Conversation
Notices
-
The Electoral college is an outdated system regardless of whether your candidate win or not
-
*won
-
@archaeme It's better than direct voting still, because otherwise an state or two would decide the entire vote.
Saturday, 21-Jan-17 20:50:42 UTC from web-
-
@nerthos A plain switch to a direct vote would likely make it more lopsided, that I can agree with.
-
@archaeme Imagine California and Florida, almost on their own, deciding for the entire country despite by geography and demographic being only a fraction of the country. It'd be terrible. The USA is a federation so it requires something like the current system (despite how poorly it might be working right now) to even it out a bit. The alternative is severely reducing the power of the federal government thus making federal offices mostly symbolic.
Saturday, 21-Jan-17 20:57:46 UTC from web-
@nerthos If the Electoral College helps to not make states deciders of the election, it's doing a pretty terrible job. "Swing states" are a thing.
I think it's a good idea in theory that didn't pan out in practice.-
@archaeme Yeah, it requires some fixing right now, but it's still better than the alternative as those states STILL get less power right now than if it were just by sheer numbers.
Saturday, 21-Jan-17 21:03:23 UTC from web -
@archaeme @nerthos The problem is actually that the Electoral College has been diminished over the decades since it's establishment. It used to enforce pretty proportional representation, but a series of rules and special cases and considerations have accumulated over the years that have given disproportionate power to the swing states.
-
@maiyannah Without it though, happens what happens over here that the smaller provinces basically have perennial feudal lords.
Saturday, 21-Jan-17 21:08:00 UTC from web-
@nerthos My point is that it was much more effective in the past than it was now. The response to that sort of realization wouldn't be "well lets get rid of it" but rather "let's revert the changes that have reduced its effectiveness", I should think.
-
@maiyannah Oh, yeah, I wasn't disagreeing at all.
Saturday, 21-Jan-17 21:10:21 UTC from web
-
-
-
-
This is terrible thinking, and ignorant of marginal economics: all power and activity is at the margin. Each party secures its base and competes for the middle. You can call them swing voters or swing states, but that is how elections are decided every time.
The only other option is "multi-member districts" and "proportional" representation, and splinters like the Gay Dope-Smoking Neo-Nazi Party. No f--king way, no how. I'll support "two-round" voting but none of that. @archaeme @nerthos
-
-
-
-
1. There are *no* Federal elections in the US. Think about that.
2. Under current system, any state can only screw up its own electors. "Direct" vote removes that protection.
3. No amendment is needed to change Presidential vote to:
3A. One House district = one elector, vote plurality takes that elector.
3B. State popular vote takes the two extra electors each state has.
UK, Canada, AUS, NZ: *None* of these nations allow direct election of the chief of government. *None*
@nerthos @archaeme @nonservator
-
-
