The electoral college issue we forgot

Rum, beer, movies, nice websites, gaming, etc., without interrupting the flow of martial threads.

Re: The electoral college issue we forgot

Postby Michael on Wed Mar 20, 2019 1:26 pm

Steve James wrote:But, I think there are people in the military now who are not "legal" residents. There was a report about a Marine who was deported. Anyway, I think anyone who fights for the country should be able to vote. Other than that, I think only citizens should vote. Well, I think all citizens should be required to register, and I think it should be illegal to take away the right of any citizen to vote.

My ideas for military service:

  • Constitutional amendment against conscription.
  • Minimum military age should be raised to 25. No exceptions under any circumstances. We have already seen 70 years or Americans dying abroad without a declaration of war. (A pre-emptive fuck you to anyone who nitpicks me with Congressional blah, blah, blah).
  • Salaries and benefits to US military personnel should be whatever is needed on the open market to fill the position, at least as high as Blackwater/XE or that of contractors.
  • No military recruiting at any schools or places predominated by people under the age of 25.
  • No military propaganda, advertising, product placement, script consultation, etc., of any kind. None. Nada. Zero. Face-to-face recruiting only.
  • Eight years of active duty military service earns you the right to vote.
Michael

 

Re: The electoral college issue we forgot

Postby Steve James on Wed Mar 20, 2019 2:31 pm

Constitutional amendment against conscription.


Minimum military age should be raised to 25. No exceptions under any circumstances.

Eight years of active duty military service earns you the right to vote.


1) So, male and female citizens would begin voting at 33, since they began service at 25?
2) You must mean mandatory service if there's no conscription.

3) Okay, what happens if you're twelve and you lose your leg to cancer? In general, it seems like only the fittest for active duty service will be allowed to vote. Sounds like Sparta.

4) It presumes the necessity of war above every thing else as the underlying justification for political participation. That's bull. Sure, you can mandate that everyone serve, or a period of national service for everyone; but what that service is will depend on need. We aren't neutral Switzerland sharing borders with countries at war.

4) Afa age, my grandson is going on 22 and is a typical millennial who doesn't feel like "adulting" today. My father's generation were invading the Japanese islands at 18. I have friends who enlisted (by lying) at 16. One of my son-in-laws enlisted in the Marines at 17 (with parental permission). Imo, both had the right to vote for who'd be sending them to war. Jmo.
"A man is rich when he has time and freewill. How he chooses to invest both will determine the return on his investment."
User avatar
Steve James
Great Old One
 
Posts: 21137
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:20 am

Re: The electoral college issue we forgot

Postby Michael on Wed Mar 20, 2019 2:51 pm

Mike wrote:
  • (1) Constitutional amendment against conscription.
  • (2) Minimum military age should be raised to 25. No exceptions under any circumstances. We have already seen 70 years or Americans dying abroad without a declaration of war. (A pre-emptive fuck you to anyone who nitpicks me with Congressional blah, blah, blah).
  • (3) Salaries and benefits to US military personnel should be whatever is needed on the open market to fill the position, at least as high as Blackwater/XE or that of contractors.
  • (4) No military recruiting at any schools or places predominated by people under the age of 25.
  • (5) No military propaganda, advertising, product placement, script consultation, etc., of any kind. None. Nada. Zero. Face-to-face recruiting only.
  • (6) Eight years of active duty military service earns you the right to vote.


Steve wrote:1) So, male and female citizens would begin voting at 33, since they began service at 25?
2) You must mean mandatory service if there's no conscription.

3) Okay, what happens if you're twelve and you lose your leg to cancer? In general, it seems like only the fittest for active duty service will be allowed to vote. Sounds like Sparta.

4) It presumes the necessity of war above every thing else as the underlying justification for political participation. That's bull. Sure, you can mandate that everyone serve, or a period of national service for everyone; but what that service is will depend on need. We aren't neutral Switzerland sharing borders with countries at war.

4) Afa age, my grandson is going on 22 and is a typical millennial who doesn't feel like "adulting" today. My father's generation were invading the Japanese islands at 18. I have friends who enlisted (by lying) at 16. One of my son-in-laws enlisted in the Marines at 17 (with parental permission). Imo, both had the right to vote for who'd be sending them to war. Jmo.



1) So, male and female citizens would begin voting at 33, since they began service at 25?

Yes.

2) You must mean mandatory service if there's no conscription.

Nope. No conscription. No mandatory military service under any circumstances, with a minimum age of 25 for voluntary service at market rates.

3) Okay, what happens if you're twelve and you lose your leg to cancer? In general, it seems like only the fittest for active duty service will be allowed to vote. Sounds like Sparta.

The other qualification to vote is to be married and have living children. Amputees can get hitched and be as miserable as the rest of us.

4) It presumes the necessity of war above every thing else as the underlying justification for political participation. That's bull. Sure, you can mandate that everyone serve, or a period of national service for everyone; but what that service is will depend on need. We aren't neutral Switzerland sharing borders with countries at war.

I agree, that's bull. My other requirement is investment in the future of society: get married, have children.

4) Afa age, my grandson is going on 22 and is a typical millennial who doesn't feel like "adulting" today. My father's generation were invading the Japanese islands at 18. I have friends who enlisted (by lying) at 16. One of my son-in-laws enlisted in the Marines at 17 (with parental permission). Imo, both had the right to vote for who'd be sending them to war. Jmo.

Makes sense. I had relatives with similar ages and situations. I enlisted in the Marines at 17 legally. So I agree that if you go to war, you've earned the right to vote. If I were king, my government would be more careful about starting shit overseas because the availability of young-dumb-and-full-of-gun soldiers would be greatly restricted.
Michael

 

Re: The electoral college issue we forgot

Postby Michael on Wed Mar 20, 2019 4:43 pm

Image
Michael

 

Re: The electoral college issue we forgot

Postby Steve James on Wed Mar 20, 2019 6:35 pm

Electors are determined by the population of the state. It's the same for the House of Representatives. NY has more representatives than Montana. Of course, the Bronx has more people than Montana.

Secondly, iirc, Montana currently has 3 electoral vote. NY has around 47. California has around 50.

Thirdly, there have only been four times in history that the person who won the electoral vote did not win the popular vote. Now, think about that. How did that happen? The reason isn't because CA or NY is bigger. There are simply more voters there. If any state that Clinton won were eliminated, Trump would have won the popular vote, too. I.e.,winning a state has generally meant winning its electoral vote. The electoral college, itself, is not a problem. Well, ok, when Obama won, Trump said it was a threat to Democracy. What was his reasoning then? What did the cartoons look like?

Image
https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http ... -800wi&f=1

Hey, I ain't afraid of having an electoral college. I just don't see a problem with using the popular vote. Given the small number of times the two have disagreed, I really wonder about the motives of those who oppose it. (Not. It's the same reason, and Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Jones, Carlson, and others say pretty much the same thing. It's why McConnell thinks moving election day to Saturday is a power grab. Riight.

Right now, the result is that the president can't say the majority of people voted for him. Simple as that, make of it what you will. I think ededed has pointed out that using the popular vote would satisfy more people that the election was fair. I'm not saying it was. I'm saying that people will look at it as at best a technical win, not a decisive one. I know. He's the president. But, it's tainted in a way it wouldn't be if he had won the popular vote, no matter where those votes came from.

If most of the elections had been decided only by the electoral vote, I might be more concerned. It's exactly the opposite, however.
"A man is rich when he has time and freewill. How he chooses to invest both will determine the return on his investment."
User avatar
Steve James
Great Old One
 
Posts: 21137
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:20 am

Re: The electoral college issue we forgot

Postby Michael on Wed Mar 20, 2019 7:06 pm

The rules of the electoral college have been in place all along, so the correlation of popular vote majorities, excepting four times, with electoral wins can not be tested; you can't remove the variable. In other words, we don't know the total influence of the electoral college on the election process. For example, Trump visited Wisconsin and Miss Regime Change did not. If one of the purposes of the electoral college is stability, the result could be interpreted that Wisconsin voters feel they were heard and are more satisfied with the result, so in their minds it's more legitimate, similar to the theory that a popular vote win gives legitimacy, and both of these outcomes favor stability, according to one of the people you mentioned, Tucker Carlson.

For me the question is besides the elimination of the possibility of winning the election without winning the popular vote, what are the other potential outcomes that would affect stability? Would voters in smaller states feel, over time, the election was less and less legitimate for them? That's my question, I have no idea how to answer it; not enough political knowledge. So, I'll just trust in tradition on this one, not like anyone is asking me.
Michael

 

Re: The electoral college issue we forgot

Postby Steve James on Wed Mar 20, 2019 7:52 pm

we don't know the total influence of the electoral college on the election process


It affects the result if it negates the popular vote. Why people didn't vote for Clinton is an entirely different question. The issue of visiting a particular state isn't particularly relevant. For ex., take any previous election, and there are states where the winning candidate did not visit. Candidates visit where they think they're needed. Clinton could have been wrong. Otoh, she might have predicted either that she would lose Wisconsin or that she would win it. Sure, if she'd gone there, she might have won. Trump won Wisconsin by -4% (48%-44%). Maybe a visit would have made the difference. But, no one knows for sure. If just visiting would make the difference, who will people vote for if every candidate visits every state? There has to be a reason to vote for someone other than a visit. It is not a rationale for the electoral college.

Would voters in smaller states feel the election were less legitimate for them without the electoral college? Maybe they could be convinced to see it that way. That's if they think that their interests wouldn't be served by whomever is elected. Why do they think that something negative will happen? Why do the people of Montana or Wyoming think that the people of Ohio or Indiana would do something to them?

Try this? Your map shows all the small states. The silly presumption is that they all agree. For example, Conn. is with the small states. It generally votes the same as NY, as does Mass. There are other examples. But, my point is that the states do not have the same interests because of their size. Hawaii doesn't have many electoral votes, but it tends to vote for the Democratic candidate. Moreover, the numerical makeup of the electoral college changes with the election of representatives.

And, after all, this is about the election of one person who has to be from one state but represent the entire nation. If the small states are afraid of who that might be if they lose, then the system is fucked worse than we thought. SOMEBODY is the presidential election has to lose. It's true that the typical scare tactic is to emphasize what "you" will lose if the other guy wins. Consequently, I can't worry about how the people in the small states will feel. They'll feel that way if they lose, one way or the other.
"A man is rich when he has time and freewill. How he chooses to invest both will determine the return on his investment."
User avatar
Steve James
Great Old One
 
Posts: 21137
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:20 am

Re: The electoral college issue we forgot

Postby edededed on Thu Mar 21, 2019 6:24 pm

Yeah. That map (I've seen it posted before) leaves me not really knowing what kind of reaction I should be making.

- If one place has 10000 people and another place has 1000, well yeah, the first place should have 10 times more weight in an election than the second. (It's democracy! You know, one vote per person.)
- Weighting it any other way would be like having one vote per person in one place, and 2 or 3 votes per person in another.
- Anyway, it's not like everyone in one state votes a certain way - rural New Yorkers don't agree with urban New Yorkers, just like rural Texans don't agree with urban Texans.
- Pretty much what Steve said, but in a national election, states are irrelevant, and so their boundaries should not matter (and should not affect the election).
- Like Michael said, the electoral college and popular vote only ended up not matching a few times. But I think this is all the more reason to choose the fair and better system. (It's time for change! ...I don't think it will happen, though. :) )
- We shouldn't evaluate the two systems based on who won, but rather by fairness and principle.
User avatar
edededed
Great Old One
 
Posts: 4122
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 12:21 am

Re: The electoral college issue we forgot

Postby Michael on Thu Mar 21, 2019 8:29 pm

Two erudite individuals referenced a cartoon as if it were a perfectly proportional cartographic instrument. I thought I was making a joke, but it turns out I was trolling.

-lol-
Michael

 

Re: The electoral college issue we forgot

Postby edededed on Thu Mar 21, 2019 9:31 pm

Hey Michael - I'm not erudite, but I was really talking to the cartoon itself (i.e. the author). It just struck me as a strange cartoon, like a non-statement (nothing worth stating).

It would be better if the text said "The United States by Population" - then it just becomes an interesting visualization. One for the world would be nice, too, although harder to draw. (Incidentally, I think it's funny how Alaska did manage to show itself in the cartoon - probably it should be even smaller though.)
User avatar
edededed
Great Old One
 
Posts: 4122
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 12:21 am

Previous

Return to Off the Topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests