Have this damnable thought ever slipped through your mind that

[fellupahill]

Didn't we vote for Al Gore...

But when I look in the history books there is just this picture of some retarded looking cowboy.

 

[ThomasT]

Do you understand the theory behind it?

No. I thought it was just based on lack of fast transportation and communication in the old days. Like lectures in school were done because there weren't enough books to go around.

 

[Galteeth]

No. I thought it was just based on lack of fast transportation and communication in the old days. Like lectures in school were done because there weren't enough books to go around.

The different states were wary of each other, and during the process of devising the constitution, different concerns went into the plans to assure all states would ratify. One of these concerns was that the larger states would dominate the interests of the smaller states. The apportion of electoral delegates is like the congress; each state gets two electors, and then more based on their individual population.

As for the more general idea of a popular vote not being the ideal determinant, there are situations where this makes sense. For example, one historical problem with the Roman Empire was appeasing the urban residents at the cost of the agricultural sectors (it was extremely pronounced how better off one was as an urban resident.

The president is the leader of a federation of states, thus each state has the right to determine how it will decide its electors. A state could, in theory, decide to let its state congress vote for electors or have its governors appoint them. Keep in mind, the role of he federal government, and the executive especially, is far greater then what was envisioned when the electoral college was devised.

I said something incorrect in a previous post, that all states had a direct election with a winner take all for the electoral college. In fact, 48 states have this system, with Maine and Nebraska having a different system.

Note that I am not personally advocating for or against this system, just trying to explain how it came about.

The system was almost changed in 1969-1970.

 

[ThomasT]

The system was almost changed in 1969-1970.

What happened?

 

[Galteeth]

What happened?

Nixon won a decisive electoral college victory but won the popular vote by less then one percent. A motion was adopted to abolish the electoral college and replace it with a system that was closer to popular election (40% minimum required to win, failing that, a runoff between the top two candidates.

It passed the house, and the president gave his approval, with 2 out of six undecided states having to decide to approve to gain the 3/5s state requirement (this was a constitutional amendment.)

When it reached the Senate, it was narrowly filibustered. In order to break the filibuster, the senate needed 2/3 majority, and in two votes narrowly missed (five votes short the second time).

 

[ThomasT]

Nixon won a decisive electoral college victory but won the popular vote by less then one percent. A motion was adopted to abolish the electoral college and replace it with a system that was closer to popular election (40% minimum required to win, failing that, a runoff between the top two candidates.

It passed the house, and the president gave his approval, with 2 out of six undecided states having to decide to approve to gain the 3/5s state requirement (this was a constitutional amendment.)

When it reached the Senate, it was narrowly filibustered. In order to break the filibuster, the senate needed 2/3 majority, and in two votes narrowly missed (five votes short the second time).

Thanks, I was in the armed forces then and more or less oblivious to political issues. Too bad it didn't pass, imho. I would hope that this would be considered again, sometime in the foreseeable future.

 

[edward]

None of the articles say anything that this is a purposeful 'attack' by anyone (Al Sharpton makes the allusion, but it's unsubstantiated hyperbole). The articles only address concerns that 'there is no fraud' rather than any real purposeful campaign to 'disenfranchise'. Attack the claims that the voter ID law doesn't need to exist because there is no harm inherent in the system, fine, but accusing a political party (or whomever) of trying to 'disenfranchise' voters by pushing a reasonable piece of legislation is very extreme (and quite frankly: disgustingly insulting). Where has anyone of merit, whom supports the voter id legislation, actually made the claim that this legislation is intended to remove certain legitimate voters from the rolls? I think that's a burden of proof for this being some 'disenfranchisement movement'.

Bold mine.

Actually there are many links that make that exact assertion.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/30/nation/la-na-vote-florida-20111031

http://www.prwatch.org/news/2011/05/10711/voter-suppression-bills-sweep-country

 

[wuliheron]

"literally"? You're making some controversial claims there, do you have any evidence that the police forces of NYC are owned by "Wall Street"?

Literally. Here's a quick Google search for "wall street owns nyc cops":

https://www.google.com/webhp?source....r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&biw=1920&bih=993

The city mayor decided in his infinite wisdom the cops could work for wall street as security guards. Personally I don't care if a cop has a second job as a bouncer in a nightclub, but they should not be wearing their uniform, the public should not be paying their medical bills, and it just plain looks bad when the police force starts accepting record multi-million dollar "donations" from Wall Street firms.

Its the same problem we have with congress today. "Public servant" has come to be synonymous with corporate owned and sponsored. For the mayor of NY to then order the police to blatantly suppress freedom of the press during a demonstration organized against exactly this kind of corruption is outrageous. That congress later seriously debated allowing the military to suspend habeas corpus and round people up like cattle into makeshift camps without due process is a sign of just how far the mighty have fallen from grace.

 

[ThomasT]

Where has anyone of merit, whom supports the voter id legislation, actually made the claim that this legislation is intended to remove certain legitimate voters from the rolls?

If that's the intent, then it wouldn't make much sense for advocates of it to claim that as the intent. Would it? I'm not sure what the intent is, but the net effect would seem to be the disenfranchisement of a certain number of legitimately eligible voters.

 

[ThomasT]

"Public servant" has come to be synonymous with corporate owned and sponsored.

That's one view. Maybe it's correct. The solution, imho, is to vote for candidates other than Republicans and Democrats. Maybe those votes will count for something.

 

[wuliheron]

That's one view. Maybe it's correct. The solution, imho, is to vote for candidates other than Republicans and Democrats. Maybe those votes will count for something.

I beg to differ. Since OWS began screaming rape at the top of their lungs there's been a huge turnaround with 60% of the country now believing the government should create policies to redistribute the wealth, 1/3 of OWS now supporting the Tea Party and vice versa, republican presidential candidates calling each other greedy pigs, and now Obama pushing for corporate tax reform. When your vote just doesn't count for much yelling rape at the top of your lungs can and historically has gotten results.

 

[Hobin]

from a philosophical standpoint i find nothing more abhorrent than the suppression of the individual in favor of the whole, there is a reason why the U.S is a republic. it all depends on whether you are a proponent of negative liberty or positive liberty i suppose. i'd prefer an enlightened despot such as pisistratus as opposed to a government with pure democracy.

This has little to do with what my reaction to your previous post. You stated that a direct democracy is actually one of the worst kinds of government. If we also assume that you believe the above (losing individual liberty in favor of the whole), then you are mistaken in that belief. Direct democracy, while it has many flaws and even though I prefer a more indirect form of government, is actually not very restrictive. Compared to most other kinds of government, 50+% approval before passing a law is incredibly high. In other words, in the worst case scenario (the rest of the population under total suppression) at least 50+% have enormous individual liberty.

Also, you might want to rethink your rather extreme stance of finding nothing more abhorrent than the suppression of the individual in favor of the whole. Murder is illegal for exactly this 'favor of the whole'-reason. Individual freedom is extremely important, I very much agree, but there certainly are (and should be!) limits to this freedom.

 

[eggshell]

This has little to do with what my reaction to your previous post. You stated that a direct democracy is actually one of the worst kinds of government. If we also assume that you believe the above (losing individual liberty in favor of the whole), then you are mistaken in that belief. Direct democracy, while it has many flaws and even though I prefer a more indirect form of government, is actually not very restrictive. Compared to most other kinds of government, 50+% approval before passing a law is incredibly high. In other words, in the worst case scenario (the rest of the population under total suppression) at least 50+% have enormous individual liberty.

Also, you might want to rethink your rather extreme stance of finding nothing more abhorrent than the suppression of the individual in favor of the whole. Murder is illegal for exactly this 'favor of the whole'-reason. Individual freedom is extremely important, I very much agree, but there certainly are (and should be!) limits to this freedom.

the majority of people are retarded, i don't trust them to have such a large role in determining the policies of the nation i live in, which is why i favor an indirect form of representation.

your last part of the post shows that you didn't comprehend mine, i mentioned a republic -- I'm not going to explain to you the implications of this and its effect on the freedom of individuals.

 

[ThomasT]

I beg to differ.

With what?

 

[wuliheron]

With what?

I beg to differ that the solution is to vote for a third party. If people want a third party they would already be voting for a third party and in the US at least we have a two party system that discourages third parties.

Most people I know have some pretty weird ideas about what a democracy is. A lynch mob, for example, is not a democracy. Majority rule is not a democracy. The ancient Athenian motto they would shout before speaking to the voters was, "Strike if you must, but hear me first!" Lynch mobs don't bother to listen if they don't want to.

No, what makes a democracy are specific rights given people and minorities to ensure the peace. The right to vote is just one of those and the right to protest is another. When your vote becomes more or less meaningless for whatever reason its time to start protesting. When the majority or a minority starts dumping on you big time and you can't stop them, its time to start protesting. Otherwise they might actually start to think you like it.

Just a thought.

 

[Galteeth]

I beg to differ that the solution is to vote for a third party. If people want a third party they would already be voting for a third party and in the US at least we have a two party system that discourages third parties.

Most people I know have some pretty weird ideas about what a democracy is. A lynch mob, for example, is not a democracy. Majority rule is not a democracy. The ancient Athenian motto they would shout before speaking to the voters was, "Strike if you must, but hear me first!" Lynch mobs don't bother to listen if they don't want to.

No, what makes a democracy are specific rights given people and minorities to ensure the peace. The right to vote is just one of those and the right to protest is another. When your vote becomes more or less meaningless for whatever reason its time to start protesting. When the majority or a minority starts dumping on you big time and you can't stop them, its time to start protesting. Otherwise they might actually start to think you like it.

Just a thought.

You are referring to a "liberal democracy."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_types_of_democracy#Types_of_democracy

 

[wuliheron]

You are referring to a "liberal democracy."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_types_of_democracy#Types_of_democracy

No, I'm referring to democracy in general:

"Democracy is an egalitarian form of government in which all the citizens of a nation together determine public policy, the laws and the actions of their state, requiring that all citizens (meeting certain qualifications) have an equal opportunity to express their opinion."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy

If don't have the right to express your opinion voting is irrelevant.

 

[Galteeth]

No, I'm referring to democracy in general:

"Democracy is an egalitarian form of government in which all the citizens of a nation together determine public policy, the laws and the actions of their state, requiring that all citizens (meeting certain qualifications) have an equal opportunity to express their opinion."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy

If don't have the right to express your opinion voting is irrelevant.

Well, that's not literally true.

 

[wuliheron]

Well, that's not literally true.

So now you want to debate with the encyclopedia? Go for it dude. They have their own bulletin board and I'm sure they'll get a laugh out of the idea that you can have a democracy where people are not allowed to express themselves.

 

[ThomasT]

I beg to differ that the solution is to vote for a third party.

I think that if the ~80M people who don't bother to vote (assuming that a majority of them don't vote because they think their vote won't matter) voted for candidates other than Republicans and Democrats, then maybe some positive changes regarding the way government and politics and the financial sector and corporate America works might happen.

If they continue to not vote and just do a protest or a blog once in a while, then I don't think that's likely to bring about any changes in the status quo.

Not voting would seem to be an expression of not wanting or caring about any significant changes in the status quo.

Anyway, wrt the OP, I think we can say for sure that votes that aren't made definitely don't count.

 

[Hobin]

the majority of people are retarded

This is obviously not true, and explains quite a lot.

 

[wuliheron]

I think that if the ~80M people who don't bother to vote (assuming that a majority of them don't vote because they think their vote won't matter) voted for candidates other than Republicans and Democrats, then maybe some positive changes regarding the way government and politics and the financial sector and corporate America works might happen.

If they continue to not vote and just do a protest or a blog once in a while, then I don't think that's likely to bring about any changes in the status quo.

Not voting would seem to be an expression of not wanting or caring about any significant changes in the status quo.

Anyway, wrt the OP, I think we can say for sure that votes that aren't made definitely don't count.

LOL, just because they don't vote doesn't mean they care about the results much less that they are unhappy with them or would vote for a third party. All it means is they don't vote for whatever reason. Some are even amoral anarchists who abstain from voting because they don't believe in voting! And, of course, the group that votes the least are the youngest, while those who vote the most are the oldest and that's the way it has always been. Even in countries where voting is compulsory turnout is only about 7-16% higher for national elections suggesting your third party fantasy is about as likely as a snowball in hell even if everyone did turnout.

 

[Char. Limit]

This is obviously not true, and explains quite a lot.

Half the world has below average intelligence, though.

 

[Hobin]

Half the world has below average intelligence, though.

*chuckles* There you do have a point.

 

[edward]

Half the world has below average intelligence, though.

I started thinking about that when I noticed what The History Channel and the Discovery Channel had morphed into.

 

[CAC1001]

Votes do count though, the Iowa election between Rick Santorum and Romney showed that, where it was veeerry close. At first Romney finished eight votes ahead, then Santorum finished 34 votes ahead it turned out later on.

I started thinking about that when I noticed what The History Channel and the Discovery Channel had morphed into.

And The Learning Channel (now "TLC")

 

[wuliheron]

Votes do count though, the Iowa election between Rick Santorum and Romney showed that, where it was veeerry close. At first Romney finished eight votes ahead, then Santorum finished 34 votes ahead it turned out later on.

And The Learning Channel (now "TLC")

They had a low turnout with only 5.4% of republicans voting in the election. All of which suggests even republicans couldn't decide which candidate was the lesser of many evils and did not care who won.

Oh, and cable channels have gone down hill in part due to the cable companies pressuring them to lower their prices.

 

[CAC1001]

Oh, and cable channels have gone down hill in part due to the cable companies pressuring them to lower their prices.

I think also the popularity of reality television.

 

[wuliheron]

I think also the popularity of reality television.

These days Netflix is putting the screws to cable, however, last year video games made more money then all the Hollywood movies combined and are undeniably the fastest growing sector of the entertainment industry today. Popular series like Call of Duty cost 40-50 million dollars to produce and make over a billion dollars. The next generation consoles will be capable of cinematic quality graphics similar to movies like Avatar and some photo-realistic effects, and plans are already in the works to produce the first video game that uses the exact same graphics as a full length feature film to be released at the same time. The most expensive video game to date, the latest Star Wars, cost an estimated 150-200 million dollars to produce and not twenty years ago the original Doom cost 200k. However, part of the attraction of the video game industry over live movies is that just about every expense can come down dramatically as the technology becomes more automated.

 

[Alex_Sanders]

Votes do count though, the Iowa election between Rick Santorum and Romney showed that, where it was veeerry close. At first Romney finished eight votes ahead, then Santorum finished 34 votes ahead it turned out later on.



And The Learning Channel (now "TLC")

Oh yea love that channel. Learned a lot from it, like parenting, J&K+8, one thing I learned, DO NOT F--KING GIVE BIRTH TO ONE KID, LET ALONE 8.

Con meh gi cher pop corn!