Welcome to Thunderdome

Posted: **Wed Jul 07, 2004 5:20 pm**

mbilderback wrote:And as much as we are a republic and not a democracy, picking our leaders should always be at the behest and will of the people and only the people.

Uh...what?

Posted: **Wed Jul 07, 2004 5:24 pm**

thibodeaux wrote:
mbilderback wrote:And as much as we are a republic and not a democracy, picking our leaders should always be at the behest and will of the people and only the people.

Uh...what?

Perhaps we need a refresher course in Republics. Yes, our elected officials have the power of laws and what not, but the PEOPLE choose who those elected officials are. The Prez is the biggest elected official.

Posted: **Wed Jul 07, 2004 5:39 pm**

I'm not the one who had the hare-brained idea that the electoral college was established because of time constraints.

Posted: **Wed Jul 07, 2004 5:39 pm**

mbilderback wrote:
TheCatt wrote:
mbilderback wrote: I disagree, I believe the electoral college was a way of allowing for a presidential election on such a grand scale in a reasonable amount of time. If, back in the day (think signing of Constitution era), we waited for every popular vote to be cast and taken to D.C., it would have been time for another election before the votes would be tallied and the winner declared.

But they do count every popular vote, and always have.

Why would a national popular vote make a difference?

While I would not have liked the outcome, the previous popular vote was definitively not in Bush's favor. This shows that the electoral college does not follow the will of the people. And as much as we are a republic and not a democracy, picking our leaders should always be at the behest and will of the people and only the people.

Wait, that doesn't address the feasibility issue at all.

Try again.

Posted: **Wed Jul 07, 2004 5:42 pm**

Actually, I disagree with Bilderback's assessment that the technology exists to have a 99.9% accurate national election. When the unhackable computer network is invented, I'll retract my statement.

Posted: **Wed Jul 07, 2004 7:19 pm**

mbilderback wrote:While I would not have liked the outcome, the previous popular vote was definitively not in Bush's favor. This shows that the electoral college does not follow the will of the people. And as much as we are a republic and not a democracy, picking our leaders should always be at the behest and will of the people and only the people.

Each state has a certain number of electoral votes (if I recall correctly, it's the number of senators + representatives + 2, or something like that). Each state then decides how those votes are awarded to national candidates.

The will of the people was followed in each state. It worked exactly as designed. If only the popular vote was needed, Presidential candidates would only campaign in three or four large metropolitan areas and the rest of the country would be screwed on representation.

It works, and it's not broken. Don't muck with it.

Posted: **Wed Jul 07, 2004 11:21 pm**

Voting via a computer network not only is hackable, but its not in our politicians' best interests, so I doubt you'll see one for quite a long time.

Arizona did some sort of test election via electronic voting a few years ago and the silent majority got really loud.

Posted: **Thu Jul 08, 2004 10:17 am**

GORDON wrote:Actually, I disagree with Bilderback's assessment that the technology exists to have a 99.9% accurate national election. When the unhackable computer network is invented, I'll retract my statement.

Booths, connected via ptp to a server, connected ptp to the main server in D.C. is the way to go. No hacking issues because it's a small net completely disconnected from the rest of the world. You'd have to physically tap the line, and if you're able/willing to do that, well, no way is totally secure, but this way is more secure than our current paper method.

EDIT: For those non-geeks amongst us, rare as you might be, ptp means Point-To-Point, in this case, via satellite or more likely Frame Relay connections. Meaning there's one connection at one side and one connection at the other, no interconnectivity between. You can't hack what you can't contact.

Wait, that doesn't address the feasibility issue at all.

What feasibility issue? They already do a popular vote, how is it not feasible?

If only the popular vote was needed, Presidential candidates would only campaign in three or four large metropolitan areas and the rest of the country would be screwed on representation.

Uhm, so what you're saying is that some guy living in NYC means less in a Presidential election than some guy living in Bucksnort, TN? I disagree, the Prez should be elected by the people, once you agree to that, then the only fair way to elect the Prez is via popular vote. Abstracting it through the electoral college does nothing more than say that certain individuals have more say than others. I think everyone should have 1 vote, and their 1 vote should always mean just as much as everyone else's 1 vote.

Posted: **Thu Jul 08, 2004 11:07 am**

mbilderback wrote:
Wait, that doesn't address the feasibility issue at all.

What feasibility issue? They already do a popular vote, how is it not feasible?

You said:

I disagree, I believe the electoral college was a way of allowing for a presidential election on such a grand scale in a reasonable amount of time. If, back in the day (think signing of Constitution era), we waited for every popular vote to be cast and taken to D.C., it would have been time for another election before the votes would be tallied and the winner declared.

Posted: **Thu Jul 08, 2004 1:06 pm**

mbilderback wrote:Uhm, so what you're saying is that some guy living in NYC means less in a Presidential election than some guy living in Bucksnort, TN? I disagree, the Prez should be elected by the people, once you agree to that, then the only fair way to elect the Prez is via popular vote.

If they put in a popular vote for President, I'm going to run on the platform of putting a big electric fence all around Wyoming, and turning it into a big prison for gang members from New York, Florida, and LA. This should win me the vote from New York and California and Florida, which would probably get me the election. I'll add Detroit and Cleveland if I need a few more million votes.

See you in the next civil war.

Posted: **Thu Jul 08, 2004 3:47 pm**

GORDON wrote:
mbilderback wrote:Uhm, so what you're saying is that some guy living in NYC means less in a Presidential election than some guy living in Bucksnort, TN? I disagree, the Prez should be elected by the people, once you agree to that, then the only fair way to elect the Prez is via popular vote.

If they put in a popular vote for President, I'm going to run on the platform of putting a big electric fence all around Wyoming, and turning it into a big prison for gang members from New York, Florida, and LA. This should win me the vote from New York and California and Florida, which would probably get me the election. I'll add Detroit and Cleveland if I need a few more million votes.

See you in the next civil war.

you are one classy mofo

Posted: **Thu Jul 08, 2004 3:49 pm**

can i be your running mate? i have this great plan to put all the nuclear waste in montana

Posted: **Thu Jul 08, 2004 5:41 pm**

Alhazad wrote:can i be your running mate? i have this great plan to put all the nuclear waste in montana

Why the hell not? It's not like Montana would have any say in a popular vote.

Posted: **Thu Jul 08, 2004 7:28 pm**

If you could somehow screw over Iowa, you most assuredly got my vote.

Posted: **Thu Jul 08, 2004 7:32 pm**

Malcolm wrote:If you could somehow screw over Iowa, you most assuredly got my vote.

What percentage of total population does Iowa have? My guess is that we can really fuck Iowa over and get away with it. Des Moines just aint that big.

Posted: **Thu Jul 08, 2004 11:46 pm**

Alhazad wrote:can i be your running mate? i have this great plan to put all the nuclear waste in montana

We're already trying to put in into Utah, isn't that good enough?

(Or was it Nevada... I think it was Nevada).

Posted: **Fri Jul 09, 2004 12:57 pm**

TheCatt wrote:
mbilderback wrote:
Wait, that doesn't address the feasibility issue at all.

What feasibility issue? They already do a popular vote, how is it not feasible?

You said:
I disagree, I believe the electoral college was a way of allowing for a presidential election on such a grand scale in a reasonable amount of time. If, back in the day (think signing of Constitution era), we waited for every popular vote to be cast and taken to D.C., it would have been time for another election before the votes would be tallied and the winner declared.

That quote was referring to when the original idea was devised. It's not relevant today.

And to your other comments, I don't think we should /care/ what Montana has to say, only what the PEOPLE in Montana have to say. They get just as much say as any other individual. Why do you keep acting like it's the states electing Federal officials?

Posted: **Fri Jul 09, 2004 1:13 pm**

Ever hear of NIMBY? It means "Not in My Backyard". It's a core of democracy that people will vote for all sorts of bad things, as long as it's far away.

Part of what keeps states will smaller populations from becoming giant criminal facilities and whatnot is the slight edge that being a state with two Senators brings. If you took that away, then there's every chance that the "tyranny of the majority" that is residing on the costs would turn sections of the less-populated regions of our country into NIMBY dumping-grounds.

Posted: **Fri Jul 09, 2004 1:16 pm**

Why do you keep acting like it's the states electing Federal officials?

Because the framers of the Constitution intended the States to do so. The Senators were selected by the State legislatures, because they were to represent the States as first-class entities. The federal government was not intended to be a just government of the People (regardless of what Lincoln said), but a government over the States, with the People given a voice as a check on its power.

The President was never intended to be elected by a popular vote, because quite frankly the framers of the Constitution saw democracy as dangerous.

Thought experiment: if the President should be elected by popular vote, what about the Supreme Court? Not only are those people not elected, they're selected by the other two branches of the government. The People get no direct say at all. Shouldn't the Supreme Court be subject to the say of the People?

Edited By thibodeaux on 1089393399

Posted: **Fri Jul 09, 2004 1:47 pm**

Oh, God, no!

SCOTUS's primary role is to slow down progress. They apply the views of the past on the legislation of today. With a popularly elected SCOTUS serving a limited term before the next election, then all that goes away, and we lose all protections from the whim of The People making sweeping changes to our laws as the latest political fad drives the elections to the bench.

No. Let them remain a stumbling block to "progress", please, as we've got little else to stand in it's way as it is these days.

EDIT - Just to clarify, SCOTUS does evolve, but it does it over the course of generations instead of over the course of election cycles.

Welcome to Thunderdome

Putting the shit back in the horse.