Page 12 of 14 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 135

Thread: Seriously, 45 has the intelligence of maybe a 12 year old-and not a very bright one

  1. #111
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    6,198
    Does this apply to all systems? Or do you pick and choose your frustrating systems? After all, communism obviously frustrated the ambitions of a wide range of people.
    that may have been among it's few positives
    If you want something to get done, ask a busy person. If you want them to have a nervous breakdown that is.

  2. #112
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    3,431
    Quote Originally Posted by jp1 View Post
    How is it unchecked power if both sides are playing by the same rules in an election.
    In the case of the Electoral College, it mitigates against one or two populous regions from dominating the others. Does that violate a strict one-man-one-vote principle? Yes it does.

  3. #113
    Senior Member jp1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    3,100
    Quote Originally Posted by LDAHL View Post
    In the case of the Electoral College, it mitigates against one or two populous regions from dominating the others. Does that violate a strict one-man-one-vote principle? Yes it does.
    Except that that isn't really what it does. At least not any more. What it does is insure that the only states that receive attention from presidential candidates are those that have roughly equal numbers of conservatives and progressives.

  4. #114
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    3,431
    Quote Originally Posted by jp1 View Post
    Except that that isn't really what it does. At least not any more. What it does is insure that the only states that receive attention from presidential candidates are those that have roughly equal numbers of conservatives and progressives.
    Wouldn't that be the case whether we had an EC or not? Campaigns would go where they could shift the most undecided votes into their column.

  5. #115
    Senior Member jp1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    3,100
    Quote Originally Posted by LDAHL View Post
    Wouldn't that be the case whether we had an EC or not? Campaigns would go where they could shift the most undecided votes into their column.
    Not necessarily. Just because a state leans solidly one way or the other doesn't mean there will be less undecideds. Just that there aren't enough undecideds to tip the balance in a winner take all situation. California is solidly blue, but 21% of voters are in the middle. Ohio is more equally split between republican and democrat but has only 18% undecided. In a one person one vote situation 21% of California is a whole lot more people than 18% of Ohio. But both states, and in fact pretty much all the states, have enough undecideds that candidates would likely care about the whole country if they were planning to run in a one person one vote presidential election.

    http://www.pewforum.org/religious-la...tion/by/state/

  6. #116
    Simpleton Alan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    4,898
    As a legal concept, one person one vote has never applied to Presidential contests due to the Electoral College and it is not used in the Senate due to it's limit of two representatives per state. The concept is only used as a means to ensure adequate representation in the House of Representatives where districts are drawn and re-drawn to represent the changes in population.

    I suppose in a pure Democracy, one person one vote would rule the day in all contests, but by remarkable foresight, we are not that.
    "Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein

  7. #117
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    2,103
    Quote Originally Posted by jp1 View Post
    How is it unchecked power if both sides are playing by the same rules in an election.
    They share :-) Don't know about you, but both "sides" are more likely to sit down to dinner with each other than to sit down and socialize with someone like me.

  8. #118
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    3,431
    Quote Originally Posted by jp1 View Post
    Not necessarily. Just because a state leans solidly one way or the other doesn't mean there will be less undecideds. Just that there aren't enough undecideds to tip the balance in a winner take all situation. California is solidly blue, but 21% of voters are in the middle. Ohio is more equally split between republican and democrat but has only 18% undecided. In a one person one vote situation 21% of California is a whole lot more people than 18% of Ohio. But both states, and in fact pretty much all the states, have enough undecideds that candidates would likely care about the whole country if they were planning to run in a one person one vote presidential election.

    http://www.pewforum.org/religious-la...tion/by/state/
    I see your logic, and it makes a lot of sense. Even a solid blue state could have some stubbornly GOP counties.

    Absent an EC, clever campaigns would probably focus on media markets with the highest proportions of historically switchable votes.

  9. #119
    Senior Member jp1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    3,100
    Quote Originally Posted by Alan View Post
    As a legal concept, one person one vote has never applied to Presidential contests due to the Electoral College and it is not used in the Senate due to it's limit of two representatives per state. The concept is only used as a means to ensure adequate representation in the House of Representatives where districts are drawn and re-drawn to represent the changes in population.

    I suppose in a pure Democracy, one person one vote would rule the day in all contests, but by remarkable foresight, we are not that.
    Yes, so important it is to have a small random subset of states be more important than all the others for purposes of electing the president, including the three most populous ones that have over 25% of the nations population. It must be nice for the voters of Indiana and Ohio and so forth to know that unlike their fellow citizens in CA and TX and NY their votes actually matter and could possibly affect the outcome of the election.

  10. #120
    Simpleton Alan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    4,898
    Quote Originally Posted by jp1 View Post
    Yes, so important it is to have a small random subset of states be more important than all the others for purposes of electing the president, including the three most populous ones that have over 25% of the nations population. It must be nice for the voters of Indiana and Ohio and so forth to know that unlike their fellow citizens in CA and TX and NY their votes actually matter and could possibly affect the outcome of the election.
    Your vote mattered in California, mine mattered in Ohio. California delivered 20% of the electoral votes Clinton needed to win the election while Ohio delivered 6% of the electoral votes she needed to lose. California's out-sized influence dwarfed Ohio's and she still lost, maybe she should have paid more attention to the smaller states.
    "Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •