Electoral College obsolete?

[Doodler]

Not to get into the specifics of the current election mess, but with two races coming down to this kind of nonsense, is the electoral college really serving a purpose anymore?

Did it ever really serve a purpose?

[iFire]

It keeps the direct vote out of the hands of the "common people". Leftovers from the "good 'ol days". :roll:

[Humphrey]

See discussion here (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=17393)

[tofu]

Not to get into the specifics of the current election mess,
Agreed. Let's keep the conversation hypothetical and not talk about one party or the other. :)

but with two races coming down to this kind of nonsense, is the electoral college really serving a purpose anymore?

It is serving two vital purposes right now. One: it actually helps prevent fraud. There are some areas of the country that are just absolutely corrupt. To avoid having a flame war, let me just make this a hypothetical. Lets say we have a city named Atlantis and in Atlantis, everybody knows there is a tremendous amount of organized crime. It's so bad there, that the voting process is absolutely a joke. The mob bosses throw out all the actual votes that are cast and replace them with made up votes. What can you do about it? You can send in lawyer or police, but they are both bought off by the mob. There's no way around it. Every election, Atlantis gets 110% voter turn-out and all the votes go to candidate A.

In a general popular election, that fraud mess up the whole system. But with the electoral voting system, the most the organized crime people can do is deliver their few electoral votes. Then the effect of their fraud stops.

Here's another hypothetical example. Let's say that at MicroSoft there are 10 administrative departments with 10 employees each. They decide to vote on whether or not Microsoft employees should use Linux on their desktops. The first 10 departments vote honestly and the total is Linux 20, Windows 70. But the last department cheats and returns 51 Linux, 0 Windows. So the total by popular vote is 71 Linux 70 windows. "Wait just a minute," you say. "There are only 100 people in the organization." Yeah, I know. Like I said, they cheated. "Well, just throw out that department's votes." Ok, but then you've disenfranchised someone. And if this was a national election involving 300 million people, you couldn't revote either. But, if you used an electoral college method, the fraud would be contained and wouldn't have as big an effect.

The second vital purpose of the electoral college is that it limits the places where those messy lawsuits will occur. In general, you'll only have lawsuits where in a few swing states. In a popular election, you'd have lawsuits all over the place and it would take a lot longer to sort out.

So, your question called the current situation nonsense. I would argue that the electoral college actually limits the amount of nonsense we have to live through.

Did it ever really serve a purpose?

In general, the purpose that it serves is to ensure that the candidate that wins has a consistent performance across the entire country. If we went by popular vote alone it would be possible, indeed likely, that you could win the election just by promising that all citizens of cities will get free subway tokens for life. That's a partially humorous example, but it illustrates the point. You could campaign on an issue that would only benefit a minority of people and yet still win the popular vote.

But with the electoral college in place, you absolutely have to go to smaller states and talk about issues that are important to them as well. You can't blow them off because to win, you have to perform consistently across the entire nation.

Another way to look at it is this: imagine that the Cardinals had won game 1 of the world series and scored 30 runs (I'm not a big baseball fan). But then the red sox won all the other games. If the total number of runs the cardinals scored was still more than the total that the red sox scored, should the cardinals win the series? No, I don't think so. They got lucky in that first game, but the red sox played consistently better. The electoral college system is a lot like that.

[A Thousand Pardons]

Did it ever really serve a purpose?
Still does. See Humphrey's link

[Ut]

I'll say this here, and then wander off in confusion...

I don't understand why winning the vote in a state (for most states, anyway) results in getting all EVs from that state, regardless of the margin of victory. California gets 55 EVs. Let's just pretend that it's really, really close in California, with Kerry winning by ~1%. It's not really a representative system if Kerry gets 100% of the Electoral Votes.

Also, it really bothers me that not all EVs are worth the same number of popular votes.

Ooo! Something shiny over there!

*stumbles away*

[Doodler]

I'll say this here, and then wander off in confusion...

I don't understand why winning the vote in a state (for most states, anyway) results in getting all EVs from that state, regardless of the margin of victory. California gets 55 EVs. Let's just pretend that it's really, really close in California, with Kerry winning by ~1%. It's not really a representative system if Kerry gets 100% of the Electoral Votes.

Also, it really bothers me that not all EVs are worth the same number of popular votes.

Ooo! Something shiny over there!

*stumbles away*

That's kinda what irked me. I'm a Republican in Maryland, and even though I tow the party line for the Presidency, the fact that Maryland is a legendary Democratic stronghold leaves me feeling like I wasted my time voting.

[Demigrog]

That's kinda what irked me. I'm a Republican in Maryland, and even though I tow the party line for the Presidency, the fact that Maryland is a legendary Democratic stronghold leaves me feeling like I wasted my time voting.

But on the bright side, the "solid" states get less campaign advertising, which is a definate plus for residents of those states. :)

The Electoral College also helps normalize voter turnout. This is good because if a party has a stronghold city or state, they could concentrate their get-out-the-vote efforts there and skew the results of the national popular vote in a way similar to tofu's fraud argument--but without actually committing fraud.

[A Thousand Pardons]

Also, it really bothers me that not all EVs are worth the same number of popular votes.
It's a little extra bonus for winning more states.

For a hypothetical, let's go with the current numbers, but assume (like in 2000, ignoring New Hampshire) that Kerry wins New Mexico and Iowa, with Ohio going to Bush. Then Bush takes the popular vote by 3 and a half million, wins the electoral vote by 274 to 264, and wins thirty states.

Without otherwise changing the system, or the numbers, if you throw away the two electors per state that are not apportioned by population (the ones representing the Senate seats), then Bush still wins the popular vote, the number of states in the Bush column does not change, but Bush loses the electoral vote by 8 votes.

[Musashi]

Not to get into the specifics of the current election mess, but with two races coming down to this kind of nonsense, is the electoral college really serving a purpose anymore?

Did it ever really serve a purpose?

What kind of nonsense is going on in this election? I must have missed it. As far as I can tell, Bush will have the EC votes and his popular vote count is higher than Kerry's.

[Humphrey]

First and foremost: I will not under any circumstances say who should of won or who rightly won. This is not in any way the purpise of this thread. I would be making the exact same argument no matter who won.



O.K. in the other thread i was defending switching to a popular voting system and i will here too. Read the thread for more detailed examples of what i am saying so here is the gist:

Forst of all, tofu you make some of the best evidence for keeping the EC i have seen to date with the lawsuit and pandering ideas. The buying of votes i think is just too out there for todays election process and the amount of oversight in many contested areas. It might happen, but i do not think it will happen to a degree that will challenge a vote. For example there was reports of absentee balots in Florida being dumped by a certain agency. It was investigated and im not really sure how the investigation went, but in reality the number thrown out was still smaller than the margin of victory, so there is no real point to arguing about it.

Now onto my argument. These past two elections have both been decided in several areas by less than a single percentage point of the voters. Overall (numbers are not tottaly in yet) From msnbc.com as of this posting:
Total votes (for the two top people): 113455794 with 391,514 Going to Nader.
Difference between the two top people is: 3,523,936
That is 3.11% overall difference
A 3% difference is a very small percentage of voters going for one candidate more than the other.
The 2000 election was even closer with less than a million deciding.

My main argument is this: With elections so close in many areas and the politicizing and activation of the rural areas like today every vote does count in many of the elections. A national popular vote can be decided byt a single state with these turnouts. No longer would the candidates focus on the large EC states while ignoring their political base (states that generally vote for their side) or ignore states with relatively few EC points. Now instead of just squeeking by and trying to win a greater percentage of a equally divided state to gain all of its EC points they have to get a many poeple to vote as possible. The states now said to be "sure losses" for one candidate will be fair game if even a small group of their voters reside in that state. And Sure victorys will have to be defended from their opponent doing the opposite.

There is also the idea that some votes are "worth" more than others. Take this for example from the other thread.
For example at the time of the posting according to CNN:
Bush had:
EC:193
Vote: 23,276,855

Kerry:
EC: 112
Vote: 21,448,707

Thus a 2 million difference in votes leads to a 80 difference in the EC.

Some state must have a large majoroty of EC points with a small population. Meaning their votes count more than someone in another state.

Then we get to the idea that entry of a thrid party will also be much easier.

Sure lawsuits will happen, but I still feel the nagatives are outweighted by the positives.

[Humphrey]

Well thats a mind numbing rambling on my part if i ever saw one. Sorry. I hope you can get what i mean.

[Jpax2003]

The electoral college exists because we have (nominally) sovereign state governments. If we got rid of the EC, we might only be able to do it by dissolving every state government. We have an EC for the same reason we have a congress and senate, a federal form of government. That is, a government that shares power between the central and state gorvernments. Look at it this way, we have one congress/senate to make laws, and we have another congress to elect the president.

edited to add:
Well thats a mind numbing rambling on my part if i ever saw one. Sorry. I hope you can get what i mean.One "long-winded" writer to another, I followed it. :)

[Darkwing]

Another reason for the EC is to support the sovereignty of the individual states. The founding fathers gave a lot of power to the individual states for a reason--to balance that of the Federal government. It's also why each state has two senate seats and a number of representatives to the House based on their population. Removing the EC would put the less populous states even more at the mercy of the more populous ones.

If we get rid of the EC, one could also argue that we should also get rid of the senate rule of having 2 senators per state and make representation in the Congress exclusively based on population. This is an issue of States' Rights.

Edit: Jpax--you beat me by one minute! Grr... :evil:

[Humphrey]

But with a 3 million vote difference, shwo me a small state that could not figure largely into that?

This is not the time of large majoroty beating a small minoroty. In the mid 20th century, heck even in the '88, '92, and '96 elections that argument could of worked. But today it does not.

[Humphrey]

I cant chage how people voted, but im dissapointed in how they voted for the Same sex marriage issue.
That is the major flaw in my idea of popular vote. People are absolute morons when they vote.

But then again in a majoroty of the states the EC votes based on popular vote. So its the exact same problem.

[Jpax2003]

But with a 3 million vote difference, shwo me a small state that could not figure largely into that?

This is not the time of large majoroty beating a small minoroty. In the mid 20th century, heck even in the '88, '92, and '96 elections that argument could of worked. But today it does not.Humphrey, you do know that in the 1992 (http://www.presidentelect.org/e1992.html) election, the candidate who won only got 43% of all votes cast, right? Although the difference was over 5 million votes, it was one minority beating a smaller minority.

[Jpax2003]

I cant chage how people voted, but im dissapointed in how they voted for the Same sex marriage issue.
That is the major flaw in my idea of popular vote. People are absolute morons when they vote.

But then again in a majoroty of the states the EC votes based on popular vote. So its the exact same problem.You're not suggesting that all people who voted are morons, or even that all those people who have different opinions than you and voted their conscience are morons, are you? I respected you Humphrey... :-?

[russ_watters]

I'm not sure this thread is kosher, so I'll limit my response to some math:But with a 3 million vote difference, show me a small state that could not figure largely into that? Wyoming has a population of 500,000 and about 237,000 voted. North Dakota, 630,000 and 306,000. South Dakota, 740,000 and 381,000. (Total votes in the country, about 115 million.)

Add them together and that's 9 electoral votes for 924,000 people or about 1.7% of the electoral vote for 0.8% of the population.

A 10% swing of those voters (a rather large swing) amounts to 92,000 people. That's a trivial 3% of the margin of victory, whereas those 9 electoral votes (an 18 vote swing if they went the other way) would account for about half the margin of victory.

That's why we have the electoral college and that's why its a winner-take-all system: it makes every state relevant.

[Humphrey]

JPax: You know what i really ment. That is putting words in my mouth.

My opinion of the same- sex issues is that those who vote for it are hypoctires. they state that they are for freedom, yet deny that right to others in their own state.

Others vote based on party politics and nuthing else without knowing the issues or forming opinions on what the candidates stand for.

Both of those above i consider "Moronic".

And i never said that people who have a dissenting opinion of me are wrong or stupid. Thats a generaliztion thats untrue. You are more than welcome to have a informed opinion. Thats highly suggested. I especialy welcome one thats opposite mine, as long as its infomred.

[edit] Reading over my above post i can see how jpax now too it in a harsh manner. I apologize, i did not mean to to be that extreame. I mearly ment wjhat i said above. Some People vote with a uninfomred opinion, thats stupid in my view. Sorry i did not have a qualifyer like some. I assumed people understood thats what i ment.

[A Thousand Pardons]

Take this for example from the other thread.
For example at the time of the posting according to CNN:
Bush had:
EC:193
Vote: 23,276,855

Kerry:
EC: 112
Vote: 21,448,707

Thus a 2 million difference in votes leads to a 80 difference in the EC.

Some state must have a large majoroty of EC points with a small population.
I think that's a bad example, and even worse conclusion. It appears that you pulled it from the middle of the election analysis, right? But the vote counts are actual votes counted--whereas the electoral votes are projected. In other words, Wyoming's three electoral votes went into the Bush column as soon as the first few votes were counted. That causes even less of a direct relationship, than is caused by the two "extra" electoral votes that come from the senate seats.
But with a 3 million vote difference, shwo me a small state that could not figure largely into that?
You do know that Wyoming only had 240,000 voters this election? And "only" 69% of them voted for one of the candidates--I think only Utah had a higher percentage. That means that Bush gained less than a hundred thousand votes in Wyoming. The entire state has less than a million population.

[Humphrey]

I'm not sure this thread is kosher, so I'll limit my response to some math:But with a 3 million vote difference, show me a small state that could not figure largely into that? Wyoming has a population of 500,000 and about 237,000 voted. North Dakota, 630,000 and 306,000. South Dakota, 740,000 and 381,000. (Total votes in the country, about 115 million.)

Add them together and that's 9 electoral votes for 924,000 people or about 1.7% of the electoral vote for 0.8% of the population.

A 10% swing of those voters (a rather large swing) amounts to 92,000 people. That's a trivial 3% of the margin of victory, whereas those 9 electoral votes (an 18 vote swing if they went the other way) would account for about half the margin of victory.

That's why we have the electoral college and that's why its a winner-take-all system: it makes every state relevant.Very good argument there. The numbers do not lie at all. So you have shown me and proved that a small state in this election would not of mattered based on popular vote if every single one of them went for the other candidate.

So now how about the wieight of the votes that the EC gives? How about my stated statistic above on how a 2 million difference resulted in a 80 vote difference?


P.S. i would just like to say this again sicne i feel some are getting the wrong idea about my defense of the popular vote. I am NOT making this because Bush won. I am making this because i feel that the Electoral vote is flawed.

[Humphrey]

I think that's a bad example, and even worse conclusion. It appears that you pulled it from the middle of the election analysis, right? But the vote counts are actual votes counted--whereas the electoral votes are projected. In other words, Wyoming's three electoral votes went into the Bush column as soon as the first few votes were counted. That causes even less of a direct relationship, than is caused by the two "extra" electoral votes that come from the senate seats.
I do not understand what you mean. :-?

[Jpax2003]

JPax: You know what i really ment. That is putting words in my mouth.OK, that's why I was asking, so that I wouldn't put words in your mouth.

[A Thousand Pardons]

So now how about the wieight of the votes that the EC gives? How about my stated statistic above on how a 2 million difference resulted in a 80 vote difference?

I hope my post answered that question. In projecting results, a small number of votes does sometimes have large consequences--but that's only during the projection.

P.S. i would just like to say this again sicne i feel some are getting the wrong idea about my defense of the popular vote. I am NOT making this because Bush won. I am making this because i feel that the Electoral vote is flawed.
When you get to be my age, you'll understand :)

PS: Oops, I see that my explanation did not help. OK, say that the first state to be analyzed was Califorado. Since it is a strong green state, and the exit polls confirmed that, the analysts were able to post all 80 of its electoral votes to the green party as soon as three million votes were counted. So, there is an 80 point, three million vote, difference--but it has no real relationship to the actual population of Califorado.

[dvb]

I'll say this here, and then wander off in confusion...

I don't understand why winning the vote in a state (for most states, anyway) results in getting all EVs from that state, regardless of the margin of victory. California gets 55 EVs. Let's just pretend that it's really, really close in California, with Kerry winning by ~1%. It's not really a representative system if Kerry gets 100% of the Electoral Votes.

I was also wondering the same thing, and I haven't seen the question really answered on this yet.

[Humphrey]

Yah sorry about that man. I just did not want to be considered extream like that. Thus my apology in the edit. I understand how it could be considered a generalization, but i assumed most of you knew me and that i did not mean every single voter.

Personally ill tell you what im thinking as of this moment. Both sides have good ideas. The EC as shown above (and me wrong) that small states, even today) matter more.

But i still beleive that the idea is wrong in that even with a dissenting opinion your vote will not matter in any way if your state goes the opposing way. Meaning, If you live in a state that is normally heavily one sided, your oposing vote does not matter since it will go to the other person anyways. When in a popular vote, yuo will help.


So lets start this thread being constructive rather than bickering.

How could we fix it? Does everyone agree that iot needs to be fixed or do you think it should stay the exact same?

Require instead all votes going to a candidate, but rather only a number equyal to their percentage of the popular votes?


[edit] Also i would like to say i am doing this in seeing that some of my thinking was flawed, and i said that above. So there is no point in making any of you angry at me because i would hate to make enemies of you guys. I still believe that the EC is outdate, but just not as strongly as before. And like i said above it does have its positive and weak points. Same with the popular vote. ]

[Humphrey]

PS: Oops, I see that my explanation did not help. OK, say that the first state to be analyzed was Califorado. Since it is a strong green state, and the exit polls confirmed that, the analysts were able to post all 80 of its electoral votes to the green party as soon as three million votes were counted. So, there is an 80 point, three million vote, difference--but it has no real relationship to the actual population of Califorado.

I did not understand what you ment above. This explanation helps more. So let me see if i got it right:

The numbers on Cnn were not actual numbers but a combination of exit polls and projections. Meaning the real official numbers were in limbo and could be the exact opposite?

[A Thousand Pardons]

I was also wondering the same thing, and I haven't seen the question really answered on this yet.
I think it's a decision by each state. But it's kind of a runaway condition--once a party has a majority and can control how electoral votes are allocated, the idea that all the electoral votes should go to the majority still looks very enticing.

I did not understand what you ment above. This explanation helps more. So let me see if i got it right:

The numbers on Cnn were not actual numbers but a combination of exit polls and projections. Meaning the real official numbers were in limbo and could be the exact opposite?
But the vote counts were actual--which means that the smaller, incompete, returns leveraged an even greater number of electoral votes, at that time.

[Disinfo Agent]

Is anyone familiar with Alan Natapoff’s argument (http://www.avagara.com/e_c/reference/00012001.htm) that the Electoral College proccess actually gives more power to individual voters than a direct vote would?
(I’ve never looked into it closely myself.)

[A Thousand Pardons]

Is anyone familiar with Alan Natapoff’s argument (http://www.avagara.com/e_c/reference/00012001.htm) that the Electoral College proccess actually gives more power to individual voters than a direct vote would?
(I’ve never looked into it closely myself.)
tofu kinda mentioned it earlier, the baseball analogy (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=359236#359236).

I like where he says, without the electoral votes, "our democracy might well have fallen apart long ago into warring factions."

[Humphrey]

So i guess i tottaly lost this one huh? I know when ive lost and i think being stubborn beyond this is stupid.
#-o

Sigh...Ill stick with stuff i really know about. Too bad we dont get many Anthro stuff here. :-) That and stupid comical sayings. :-)

But i still would at least like some constructive arguments out of this.

[Disinfo Agent]

I like where he says, without the electoral votes, "our democracy might well have fallen apart long ago into warring factions."
It must take more than 150 years for that to happen, otherwise all the other democracies in the world would have fallen apart by now. :wink:

[dvb]

So lets start this thread being constructive rather than bickering.

How could we fix it? Does everyone agree that iot needs to be fixed or do you think it should stay the exact same?

Require instead all votes going to a candidate, but rather only a number equyal to their percentage of the popular votes?

Well, not to sound patronizing or anything, but the structure of the Canadian government seems to work really good in a federal election.

When I vote, it's for a representative of a party for my local juristiction. Each party representative who is elected gets a seat in the house of commons. There are currently 308 seats in the house of commons. The Prime Minister is the party leader of which ever party has the majority of seats in the house of commons. The number of party representatives per province is based on area and population, and multiple parties can each have seats in the same province, which is in the end, decided by the people of their local juristiction. This method of voting avoids fraud pretty much all together as well.

I'm sure the political system here is strikingly similar to the one used in the UK as we kinda stole it way back when. ;)

Now I'm not sure how much the Senators of each state actually represent their state, but once the voting is done here, each representative that's been elected has a job to do in the house of commons. Once they're elected into the house, they're called members of parliament (MP), and debate issues that concern their local communities. It's not at all uncommon to see 2 different parties representing 2 communities side by side which is often the case. None of this one party takes all kind of stuff.

Just sharing my view, and I'm in no way trying to enforce my opinions, or saying that this is the way the American government should be, or that it's better. Just trying to broaden the spectrum.

[A Thousand Pardons]

I like where he says, without the electoral votes, "our democracy might well have fallen apart long ago into warring factions."
It must take more than 150 years for that to happen, otherwise all the other democracies in the world would have fallen apart by now.
some of them have similar systems--check out dvb's post

[Gramma loreto]

A national popular vote can be decided byt a single state with these turnouts.

Based on this statement, it appears to me that while advocating a popular vote, you haven't fully transitioned your mindset from the EC process. Under the EC system, electoral votes are inextricably tied to each state. With a purely popular vote, state lines become largely meaningless for purposes of campaigning. Instead, IMO, the emphasis will be on areas of higher population density...places where campaign money can be spent more effectively for a higher return in votes.

Now instead of just squeeking by and trying to win a greater percentage of a equally divided state to gain all of its EC points they have to get a many poeple to vote as possible.

Another astute poster pointed out that this is also a states' rights issue. The states have the right to determine how their electoral votes come into play. They can in fact award electoral votes in proportion to the state's popular vote. The people of Colorado considered it and voted it down.

Then we get to the idea that entry of a thrid party will also be much easier.

...and a fourth...and a fifth...etc. The EC also serves to moderate the politics of the election. Making it too easy to allow additional candidates also makes it too easy to allow fringe, radical candidates to influence vote distribution. Currently, the EC system encourages a third party candidate to get on the ballot and campaign in virtually all states in order to be competitive. Under a popular vote system, such a candidate could concentrate solely on the major population areas and still have a chance.

The EC also requires a clear majority to win the office. A popular vote with too many candidates could result in a President being voted into office with merely more votes than the other candidates, which could be much less than a majority vote. I wouldn't be comfortable with a President taking office based a 28% (for instance) share of the vote. If the putative popular vote system required a majority, as some state elections do, then we'd be faced with the possibility of runoff elections, further protracting (and inflating the expense of) our election process.

As I indicated in the other thread (I think I did, anyway), the EC system gives weight to individuals and the states. People's interests, concerns, priorities, and values do vary by region. Consider the 2000 election. If the popular vote had carried the day then, 677 counties would have elected a President not supported by a majority of people in 2,434 other counties. To me, that is a more disturbing disparity than your example of a 2-3% margin of victory gaining all the EC votes in any given state. To me, it represents the tyranny of the majority (something the framers abhorred) in that it would have resulted in concentrated areas of population having too much influence over large swaths of the country.

The EC allows me to vote for my President in my state with the resulting EC votes reflecting the will of the people in my state. It remains true that states with larger populations still outweigh our EC votes but it's not quite as overwhelming as it would be with a strictly popular vote.

[Disinfo Agent]

some of them have similar systems--check out dvb's post
Yes, I should have said "other democracies", not "all the other democracies".

[wedgebert]

The EC also requires a clear majority to win the office. A popular vote with too many candidates could result in a President being voted into office with merely more votes than the other candidates, which could be much less than a majority vote. I wouldn't be comfortable with a President taking office based a 28% (for instance) share of the vote. If the putative popular vote system required a majority, as some state elections do, then we'd be faced with the possibility of runoff elections, further protracting (and inflating the expense of) our election process.

But the EC still allows for this. As long as that 28% of the vote is enough to win the electoral votes. You win with a majority of the electoral votes, but still only 28% of the popular votes.

[SeanF]

I don't understand why winning the vote in a state (for most states, anyway) results in getting all EVs from that state, regardless of the margin of victory. California gets 55 EVs. Let's just pretend that it's really, really close in California, with Kerry winning by ~1%. It's not really a representative system if Kerry gets 100% of the Electoral Votes.
Of course it is. It's just not an absolutely representative system - but, then, the only thing that would be is a straight popular vote.

It must take more than 150 years for that to happen, otherwise all the other democracies in the world would have fallen apart by now.
What are the democracies that have been around for more than 150 years who elect their president (or whatever they call them) by a popular vote of the entire nation?

Are there many? Of any significant size?

I'm genuinely curious.

[snowcelt]

In 1854AD there not many democracies of any size.

The UK is the only one I can think of. Canada had a responsible government, but would not become independent for another 13 years. I believe that France was a Monarchy, with minimal power invested in the people. The Swiss come to mind. There were many Republics in the Western Hemisphere; but, I do not think you could call any of these countries democracies.

If one wants to get picky, there were no democracies until the enfranchisement of women. The Swiss example comes to mind again. Switzerland never gave the vote to women until the 70s.

The Americans, by far, have been the longest continuing democracy in the world.

[Disinfo Agent]

What are the democracies that have been around for more than 150 years who elect their president (or whatever they call them) by a popular vote of the entire nation?

Are there many? Of any significant size?

I'm genuinely curious.
I think most current democracies elect their presidents by a direct plurality rather than through an electoral college, though to be honest this is just something I remember reading, I haven't checked it.

I know that the first European republics originated somewhere in the mid 19th century, so that's where the "150" figure comes from. (*)

But my comment was mostly humorous. I find it hard to believe that a democratic country will disintegrate just because it has adopted an electoral system comme ci instead of comme ça. :)

(*) Though technically some of them had intermissions, like France in World War II. The current French republic is officially the Fourth (the Third (http://faculty.ucc.edu/egh-damerow/third_french_republic.htm) was founded in 1870, and it hesitated between monarchy and republic for some years).

[Humphrey]

Well we could solve it all by electing me to lifetime leader. I promise to rule failrly to most. :-) :-P

Is there another place with a Electoral system exactly like the U.S.? Meaning the govt's instituted in Iraq and Afghanistan, are they the same system? Other countries?

If so, how do they feel about it and how does it work for them?

[pumpkinpie]

Well we could solve it all by electing me to lifetime leader. I promise to rule failrly to most. :-) :-P

Is there another place with a Electoral system exactly like the U.S.? Meaning the govt's instituted in Iraq and Afghanistan, are they the same system? Other countries?

If so, how do they feel about it and how does it work for them?

Didn't all BABBlers in the US write-in Humphrey? I know I did.... :wink:

[SeanF]

Well we could solve it all by electing me to lifetime leader. I promise to rule failrly to most. :-) :-P

Is there another place with a Electoral system exactly like the U.S.? Meaning the govt's instituted in Iraq and Afghanistan, are they the same system? Other countries?

If so, how do they feel about it and how does it work for them?
Neither Afghanistan nor Iraq is the same as the U.S. system, as far as I know.

As far as I know, the U.K., Canadian, and Australian methods of selecting their Prime Ministers differs from our method of selecting President only in that we elect a specific group of people to elect the President - they just let their regular representatives do it.

[Humphrey]

Well we could solve it all by electing me to lifetime leader. I promise to rule failrly to most. :-) :-P

Is there another place with a Electoral system exactly like the U.S.? Meaning the govt's instituted in Iraq and Afghanistan, are they the same system? Other countries?

If so, how do they feel about it and how does it work for them?

Didn't all BABBlers in the US write-in Humphrey? I know I did.... :wink:

If i ever get a chance to vote and i like nobody running for senate, Humphrey is going to be running as a senator. I can promise him at least one vote. :-) Then if Arnold ever gets that amendment thought allowing non native born citizens, hes going for president. :-) [of course only if i do not like any candidate at all. Don;t want to waste my vote :-) ]

Hmm...I guess i should start making the add now wont i? We only have a few years till the next election! :-P

[Bob B.]

There is also the idea that some votes are "worth" more than others. Take this for example from the other thread.
For example at the time of the posting according to CNN:
Bush had:
EC:193
Vote: 23,276,855

Kerry:
EC: 112
Vote: 21,448,707

Thus a 2 million difference in votes leads to a 80 difference in the EC.

Some state must have a large majoroty of EC points with a small population. Meaning their votes count more than someone in another state.
There is an error in your logic. The EC count is only for those states in which a winner had already been projected, while the popular vote is for the entire nation, including those states that were going Kerry's way but had not yet been declared by the networks. To say 23,276,855 votes = 193 EC and 21,448,707 votes = 112 EC is not valid. As I recall, it was not long after the early 193-112 lead that a large group of states were projected for Kerry and the EC gap suddenly closed to a small margin. The updated projections were more indicative of what we were seeing in the popular vote to that point.

[Kebsis]

It keeps the direct vote out of the hands of the "common people". Leftovers from the "good 'ol days". :roll:

I wonder where this idea started? I've heard many people argue that the electoral college only exists because George Washington and his friends didn't think average people were smart enough to make a good decision. An idea that runs completely tangent to what the Founding Fathers had been arguing for years prior and started a war over.

Even my history teacher in high school gave the class that explanation of the EC's existance. And that was pre-2000 election.

[russ_watters]

So now how about the wieight of the votes that the EC gives? How about my stated statistic above on how a 2 million difference resulted in a 80 vote difference? I don't know if I trust your numbers, but the spread can be seen from mine anyway. Either way, the fact that small states get a higher proportion of electoral votes than their population is the entire reason the electoral college exists. And I consider that reason to still be relevant.

[dvb]

As far as I know, the U.K., Canadian, and Australian methods of selecting their Prime Ministers differs from our method of selecting President only in that we elect a specific group of people to elect the President - they just let their regular representatives do it.

Not quite sure what you mean by that. Basically we vote for a local representative that represents a party. The Prime Minister is the leader of the party that wins the majority of seats in the house. Even the Prime Minister is a representative of a local community. So you're right in saying that we still indirectly vote for our leader, but the representative we vote for has no more leverage in their own vote than the people. The decision on who becomes Prime Minister is based purly on the number of seats won by a party in the house of commons, which is directly based on the peoples vote.

The interesting thing about the political system here right now, is that Canada is currently a minority government. This means that no single party has more than 50% of the seats in the house. There are currently 4 major parties in Canada, and the Liberal party with 135 of 308 seats is currently the dominant party of the 4. Since the Liberal party has less than 50% of the seats, they have less power which makes it harder to pass legislation. Having a minority government requires parties to agree with each other to pass legislation, and often nothing gets done at all. If anything, there's more heated debates than solutions or actions brought forth in a minority government. The bright side of things is that if your party didn't win the majority of seats, they'll still have a lot more say in what goes on in the government, rather than it just being one sided and ruled by one party.

[Maksutov]

Did it ever really serve a purpose?
Still does. See Humphrey's link
No it doesn't. The electoral College is like a ticking time bomb that will eventually go off. It almost did this election.

Let's look at yesterday's election with just a slight change in the votes in one state.

Here are the national election results for the popular vote:

59,020,179 - Bush
55,437,651 - Kerry

Here are the electoral votes minus Iowa.

279 - Bush
252 - Kerry

Let's look at Iowa which has 7 electoral votes.

745,742 - Bush
732,492 - Kerry

Let's give Bush Iowa.

Therefore, re electoral votes

286 - Bush
252 - Kerry

Now let's look at the popular vote in Ohio, with its 20 electoral votes.

2,796,147 - Bush
2,659,664 - Kerry

Now, let's say that instead of winning Ohio, Bush lost it by, oh, 10,001 votes, i.e.,

2,732,906 - Kerry
2,722,905 - Bush

This would mean a swing of 146,484 votes from Bush to Kerry in Ohio, a change of only about 2.6% of the total Ohio vote.

Thus the popular vote would change to

58,873,695 - Bush
55,584,134 - Kerry

but

since Kerry won Ohio, the electoral votes are

272 - Kerry
266- Bush

and, in spite of Bush getting 3,289,561 more popular votes than Kerry, Kerry wins the election.

If that's your idea of democracy and a republic in action, you can have it. The President, being the leader of the country, should be elected by a popular vote, not by delegates elected by a non-representative system filtered through the states.

Bottom line, the Electoral College system needs to be reformed or completely eliminated.


[edit/rephrase sentence]

[DogB]

Democracy is based on the assumption that a million men are wiser than one man. How's that again? I missed something. - Robert Heinlein

:(

[Careless]

That's kinda what irked me. I'm a Republican in Maryland, and even though I tow the party line for the Presidency, the fact that Maryland is a legendary Democratic stronghold leaves me feeling like I wasted my time voting.

But on the bright side, the "solid" states get less campaign advertising, which is a definate plus for residents of those states. :)
I love campaign ads! they're the funniest things on tv. Or radio. I heard one on a wisconsin channel a couple weeks ago that said (among other things) "You'd be better off believing in werewolves and vampires than believing" in their opponent's ads
Meanwhile, they were playing cheesey halloween sound effects in the background. I almost had to pull over until I recovered.

[Maksutov]

Democracy is based on the assumption that a million men are wiser than one man. How's that again? I missed something. - Robert Heinlein

:(

Instead it's a case where a million people who have a stake in something to be decided have a say in the decision.

"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried."
-Winston Churchill

[Humphrey]

Heh. Maksutov said it better than i ever could. Now why didnt i try it that way? :-)

[Maksutov]

Heh. Maksutov said it better than i ever could. Now why didnt i try it that way? :-)
Because you're too busy with plans for World Domination TM. :D

Thanks for the nice comment, BTW.

[Kesh]

If the argument that candidates would only care about urban areas in a popular election doesn't persuade you... I don't know what to say.

Having spent most of my life in rural areas, I would hate to see our electoral system moved simply to a popular vote. I've already run into enough people who have (literally) said, "If you can't suck it up and move to the city, you don't matter."

(Not aimed at anyone, just my feelings on the matter.)

[Jpax2003]

I think that some people are laboring under the belief that efficient government is effective government, and that a government elected by the majority is more efficient. The Founders knew that efficient government was the quickest way to civil war. This is why they built speedbumps into the process. Ask any germans alive in the 1930s what they think of efficient government: I am sure they would have some interesting insights.

There is a proverb that covers this: "What is right is not always popular, and what is popular is not always right."

This is why we have representatives that are elected by the people for minimal terms all at the same time: to represent the majority. We have senators elected in shifts for longer terms in order to ignore the majority. Senators are now elected by popular vote, but that was not always the case. In fact, I remember there was talk about having the president elected by the House of Representatives once upon a time. That would be closer to a parliamentary system like canada. So now, instead of the HoR electing the President, we elect a special congress that does just that. Think of it as a temporary binary parliamentary system.

I think it is telling that the Founders declared "No Taxation without Representation!" instead of "No Taxation without without true democracy and direct election of the King!"

But to be fair to Humphrey, some things have changed that reduce the original need for the EC. Originally, each elector elected two names from all the candidates. Then all the two votes were counted and whoever had the most was President-elect, and whoever had the second most was VP-elect. Now that we link the two positions and have national party systems, the need for electoral discretion is greatly reduced. Slavery also was an argument for the EC in southern states where slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person for congressional districting but not allowed to vote like free persons.

[Maksutov]

I think some people are laboring under the belief that members of a select, entrenched power structure are the only persons who can be trusted to manage the government effectively, and that the electorate cannot be trusted to have even a majority vote in the one election that demands such a method.

Why does it seem as though the ghost of Alexander Hamilton is hovering around this discussion?

Not sure what the whole thing about efficient versus effective means. Rather I know that a method that continually disenfranchises a large chunk of the electorate will eventually bring grief to the whole system, as I pointed out in my earlier post. This country will be in for a real mess if a 3.5 million vote minority President gets installed in the White House by an antiquated system the monarchists would have been proud of.

BTW, I got tired a long time ago of this baloney about equating "efficiency" with Fascism. It's a tired, old, and inaccurate cliché.

[Candy]

The Electoral College (http://www.fec.gov/pages/ecmenu2.htm)

A Brief History of the Electoral College along with pro's and con's and a selected bibliography. (This document-around 20 pages in all-is in PDF format. Once downloaded, it may be viewed or printed using the Adobe® Acrobat® Reader). (http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf)

In order to appreciate the reasons for the Electoral College, it is essential to understand its historical context and the problem that the Founding Fathers were trying to solve. They faced the difficult question of how to elect a president in a nations that:

 was composed of thirteen large and small States jealous of their own rights and powers and suspicious of any central national government

 contained only 4,000,000 people spread up and down a thousand miles of Atlantic seaboard barely connected by transportation or communication (so that national campaigns were impractical even if they had been thought desirable)

 believed, under the influence of such British political thinkers as Henry St John Bolingbroke, that political parties were mischievous if not downright evil, and

 felt that gentlemen should not campaign for public office (The saying was “The office should seek the man, the man should not seek the office.”).

How, then to choose a president without political parties, without national campaigns, and without upsetting the carefully designed balance between the presidency and the Congress on one hand and between the States and the federal government on the other?

Interesting links. :wink:

I did not verify the sources.

[pumpkinpie]

Heh. Maksutov said it better than i ever could. Now why didnt i try it that way? :-)

When I was reading Maksutov's post, I was thinking "that's exactly what Humphrey was trying to say...." So your intentions did get through to me at least......good points, both of you.

[MAPNUT]

[quote=This country will be in for a real mess if a 3.5 million vote minority President gets installed in the White House by an antiquated system the monarchists would have been proud of.
quote]

This is a point that should be expanded on. Yes, anyone who was taught American history or government in high school has been exposed to the rationale for the electoral college, i.e. protection of small states, states' rights, protection of minorities etc. Disregarding which candidate in the recent election was preferable, consider the following: Bush received 3,560,000 more popular votes. If Kerry had received 140,000 more votes in Ohio, he would have won the election with 3,420,000 fewer votes than his opponent. Electoral college advocates, please explain how this would have been a good thing - whose rights would have been protected. Certainly not those of smaller states, since Bush would still have won 29 states to Kerry's 21. Certainly not rural states - just look at the red-state-vs. blue-state map. I don't see the electoral college as anything but a mechanism for distorting the vote results.

[MAPNUT]

If the argument that candidates would only care about urban areas in a popular election doesn't persuade you... I don't know what to say.


It doesn't. How much time did the candidates spend in Pennsylvania? A lot. Why? because it has a lot of electoral votes. They devoted a disproportionate effort to states where the winner-take-all system had the potential to turn the election.

[A Thousand Pardons]

Electoral college advocates, please explain how this would have been a good thing - whose rights would have been protected.
There are always ways to set up examples where that occurs, no matter which voting method you use. With a strict popular vote, the states rights issue falls mostly by the wayside.

This country was built from compromises. God has delivered it from idealists, with the help of idealists.
They devoted a disproportionate effort to states where the winner-take-all system had the potential to turn the election.
That's only true if you discount the massive effort to construct a platform that appeals to a broad spectrum of the population, insuring that many states will deliver safe majorities to your cause.

[SeanF]

Did it ever really serve a purpose?
Still does. See Humphrey's link
No it doesn't. The electoral College is like a ticking time bomb that will eventually go off. It almost did this election.

Let's look at yesterday's election with just a slight change in the votes in one state.
Instead, let's just look at 1876. Samuel J. Tilden won the popular vote by a difference of 4,285,992 to 4,033,768, or about 3% of the vote (that's comparable to your hypothetical example for 2004). Unfortunately for Sam, Rutherford B. Hayes won the EC 185-184 and became president.

That was 128 years ago, and we're still here and moving along just fine.

Some "time bomb."

If that's your idea of democracy and a republic in action, you can have it.
It's not democracy in action - the U.S.A. is not a democracy - and it is republic in action. By definition.

And we will have it, thanks.

The President, being the leader of the country, should be elected by a popular vote, not by delegates elected by a non-representative system filtered through the states.
England doesn't elect their Prime Minister by a popular vote, and neither does Canada.

That's why I asked for examples of nations that actually do. There aren't many.

Israel comes quickly to mind, but that is not nearly comparable to the U.S. in terms of size (geographic or population) or diversity.

There's nothing wrong with the Electoral College.

[Jpax2003]

I think some people are laboring under the belief that members of a select, entrenched power structure are the only persons who can be trusted to manage the government effectively, and that the electorate cannot be trusted to have even a majority vote in the one election that demands such a method.How is an organization that is elected every four years only to serve for maybe a few weeks defined as "entrenched"? Moreover, it's a governing structure, not a power sturcture. The power structures operate and fluctuate within that governing structure, but are not defined with it.

And it is sometimes true that the electorate cannot be trusted to mange government. IIRC, a poll of americans right after the shootdown of KAL-007 discovered that 80% wanted to nuke the USSR. If we were a pure democracy, we might all be dead now. Our government is not setup to allow for effective management. It's setup to be ineffective when mismanaged.

I fail to understand what you mean by "the one election that demands such a method." The presidential election does not demand that method. Representatives and Senators are the only national offices filled by popular vote and in such a manner are they elected. Most of the political power was designed to be in the congress. The president was only meant to preside over his branch in order to execute the orders given to him. That's a gross oversimplification, but it explains part of the reasoning for no direct election.

Not sure what the whole thing about efficient versus effective means. Rather I know that a method that continually disenfranchises a large chunk of the electorate will eventually bring grief to the whole system, as I pointed out in my earlier post. This country will be in for a real mess if a 3.5 million vote minority President gets installed in the White House by an antiquated system the monarchists would have been proud of.The electorate that votes for a non-winning candidate will be disenfranchised no matter the system of counting and applying votes. Why would monarchists be proud of our system?

BTW, I got tired a long time ago of this baloney about equating "efficiency" with Fascism. It's a tired, old, and inaccurate cliché.You are right, efficiency is not equal with fascism, it is merely one of the more extreme but possible outcomes from an efficient system. Efficiency can be a good thing, such as with Plato's Philosopher-king. However, one of our fellow posters from across the pond pointed out in another thread that they think of fascism as rooted with popular support, if I understand him correctly.

[Maksutov]

Did it ever really serve a purpose?
Still does. See Humphrey's link
No it doesn't. The electoral College is like a ticking time bomb that will eventually go off. It almost did this election.

Let's look at yesterday's election with just a slight change in the votes in one state.
Instead, let's just look at 1876. Samuel J. Tilden won the popular vote by a difference of 4,285,992 to 4,033,768, or about 3% of the vote (that's comparable to your hypothetical example for 2004). Unfortunately for Sam, Rutherford B. Hayes won the EC 185-184 and became president.

That was 128 years ago, and we're still here and moving along just fine.

Some "time bomb."[edit]
It almost went off in 1876. Try this link (http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h221.html) for additional information. Note the part that says
Loose talk was heard in some quarters about the possibility of war breaking out.
What a wonderful system. And be sure to note the way the Electoral College system helps prevent any kind of corruption or shenanigans.

Here's another summary that shows just how effective this system is.
In the election of 1876 Samuel J. Tilden, the Democratic candidate, received a popular majority but lacked one undisputed electoral vote to carry a clear majority of the electoral college. The crux of the problem was in the 22 electoral votes which were in dispute because Florida, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Oregon each sent in two sets of election returns. In the three southern states, Republican election boards threw out enough Democratic votes to certify the Republican candidate, Rutherford B. Hayes. In Oregon, the Democratic governor disqualified a Republican elector, replacing him with a Democrat. Since the Senate was Republican and the House of Representatives Democratic, it seemed useless to refer the disputed returns to the two houses for solution. Instead Congress appointed an Electoral Commission with five representatives each from the Senate, the House, and the Supreme Court. All but one Justice was named, giving the Commission seven Republican and seven Democratic members. The naming of the fifth Justice was left to the other four. He was a Republican who first favored Tilden but, under pressure from his party, switched to Hayes, ensuring his election by the Commission voting 8 to 7 on party lines. The Democrats in Congress were outraged and threatened to block the decision until Republicans privately agreed to a number of concessions, including the removal of federal troops from the South, which effectively ended Reconstruction. As a result, Hayes was elected president in what became known as the Compromise of 1877.
No big deal then, just that the compromise caused by the use of the Electoral College system brought about the institution known as "Jim Crow", which we know was a kind and paternal method of taking care of blacks in the South.

If you're a fan of corrupt politics, you have to love the Electoral College system.

[Kesh]

If the argument that candidates would only care about urban areas in a popular election doesn't persuade you... I don't know what to say.


It doesn't. How much time did the candidates spend in Pennsylvania? A lot. Why? because it has a lot of electoral votes. They devoted a disproportionate effort to states where the winner-take-all system had the potential to turn the election.

And they had to campaign to the entire state. They couldn't just pick, say, Philadelphia for their entire campaign in that state. They had to still appeal to the smaller cities and rural zones to be sure of carrying that state.

[Jpax2003]

Ok, here's an idea I've been thinking about for 4 years. What if we keep the Electoral College, but reform the assignment of electors along more democratic lines. This allows us to keep the protection of representation while making that representation more accurate to the wishes of the people.

Instead of the states assigning electors in a "winner takes all" method, we separate the electors into districts. This is not a mathematical division by vote count proportion, but a geographic districting equal to congressional districts. Then, each state would still have two electors "at-large" that are equal to senators. The assignment of the 2 electors-at-large in each state could be by mathematical proportion, e.g. need 60% or more to get both other wise just one. Or my preference, the candidate/party with the majority of popular votes in that state takes both.

Among the pros of this system are:
a better proportion to the electorate
more candidate attention to urban and suburban areas

Among the cons of this system are:
still the possibility of electoral victory with a slight minority
still the possibility of elector mischief

Feel free to add any pros and cons you can think of.

[SeanF]

It almost went off in 1876. Try this link (http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h221.html) for additional information. Note the part that says
Loose talk was heard in some quarters about the possibility of war breaking out.
What a wonderful system. And be sure to note the way the Electoral College system helps prevent any kind of corruption or shenanigans.
I don't think anybody ever said the EC prevents "any kind" of corruption. And if your suggesting that there'd be no corruption in a popular vote election, think again.

Also, note that the problems in the 1876 election had nothing to do with the EC not directly following the popular vote, which is what you suggested would be a problem with your hypothetical 2004 election.

It is worth noting, in fact, that there were even more problems with the 1876 election than your hypothetical 2004 scenario, and the "bomb" still didn't go off.

And what does "loose talk" mean? If you frequent democraticunderground.com, there's "loose talk" about war this year.

If you're a fan of corrupt politics, you have to love the Electoral College system.
Again, there is no such thing as a non-corrupt political system. You certainly haven't convinced me a popular vote would be any less prone to corruption.

BTW, I wanted to comment on a couple other things here.

They devoted a disproportionate effort to states where the winner-take-all system had the potential to turn the election.
That's only true if you discount the massive effort to construct a platform that appeals to a broad spectrum of the population, insuring that many states will deliver safe majorities to your cause.
This is actually an important point, and it serves to demonstrate why simply pointing to a difference between the EC and pop vote (as in 1876 or 2000) is insufficient.

The real benefits of the EC are not reflected in who wins so much as they are in who runs.

Among the cons of this system are:
still the possibility of electoral victory with a slight minority
still the possibility of elector mischief
Those are only identifiable as "cons" to your revised system if you accept that they're "cons" to the current EC system. They're not, neither one of them. :)

[Humphrey]

The jpax idea is a distinct possibility to work better than the current system.

But i can see a couple of problems right from the start.

1. As with a current trend to organize districts along party lines in several states (most notoriously Texas), these divisions will be hard pressed to be divided the same way. Each party will try very hard to get electors into areas heavily populated by them.

2. This makes sparsely populated rural areas and big urban cities equal in voting power. But at the same time it makes a several million poipulation city equal in power to a town of 10,000 in power over their electors. For the town this is a absolutly amazing thing. The finally get a say in things. For the city, its like their vote counts less than ever before. So a plus and minus on both sides.

[A Thousand Pardons]

The presidential election does not demand that method. Representatives and Senators are the only national offices filled by popular vote
Weren't you the one that said anyone who used "popular vote" should be treated just as someone would a flat-earther? :)

No big deal then, just that the compromise caused by the use of the Electoral College system brought about the institution known as "Jim Crow", which we know was a kind and paternal method of taking care of blacks in the South.

If you're a fan of corrupt politics, you have to love the Electoral College system.
The compromise was "caused by" the use of the Electoral College? That's a misuse of the term.

[Kesh]

Ok, here's an idea I've been thinking about for 4 years. What if we keep the Electoral College, but reform the assignment of electors along more democratic lines. This allows us to keep the protection of representation while making that representation more accurate to the wishes of the people.

Instead of the states assigning electors in a "winner takes all" method, we separate the electors into districts. This is not a mathematical division by vote count proportion, but a geographic districting equal to congressional districts. Then, each state would still have two electors "at-large" that are equal to senators. The assignment of the 2 electors-at-large in each state could be by mathematical proportion, e.g. need 60% or more to get both other wise just one. Or my preference, the candidate/party with the majority of popular votes in that state takes both.

Among the pros of this system are:
a better proportion to the electorate
more candidate attention to urban and suburban areas

Among the cons of this system are:
still the possibility of electoral victory with a slight minority
still the possibility of elector mischief

Feel free to add any pros and cons you can think of.

Actually, I believe some states already do this. Assignment of the Electors is decided within the state itself, so it's done differently on a state by state basis. Some are 'winner take all', some are population density, some are geographic.

[wedgebert]

It's not democracy in action - the U.S.A. is not a democracy - and it is republic in action. By definition.


Actually we are a democracy. A republic is a subset if you will of democracy.



de·moc·ra·cy n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies

1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4. Majority rule.
5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

re·pub·lic n.

1.
a. A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president.
b. A nation that has such a political order.

2.
a. A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.
b. A nation that has such a political order.

3. often Republic. A specific republican government of a nation: the Fourth Republic of France.

4. An autonomous or partially autonomous political and territorial unit belonging to a sovereign federation.

5. A group of people working as equals in the same sphere or field: the republic of letters.

We're not the kind of democracy where people vote for everything, but we're a democracy none the less.

[Ut]

I believe the common term for such a democracy is a "representative democracy", as has been stated either earlier in this thread, or elsewhere. You vote for the people who will vote on the issues, hopefully in the way you would have voted.

The President of the United States of America isn't elected in this manner. The Electoral College is a noteably different system. But the president isn't the government. He's just one man at the top.

[Bob B.]

Actually, I believe some states already do this. Assignment of the Electors is decided within the state itself, so it's done differently on a state by state basis. Some are 'winner take all', some are population density, some are geographic.
I believe all but two states are winner take all. I know Maine can split it's EC votes. The other is one of the central states but I don't remember which one (Nebraska maybe?).

[Jpax2003]

The presidential election does not demand that method. Representatives and Senators are the only national offices filled by popular vote
Weren't you the one that said anyone who used "popular vote" should be treated just as someone would a flat-earther? :)Hehehe, I only said that I didn't like the incorrect use of the term, representatives and senators are elected by popular vote. Of course, their election is by their district or state, but they are still national/federal offices. But you already knew that =D>

I believe all but two states are winner take all. I know Maine can split it's EC votes. The other is one of the central states but I don't remember which one (Nebraska maybe?).There are many different ways to split votes, mine is just one method. Actually, mine is two methods since there are different ways to split the senatorial-equivalent vote within my system. Right now it is up to the states to determine their method of electoral allocation, but we could amend the US Constitution so that all are the same, or so that the states can choose from a few choices.

[A Thousand Pardons]

Hehehe, I only said that I didn't like the incorrect use of the term

No, you actually said what I said you said (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=358973#358973). But I'll accept your retraction of it and not bring it up again, if you don't. :)

Right now it is up to the states to determine their method of electoral allocation, but we could amend the US Constitution so that all are the same, or so that the states can choose from a few choices.
I like the way it is--it's good for the economy. :)

[SeanF]

Actually we are a democracy. A republic is a subset if you will of democracy.
Okay, I'm not going to get into this again.

If "democracy" is defined such that it includes the EC system, then the US meets the definition - but so does the EC, so it's not "undemocratic."

If "democracy" is defined such that it does not include the EC system, then the EC is not democratic - but then the US is not a democracy, so the method of choosing the President doesn't need to be.

Either way, the statement, "The US is a democracy and the EC is undemocratic" is self-contradictory and means nothing.

Fair enough? :)

Actually, I believe some states already do this. Assignment of the Electors is decided within the state itself, so it's done differently on a state by state basis. Some are 'winner take all', some are population density, some are geographic.
I believe all but two states are winner take all. I know Maine can split it's EC votes. The other is one of the central states but I don't remember which one (Nebraska maybe?).
Nobody splits their EC votes based on percentage of the vote received - Colorado would have been the first, but the ballot initiative was defeated rather soundly this year.

Maine and Nebraska both divide their EC votes the same way - the winner in each congressional district gets one EC vote, the state-wide winner gets the remaining two. All the other states are winner-take-all (including DC, as if it matters :D ).

Right now, it's up to each individual State to decide how its Electors are appointed, and I see no reason to force the issue on them.

[Jpax2003]

Hehehe, I only said that I didn't like the incorrect use of the term

No, you actually said what I said you said (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=358973#358973). But I'll accept your retraction of it and not bring it up again, if you don't. :)No retraction required. I said my dissent was due to the inaccurate use of the term here (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=351837#351837) a while ago. I apologize if it was not clear.
Right now it is up to the states to determine their method of electoral allocation, but we could amend the US Constitution so that all are the same, or so that the states can choose from a few choices.
I like the way it is--it's good for the economy. :)Only in some areas. Being in the Chicago area, I think we'd like more election money spent here. This past election we were mostly ignored.

[A Thousand Pardons]

Hehehe, I only said that I didn't like the incorrect use of the term

No, you actually said what I said you said (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=358973#358973). But I'll accept your retraction of it and not bring it up again, if you don't. :)No retraction required. I said my dissent was due to the inaccurate use of the term here (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=351837#351837) a while ago.
I would accept that as a retraction, but I'm not sure that you have ever given an example of an inaccurate use of the term. What would be an inaccurate use of the term?

[wedgebert]

Either way, the statement, "The US is a democracy and the EC is undemocratic" is self-contradictory and means nothing.


I never said I thought the EC was undemocraitc, I just wanted to pick nits about the terminology :)

[Bob B.]

Another way to look at it is this: imagine that the Cardinals had won game 1 of the world series and scored 30 runs (I'm not a big baseball fan). But then the red sox won all the other games. If the total number of runs the cardinals scored was still more than the total that the red sox scored, should the cardinals win the series? No, I don't think so. They got lucky in that first game, but the red sox played consistently better. The electoral college system is a lot like that.
I like this analogy and I think it is a valid one. In fact, the 2000 election was a perfect example. Here is the popular vote from 2000,

Gore: 50,999,897 (48.38%)
Bush: 50,456,002 (47.87%)
Others: 3,949,201 (3.75%)

Gore led the popular vote by a slim margin of 543,895 votes, but this was due to a very large 1,293,774 vote margin in California where the results were

Gore: 5,861,203 (53.45%)
Bush: 4,567,429 (41.65%)
Others: 537,224 (4.90%)

If those who advocate direct election by popular vote had their way, Al Gore would have won the 2000 election. This would have happened only because of a large margin of victory in the country's most populous state. Should California, with 12% of the country's population, hold that much power over the rest of the country? Should the size of a candidate's victory within a state matter, or just the fact that he won state? Is this a case where the Electoral College did exactly what it is supposed to do?

Personally, I don't like the idea of a large populous state like California controlling an election simply by voting overwhelmingly for one candidate or another. Californians have their own agenda and their voting preference may differ sharply from the rest of the country. The Electoral College helps to level out sharp differences of opinion so that the large states cannot force their will upon the small states.

[wedgebert]

If those who advocate direct election by popular vote had their way, Al Gore would have won the 2000 election. This would have happened only because of a large margin of victory in the country's most populous state. Should California, with 12% of the country's population, hold that much power over the rest of the country? Should the size of a candidate's victory within a state matter, or just the fact that he won state? Is this a case where the Electoral College did exactly what it is supposed to do?

Personally, I don't like the idea of a large populous state like California controlling an election simply by voting overwhelmingly for one candidate or another. Californians have their own agenda and their voting preference may differ sharply from the rest of the country. The Electoral College helps to level out sharp differences of opinion so that the large states cannot force their will upon the small states.

California still has 55 electoral votes, about 10.2% of the total for the nation. So it still directly influences the race.

In a popular vote system, in order for CA to have the full effect of it's population, all 22 million or so of it's eligible voters would all have to vote for the same person.

Compare that to the EC college where I believe that if only one person in the state votes, whomever he voted for would get all 55 electoral votes. Or more realistically, a simple pularity wins. In the 2004 election, about 5.5 million of those 22 million people voted for Kerry, giving him a majority and all 55 votes. So in essence, 16% of CA's eligible voters, which is about 1.9% of the countries population counted for 10.2% of the electoral votes.

How is that better?

The major purpose of the electoral college has faded away with advancing technology. Now all we're left with is people who cry "States' rights" or someother battle cry to hold on to a antique tradition against people who see the EC as a an obstacle, extra bureaucracy or, in my case, just plain pointless. I guess I just say stop worrying about equality between the states and worry about equality between the people.

[A Thousand Pardons]

The major purpose of the electoral college has faded away with advancing technology. Now all we're left with is people who cry "States' rights" or someother battle cry to hold on to a antique tradition against people who see the EC as a an obstacle, extra bureaucracy or, in my case, just plain pointless.
Technology didn't have to advance for there to be people who saw the electoral votes as an obstacle.

I guess I just say stop worrying about equality between the states and worry about equality between the people.
Wrong guess. You can have two more chances. :)

[Jpax2003]

Hehehe, I only said that I didn't like the incorrect use of the term

No, you actually said what I said you said (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=358973#358973). But I'll accept your retraction of it and not bring it up again, if you don't. :)No retraction required. I said my dissent was due to the inaccurate use of the term here (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=351837#351837) a while ago.
I would accept that as a retraction, but I'm not sure that you have ever given an example of an inaccurate use of the term. What would be an inaccurate use of the term?It wasn't a retraction, it was a clarification. I still think I am correct.

[Bob B.]

California still has 55 electoral votes, about 10.2% of the total for the nation. So it still directly influences the race.

In a popular vote system, in order for CA to have the full effect of it's population, all 22 million or so of it's eligible voters would all have to vote for the same person.
I don't agree with your numbers; just look at the 2000 election. Let's say Gore wins California, but rather than by a large 11.8% margin, he wins by a still comfortable 5% margin. In that case George Bush wins both the popular vote and the EC vote.

My point is that California has 55 electoral votes (54 in 2000), which is a sufficient amount of representation. Why should California have more representation just because they really, really like candidate X rather than just slightly liking candidate X?

[wedgebert]

Why should California have more representation just because they real, real like candidate X rather than just slightly liking candidate X?

Why should CA voters we counted less just because there's more of them?

I guess my problem is that why should where you live matter at all? Of course I'm also for the complete removal of state govenment and having one set of laws instead of 51 different sets.

[Jpax2003]

I guess my problem is that why should where you live matter at all? Of course I'm also for the complete removal of state govenment and having one set of laws instead of 51 different sets.

Without state governments a ballot initiative like those "banning" homosexual marriage would instead become a national referendum. There would be no test case in one state before application to the entire country. There would be no liberal states that could act as sanctuary for homosexual unions.

Without state governments who would administer the vast areas between cities? Would you prefer to trust one large central bureaucracy under the president or a committe of congress? Gerrymandering would be increased with no restriction to state boundariess. Would we still need congress to represent constituencies without state boundaries? Maybe. Would we still need the Senate? How would you elect a senate if not by state? Separate districting? Would we reconsruct a unicameral congress? Would we even keep congress. What is left may be castrated. The president would need to exercise more power. This attempt to elect the president by democracy may lead to dictatorship.

Instead of cities within states, we may end up with city-states. The major cities will still require direct management of infrastructure. Would the management of rural areas be vacated? Suburban areas would need management and would probably be annexed by the local metropolitan government. Cities would have more population and would demand more money from the central government and rural areas may be left on their own. Self-sufficient types may prefer this lack of governmental intrusion. I could see rural areas aligning together. Or a Local city may declare administrative authority. However, citiy people may not do well dictating to rural dwellers. A State is able to balance these issues by being both.

No, with the international political climate the way it is, no state will willingly dissolve itself. Try to do it and you may have a second civil war. If you amend the constutution by constitutional convention and ratify by state convention you may end up with 50 states instead of one superstate. The only real way to reduce state influence and power is to change the international political climate. Only a strong international world government will create the necessary impetus to reduce or remove state sovereignty within the United States.

[A Thousand Pardons]

Hehehe, I only said that I didn't like the incorrect use of the term

No, you actually said what I said you said (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=358973#358973). But I'll accept your retraction of it and not bring it up again, if you don't. :)No retraction required. I said my dissent was due to the inaccurate use of the term here (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=351837#351837) a while ago.
I would accept that as a retraction, but I'm not sure that you have ever given an example of an inaccurate use of the term. What would be an inaccurate use of the term?It wasn't a retraction, it was a clarification. I still think I am correct.
I'm convinced of that.

However, no one, to my knowledge, uses the term inaccurately. Whenever they talk about the popular vote, they are are referring to combined totals--which you say (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=351837#351837) is synonymous with popular vote.

Wait, just after you say that, you say "Another, more technical, dissent is based on the fact that there is no popular vote." That is not a fact. Obviously, there is a popular vote. So it looks like the only person using the term popular vote inaccurately is you--you're using it to mean it has a mandate from the constitution, and there is no such thing, as you say.

[Jpax2003]

Hehehe, I only said that I didn't like the incorrect use of the term

No, you actually said what I said you said (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=358973#358973). But I'll accept your retraction of it and not bring it up again, if you don't. :)No retraction required. I said my dissent was due to the inaccurate use of the term here (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=351837#351837) a while ago.
I would accept that as a retraction, but I'm not sure that you have ever given an example of an inaccurate use of the term. What would be an inaccurate use of the term?It wasn't a retraction, it was a clarification. I still think I am correct.
I'm convinced of that.

However, no one, to my knowledge, uses the term inaccurately. Whenever they talk about the popular vote, they are are referring to combined totals--which you say (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=351837#351837) is synonymous with popular vote.

Wait, just after you say that, you say "Another, more technical, dissent is based on the fact that there is no popular vote." That is not a fact. Obviously, there is a popular vote. So it looks like the only person using the term popular vote inaccurately is you--you're using it to mean it has a mandate from the constitution, and there is no such thing, as you say.What part of my argument do you not understand? I stated it flatly with examples on the other thread.

"Popular vote" in reference to any election where every vote within the applicable area are counted is correct usage.

"Popular vote" in reference to any election where every vote is compiled into a representative assemblage meant to convey the essence, but not the sum total of those votes is incorrect usage.

Does that clarify the issue? If you still do not understand, I suggest you consult a professor of Communications, or of English, or of Poli-sci. Because either I am not making it clear or there is another reason you are disagreeing with me.

[A Thousand Pardons]

Wait, just after you say that, you say "Another, more technical, dissent is based on the fact that there is no popular vote." That is not a fact. Obviously, there is a popular vote. So it looks like the only person using the term popular vote inaccurately is you--you're using it to mean it has a mandate from the constitution, and there is no such thing, as you say.What part of my argument do you not understand? I stated it flatly with examples on the other thread.
I'm thinking that I did a pretty good job myself. I guess that's why we have these discussions.

"Popular vote" in reference to any election where every vote within the applicable area are counted is correct usage.
Based upon your next statement, I'm assuming that you mean to say that there is no popular vote during US presidential elections, is that right?

"Popular vote" in reference to any election where every vote is compiled into a representative assemblage meant to convey the essence, but not the sum total of those votes is incorrect usage.

Does that clarify the issue?

I have a couple questions still, to make sure, but it appears to me that you are wrong. As long as the speaker uses it in reference to the "combined totals", I would think that we both would say that is correct, no matter what the type of election, based upon what you said before. But that is not what you seem to be saying in this post.
If you still do not understand, I suggest you consult a professor of Communications, or of English, or of Poli-sci. Because either I am not making it clear or there is another reason you are disagreeing with me.
Both?

[Jpax2003]

Wait, just after you say that, you say "Another, more technical, dissent is based on the fact that there is no popular vote." That is not a fact. Obviously, there is a popular vote. So it looks like the only person using the term popular vote inaccurately is you--you're using it to mean it has a mandate from the constitution, and there is no such thing, as you say.What part of my argument do you not understand? I stated it flatly with examples on the other thread.
I'm thinking that I did a pretty good job myself. I guess that's why we have these discussions.Why do we have these discussions? Why do you have these discussions.

"Popular vote" in reference to any election where every vote within the applicable area are counted is correct usage.
Based upon your next statement, I'm assuming that you mean to say that there is no popular vote during US presidential elections, is that right?There are at least fifty "popular votes" during a presidential election, but not for the office of president. The popular votes are compiled by state into a selection of representatives called Electors. The Electors cast their votes at a later date.

Were you expecting me to say yes so that you could score this same point?

I remember, not too long ago, casting a ballot where I actually voted for Electors by name. It was quite apparent that I was not voting for the President of the US when I cast that ballot. Now the ballots are changed but the process of choosing a president hasn't. This had lead to much confusion.

The President of the US is elected via a federal and republican structure, not by a democratic structure. If we changed the rules and elected a president by a majority of all votes cast into one national total then the phrase "elected by popular vote' would be correct. However, this is not the case. Therefore, such a claim is incorrect.


"Popular vote" in reference to any election where every vote is compiled into a representative assemblage meant to convey the essence, but not the sum total of those votes is incorrect usage.

Does that clarify the issue?
I have a couple questions still, to make sure, but it appears to me that you are wrong. As long as the speaker uses it in reference to the "combined totals", I would think that we both would say that is correct, no matter what the type of election, based upon what you said before. But that is not what you seem to be saying in this post.I would prefer to say that such ambiguous usage is bad but not incorrect. It is not independent upon the form of polling. Saying a candidate wins an election via the popular vote is only correct if the election to that office is by means of a popular vote. The Office of the President of the US is not one of those offices. I suppose someone could say that the president is elected by the popular vote of the Electors if they want, but that is not what newscasters mean when they say "popular vote" because they use the term "electoral vote" for that meaning.

If you still do not understand, I suggest you consult a professor of Communications, or of English, or of Poli-sci. Because either I am not making it clear or there is another reason you are disagreeing with me.Both?Both what? both of three professors? Or are you asking/suggesting that not only am I not making this clear but that you also have ulterior motives for disagreeing? It's not an accusation, but a question. You've asked lots of questions of me. Could you make a statement asserting how I am wrong and why it is important for you to prove I am wrong?

[A Thousand Pardons]

The President of the US is elected via a federal and republican structure, not by a democratic structure. If we changed the rules and elected a president by a majority of all votes cast into one national total then the phrase "elected by popular vote' would be correct. However, this is not the case. Therefore, such a claim is incorrect.

I don't think anyone claimed that it was correct.

Saying a candidate wins an election via the popular vote is only correct if the election to that office is by means of a popular vote. The Office of the President of the US is not one of those offices. I suppose someone could say that the president is elected by the popular vote of the Electors if they want, but that is not what newscasters mean when they say "popular vote" because they use the term "electoral vote" for that meaning.

Right, so those uses of the term "popular vote" by the newscasters are correct.

If you still do not understand, I suggest you consult a professor of Communications, or of English, or of Poli-sci. Because either I am not making it clear or there is another reason you are disagreeing with me.Both?Both what? both of three professors? Or are you asking/suggesting that not only am I not making this clear but that you also have ulterior motives for disagreeing?

Ulterior motives? No, I just disagree that the use of the term "popular vote" is in general incorrect, much less as bad as being a flat-earther. That's my reason for disagreeing with you.
It's not an accusation, but a question. You've asked lots of questions of me. Could you make a statement asserting how I am wrong and why it is important for you to prove I am wrong?
You're wrong to say that the use of the term "popular vote" is incorrect, and you are wrong to say that the incorrect use of the term is common--the only example that you have furnished is one incorrect use by yourself.

As to why it is important for me to prove that you are wrong--I don't know what you are talking about.

[Candy]

As to why it is important for me to prove that you are wrong--I don't know what you are talking about. :lol: =D> Ditto!

[Jpax2003]

Saying a candidate wins an election via the popular vote is only correct if the election to that office is by means of a popular vote. The Office of the President of the US is not one of those offices. I suppose someone could say that the president is elected by the popular vote of the Electors if they want, but that is not what newscasters mean when they say "popular vote" because they use the term "electoral vote" for that meaning.

Right, so those uses of the term "popular vote" by the newscasters are correct.Which uses? I detailed two uses: one correct and one incorrect. Are you agreeing with me on both?



If you still do not understand, I suggest you consult a professor of Communications, or of English, or of Poli-sci. Because either I am not making it clear or there is another reason you are disagreeing with me.Both?Both what? both of three professors? Or are you asking/suggesting that not only am I not making this clear but that you also have ulterior motives for disagreeing?
Ulterior motives? No, I just disagree that the use of the term "popular vote" is in general incorrect, much less as bad as being a flat-earther. That's my reason for disagreeing with you.Well, if we are in agreement on the technical details, then my point is about opinion. Which is what I wrote when I wrote that it was a pet peeve. I didn't write that the general usage was incorrect. I wrote that the general usage (statistics) was ambiguous and bad. I wrote that it was only incorrect for those specific instances (governmental structure) where it was used incorrectly. The general usage I detailed is imprecise, the specific usage I detailed is inaccurate.


It's not an accusation, but a question. You've asked lots of questions of me. Could you make a statement asserting how I am wrong and why it is important for you to prove I am wrong?
You're wrong to say that the use of the term "popular vote" is incorrect, and you are wrong to say that the incorrect use of the term is common--the only example that you have furnished is one incorrect use by yourself.How can I be wrong that the use is incorrect when you just agreed above? What use of that term by me was incorrect per my definition? Is your only argument that the frequency of the error I detailed is not as common as you inferred?

As to why it is important for me to prove that you are wrong--I don't know what you are talking about.You don't know your own motives? Do you normally do things without knowing why you do them? I'd have to look, but I think there is a long psuedo-greek name for this condition.

As I quoted in another thread "you can'd fool me by agreeing with me." Also, I think we can agree that asinine cheerleading from pugnacious malcontents does not help this thread or forum or bulletin board.

We could go round and round with you asking me the same questions over and over again and with me giving the same answers over and over again while you contend that my answers are internally inconsistent or wrong for reasons you won't specify. Are you trying to get this thread locked? Are you trying to goad someone into an argument with the intention of getting someone banned? I suspect your motives are not enlightenment and will not play this game anymore.

[SciFi Chick]

Also, I think we can agree that asinine cheerleading from pugnacious malcontents does not help this thread or forum or bulletin board.


What does that have to do with anything? If you're referring to Candy, she's neither cheering or being quarrelsome. She's agreeing that she doesn't know what you are talking about.

[A Thousand Pardons]

Saying a candidate wins an election via the popular vote is only correct if the election to that office is by means of a popular vote. The Office of the President of the US is not one of those offices. I suppose someone could say that the president is elected by the popular vote of the Electors if they want, but that is not what newscasters mean when they say "popular vote" because they use the term "electoral vote" for that meaning.

Right, so those uses of the term "popular vote" by the newscasters are correct.Which uses? I detailed two uses: one correct and one incorrect. Are you agreeing with me on both?
I have never heard any newscaster say that a President "wins an election via the popular vote." I'm pretty sure that any newscaster who did say that would be corrected quickly. Everyone knows that that is incorrect, including newscasters and their bosses.

I wrote that it was only incorrect for those specific instances (governmental structure) where it was used incorrectly. The general usage I detailed is imprecise, the specific usage I detailed is inaccurate.

You said much more than that, earlier, but you seem to have retracted that. Worse, I haven't seen any examples of what you are claiming, here, except committed by yourself.

How can I be wrong that the use is incorrect when you just agreed above?

I didn't. I agreed to something else.

What use of that term by me was incorrect per my definition? Is your only argument that the frequency of the error I detailed is not as common as you inferred?

No, I disagreed with your first statement, which you claim to have clarified so that it no longer says what it says, but your subsequent statements seem to have narrowed down your objection to something that doesn't even occur--so I suppose that you actually did intend what you said originally.

As to why it is important for me to prove that you are wrong--I don't know what you are talking about.You don't know your own motives? Do you normally do things without knowing why you do them? I'd have to look, but I think there is a long psuedo-greek name for this condition.
It's called "illogic"--I know my motives. I just don't know why you think it is important to me that I prove you wrong.

We could go round and round with you asking me the same questions over and over again and with me giving the same answers over and over again while you contend that my answers are internally inconsistent or wrong for reasons you won't specify.

I've given my reasons.

Are you trying to get this thread locked? Are you trying to goad someone into an argument with the intention of getting someone banned? I suspect your motives are not enlightenment and will not play this game anymore.
??

[dvb]

Are you trying to get this thread locked? Are you trying to goad someone into an argument with the intention of getting someone banned? I suspect your motives are not enlightenment and will not play this game anymore.

Well for someone who is as well versed in law as yourself, you should know that we are each responsible for our own actions. Only you can get yourself banned. Don't try to blame others for their actions as they will be delt with accordingly. You are responsible for your actions.

[Candy]

Also, I think we can agree that asinine cheerleading from pugnacious malcontents does not help this thread or forum or bulletin board.


What does that have to do with anything? If you're referring to Candy, she's neither cheering or being quarrelsome. She's agreeing that she doesn't know what you are talking about.
Thank you, SciFi Chick. You are correct. I am an emoticon junkie for expressing myself. Let me try using words... I have no idea of what Jpax is talking about. :o I am in total agreement with A Thousand Pardons. I understand ATP. :D

I am under the impression that Jpax has his own idea of what the law should be, but instead of saying this, he presents us with "Jpax Laws" as fact. I am not well versed in "Jpax Laws", so I am confused. Does this make sense? 8-[

I love the emoticons!