The real attack on Democracy.

GroupDIY Audio Forum

Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Those votes rightly don't belong to two parties, however they do 'steal' and 'spoil' just by the underlying mathematics of how elections are conducted, where every single vote in excess of the winning threshold is 'wasted' (e.g. you can only win so hard). Given both parties always declare a mandate regardless of the actual vote thresholds renders it even more meaningless.

I feel a push for ranked-choice voting nationwide would actually change the underlying dynamics as it would eliminate wasted votes and allow people to vote for the actual candidate that represents their views (if such a candidate actually exists). It would also greatly lessen the practical impacts of Citizen's United.

Between Biden, Trump, and RFK Jr, it would make for an impactful difference between the following rankings:

1) RFK Jr, 2) Biden, 3) Trump
1) RFK Jr 2) Trump, 3) Biden

Rather than a vote that's otherwise 'thrown away'.

I'm sure the founding fathers would be horrified though...
I have been watching "Ranked choice" voting in Maine since 2016. I am still watching it.

Interesting but involves different pros and cons.
===
IMO our founders were smart to limit the power of elected officials. They have been angling to get around those limitations forever. Spending by both parties is out of control. We need to starve the beast.

JR
 
I'm sure the founding fathers would be horrified though...

I don't agree. The founders were very much about getting the best guy for the job. They would be horrified by the modern political system and horrified by the modern electoral college.

Btw, Andrew Yang has a Ted talk about ranked choice voting, and as usual brings the data. Seems to be catching on and working.

 
I don't agree. The founders were very much about getting the best guy for the job. They would be horrified by the modern political system and horrified by the modern electoral college.
The electoral college was designed by the founders and written into the constitution.

Modern politics OTOH is not what they envisioned.

JR
 
The electoral college was designed by the founders and written into the constitution.

I would suggest reading more in depth about it.

Consider a dog show. The public elects judges. The judges then go through and evaluate all the candidates and award best in show, 1st place and 2nd place. As opposed to a show where dogs pair up, the public votes on them, and the judges simply rubber stamp the results.

It is extremely clear the intent of the founders was the former.
 
I would suggest reading more in depth about it.
I have read in depth about the constitution and our early history. I read the "federalist papers" years ago (essays written by the founders sometimes using aliases), I also bought the anti-federalist papers book (more of the early debates) but didn't read every debate. The index noted multiple references to electoral college, but they didn't call it that back then.

A common theme is protecting individual and minority rights. There was concern even back in the early days about large populous colonies dominating small less populous colonies. The same tension exists today between populous coastal states vs. sparsely populated fly over states. City mice vs the country mice.
Consider a dog show. The public elects judges. The judges then go through and evaluate all the candidates and award best in show, 1st place and 2nd place. As opposed to a show where dogs pair up, the public votes on them, and the judges simply rubber stamp the results.
consider lynch mobs, pure democracy in action. :rolleyes:
It is extremely clear the intent of the founders was the former.
I can't read minds "clearly" all the way back several centuries, but our founders actual words still exist in print to be read today.

JR
 
consider lynch mobs, pure democracy in action. :rolleyes:

That is quite the epic strawman :) In case it wasn't clear, the analogy had nothing to do with how votes are proportioned.

I can't read minds "clearly" all the way back several centuries, but our founders actual words still exist in print to be read today.

The founders own words demonstrate the point. No mind reading necessary.
 
That is quite the epic strawman :) In case it wasn't clear, the analogy had nothing to do with how votes are proportioned.
I used the literary device called hyperbole to make my point. We are not a dog show either while sometimes politics can bark like one. 🤔

The eye-rolling emoticon in my post was supposed to be suggestive of humor. Maybe next time I will write hyperbole in brackets. [/hyperbole]
The founders own words demonstrate the point. No mind reading necessary.
Indeed... and the founders literally wrote the electoral college into the constitution using their own words.

JR
 
I used the literary device called hyperbole to make my point. We are not a dog show either while sometimes politics can bark like one. 🤔

Hyperbole is fine, it just needs to be on topic :)

Indeed... and the founders literally wrote the electoral college into the constitution using their own words.

And their words literally show that the intent is not for electors to be proxy voters, which is what we have now.
 
I would suggest reading more in depth about it.

Consider a dog show. The public elects judges. The judges then go through and evaluate all the candidates and award best in show, 1st place and 2nd place. As opposed to a show where dogs pair up, the public votes on them, and the judges simply rubber stamp the results.

It is extremely clear the intent of the founders was the former.
Changes to the original electoral college procedure were made when the serious flaw of having a POTUS and VP with widely disparate views occurred in the third presidential election. Many of the founders were still active in government at that time, so arguing that somehow their intent was the original flawed method is disingenuous at best. The Amendment process was used to effectively correct the problem.

Projecting your opinion as their "intent" regarding later pre-election pairing of Presidential and VP candidates as a package is weak. Some of the founders likely wouldn't like it while others might see it as a pragmatic way to ensure that the executive branch is functional.

The more important fact is that they did NOT want the executive branch elections to be by direct popular vote. I'd expect quite a few of the founders would not like the current system adopted by all states where the electors votes are tied to each states' popular vote. Modern day attempts by the left to undermine/replace the electoral college are deeply misguided (or intentionally tyrannical).
 
+1...

I'd also like to think that they might not like the 17th amendment that calls for direct election of senators... At least I know I don't like it because IMO it makes the state legislatures weaker and the federal government stronger.

But this is not worth losing sleep over.

JR
 
Gee, another "conspiracy theory" proven true. Wasn't it apparent that something was up when all flights were grounded except a plane collecting several Saudis in the US and flying them home? I remember that bullshit. The neoconmen and bad actors in the permanent bureaucracy covered it up for two decades. So now we're "at this point what difference does it make?"
 
Talk about a Grand Old Party!!

GOP Senate Candidate Spent Thousands in Donor Funds on Strip Clubs, Luxury, and Mysterious Wire Transfers​


https://www.thedailybeast.com/gop-sen-candidate-royce-white-spent-big-on-strip-clubs-limos-luxury
www said:
A fallacy of composition is the flawed reasoning that concludes what is true for individual parts must also be true for the entire group or system they belong to.
==
Understanding the psychology behind the fallacy of composition can help you grasp why it's so common. At its core, this fallacy often arises from our instinctual need for cognitive shortcuts. Your brain loves to simplify complex information to make quick judgments.

This is known as heuristic thinking, a mental shortcut that helps you make speedy decisions without having to analyze every single detail. While heuristics can be useful, they can also lead you to faulty conclusions, like assuming that what's true for one part must be true for the whole.

Another psychological aspect is the confirmation bias. This is the tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms your preexisting beliefs.

Your brain is wired to make these kinds of errors, but being aware of them is the first step to more rational thinking.

https://practicalpie.com/fallacy-of-composition/


Good luck

JR
 
Good luck
With what? Didn't commit a fallacy of composition--simply made a rather facile play on words. I think you're reading way too much into my very brief comment--perhaps this is reflective of your own unease at the shocking number of sleazeballs in the GOP these days?
 
Gee, another "conspiracy theory" proven true. Wasn't it apparent that something was up when all flights were grounded except a plane collecting several Saudis in the US and flying them home? I remember that bullshit. The neoconmen and bad actors in the permanent bureaucracy covered it up for two decades. So now we're "at this point what difference does it make?"

The FBI also reported about that. Someone told 'em to shut up. Or they got a sudden case of amnesia.

The most remarkable isn't that it was reported. It's mainly that the conspiracy crowd doesn't pick it up.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top