SegwayChat
Home . Old Gallery

Go Back   SegwayChat > Other Topics > General Discussion

Notices

General Discussion Miscellaneous topics and for general social, non-Segway discussions.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-05-2008, 02:27 PM   #1
Eric Payne
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Super Duper Tuesday Politics

Interesting article on MSNBC concerning "Parliamentary Presidency."

Apparently, the members of the Senate, regardless of popular vote, may end up deciding this year's presidential election since both candidates are very likely to be current, seated United States Senators.

Unfortunately, I lost the link... but what it basically boiled down to is:

1) The popular vote determines the electoral vote for an individual state, the electoral vote for the state is an "all or nothing" for the candidate who wins the state.

2) The Electoral College is made up of the Senators for those states - say, for example, John McCain were to win the popular vote in New York, the Republican Senator from New York would, in the electoral college, cast New York's electoral vote for McCain. The Democrat Senator from New York would not be casting a vote...

Theoretically, the Congress convenes for its session a day prior to the Electoral College meeting to cast the electoral vote. If the electoral vote is cast, and it is a tie, the seated Vice President, as part of his duties as President of the Senate, breaks the tie.

The interesting part is the Electoral College is not bound by law to cast the electoral vote according to the popular vote - they may be honor bound by ethics, but not bound by law.

As MSNBC noted, the two candidates are, more likely than not, to be chosen by today's "Super Duper Tuesday" primary vote. In every other Presidential election to date, at this point in the election, candidates have begun a "this is what Congress wants to do, but this is what I want to do... and I will reign in Congress by doing this" type of campaign.

But since this is the first time in history both candidates for the Presidency will be current, seated members of Congress, MSNBC posits the candidates might have to "play to the Senate" to ensure the delegate count is cast according to the popular vote.

Now, it's my opinion, and my opinion only that the Electoral College serves a needed purpose - it prevents those states with large populations from dominating each and every election. However, I question whether individual states should have a differing number of electorates, since by giving one state 27 electoral votes and another 1 electoral vote, based on the population of that state, doesn't really make the vote "fair"; those states with a higher population are still, ultimately, controlling the vote.

So keep the Electoral College... but give each state ONE electoral vote. That way, as I see it, each and every individual state is equally important. Mandate, by law, the Electoral College vote must be cast according to the popular vote of the state involved. And, in the event of a tie, the presidency is given to the candidate of the party not currently in office; the vice-presidency is given to the presidential candidate of the other party.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2008, 03:05 PM   #2
BillPaxton
Member
BillPaxton is a jewel in the roughBillPaxton is a jewel in the roughBillPaxton is a jewel in the rough
 
BillPaxton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Jupiter, FL
Posts: 581
5 yr Member HT/PT Owner Segway Polo Player SegwayFest Attendee
Default Eliminate the Electoral College voting system - article

Selwyn Duke wrote an article a couple of weeks ago "An Attempt to Eliminate the Electoral Effect" (located here: http://www.jbs.org/node/6917) that explains how NJ's Gov. Corzine is trying to cancel the electoral vote so that the elections are decided on a simple majority. Duke goes on though, to explain what the media rarely does, specifically why taking such steps reduces dramatically the influence of smaller states.

So while I agree with the statement "keep the Electoral College" I think by allowing only one vote per state you would actually skew the voting power even further than the percentage caused by the current system. Not that it would wreck things to simply go to a popular vote (people may be more inclined to actually vote if this were the case), and does anyone really care if the politicians "ignore" their states while they are running? I for one wish we could keep them out of our state, they do nothing but mess up traffic and make the security lines longer at the airport.

They can always lie to me by recorded phone messages too, I don't need to see them on TV with some familiar background in my home county.
__________________

Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will teach you to keep your mouth shut. ~Ernest Hemingway
BillPaxton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2008, 03:25 PM   #3
KSagal
Glides a lot, talks more...
KSagal has much to be proud ofKSagal has much to be proud ofKSagal has much to be proud ofKSagal has much to be proud ofKSagal has much to be proud ofKSagal has much to be proud ofKSagal has much to be proud ofKSagal has much to be proud ofKSagal has much to be proud of
 
KSagal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Pelham, NH, USA.
Posts: 10,356
5 yr Member HT/PT Owner SegwayFest Attendee
Default

I may be over simplifying Eric's plan, but it seems that 10million votes from the heartland, or middle america may easily be spread over 10 states, and therefore garner 10 votes by his plan. The same 10million votes from the New York or LA area, would garner less than 1 vote. (Let's say that 10millon votes from the LA area vote one way, but the majority of the rest of the state of California like, from central to north Cali, go another direction, then those 10million get overvoted by 11million elsewhere, and the 10million go to zero)

This would put a far higher value on a vote from a less populated state than a more populated one.

It may be easier to convince a couple thousand voters in the Dakotas, and Wyoming and get 3 easy votes, than to convince tens of millions of votes in New York or San Fran, and maybe still get less than 1 vote)
__________________
Karl Ian Sagal

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"Well done is better than well said." (Ben Franklin)
Bene factum melior bene dictum

Proud past President of SEG America and member of the First Premier Segway Enthusiasts Group and subsequent ones as well.
KSagal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2008, 03:43 PM   #4
BillPaxton
Member
BillPaxton is a jewel in the roughBillPaxton is a jewel in the roughBillPaxton is a jewel in the rough
 
BillPaxton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Jupiter, FL
Posts: 581
5 yr Member HT/PT Owner Segway Polo Player SegwayFest Attendee
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KSagal View Post
This would put a far higher value on a vote from a less populated state than a more populated one.
yes you are precisely right - the problem is that the percentage of skewing is greater (the lesser populated states' votes are even MORE powerful, or conversely the more greatly populated states' votes are even further diluted) than the current system. Instead of Wyomingers having 5.5% of the voting power of Californians, they would have almost 10 times more voting power per person - this is REALLY not fair!

*edited for spelling
__________________

Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will teach you to keep your mouth shut. ~Ernest Hemingway
BillPaxton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2008, 04:21 PM   #5
Eric Payne
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KSagal View Post
This would put a far higher value on a vote from a less populated state than a more populated one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillPaxton View Post
yes you are precisely right - the problem is that the percentage of skewing is greater (the lesser populated states' votes are even MORE powerful, or conversely the more greatly populated states' votes are even further diluted) than the current system. Instead of Wyomingers having 5.5% of the voting power of Californians, they would have almost 10 times more voting power per person - this is REALLY not fair!
You're both right, and I'm ashamed to say that hadn't crossed my mind. Heck, if that were the case, then the Extreme Right, which has been attempting to control one of our political parties for a couple of decades now, would have had no problem at all in achieving their goal of a theocratic government, as it's in those less populated states where they've achieved the greatest political success.

So thinking some more... possibly change the "all or nothing" process of the Electoral College? Have the electoral vote of the state(s) reflect the percentages of the popular vote? Say a state with 10 electoral votes has 60% going to candidate A, 40% going to candidate B, the Electoral vote for that state is 6 and 4?
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2008, 05:17 PM   #6
Desert_Seg

Desert_Seg is a splendid one to beholdDesert_Seg is a splendid one to beholdDesert_Seg is a splendid one to beholdDesert_Seg is a splendid one to beholdDesert_Seg is a splendid one to beholdDesert_Seg is a splendid one to beholdDesert_Seg is a splendid one to behold
 
Desert_Seg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Dubai, United Arab Emirates.
Posts: 2,533
5 yr Member
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BillPaxton View Post
Selwyn Duke wrote an article a couple of weeks ago "An Attempt to Eliminate the Electoral Effect" (located here: http://www.jbs.org/node/6917) that explains how NJ's Gov. Corzine is trying to cancel the electoral vote so that the elections are decided on a simple majority. ...
Well, almost, but now quite.

It isn't Gov Corzine who is doing this (although he is leading the charge in NJ). However, is isn't just NJ. In fact, there are more than a dozen states that have passed, or trying to pass, similar laws, including Illinois (that's the only one that quickly comes to mined).

However, please be aware that for this to happen a majority of states (38) need to pass and ratify said law before it comes into effect.

Steven
Desert_Seg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2008, 07:42 PM   #7
BillPaxton
Member
BillPaxton is a jewel in the roughBillPaxton is a jewel in the roughBillPaxton is a jewel in the rough
 
BillPaxton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Jupiter, FL
Posts: 581
5 yr Member HT/PT Owner Segway Polo Player SegwayFest Attendee
Default

very true Steven, I didn't point it out because I didn't have time to look the others up and I happened to have Corzine formost in my mind.

As to Eric's latest point in the final paragraph, I think what you are proposing is more or less what madison hoped to achieve with the electoral process to begin with. The process definitely needs to be evaluated but I think its still a good sound system. Now if we could just get the independant party to carry a bit more weight...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Desert_Seg View Post
Well, almost, but now quite.

It isn't Gov Corzine who is doing this (although he is leading the charge in NJ). However, is isn't just NJ. In fact, there are more than a dozen states that have passed, or trying to pass, similar laws, including Illinois (that's the only one that quickly comes to mined).

However, please be aware that for this to happen a majority of states (38) need to pass and ratify said law before it comes into effect.

Steven
__________________

Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will teach you to keep your mouth shut. ~Ernest Hemingway
BillPaxton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2008, 08:31 PM   #8
KSagal
Glides a lot, talks more...
KSagal has much to be proud ofKSagal has much to be proud ofKSagal has much to be proud ofKSagal has much to be proud ofKSagal has much to be proud ofKSagal has much to be proud ofKSagal has much to be proud ofKSagal has much to be proud ofKSagal has much to be proud of
 
KSagal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Pelham, NH, USA.
Posts: 10,356
5 yr Member HT/PT Owner SegwayFest Attendee
Default

I really do think it is time for the simple popular vote to rule. The problem in the past had been the inability to confirm and gather the information.

With today's technology, it is easy.

I believe that the problem will lie in states that have overwhelming majorities in one party, like Massachusetts. We have between 85 and 90% Democrats here in the state house, but 55% of the voters are unenrolled (independent). That I believe is why we have had a Republican Govenor for several terms in a row. The first time a Dem was elected was when Romney left...

Anyway, when one party rules, they don't want to give it up. When the power shifts to the other, they feel the same way, if they were in the minority for 12 years, when the get the majority, the last thing they want to do is split the power and make it easier to loose their strangle hold, that they waited 12 years to get... And so on, and so on.

At this time, I believe it should simply be one person, one vote. That system is no more open to abuse than the current one, and the people get to be heard...

I also believe in a simple one vote. Top count goes to President. 2nd most goes to Vice President. If they are in different parties, tough. They have to work together in congress anyway. This way 51 % of key states do not have an undue influence, like it is now.

An alternative to that simple vote is something like I heard this morning, I believe Norway uses it...

Every person votes for 4 people, in order of first choice, 2nd, 3rd and 4th.

Any person that does not get 25% of the 1st place votes, gets their votes spread among the others, first going to 2nd place, then 3rd, etc...

This continues with a 33% cut-off. On second round, you have to have a minimum of 33% to get to the 3rd round...

The whole thing continues till a clear majority is reached. Takes longer to do the math, but all voting occurs once, and then it is done...

Both these systems have a simple one person equals one vote. It does give an advantage to the larger population centers, but because they do not allow a pularity of votes speak for the larger group, it is fair...

Now, it does not take a majority at all, it only takes a pularity. That is the largest amount of votes cast, relative to the other votes cast...

If 10million citizens live in town B, but only 5 million are registered to vote, and only 3 million show up, and three people are on that ballot, than a person may win that election with 1,000,001 votes. That 1 mil +1 votes then gets to go to Washington and represent the 10million people.

Another town of 7 million may have a similiar situation, and they have 6 mil vote, meaning it takes 2 mil to win the day, yet the influence at the end is less than the other guy who got the 1 mil votes...

I say 1 person, one vote, and no place allows winner take all.
__________________
Karl Ian Sagal

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"Well done is better than well said." (Ben Franklin)
Bene factum melior bene dictum

Proud past President of SEG America and member of the First Premier Segway Enthusiasts Group and subsequent ones as well.
KSagal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2008, 08:42 PM   #9
BillPaxton
Member
BillPaxton is a jewel in the roughBillPaxton is a jewel in the roughBillPaxton is a jewel in the rough
 
BillPaxton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Jupiter, FL
Posts: 581
5 yr Member HT/PT Owner Segway Polo Player SegwayFest Attendee
Default

I agree somewhat and I believe in the 1800's the winner became president and the loser vice president. The modern problem there is that the opposite party becomes speaker of the house and we end up with stalemates, vetoes [more than now I am guessing] and so on. I have never really been political, but now that I'm reaching 40 its hard not to. And I really don't like that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KSagal View Post
I really do think it is time for the simple popular vote to rule. The problem in the past had been the inability to confirm and gather the information.

With today's technology, it is easy.

I believe that the problem will lie in states that have overwhelming majorities in one party, like Massachusetts. We have between 85 and 90% Democrats here in the state house, but 55% of the voters are unenrolled (independent). That I believe is why we have had a Republican Govenor for several terms in a row. The first time a Dem was elected was when Romney left...

Anyway, when one party rules, they don't want to give it up. When the power shifts to the other, they feel the same way, if they were in the minority for 12 years, when the get the majority, the last thing they want to do is split the power and make it easier to loose their strangle hold, that they waited 12 years to get... And so on, and so on.

At this time, I believe it should simply be one person, one vote. That system is no more open to abuse than the current one, and the people get to be heard...

I also believe in a simple one vote. Top count goes to President. 2nd most goes to Vice President. If they are in different parties, tough. They have to work together in congress anyway. This way 51 % of key states do not have an undue influence, like it is now.

An alternative to that simple vote is something like I heard this morning, I believe Norway uses it...

Every person votes for 4 people, in order of first choice, 2nd, 3rd and 4th.

Any person that does not get 25% of the 1st place votes, gets their votes spread among the others, first going to 2nd place, then 3rd, etc...

This continues with a 33% cut-off. On second round, you have to have a minimum of 33% to get to the 3rd round...

The whole thing continues till a clear majority is reached. Takes longer to do the math, but all voting occurs once, and then it is done...

Both these systems have a simple one person equals one vote. It does give an advantage to the larger population centers, but because they do not allow a pularity of votes speak for the larger group, it is fair...

Now, it does not take a majority at all, it only takes a pularity. That is the largest amount of votes cast, relative to the other votes cast...

If 10million citizens live in town B, but only 5 million are registered to vote, and only 3 million show up, and three people are on that ballot, than a person may win that election with 1,000,001 votes. That 1 mil +1 votes then gets to go to Washington and represent the 10million people.

Another town of 7 million may have a similiar situation, and they have 6 mil vote, meaning it takes 2 mil to win the day, yet the influence at the end is less than the other guy who got the 1 mil votes...

I say 1 person, one vote, and no place allows winner take all.
__________________

Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will teach you to keep your mouth shut. ~Ernest Hemingway
BillPaxton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2008, 08:47 PM   #10
KSagal
Glides a lot, talks more...
KSagal has much to be proud ofKSagal has much to be proud ofKSagal has much to be proud ofKSagal has much to be proud ofKSagal has much to be proud ofKSagal has much to be proud ofKSagal has much to be proud ofKSagal has much to be proud ofKSagal has much to be proud of
 
KSagal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Pelham, NH, USA.
Posts: 10,356
5 yr Member HT/PT Owner SegwayFest Attendee
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BillPaxton View Post
I agree somewhat and I believe in the 1800's the winner became president and the loser vice president. The modern problem there is that the opposite party becomes speaker of the house and we end up with stalemates, vetoes [more than now I am guessing] and so on. I have never really been political, but now that I'm reaching 40 its hard not to. And I really don't like that.

Yes, but the reason the opposite party gets speaker of the house, is because the VP is speaker of the senate.

If you had a true popular vote as I outlined, there would be less stalemates, because a popular local third party candidate would have an ability to get elected and have an equal say.

Now, the two parties have a strangle hold and will not likely give it up.
__________________
Karl Ian Sagal

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"Well done is better than well said." (Ben Franklin)
Bene factum melior bene dictum

Proud past President of SEG America and member of the First Premier Segway Enthusiasts Group and subsequent ones as well.
KSagal is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

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 -4. The time now is 08:56 AM.
Copyright © 2002-2023 SegwayChat.org.
All rights reserved. Not affiliated with Segway Inc.

FreshBlue vBulletin skin by
VayaDesign
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SegwayChat Archive