How about doing this for the Electoral College?

BobTheCoward said:
Why is that the best way?
Click to expand...

Are you asking why democracy is the best way? There are only three fundamental possibilities: a monarchy or dictatorship where one person rules; an oligarchy where an elite group rules; or a democracy where majority opinion rules. Assuming that in each case, the people with the power will act in their own self-interest, which way do you think is a better way?
 
How about making the House of Representatives actually proportional to the population?
 
WilliamSeger said:
Are you asking why democracy is the best way? There are only three fundamental possibilities: a monarchy or dictatorship where one person rules; an oligarchy where an elite group rules; or a democracy where majority opinion rules. Assuming that in each case, the people with the power will act in their own self-interest, which way do you think is a better way?
Click to expand...

There are other forms of representative organization. The UN is neither a monarchy nor dictatorship, but the secretary general is not determined by majority vote of the global population.
 
BobTheCoward said:
The UN is neither a monarchy nor dictatorship, ....
Click to expand...

Nor is it actually a world government.

BobTheCoward said:
... but the secretary general is not determined by majority vote of the global population.
Click to expand...

... and if it were a world government and the secretary general held all the power, that would be a dictatorship, regardless of how he got that power. Or, if the UN representatives retain enough power to control the SG, that would be an oligarchy. You simply dodged the question.
 
WilliamSeger said:
Nor is it actually a world government.



... and if it were a world government and the secretary general held all the power, that would be a dictatorship, regardless of how he got that power. Or, if the UN representatives retain enough power to control the SG, that would be an oligarchy. You simply dodged the question.
Click to expand...


It would not be an oligarchy. The determination of the UN representatives is a few steps removed from a direct vote (in the US, it is a vote for eventual president who can then determine a representative). But that has never been called an oligarchy. It is still republicanism.

Then we have to deal with the issue that democracy and oligarchy may not be exclusive of eachother.
 
Craig4 said:
Because that's the point of an election. That's where the mandate to govern comes from. Now we have a president elect who the majority of voters did not want.
Click to expand...

Trump will have a mandate. His policies that are properly enacted will be followed. By definition that is a mandate

"the authority to carry out a policy or course of action, regarded as given by the electorate to a candidate or party that is victorious in an election.".

Any number of election systems can grant a mandate.

Depending on how far we want to take this we can debate why a mandate should matter.
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
Trump will have a mandate. His policies that are properly enacted will be followed. By definition that is a mandate

"the authority to carry out a policy or course of action, regarded as given by the electorate to a candidate or party that is victorious in an election.".

Any number of election systems can grant a mandate.

Depending on how far we want to take this we can debate why a mandate should matter.
Click to expand...

It appears at this point that the West Coast States and New York are choosing not to be governed by a Trump administration. They are already taking steps to neutralize portions of his agenda.
 
Craig4 said:
I'd rather see more states join the Popular Vote Interstate Compact. It's at 165 electoral votes now. It comes into effect when enough states join that the members have 270 electoral votes. Under this system, member states pledge their votes to the candidate who wins the popular vote.
Click to expand...

You think I want my country run by California? Or New York.

Its a great system, your side has zero power to change it for quite awhile.
 
Craig4 said:
It appears at this point that the West Coast States and New York are choosing not to be governed by a Trump administration. They are already taking steps to neutralize portions of his agenda.
Click to expand...

What do you mean? State leadership also has a mandate to govern. So do the Congress from blue states and the Senate.
 
Craig4 said:
It appears at this point that the West Coast States and New York are choosing not to be governed by a Trump administration. They are already taking steps to neutralize portions of his agenda.
Click to expand...

It would be better if they seceded from the union.
 
The Hillaryous thing is the mid terms are right around the corner and the butt hurt hillary fanatics are going to **** that up too.
 
The Big Dog said:
The Hillaryous thing is the mid terms are right around the corner and the butt hurt hillary fanatics are going to **** that up too.
Click to expand...
23 Senate seats for dems, 8 seats for repubs.

We could be looking at a filibuster proof Senate for the Grand Old Party. :)
 
logger said:
23 Senate seats for dems, 8 seats for repubs.

We could be looking at a filibuster proof Senate for the Grand Old Party. :)
Click to expand...

We could, if people are very happy with what President Trump and the Republican congress give us for the next two years.


It could happen.
 
logger said:
You think I want my country run by California? Or New York.

Its a great system, your side has zero power to change it for quite awhile.
Click to expand...

It's not a matter of sides. The Interstate Compact could be enacted by popular vote in just a few more states. All it needs are 105 more electoral votes and it takes effect. 70 percent of the electorate is for it.
 
The system is not broke and there in reason to fix it to ensure the democrats win everything forever, which is, of coarse, what is written between the lines in all the posts lamenting the election results.
 
Craig4 said:
It's not a matter of sides. The Interstate Compact could be enacted by popular vote in just a few more states. All it needs are 105 more electoral votes and it takes effect. 70 percent of the electorate is for it.
Click to expand...

Right up until the moment that a Republican wins the popular vote, but would have lost in the electoral college.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom