President Trump

[fromdownunder]

Though you do have to wonder, if they do rubber stamp Trumps election, what kind of candidate would it take for them to flip an election? and if all they ever do is rubber stamp the peoples choice, then why are they there at all?

This is something I have wondered about. As an Aussie, where often on election night when the change of Government becomes perfectly clear, we have a new Prime Minister (Federal) or a new Premier (State) the next day, who is empowered to actually, you know... Govern.

(But then we follow the British system where the Public Service and Department Heads remain pretty much unchanged, and the transfer from one Party to another is pretty seamless.)

Is the Electoral College just an outdated hangover from the old days? Why not simplify it to the extent that it can still exist but does not have to actually meet? Assuming that the EC delegate(s) follow State Laws, it is just a rubber stamp and a waste of time and money. Although being in a position of "power" to vote at the EC meeting must be wonderful for some peoples egos.

I remember an Isaac Asimov short story, where the election for everybody from the President down to local dog catcher was based on a single voter. It strikes me as no less silly than the anachronism of meeting 6 weeks later to decide on who actually won. The single voter actually asked "who won?", and was told that he would find out later, at the same time as everybody else.

If State A has "x" EC votes, and State B has "y" votes, add them up and proclaim the winner. It's not rocket science.

Norm

 

[Stacko]

The founding fathers didn't seem to think that was a problem. The way I understand it, it became a popular vote later on.

They also thought it was a good idea that only white property owning males could vote. The argument from antiquity is fraught with these problems.

 

[Belz...]

They also thought it was a good idea that only white property owning males could vote. The argument from antiquity is fraught with these problems.

True, but in this case I think the reasoning was sound. I see no reason why it had to be changed, effectively making the president just another vote-monger.

 

[newyorkguy]

In the first eight or nine elections presidents were elected by state legislatures who chose electors. Different slates of electors voted for different party candidates; the person who came in first was president, the runnerup was vice president even if he was from the other party (which he usually was). Massachusetts was one of the first states to choose it's electors by popular vote --each slate of electors was aligned with a different political party. Gradually other states followed.

One of the reasons early on for having state legislature's select the electors was to preserve the power of the states in selecting a chief executive. But back then the president was not considered to have anywhere near the political power (or importance) that the office of American president gradually gained over time.

A lot of historians say there has always been a lack of logic to the electoral system; so don't bother trying to find the logic in it, it's not there!

 

[SezMe]

Not cobalt, but I don't think it is.

I think it almost borders on a logical fallacy of some sort.

"I really love my Toyota Land Cruiser".

"You might want to reconsider - they are a favorite of Osama bin Laden."

Since one cannot control who might or might not support you, or your vehicle choice, why should you be painted with the beliefs of those who do?

Let me see if I can zero in on the fallacy. "Guilt by association" is a phrase that comes to mind, but is not a fallacy per sé.

It is not guilt by association because nobody is being accused of anything so there's no guilt to be had. Rather, the enthusiasm of the far, far right for Trump gives us a measure of the man's attitudes regarding race, immigration and general tolerance for others who are not WASPs. Now, admittedly, we have more direct indications of his views but I don't discount his supporters. If nothing else, they give us some idea of how much political pressure they can bring to bear to enact the policies that they favor.

 

[SezMe]

Argumemnon, when you spout things like this, how am I supposed to have a reasonable argument with you?

I've never seen you have a reasonable argument with anybody. You lob a few sentences over the fence laden with "leftists" and not much else. I can't ever remember you citing a source to back up any claim you might make. Possibly that's because your assertions tend be be along the lines of, "... leftists think this..." or "...leftists don't like ...." and the like. Assertions that have no need for cites because they completely lack substance.

Since #1 is sufficient to make one's case, is not #2 irrelevant?

No. See the above. The level and intensity of Trump's support on the far right is more than just a measure of Trump himself. It also provides an indication of what policies are politically viable as a result of public support.

 

[SezMe]

I have plenty of reasonable discussions with reasonable people.

Name three two one.

 

[SezMe]

ETA: This year is actually a pretty good example. If you look at the popular vote distributions by state, you can see that CA had a really disproportionate effect. CA had by far the largest % difference than any other state, and has a large population.

I don't know what you are saying here. Disproportionate to what? % difference based on what?

It would be possible under a purely popular vote for all fo the other states to have a moderately close race, with Candidate A in the lead, and CA all by itself to have a strong preference for Candidate B. Regardless of the fact that the rest of the country prefers Candidate A, Candidate B would end up winning based on the preference of one small region.

But in a popular vote states don't matter. Look at a map of the USA without any state boundaries. Now, how do states matter?

Another example: Consider any state. It's senatorial election does not depend on county boundaries. Now, up the level by one and you have national popular electionsl.

 

[SezMe]

Another Dummy Question: Did the German President have control of the Police forces? My understanding is that the states control their own police forces, some of them are even at the county and city level. They're not run by the federal government. The FBI might be the closest thing to a "national" police force that the US has.

US Marshals.

 

[SezMe]

Ok I say we take a break from this discussion and come back to it in 4 years.

You got a deal!

Yeah!!!!

 

[SezMe]

I want to know how you plan to deal with the concerns of the low-population states at the federal level.

Their concerns are dealt with at the ratio of populations. CA to WY is about 67:1. Therefore, CA gets 67 times as much concern as WY. What's the problem?

ETA: I suppose that one could use state GDP as the appropriate measure. Or a combination of measures might be used. But population seems most appropriate because that is how we vote.

 

[SezMe]

Well, the "alt-radical left" is still slinging their racism and sexism slop. Talk about a one-trick pony. Time to write some new material crybabies, no one's drinking your swill.

Well, that was an informative post. Maybe you could say more about Bannon having the President's ear. Do you approve? Is Bannon the type of person you want making policy?

 

[SezMe]

I think the sub-discussion about smileys is getting a bit long and should be taken to PMs, please.

This is a fantastic post. Just wonderful. After engaging in pages of tête-à-tête with Emily's Cat, Argumemnon thinks roughly a page of similes discussion is just too long.

I AM amused.

 

[Andy_Ross]

This is a fantastic post. Just wonderful. After engaging in pages of tête-à-tête with Emily's Cat, Argumemnon thinks roughly a page of similes discussion is just too long.

I AM amused.

Not just too long but off topic. he is right.

 

[SezMe]

Wasn't that the original purpose of the EC to begin with? Appeasing the lower population south by offering overrepresentation. Similar to the 3/5ths compromise.

Exactly so. It's a remnant that bedevils us to this very day.

 

[Belz...]

Yeah!!!!

Wanna come with us? There's still room on the yacht!

 

[Belz...]

This is a fantastic post. Just wonderful. After engaging in pages of tête-à-tête with Emily's Cat, Argumemnon thinks roughly a page of similes discussion is just too long.

Touché, although I would like to point out that my discussion with Cat, although heated, was on-topic.

 

[newyorkguy]

I think Southern states were allowed to count those held in slavery when determining their population, using a 60% formula, mostly as a way of determining how many representatives they would be apportioned in Congress, in the House of Representatives. The number of Congressional representatives a state had was determined by population. The state's population was also the determining factor in how many presidential electors it would be allowed. But I believe the number of Congressional representatives was more important. James Madison was the founder who played a key role.

Madison, now known as the “Father of the Constitution,” was a slave-owner in Virginia, which at the time was the most populous of the 13 states if the count included slaves, who comprised about 40 percent of its population.

Madison knew that the North would outnumber the South, despite there being more than half a million slaves in the South who were their economic vitality, but could not vote. His proposition for the Electoral College included the “three-fifths compromise,” where black people could be counted as three-fifths of a person, instead of a whole. This clause garnered the state 12 out of 91 electoral votes, more than a quarter of what a president needed to win. Link

This so-called "three-fifths compromise" was set forth in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. Link

This was overturned following the Civil War when the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution was enacted. However the American South still benefited because, for the next 100 years -- until the Voting Rights Act of 1965 -- most blacks in the South were denied the right to vote using various means. So in that sense the South was still over represented.

 

[phiwum]

I agree that Palin sunk that boat. I know many people who were undecided between two good candidates, leaning slightly toward McCain... who pretty much jumped ship when he brought Palin on as running mate.

That's a bit of a contrast to this year. I know lots of people (myself included) who were undecided between what they viewed as two bad candidates.

In my humble opinion, perhaps Hillary could be viewed as bad, but for God's sake, Donald J. Trump was demonstrably abysmal. I will gladly take bad.

 

[phiwum]

I think the sub-discussion about smileys is getting a bit long and should be taken to PMs, please.

That, and **** smileys.