Toggle sidebar

Question: The Electoral College

crimsonaudio said:
So what? Was anyone blindsided by the EC? Everyone knew the rules going into it. What you're suggesting is that this was somehow sprung on people - everyone and their mother knows the number 270 at this point and has for months, and that'a assuming they don't remember it from previous presidential elections.
Click to expand...

Not suggesting that at all. I just think its a dumb way to elect a president.
 
CharminTide said:
Neither side is blameless, and weakening the fillibuster will certainly hurt them now.

Not to date myself, but I wasn't around in the 60s or 70s. Many have told me that, although the parties certainly had disagreements, the degree of polarization was not nearly as paralyzing as it is today. Compromise was possible, and things could get done without playing this zero sum political game.

Must have been nice.
Click to expand...

Two factors generated that mythical age of Aquarius.
1. There were liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats, so parties were not as ideological as they are today, so it was more possible to peel off members of the other party for a particular policy than it is today.
2. For decades, whenever progressives proposed policies that were further and further from the enumerated powers of the Constitution, there was nobody (or almost nobody) in DC that would suggest, "Hang on a bit. What enumerated power is this policy pursuant to?" Whatever the president or Congress proposed was seen as ipso facto constitutional. In terms of limiting the Federal government to its enumerated powers, there was almost no opposition within DC. There is now. And progressives hate it.

But, yeah, I can see how you would pine for the time when progressives would slap a "kick me" sign on the backs of conservatives, and the conservatives would yuck it up with their opponents, laugh at their own misfortune, and meet their "pals" for a round of golf and a drink.
That was $19 trillion ago.
 
Tidewater said:
But, yeah, I can see how you would pine for the time when progressives would slap a "kick me" sign on the backs of conservatives, and the conservatives would yuck it up with their opponents, laugh at their own misfortune, and meet their "pals" for a round of golf and a drink.
Click to expand...
I mean yeah, that does sound pretty nice. ;)

But your point #1 is what people tend to cite me when referencing the golden period.
 
Bamaro said:
Not necessary. Keep it but neuter it.
Click to expand...

In which case you haven't really kept it. Workarounds are inherently dishonest. The amendment process was intended to set a high bar to stabilize, but not cement, governmental procedures. If you can't get rid of the EC by amendment, you can't get rid of it at all.
 
Jill Stein is requesting recounts in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. This seems pretty firmly in the realm of conspiracy theory. But with increased prevalence of foreign hacking and our widespread use of electronic voting, I think election audits should be routine.

Clinton’s defeat to Donald Trump followed the release by US intelligence agencies of public assessments that Russian hackers were behind intrusions into regional electoral computer systems and the theft of emails from Democratic officials before the election.

Curiosity about Wisconsin has centred on apparently disproportionate wins that were racked up by Trump in counties using electronic voting compared with those that used only paper ballots.

Use of the voting machines that are in operation in some Wisconsin counties has been banned in other states, including California, after security analysts repeatedly showed how easily they could be hacked into.

However, Nate Silver, the polling expert and founder of FiveThirtyEight, cast doubt over the theory, stating that the difference disappeared after race and education levels, which most closely tracked voting shifts nationwide, were controlled for.

Silver and several other election analysts have dismissed suggestions that the swing-state vote counts give cause for concern about the integrity of the results.
Click to expand...
 
bamachile said:
In which case you haven't really kept it. Workarounds are inherently dishonest. The amendment process was intended to set a high bar to stabilize, but not cement, governmental procedures. If you can't get rid of the EC by amendment, you can't get rid of it at all.
Click to expand...

He may be referring to states changing how they allocate their electors, which is constitutionally within their purview to do.
 
Tidewater said:
Two factors generated that mythical age of Aquarius.
1. There were liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats, so parties were not as ideological as they are today, so it was more possible to peel off members of the other party for a particular policy than it is today.
2. For decades, whenever progressives proposed policies that were further and further from the enumerated powers of the Constitution, there was nobody (or almost nobody) in DC that would suggest, "Hang on a bit. What enumerated power is this policy pursuant to?" Whatever the president or Congress proposed was seen as ipso facto constitutional. In terms of limiting the Federal government to its enumerated powers, there was almost no opposition within DC. There is now. And progressives hate it.

But, yeah, I can see how you would pine for the time when progressives would slap a "kick me" sign on the backs of conservatives, and the conservatives would yuck it up with their opponents, laugh at their own misfortune, and meet their "pals" for a round of golf and a drink.
That was $19 trillion ago.
Click to expand...

Was the Hastert Rule in effect then? If a majority of the majority is not in favor it doesn't even come to a vote. IMO this is the single biggest reason for gridlock.
 
seebell said:
Was the Hastert Rule in effect then? If a majority of the majority is not in favor it doesn't even come to a vote. IMO this is the single biggest reason for gridlock.
Click to expand...

You realize whose idea you are citing?
john-c-calhoun-AB.jpeg


Seriously, though, party discipline is not as rigid as it is in parliamentary systems like the UK. Individual members of Congress can vote as their judgment dictates. The failure of one party to secure for their policies any support from the opposition means they should moderate their policies.
When Obama came to town, Democrats said, "Elections have consequences. We won. You lost. [Screw] you. We deem this to have passed."
Not exactly extending the hand of cooperation across the aisle.
 
seebell said:
Was the Hastert Rule in effect then? If a majority of the majority is not in favor it doesn't even come to a vote. IMO this is the single biggest reason for gridlock.
Click to expand...

You place waaaay too much emphasis on this rule of thumb. Speakers have regularly violated it, so I don't think it's as big a contributor as you might want it to be.

Gridlock exists because the federal government has overreached. No longer does it govern with respect to the general welfare, so the states and their people have become more demanding of their representatives as a result. If the feds meddled less in the lives of the people, compromise would be more common.
 
Tide1986 said:
You place waaaay too much emphasis on this rule of thumb. Speakers have regularly violated it, so I don't think it's as big a contributor as you might want it to be.

Gridlock exists because the federal government has overreached. No longer does it govern with respect to the general welfare, so the states and their people have become more demanding of their representatives as a result. If the feds meddled less in the lives of the people, compromise would be more common.
Click to expand...

You must mean think it to be. Gridlock exists because of lack of compromise which the Hastert Rule encourages.
 
The EC has now led to a recount in Wisconsin and probably to a few other states. If there were no EC, there would be no recounts going on. Seems contrary to what a few here were saying.
 
Bamaro said:
The EC has now led to a recount in Wisconsin and probably to a few other states. If there were no EC, there would be no recounts going on. Seems contrary to what a few here were saying.
Click to expand...


I don't really attribute it to the EC, I attribute it to a sore loser (this time a lefty, could just as easily have been a righty). The EC merely contained the recount, thereby preventing a nationwide district-by-district recount.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Posts

Advertisement

Trending content

Advertisement

Latest threads

Top Bottom
Back