Is It Time To Reconsider Voting Rights Yet?

[JoeMorgue]

Would Hillary have taken the VP spot?

She would largely be a figure head.

And what happens if she declines the post?

Oh I totally agree that the practical implementation would be a nightmare. I'm just saying if 51% voted for Steve and 49% voted for Ted the idea that Steve shouldn't be awarded 100% of the power and that Ted should have some official position isn't completely crazy in the theoretical and abstract sense.

 

[Darat]

Apparently fascism (like communism) was originally seen as a natural evolution of--and improvement over--liberal democracy. This was before the NSDAP ruined it for everybody with their racism and violent expansionism, of course.

So maybe it's time to reclaim fascism? Nationalizing of all major industry. Overcoming class differences by celebrating national unity. Encouraging assimilation of immigrants. Thanks to Hitler, fascism was never really given a chance. We know how communism turned out, but we should consider giving fascism another try.

You mistakenly quoted my post when you posted yours.

 

[Darat]

Oh I totally agree that the practical implementation would be a nightmare. I'm just saying if 51% voted for Steve and 49% voted for Ted the idea that Steve shouldn't be awarded 100% of the power and that Ted should have some official position isn't completely crazy in the theoretical and abstract sense.

It isn't just theoretical and abstract many countries that have almost universal suffrage also have proportional representation in their elections. In a similar thread a long time ago we had a discussion in which the mathematics behind democratic voting systems were examined. Turned out that first past the post was one of the least reflective of voters. I'll see if I can find the thread.

 

[LTC8K6]

But why is it a problem?

Corruption? Cronyism? Trump has all that and more without the benefit of any relevant knowledge or experience.

Corruption and cronyism are pretty much expected these days in politics, I think.

If we ever were to have a candidate without any baggage, people would probably just think it was not believable.

 

[Meadmaker]

If something works, don't fix it.

The premise of the OP is that we elected a terrible candidate to be president, so something is broken. I would contend that, although we did elect a terrible candidate, it's not all that bad. I think we can all agree that we've had bad presidents before. We don't all agree which ones were the bad ones, but we all agree that there have been bad ones.

We've survived. Nothing really horrible has happened. I could see certain reforms being made in the way we do elections, but the fundamental principle that everyone gets to vote is not one that I would want to see touched.

Your assurances are worthless without substantiation. If you agree that the scandals were fabricated or exaggerated, what else is there? Lack of charisma isn't a "strike" against her, nor is her poor campaigning strategy.

In my opinion, it is. A "poor campaign strategy" is synonymous with someone who is out of touch and doesn't understand the voters and what is important to them.

 

[psionl0]

We can pick fifteen different ways to parse the results - they're all based on the winner-take-all situation.

< ... example snipped ... >

It's all part and parcel as to why the winner-take-all system really ought to go. The EC would be fine if it was proportional.

Yes, there are all sorts of scenarios whereby Trump can overcome the CA democrat advantage and gain an unfair victory.

I agree that PR would be preferable and have already stated so.

 

[sunmaster14]

It appears nobody here understood what you were exactly saying

I do now! And for the first time I can remember, I agree with him.

 

[sunmaster14]

But why is it a problem?

Inside the box thinking. High probability of maintaining the status quo, which many people find unacceptable.

Corruption? Cronyism? Trump has all that and more without the benefit of any relevant knowledge or experience.

Well, I certainly don't accept that claim. And the downside for Hillary of her experience was that the electorate actually got to see first hand how she would perform in a high-profile government job.

 

[Belz...]

In my opinion, it is. A "poor campaign strategy" is synonymous with someone who is out of touch and doesn't understand the voters and what is important to them.

I don't think that catering to fear and bigotry, even if it's "in touch" with the voters, makes one a better candidate. Call me crazy.

 

[LTC8K6]

If something works, don't fix it.

The premise of the OP is that we elected a terrible candidate to be president, so something is broken. I would contend that, although we did elect a terrible candidate, it's not all that bad. I think we can all agree that we've had bad presidents before. We don't all agree which ones were the bad ones, but we all agree that there have been bad ones.

We've survived. Nothing really horrible has happened. I could see certain reforms being made in the way we do elections, but the fundamental principle that everyone gets to vote is not one that I would want to see touched.




In my opinion, it is. A "poor campaign strategy" is synonymous with someone who is out of touch and doesn't understand the voters and what is important to them.

Yes, we have had bad presidents before. People have been sure, with other presidents, that the USA was doomed. People have violently disliked other presidents as well.

If you look back through history, the USA has been pretty calm the last few decades.

 

[Loss Leader]

....

Why shouldn't it? Urban areas, broadly speaking, are where the people -- the voters -- live, and "one person, one vote" is a core principle of our democracy. Why should rural voters have a disproportionate impact on the election results? If you want to argue "states' rights," you may as well defend slavery and Jim Crow.

Tyranny of the majority isn't much better. Democracy should be made up of many competing interests. Now, the system that assigns electoral votes to states may not be ideal - almost all of Illinois is outweighed by Chicago. Same for New York. However, I don't think a direct popular vote does enough in these days of deepening division.

 

[Upchurch]

Inside the box thinking. High probability of maintaining the status quo, which many people find unacceptable.

The status quo like clean water and air? That status quo of not pissing off our allies? The status quo of having public schools?

There is a lot about the status quo that works. Breaking those parts of the status quo is going to harm or possibly kill people.

Which part of the status quo needs changing?

Well, I certainly don't accept that claim.

Shocker. What possible relevant knowledge or experience did Trump have before assuming office?

 

[theprestige]

You mistakenly quoted my post when you posted yours.

Not at all. You asked whether we could come up with a better system. I think it's an interesting question, and I think the European experiments with fascism in the 1920s and early 1930s are a good starting point for discussing it. Especially considering that fascism really was seen at the time as a potential solution to the problems of democracy.

Today we think of it as a throwback, but then they saw it as a potential evolution in human affairs.

I think the experience of the Nazis has prevented several generations from actually looking at fascism with a critical eye, as a system of government that just like democracy tries to find the best combination of trade offs for the greatest good.

 

[Bob001]

There's certainly a lot of question-begging going on in this thread. How is the US worse off for having elected Trump as opposed to a "respectable" Republican candidate? Or Hillary Clinton for that matter? I can identify many ways in which it is better off. Even some which are ideologically neutral. Can any of the question beggars do the same for the opposite?

Do you really believe that? We get that you don't like Democrats. But is the U.S. really better off with an ignorant, lying, racist kleptocrat than it would have been with, say, Romney or Rubio or Jeb Bush, who have experience in government and who have demonstrated a basic commitment to our core principles. What can you possibly mean?

 

[theprestige]

Oh I totally agree that the practical implementation would be a nightmare. I'm just saying if 51% voted for Steve and 49% voted for Ted the idea that Steve shouldn't be awarded 100% of the power and that Ted should have some official position isn't completely crazy in the theoretical and abstract sense.

The Roman Republic had two Consuls.

 

[Bob001]

Tyranny of the majority isn't much better. Democracy should be made up of many competing interests. Now, the system that assigns electoral votes to states may not be ideal - almost all of Illinois is outweighed by Chicago. Same for New York. However, I don't think a direct popular vote does enough in these days of deepening division.

I don't think direct popular vote is necessarily the way to go either. For one thing, it would mean that a recount in a close election would probably have to be conducted nationally county-by-county, a legal and practical nightmare. But there's nothing in the Constitution that requires all electoral votes to be awarded to one candidate. Allocating them in proportion to the state's popular vote -- as two states already have chosen to do -- gives voice to both parties in every state. Republicans in California and Democrats in Texas could cast a vote that would count. In Florida in 2000, Gore and Bush would each have gotten 12 electoral votes. No constitutional crisis. I don't understand objections to proportional allocation.

 

[dudalb]

I agree, relocation of the electorial votes on a percentage basis rather then a "winner take all" is a viable solution. Even if getting rid of the EC is desirable,it is almost impossible since that would take a Constituional admendment,and I don't think to could get the required two thirds of the states to ratify it.

 

[dudalb]

Yes, we have had bad presidents before. People have been sure, with other presidents, that the USA was doomed. People have violently disliked other presidents as well.

If you look back through history, the USA has been pretty calm the last few decades.

As much as I despise Trump,agreed the doomsday crap is out of hand in this section.
At least three people are predicting what amounts to the dystopia portrayed in "The Hunger Games" series happening within the next few years.
Of course ultra pessimistic angst seems to be "Cool and Hip" at the moment,and that has a lot to do with it.

 

[theprestige]

I don't think direct popular vote is necessarily the way to go either. For one thing, it would mean that a recount in a close election would probably have to be conducted nationally county-by-county, a legal and practical nightmare. But there's nothing in the Constitution that requires all electoral votes to be awarded to one candidate. Allocating them in proportion to the state's popular vote -- as two states already have chosen to do -- gives voice to both parties in every state.

Both parties already have a voice in every state. They have a voice in their state legislatures and governors. They have voices in both chambers of the federal legislature.

 

[Bob001]

Both parties already have a voice in every state. They have a voice in their state legislatures and governors. They have voices in both chambers of the federal legislature.

President and VP are the only national offices that every American can vote for. Electoral votes are awarded by state, and the winner-take-all system means that the losing voters/party in any given state have no voice in the national outcome. That's the issue, and that's what proportional allocation of electoral votes would change.