Should America be Run by a Political Minority or a Political Majority?

[sealchan]

Or should a political party that received a majority of the vote from a very, very small section of the country govern the majority of the country? Re: Electoral College

You're not making the argument that votes are supposed to be per acre, are you?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The people within the medical field at the top know insurences have alot of money, so it makes sense that they will charge huge prices.

Take away medical insurence companies and the medic field will have no choice but to lower prices. If they dont, no one will be a customer because most wont afford it; accept the rich, but there not majority.

Or people will die.

More people will die, rather.

There's a lot of inherent expense in health care. Those costs don't just go away because people can't afford expensive health care.

I read this part 3 times, you lost me here. Break this down more. I dont understand.

The typos probably didn't help.

People who are deathly ill will usually spend all they can not to die. Increasing the price of health care only causes a small decrease in demand for the service; that's inelastic demand.

Right, and thats why SOME laws need to remain. But some need to be abolished.

The vast majority of laws are about stopping people from infringing on the freedoms of others.

What are the regulations on each of those?

Depends where you are.

Ah, but, i use to work at this wearhouse where unions have no effect there, it was in south carolina. And work conditions are normal. In fact, in oriantation they told us if you use a union, they can still say no to the unions proposal. So, if a employee has an issue, its best to comunicate it directly. This creates more trust and openess between employer and employee. Thus making the situation better and more likely that the employer will address the employees issue favorably.

In fact, i was working in the physically hardest department in the entire wearhouse. Shiping and recieving.

There was 2 sections. One part unloaded and loaded trailers with a forklift. The other section loaded trailers by hand. This is the area i worked. It was 50 to 70 pound boxes. Hundreds of boxes to fill each trailer. It was brutal work. Anyhow, my right shoulder joint started to hurt, in a bad way. At that point i knew i had to take pressure off it. I told the boss about the issue and that i needed to go to a different department, or hed have to send me home until something else came up. He worked with me and i went to another department and my shoulder healed and everything was fine.

No union was needed.

You had to do what you describe yourself as "brutal work" and you don't see the need for a union?

I might outgrow it depending on how or where our discussion lands. Or, mayby youl grow into libertarianism, again depending on where the discussion lands.

I sure hope not, since I think the only way I could become a libertarian would involve a head injury.

Im approuching this with an open mind, but my mind is not so open to where me brain falls out and not so closed to where me brain crushes.

Good to hear. I hope that's true.

 

[Jollybear]

Or people will die.

More people will die, rather.

There's a lot of inherent expense in health care. Those costs don't just go away because people can't afford expensive health care.

Will they die? Or will the medic field just let them make payments? And inherent costs always very. When new technologies come out, the old ones get cheaper. Ever notice that? Inherent is not always the case.

The typos probably didn't help.

People who are deathly ill will usually spend all they can not to die. Increasing the price of health care only causes a small decrease in demand for the service; that's inelastic demand.

If health insurence did not exist and the doctor was not paid via taxes, i dont see why the medic fields charges to see the doctor would not go down.

The vast majority of laws are about stopping people from infringing on the freedoms of others.

Yea.....but.....some laws are there just to control you. There petty laws. Laws that simply do away with all trust.

True, laws are put in place to protect others freedom. But too many laws take AWAY freedom too.

So, whats the real answer?

I know, no one be evil. If everyone chose to be good, no laws would be needed.

Depends where you are.

What about where you live?

You had to do what you describe yourself as "brutal work" and you don't see the need for a union?

No, not at all. For one, that department paid the most money out of every department at the distribution center.

And second, the boss worked with me when i told him my shoulder was paining.

Third, the other department i was placed, was not brutal. It was still labor, but not nearly as brutal. It was a pay decrease though.

The other guys loading those boxes, there shoulder wasnt messing up. Perhaps it was technique or genetics. But in anycase, i had to get off the shoulder before permenent damage happened.

I sure hope not, since I think the only way I could become a libertarian would involve a head injury.

Lol....a head injury huh? Well, you need to hurry up and get that head injury going on then.

Good to hear. I hope that's true.

Yes sir.

 

[BSM1]

You're not making the argument that votes are supposed to be per acre, are you?

Really? This the best you got? The argument is that all the country needs a fair shot at representation.

 

[sealchan]

Really? This the best you got? The argument is that all the country needs a fair shot at representation.

I think the basic issue of the OP is whether in a system that promises one person-one vote with equal voting power, should we assume that the majority gets its way when in a dispute with minority opinions?

In one scenario we have had the white majority gradually (and not so gradually) giving way to the rights and freedoms denied to non-white minorities (which are now very soon collectively to become the majority). In another scenario we have a xenophobic minority trying desperately to counter that development by using indirect methods (laws, gerrymandering, etc.) to diminish the impact of that long-developing majority opinion by allowing a minority (albeit slim) to overrule a majority.

Gradually all those efforts, I believe, will be undone because practically NO ONE can stomach going back to "the old days". Conservatives forcing non-change is also a strong driver of change.

We can see that as a result a xenophobe leading his slight minority has "reigned" over one of the greatest increases in diversity in the highest levels of government ever seen. This is in spite of his slight minority.

A healthy democracy, fortunately, involves many feedback systems and is not dependent on the intent of the executive branch of government.

Now let the investigations begin!...I mean continue!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Really? This the best you got? The argument is that all the country needs a fair shot at representation.

Remember that we're talking about a 3-level system of elected representatives:

- President
- Senate
- House

In the American system, the Senate already provides the protections you're talking about.

 

[BSM1]

I think the basic issue of the OP is whether in a system that promises one person-one vote with equal voting power, should we assume that the majority gets its way when in a dispute with minority opinions?

In one scenario we have had the white majority gradually (and not so gradually) giving way to the rights and freedoms denied to non-white minorities (which are now very soon collectively to become the majority). In another scenario we have a xenophobic minority trying desperately to counter that development by using indirect methods (laws, gerrymandering, etc.) to diminish the impact of that long-developing majority opinion by allowing a minority (albeit slim) to overrule a majority.

Gradually all those efforts, I believe, will be undone because practically NO ONE can stomach going back to "the old days". Conservatives forcing non-change is also a strong driver of change.

We can see that as a result a xenophobe leading his slight minority has "reigned" over one of the greatest increases in diversity in the highest levels of government ever seen. This is in spite of his slight minority.

A healthy democracy, fortunately, involves many feedback systems and is not dependent on the intent of the executive branch of government.

Now let the investigations begin!...I mean continue!

But our system of government never promised the voting scenario you outlined. From the start we were a representative democracy which said we voted for representatives who, in effect, truly allowed our votes to count. The reps we vote on comprises the Electoral College which more adequately reflects the population of our country then the 'mob rule' you seem to want to have. This is probably the most intelligent political tool that the world has ever seen.

 

[BSM1]

Remember that we're talking about a 3-level system of elected representatives:

- President
- Senate
- House

In the American system, the Senate already provides the protections you're talking about.

We're talking about two different things. Plus, Senators were originally suppose to represent and were appointed by the states, not elected.

 

[sealchan]

But our system of government never promised the voting scenario you outlined. From the start we were a representative democracy which said we voted for representatives who, in effect, truly allowed our votes to count. The reps we vote on comprises the Electoral College which more adequately reflects the population of our country then the 'mob rule' you seem to want to have. This is probably the most intelligent political tool that the world has ever seen.

Can you briefly outline how the Electoral College, to your understanding, more adequately reflects the population than a one person-one vote scenario?

If you already have just refer me to the post number. Thanks!

 

[BSM1]

Can you briefly outline how the Electoral College, to your understanding, more adequately reflects the population than a one person-one vote scenario?

If you already have just refer me to the post number. Thanks!

As you can see in the last elections, the population centers in the US could control the government for decades if you simply allowed a one man, one vote model. A politician, or political machine, could go into these areas and promise the moon and sun to these folks and never be voted out. This could be twisted so that the rest of the US would have to fund these gifts (far fetched, I know, but possible). The EC keeps this from happening. Another scenario: Suppose a very charismatic White Supreme or BLM candidate won the popular vote and had openly promised to restrict or even subjugate certain races, or religions, to intern camps (not the imaginary crap attributed to Trump, but really barbwire places). In your model these folks rule. However, in most cases the representatives to the EC are not bound to their state's voting outcome. The EC could choose not to elect this particular madman-or woman. So you can see the beauty of the EC and the farsighted genius of the Founding Fathers.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We're talking about two different things.

I thought we were talking about the dangers of basing representation strictly on population. My point is that even if the president was elected based on the popular vote, this wouldn't mean that representation was based strictly on population.

Except for rare circumstances, a bill doesn't get passed unless it gets approved by all 3 of the house, senate, and president.

My quick Googling tells me that the 9 most populous states have about 51% of the total population, but these 9 states can't unilaterally enforce their will on the other 41 states because they still need the support of more than half of the states by number to get anything past the senate.

Plus, Senators were originally suppose to represent and were appointed by the states, not elected.

Yes, I'm aware of the history. Today, senators are elected. The relevant point, though, is that every state gets equal representation in the senate regardless of population.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As you can see in the last elections, the population centers in the US could control the government for decades if you simply allowed a one man, one vote model. A politician, or political machine, could go into these areas and promise the moon and sun to these folks and never be voted out. This could be twisted so that the rest of the US would have to fund these gifts (far fetched, I know, but possible). The EC keeps this from happening. Another scenario: Suppose a very charismatic White Supreme or BLM candidate won the popular vote and had openly promised to restrict or even subjugate certain races, or religions, to intern camps (not the imaginary crap attributed to Trump, but really barbwire places). In your model these folks rule. However, in most cases the representatives to the EC are not bound to their state's voting outcome. The EC could choose not to elect this particular madman-or woman. So you can see the beauty of the EC and the farsighted genius of the Founding Fathers.

There were two reasons for the Electoral College:

- practical concerns: in the days before the telegraph, it made sense to send delegates to meet together in case unexpected problems arose (e.g. the death of a candidate).

- the three-fifths compromise. If the election is based on the strict popular vote, there's no mechanism to give slave-holding states their disproportionate representation.

The first reason has been addressed with technology. The second reason was odious to begin with and has been completely obsolete since the end of slavery.

 

[BSM1]

There were two reasons for the Electoral College:

- practical concerns: in the days before the telegraph, it made sense to send delegates to meet together in case unexpected problems arose (e.g. the death of a candidate).

- the three-fifths compromise. If the election is based on the strict popular vote, there's no mechanism to give slave-holding states their disproportionate representation.

The first reason has been addressed with technology. The second reason was odious to begin with and has been completely obsolete since the end of slavery.

Do you even know what the 3/5 compromise addressed? And, if I am not mistaken, that came years after the EC was established. Both of your reasons are specious at best.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Do you even know what the 3/5 compromise addressed?

Yes. Do you?

And, if I am not mistaken, that came years after the EC was established. Both of your reasons are specious at best.

It seems you are mistaken.

No, the three-fifths compromise was instituted in 1787 as part of a single set of decisions on how to apportion house representatives and taxation to the states. It was in this process that they decided that, for the purpose of deciding how many representatives a state would have, three-fifths of slaves would be counted along with all of the non-slaves.

Since a state's number of EC electors is based on their number of representatives and senators, the three-fifths compromise flowed through to the election of the president as well.

Oh - there was a third reason for the electoral college that I forgot: originally, it gave states the freedom to choose other methods to choose electors (e.g. appointment by the state legislature). However, this reason has been obsolete since 1864.

 

[BSM1]

Yes. Do you?


It seems you are mistaken.

No, the three-fifths compromise was instituted in 1787 as part of a single set of decisions on how to apportion house representatives and taxation to the states. It was in this process that they decided that, for the purpose of deciding how many representatives a state would have, three-fifths of slaves would be counted along with all of the non-slaves.

Since a state's number of EC electors is based on their number of representatives and senators, the three-fifths compromise flowed through to the election of the president as well.

Oh - there was a third reason for the electoral college that I forgot: originally, it gave states the freedom to choose other methods to choose electors (e.g. appointment by the state legislature). However, this reason has been obsolete since 1864.

But the southern Congressmen wanted the non-voting slaves counted individually. This would have given the slave states a greater voice in Congress. The notherners didn't want the slaves counted at all for the purpose of representation, thus the compromise.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But the southern Congressmen wanted the non-voting slaves counted individually. This would have given the slave states a greater voice in Congress. The notherners didn't want the slaves counted at all for the purpose of representation, thus the compromise.

That's right: in a choice between very entrenched, violent, extreme racism and not entrenching violent, extreme racism, they compromised with violent, extreme racism that was only somewhat entrenched.

... and in order to entrench this violent, extreme racism somewhat, they instituted the Electoral College.

 

[sealchan]

As you can see in the last elections, the population centers in the US could control the government for decades if you simply allowed a one man, one vote model. A politician, or political machine, could go into these areas and promise the moon and sun to these folks and never be voted out. This could be twisted so that the rest of the US would have to fund these gifts (far fetched, I know, but possible). The EC keeps this from happening. Another scenario: Suppose a very charismatic White Supreme or BLM candidate won the popular vote and had openly promised to restrict or even subjugate certain races, or religions, to intern camps (not the imaginary crap attributed to Trump, but really barbwire places). In your model these folks rule. However, in most cases the representatives to the EC are not bound to their state's voting outcome. The EC could choose not to elect this particular madman-or woman. So you can see the beauty of the EC and the farsighted genius of the Founding Fathers.

I'm afraid from my point of view we have already broke that safety mechanism. We don't agree I'm sure.

Well, this is why I mention specifically the way that minority rights have been gradually improving in spite of the majority. In fact, the majority group has developed morally to a point where it has decided that its own group is not above that of others and has decided that it fundamentally IS the same as others. All "men" are created equal. This, to me, is an historical development...that a empowered racial majority would gradually move toward relinquishing its historical powers in favor of identifying with all races and sharing that power. This is truly a "white" nationalism (aka globalism bought into by "whites") where white means "all colors".

By saying that the population centers who want equality for all are unfairly representing themselves is irony to the highest degree. Maybe they are not representing the rural and blue collar community but if those communities want to continue to deny the rights of others then they are putting themselves in a hole (not delineated by any kind of racial boundary as most whites apparently don't agree with white superiority) that they should not be digging. Maybe they should be focused on the economic concerns that presumably are "really" upset about. However, polling has indicated that this is not the case.

By my estimates 40% of the Republican voters in the last election don't hold xenophobic views. They will eventually find it expedient to separate themselves from the 60% who do and join the rest of us.

No system of government should defy its own principles (all... are created equal) in order to uphold those who would defy this nation's principles. This is an issue of self-reference which requires we look at what is going on beyond a simple formula of everyone gets their way.

I'm not aware of any other situation in which the Electoral College has saved us from ourselves as you suggest. Again, I think that it has been doing us a disservice for the reasons outlined above.

 

[Gridiron Man]

It should be ran by a government that works together. Not a government that acts like two rival gangs who's main focus is over powering the other.
That's never going to happen though.

 

[sealchan]

The real answer to this thread is that a majority should voluntarily give up their power when it encroaches on the minority when that power is not justified by universal human rights.

And a democracy is healthy when all its checks and balances are free to act in good conscience. The Justice Department is the ultimate brag on the legitimacy of the Presidency to the extent that it is free to launch investigations aimed at the Executive Branch in which it is a part. And for it to not only appear but be impartial...

Sessions, in this sense, is a hero in my book.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Just thinking about the Electoral College a bit more:

On further reflection, I realized that the distortion of the results from the popular vote isn't really about an urban/rural divide, or about small states vs. big states; it's about distortion of the vote within states themselves.

The number of electoral votes per state is actually pretty close to their percentage by population: the worst case is Wyoming: if all 538 EC votes were alloted by population, it would have 0.97 votes, but it gets 3... an extra 2 votes, roughly. Not that big a difference.

OTOH, think about the distortion from the fact that (for the most part) EC votes are allotted all-or-nothing by state.

Consider the 3 most popular states and how many EC votes they would have yielded in the last election if their votes were assigned proportionally to their popular vote:

- California: 34 Clinton / 18 Trump / 3 others (went 55 to Clinton; should have been net +16 to Clinton)
- Texas: 20 Trump / 16 Clinton / 2 others (went 38 to Trump; should have been net +4 to Trump)
- Florida: 14 Trump / 14 Clinton / 1 other (went 29 to Trump; should have been net 0 to both Trump and Clinton relative to each other)

Just take those 3 states and we see:

- 21 EC votes that Clinton probably shouldn't have received, but 30 votes she should have received but didn't, for a net under-representation of 9 EC votes

- 33 EC votes that Trump probably shouldn't have received, but 18 votes he should have received but didn't, for a net over-representation of 15 EC votes.

The same general pattern follows for the rest: on average, the states won by Republicans tend to be squeakers, while the states won by Democrats tend to be won by bigger margins... but except for two smaller states, the winner takes all of the state's EC votes.

So the people who are actually under-represented are the voters who voted for the candidate who didn't win their state.