ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 25th May 2019, 04:47 PM   #281
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 16,792
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
"Maybe eventually."

And you wonder why nobody gives a **** about your homework assignments.
I don't ask anyone to.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2019, 12:59 PM   #282
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,025
The Electoral College is a most ridiculous and flawed system. There should be no need to have two Elections (the national in November and the voting of 538 Electors in December) to determine the winner of the Presidential election.

With the Electoral College vote in December after the national vote in November a candidate who had won the popular vote (by millions) and was to be awarded the winner of the Electoral College may end up losing due to the fact the voters in the EC do not have to or can change their vote.

In effect, the Presidential election is really determined by the Electoral College vote since even if a candidate gets the most vote in a State the Electoral College voters in that State are not compelled to vote for the winner.

It must not be forgotten that in the 2016 Presidential Election both Trump and Clinton did not received all the Electoral College votes due to the so-called "faithless electors".

The fact that there can be "faithless electors" means the November election can possibly be overturned by the Electoral voters in December.

Last edited by dejudge; 15th June 2019 at 01:00 PM.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2019, 04:25 PM   #283
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 3157'S 11557'E
Posts: 14,426
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
The Electoral College is a most ridiculous and flawed system. < . . . snipped for brevity . . . >
I don't think that anybody is arguing that we should have this ridiculous anomaly of a system today.

The real issues are:
- Should there be vote weighting by state?
- Should a state be able to give all of its votes to a candidate who may not have had an absolute majority?
- Can the constitution be amended to change the EC system?
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2019, 08:25 PM   #284
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,025
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
I don't think that anybody is arguing that we should have this ridiculous anomaly of a system today.

The real issues are:
- Should there be vote weighting by state?
- Should a state be able to give all of its votes to a candidate who may not have had an absolute majority?
- Can the constitution be amended to change the EC system?
Well, if no-one is arguing against the ridiculousness of the Electoral College then it should be discarded and some other system be introduced.

Since the President presides over all the United States then the votes cast from all the States in November should be counted and a winner declared.



1. Should there be vote weighting by state?

If Presidential candidate U gets 13 votes, candidate V gets 12 votes, candidate W gets 11 votes, candidate X gets 10 votes, candidate Y gets 7 votes and candidate Z gets 2 votes what weighting system can be used to properly reflect the actual votes?

There is no need to complicate the most simplest solution. All that is needed is that all the States submit the number of votes for each candidate and a winner be declared.

- Should a state be able to give all of its votes to a candidate who may not have had an absolute majority?

A State should be able to submit the votes for each Presidential candidate.

- Can the constitution be amended to change the EC system?

Laws have been amended before. The EC system is ridiculous, flawed and can be manipulated.

The 2020 Presidential election may expose how easy it is to manipulate the Electoral College.

If in the 2020 Presidential election the EC is very close like 169 to 171 then three faithless electors can make the expected loser become the winner when they vote in December.

Remember Murphy's Law.

Last edited by dejudge; 15th June 2019 at 08:28 PM.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2019, 10:03 PM   #285
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 16,792
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
Well, if no-one is arguing against the ridiculousness of the Electoral College then it should be discarded and some other system be introduced.

Since the President presides over all the United States then the votes cast from all the States in November should be counted and a winner declared.



1. Should there be vote weighting by state?

If Presidential candidate U gets 13 votes, candidate V gets 12 votes, candidate W gets 11 votes, candidate X gets 10 votes, candidate Y gets 7 votes and candidate Z gets 2 votes what weighting system can be used to properly reflect the actual votes?

There is no need to complicate the most simplest solution. All that is needed is that all the States submit the number of votes for each candidate and a winner be declared.

- Should a state be able to give all of its votes to a candidate who may not have had an absolute majority?

A State should be able to submit the votes for each Presidential candidate.

- Can the constitution be amended to change the EC system?

Laws have been amended before. The EC system is ridiculous, flawed and can be manipulated.

The 2020 Presidential election may expose how easy it is to manipulate the Electoral College.

If in the 2020 Presidential election the EC is very close like 169 to 171 then three faithless electors can make the expected loser become the winner when they vote in December.

Remember Murphy's Law.
Are you actually ignorant about the discussion around vote weighting, or are you pretending?
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 07:23 AM   #286
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,025
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Are you actually ignorant about the discussion around vote weighting, or are you pretending?
You seem to display deliberate ignorance when you pretend that I did not address the question.

There should be no need to weight votes in the Presidential election. Each State participating in the election should simply submit the votes received for each candidate to be tallied and the one with the most votes be declared the winner.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:22 AM   #287
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 16,792
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
You seem to display deliberate ignorance when you pretend that I did not address the question.

There should be no need to weight votes in the Presidential election. Each State participating in the election should simply submit the votes received for each candidate to be tallied and the one with the most votes be declared the winner.
I still can't tell if you are ignoring commenting on the positions of those who disagree as a rhetorical device or ignorance of them.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:08 AM   #288
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 3,899
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
There should be no need to weight votes in the Presidential election. Each State participating in the election should simply submit the votes received for each candidate to be tallied and the one with the most votes be declared the winner.
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:13 AM   #289
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 16,792
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Also not the subject of this thread.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:17 AM   #290
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 20,242
Dump the silly Electoral College. Implement popular vote election using PR/STV
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:33 AM   #291
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 3,899
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Also not the subject of this thread.
I already answered the subject of the thread back in post #26.

Spoiler: Yes, someone can. His name was James.
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/

Last edited by d4m10n; Yesterday at 09:38 AM.
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 10:01 AM   #292
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 16,792
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
I already answered the subject of the thread back in post #26.

Spoiler: Yes, someone can. His name was James.
Which doesn't make this no longer the subject of the thread.

Also, he never defended it. He made some written statements. That he was not asked to answer. He asserted
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 10:03 AM   #293
Beerina
Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions
 
Beerina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 29,460
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
- Can the constitution be amended to change the EC system?

In practice, no. You'll need to convince the many small states that's what's wrong with the country is the giant coastal concrete canyons don't have enough power.
__________________
"Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson

The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales now! More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?
Beerina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 10:16 AM   #294
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 3157'S 11557'E
Posts: 14,426
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
Well, if no-one is arguing against the ridiculousness of the Electoral College then it should be discarded and some other system be introduced.

Since the President presides over all the United States then the votes cast from all the States in November should be counted and a winner declared.

< . . . confusing word salad snipped . . . >
Are you arguing for a single national vote for the POTUS or for each state to run its own vote separately?
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 10:54 AM   #295
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,025
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Are you arguing for a single national vote for the POTUS or for each state to run its own vote separately?
I am arguing that each State participating in the Presidential election should simply submit the votes received for each candidate to be tallied and the one with the most votes be declared the winner.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 10:55 AM   #296
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 17,896
There's no functional difference between defending an unfair system and "Oh I'm totally not defending the unfair system, all I'm saying is we have to get the people who are benefit from the unfair system to agree that the system is unfair and to change it, so I guess we're stuck with the unfair system and our hands are tied."

There's no functional difference between defending an unfair system and rejecting every proposed solution that doesn't contain the same inherent unfairness just with the parts moved around in some meaningless way.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 11:33 AM   #297
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 3,899
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Also, he never defended it.
Re-read what he wrote.

Madison was addressing a specific problem raised by representatives from the southern states, showing how the EC obviated that problem by giving those states some electoral credit for their residents held in bondage.
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/

Last edited by d4m10n; Yesterday at 11:37 AM.
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 11:46 AM   #298
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 16,792
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Re-read what he wrote.

Madison was addressing a specific problem raised by representatives from the southern states, showing how the EC obviated that problem by giving those states some electoral credit for their residents held in bondage.
And he hasn't stepped up here and answered a single one of my questions. He isn't defending crap.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 11:48 AM   #299
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 17,896
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
And he hasn't stepped up here and answered a single one of my questions. He isn't defending crap.
Because you can't be talked to Bob.

Stop playing games, talk like an adult, and maybe, just maybe someone someday will give you the courtesy of giving you a 3,345th chance to not Bob a thread.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 11:50 AM   #300
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 16,792
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Because you can't be talked to Bob.

Stop playing games, talk like an adult, and maybe, just maybe someone someday will give you the courtesy of giving you a 3,345th chance to not Bob a thread.
This is my thread. The whole point is it is obtuse. If there were threads sufficient to address my obtuse questions on the subject, I wouldn't have started it.

And the main reason Madison isn't coming forward to defend the electoral college is because he is dead.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 12:14 PM   #301
Ron_Tomkins
Satan's Helper
 
Ron_Tomkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 43,752
The Electoral College is a garbage, corrupt, absurd and anti-democratic system.

But hey.... it's been in establishment for too long. Changing to a different system would be too complicated.
__________________
"I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan"

Carl Sagan
Ron_Tomkins is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 12:19 PM   #302
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 3157'S 11557'E
Posts: 14,426
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
I am arguing that each State participating in the Presidential election should simply submit the votes received for each candidate to be tallied and the one with the most votes be declared the winner.
What if nobody gets an absolute majority of the votes?
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 12:20 PM   #303
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 3157'S 11557'E
Posts: 14,426
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
There's no functional difference between defending an unfair system and "Oh I'm totally not defending the unfair system, all I'm saying is we have to get the people who are benefit from the unfair system to agree that the system is unfair and to change it, so I guess we're stuck with the unfair system and our hands are tied."

There's no functional difference between defending an unfair system and rejecting every proposed solution that doesn't contain the same inherent unfairness just with the parts moved around in some meaningless way.
If the only option is straight national vote or nothing then you will be stuck with the current system in perpetuity.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 12:26 PM   #304
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 3,899
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
What if nobody gets an absolute majority of the votes?
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
I am arguing that each State participating in the Presidential election should simply submit the votes received for each candidate to be tallied and the one with the most votes be declared the winner.
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 12:30 PM   #305
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 17,896
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
If the only option is straight national vote or nothing then you will be stuck with the current system in perpetuity.
Oh come on. In the time since the Founding Fathers laid out the concept of the Electoral College (at yet again for reasons totally different from this "We have to protect the small states / rural areas" and/or "But my tribe might lose if we change it" kneejerk defense) we've gotten rid of slavery, moved from a rural collection of farmers to a technology powerhouse centered more and more around urban cores, grown to a global superpower, gave women the vote, and any one of those is a 1,000 times bigger change then moving from the EC to a popular vote.

This whole idea the Electoral College is so ingrained into our national DNA that changing it is some insurmountable fantasy is laughable.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC

Last edited by JoeMorgue; Yesterday at 12:33 PM.
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 01:14 PM   #306
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 16,792
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Oh come on. In the time since the Founding Fathers laid out the concept of the Electoral College (at yet again for reasons totally different from this "We have to protect the small states / rural areas" and/or "But my tribe might lose if we change it" kneejerk defense) we've gotten rid of slavery, moved from a rural collection of farmers to a technology powerhouse centered more and more around urban cores, grown to a global superpower, gave women the vote, and any one of those is a 1,000 times bigger change then moving from the EC to a popular vote.

This whole idea the Electoral College is so ingrained into our national DNA that changing it is some insurmountable fantasy is laughable.
And based on the posts here by people that say they support weighted voting, they haven't produced a new innovation in 200 years. Every few years I come across some new proposal on how to run a popular vote.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 01:23 PM   #307
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 3157'S 11557'E
Posts: 14,426
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
we've gotten rid of slavery,
And it took a war to do it.

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
moved from a rural collection of farmers to a technology powerhouse centered more and more around urban cores, grown to a global superpower,
None of which has anything to do with the constitution.

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
gave women the vote,
50 years after the vote was given to men of all races but better late than never.

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
and any one of those is a 1,000 times bigger change then moving from the EC to a popular vote.

This whole idea the Electoral College is so ingrained into our national DNA that changing it is some insurmountable fantasy is laughable.
Even if 2/3 of the Senate or 2/3 of the states by convention put up an amendment for a straight national vote, it would still take 3/4 of the states to ratify it. That's a lot of states voting to diminish their influence on POTUS elections.

It's not just the small states either. Bigger states like California or Texas have a lot of influence on the final result because of the "winner takes all" system that they use.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975

Last edited by psionl0; Yesterday at 01:25 PM.
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 01:26 PM   #308
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 3157'S 11557'E
Posts: 14,426
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
I get it. Who needs a run-off election when democracy doesn't matter?
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 01:33 PM   #309
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 3,899
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
I get it. Who needs a run-off election when democracy doesn't matter?
You do realize most Presidents don't break 50% these days?
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 01:43 PM   #310
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 17,896
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
You do realize most Presidents don't break 50% these days?
And this is what I'm talking about. People are pretending to to arguing from a position of "Oh I don't like the EC but... " while at the same time demanding that the fix to EC not have problems that the EC has in much greater abundance.

You could get the Presidency with 22% of the popular vote by gaming the EC but staying completely within its rules. Hand wringing about a potential solution "Not getting to 50%" seems just a tad disingenuous.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 01:44 PM   #311
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 3157'S 11557'E
Posts: 14,426
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
You do realize most Presidents don't break 50% these days?
That's why you need run-off elections. It is not democratic to award the presidency to somebody when most of the country voted against him.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:26 PM   #312
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 3,899
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
That's why you need run-off elections. It is not democratic to award the presidency to somebody when most of the country voted against him.
Define democratic, please.

In 1992, one candidate received 43.0% of the popular vote, another 37.4% and another 18.9%. It seems perfectly democratic to me that the presidency went to the candidate with the most votes.
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 07:06 PM   #313
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,025
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
What if nobody gets an absolute majority of the votes?
Once the constitution is amended to eliminate the flawed Electoral College then it would be expected that there would be new regulations to determine a winner if there is no absolute majority.

Possible solutions are to declare the incumbent President as the winner in a such a scenario or to make the Congress vote when there is no incumbent President on the ballot.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 07:09 PM   #314
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 17,896
Questions of whether it is better to have first past the post / winner take all or instant runoff / ranked choice voting are good and fine debates we should be having (for the record I'm a huge proponent of ranked choice voting) but that are separate from the question of the need for the electoral collage and I'm a little lost on how "But what if nobody gets 50%?" has... anything to do with the EC outside of "Hey look over there" argumentatives.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:03 PM   #315
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 3157'S 11557'E
Posts: 14,426
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Questions of whether it is better to have first past the post / winner take all or instant runoff / ranked choice voting are good and fine debates we should be having (for the record I'm a huge proponent of ranked choice voting) but that are separate from the question of the need for the electoral collage and I'm a little lost on how "But what if nobody gets 50%?" has... anything to do with the EC outside of "Hey look over there" argumentatives.
That's even worse than saying straight national vote or nothing. You are saying "just get rid of the EC and we will worry about the details later".

If you really want to change the constitution (and not just make a gesture) then you need to get consensus on ALL of the details.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:44 PM   #316
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 3157'S 11557'E
Posts: 14,426
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Define democratic, please.
Democratic is when the winning candidate gets more votes cast for them than against them.

Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
In 1992, one candidate received 43.0% of the popular vote, another 37.4% and another 18.9%. It seems perfectly democratic to me that the presidency went to the candidate with the most votes.
Case in point. 57% of voters voted against the leading candidate but he got elected anyway. Worse, under this FPTP system, the voters were reminded that they MUST vote for one of the two major candidates or their vote won't count.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975

Last edited by psionl0; Yesterday at 09:24 PM.
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:32 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.