert Gore Jr. / Joseph Lieberman (Democrat) tickets were the primary contenders, with the Ralph Nader / Winona LaDuke (Green) ticket taking a small but noteworthy minority. In California, the approximate proportion of votes for these tickets was 41.65 percent Bush/Cheney, 53.45 percent Gore/Lieberman, and 3.82 percent Nader/LaDuke. Under the current system, all 54 electoral votes were for Gore/Lieberman. Under a simple proportional system, the votes might be distributed as 23 Bush/Cheney, 29 Gore/Lieberman, and 2 Nader/LaDuke.
As a practical matter, this system would be very difficult to implement. According to the Constitution, the state legislatures decide how electors are chosen. It is usually not in the interest of an individual state to switch to a method of proportional allocation because it reduces that state's influence in the Electoral College. This can be illustrated by the case of Colorado, which in 2004 voted down an initiative on its 2004 ballot, Amendment 36, which would have instituted a system of proportional allocation of electors beginning immediately with the 2004 election. Had the proposal passed, Colorado would not have been a swing state in 2008, no matter how closely contested. The state's nine electoral votes would almost certainly end up divided 5-4, no matter which candidate won a plurality. Thus, winning the Colorado popular vote would only give the successful candidate one additional electoral vote over his or her opponent instead of nine.
A perceived problem with dividing electoral votes proportionally is that it would be harder for a candidate to achieve a majority of the electoral vote, since a proportional system would enable a third party candidate to win electoral votes. If this system had been used in 1992 and 1996, and all electors had voted as pledged, there would have been no winner at all, and the House of Representatives would have chosen the president, and the Senate would have selected the Vice President. In 1996 Robert Dole would almost certainly have been the House winner, and Jack Kemp the Senate winner, despite receiving significantly fewer votes than Bill Clinton and Al Gore. In 2000, Al Gore would have received 269 electoral votes, George W. Bush 263, and Ralph Nader 6. If all electors voted as pledged, the Presidential race would have gone to the House, and Bush likely would have won, but the Vice Presidential decision in the Senate would have likely split 50–50 for Lieberman, with Al Gore (as then-president of the Senate) casting the deciding vote.[citation needed]
[edit] Maine–Nebraska method
Other observers argue that the current electoral rules of Maine and Nebraska should be extended nationwide. As previously noted, the winner in each of those two states is only guaranteed two of Maine's four and Nebraska's five electoral votes, with the winner of each Congressional district in those states receiving one electoral vote. Using the California example again, Gore won 33 of the state's Congressional districts and the state overall, while Bush won 19 Congressional districts. The state's electoral votes would then have gone 35–19 for Gore.
However, this kind of allocation would still make it possible for the loser of the popular vote to become president. Dividing electoral votes by House district winners would create yet another incentive for partisan gerrymandering.
Another perceived problem with this suggestion is that it would actually further increase the advantage of small states. In winner-take-all, the small states' disproportionately high number of electors is partially offset by the fact that large states with their big electoral blocks are such a highly desirable boon to a candidate that large swing states actually receive much more attention during the campaign than smaller states. In proportional representation or Maine–Nebraska, this advantage of the large states would be gone.
Yet another argument with both Maine–Nebraska and proportional representation is that even if it is considered superior as a nationwide system, winner-take-all generally maximizes the power of an individual state and thus while it might be in the interest of the nation, it is not in the interest of the state to adopt any other system. Since the United States constitution gives the states the power to choose their method of appointing the electors, nationwide Maine–Nebraska without a constitutional amendment mandating it seems unlikely, and the passage of such an amendment seems equally unlikely since the House delegations of the largest states (against whose interests such a system would be), taken together, easily surpass the one third of the House size that is needed to block a constitutional amendment.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
I'm not at 'ole miss you idiot! Is this going to become another one of those stupid "factoids" you repeat to insult me after each post I make? It isn't insulting if you just completely make it up, you do realize that, don't you?
Stop drinking and getting on this site, you old fat moron.
Battleborne
Terminator
nolo contender....
Your response just sank the DEM position for along time to come...ya really should get out more often!
Your response just sank the DEM position for along time to come...ya really should get out more often!
Battleborne
Terminator
Whatever...........
You made a ass outta yourself...damo understood what I was saying...have another hit on the MJ it will make you feel better!
You made a ass outta yourself...damo understood what I was saying...have another hit on the MJ it will make you feel better!
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Ad hominem. Strawman.
*Yawn*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument's proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument. A reductio ad Hitlerum argument can be seen as a special case of an ad hominem argument, since these arguments are attacking something supposedly said or supported by Adolf Hitler, who is usually considered by Western people to have been an evil person.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.
Its name is derived from the practice of using straw men in combat training. In such training, a scarecrow is made in the image of the enemy with the single intent of attacking it.[1] It is occasionally called a straw dog fallacy,[2] scarecrow argument, or wooden dummy argument.
WC Grouch
New member
The state legislators decide and both of those states claim that they decide proportionally no matter how you edit WIKI.
Back in post #16 you said: "Well, really, we've tried that before... back in the 50's. The larger states usually object because it gives smaller states a very large advantage."....and that's the point. It's the larger states who want to dump the electoral college. Why is that?
Because they believe that they have a right to tell the other states what to do. People fail to recognize that we were originally created to have separate states.