 sj |
||
|
||
BS: one man one vote?
|
|
|
|||||||
|
BS: one man one vote? |
Share Thread
|
||||||
|
Subject: BS: one man one vote? From: GUEST,olddude Date: 04 Nov 12 - 01:02 PM With the idea of the Electoral Collage, and I know my numbers are not correct but if you live in a state like Alaska, your vote counts about 40% of a man and if you live in NY , CA, or now FL and OH ... you get like 1.25 or something of a man .. how fair is that and when are we just going to get rid of it and go with most votes win .. seems like that is the way every other election works right |
|
Subject: RE: BS: one man one vote? From: Rapparee Date: 04 Nov 12 - 01:14 PM Well, if you really want true representation, I suggest that we go with some form of proportional representation. for our voting system. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: one man one vote? From: pdq Date: 04 Nov 12 - 01:28 PM Even worse, who do puny states like Rhode Island get the same number of Senators as Texas? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: one man one vote? From: Rapparee Date: 04 Nov 12 - 01:35 PM pdq...you'll find the answer in the history of the Constitutional Convention or any decent textbook on Civics or American History. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: one man one vote? From: pdq Date: 04 Nov 12 - 01:47 PM I know the answer, thank you. I am pointing out that it is as far from the "one man, one vote" concept as you can get. There are 12 small states in the northeastern US that get 24 Senators. Nearly half of all the Democrats in the Senate are from those states. The Senate has become our House of Lords and the House is the House of Commons. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: one man one vote? From: Penny S. Date: 04 Nov 12 - 02:42 PM I started watching a programme about creationists, and there were shots of a group picketing somewhere, and one of their placards stated "This is not a democracy, it is a republic" - presumably that has something to do with the odd electoral business. (I can't see what it has to do with Biblical literalism, though.) Penny |
|
Subject: RE: BS: one man one vote? From: Rapparee Date: 04 Nov 12 - 02:42 PM I've always thought it that way. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: one man one vote? From: JohnInKansas Date: 04 Nov 12 - 02:52 PM The biggest corruption of the electoral college system is that many of the states have passed laws that give all of the state's electoral votes to the single candidate who wins in that state (effectively a "disguised gerrymander," and a way of making a normal one much more effective). If you're in the 49.9% who voted for the loser, your vote doesn't count at all in the tally for the country as a whole. By extending the principle down to district/precinct levels, this requirement can make the "electoral vote" totally unrepresentative of the "popular vote" even at county and state office levels. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: one man one vote? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 04 Nov 12 - 03:20 PM "There are 12 small states in the northeastern US"... Well, they were there first, when your Constitution was written. I don't suppose many people imagined the United States would ever get so much bigger. I can't imagine that a new Constitutional Convention would be likely to come up with Constitutional arrangements much resembling what you've got. But though it might be logical to have a fresh Constitution to match your seriously changed country, somehow I can't see that happening. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: one man one vote? From: Little Hawk Date: 04 Nov 12 - 03:21 PM pdq - "The Senate has become our House of Lords and the House is the House of Commons." Of course!!! That's obviously what was intended from the beginning. The American colonists were familiar with the British parliamentary system, and they created something a great deal like it in a number of respects...only they made their "lords" electable, and they removed the hereditary monarchy from the equation. The American president, however, somewhat resembles a king in his power and authority...but a king who only gets to rule for a period of 4 years...and then must again run for office or bow out. The electoral system is a corrupted idea. No doubt about it. I think it was done in order to make sure "the people" would not be the real power...the real power would be the gentry at the top of the political order. In other words: rich people. When it comes down to it, they are the real power just about everywhere. Most winning candidates come from their ranks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: one man one vote? From: JohnInKansas Date: 04 Nov 12 - 04:56 PM Local comment from Wichita KS (Crowson is a minority commentator, and also plays banjo. Surprisingly, even locals watch for his comments.) John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: one man one vote? From: Leadfingers Date: 04 Nov 12 - 07:22 PM I found it amusing that when Old Man Eee ba gum was pushing for 'One Man One Vote' in Zimbabwe , he really meant One Man One Vote ONE Time ! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: one man one vote? From: Bobert Date: 04 Nov 12 - 07:30 PM Not fair??? Think about the Senate... Every state gets 2... California's population is roughly 37,000,000 people Wyoming's population is roughly 500,000 people Do the math... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: one man one vote? From: pdq Date: 04 Nov 12 - 07:36 PM ...er, Bobert...I think I've made that point twice in the first 5 posts... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: one man one vote? From: Bobert Date: 04 Nov 12 - 08:34 PM Sorry, pdq... I confess to have not read the entire thread... Carry on... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: one man one vote? From: Little Hawk Date: 04 Nov 12 - 09:44 PM Since states were originally seen almost as independent nations (at the time of the thirteen colonies), it's not surprising that they came up with 2 houses of Congress...one based on population size, one based on equal representation for each state. After all, the term "state" does mean a political entity under its own jurisdiction...and "The United States" meant that a group of these independent and self-governing states had agreed to form a larger Union (mainly to defend themselves against the might of the British Empire). They weren't about to cede political control automatically to the more populous states in that union...nor would any group of countries feel that way if forming a union with several other countries. They'd all want an equal say. So, what the USA has inherited is a system based on those original concerns. Whether or not it's the best system to have now is certainly debatable....but don't expect any smaller state to yield its equal share in the upper house. Not gonna happen! ******* There was an earlier experiment of a very similar sort in Holland after the Spanish were kicked out by the Protestant Dutch. It was a group of 7 Dutch provinces who formed a single nation: "The United Provinces" or The Dutch Republic. The Dutch Republic—officially known as the Republic of the Seven United Netherlands (Republiek der Zeven Verenigde Nederlanden), the Republic of the United Netherlands, or the Republic of the Seven United Provinces (Republiek der Zeven Verenigde Provinciën)—was a republic in Europe existing from 1581 to 1795, preceding the Batavian Republic, the United Kingdom of the Netherlands and ultimately the modern Kingdom of the Netherlands. Alternative names include the United Provinces (Verenigde Provinciën), Federated Dutch Provinces (Foederatae Belgii Provinciae), and Dutch Federation (Belgica Foederata). The framers of the U.S. Constitution were influenced by the Constitution of the Republic of the United Provinces.[4] In addition, the Act of Abjuration, essentially the declaration of independence of the United Provinces, is strikingly similar to the later American Declaration of Independence,[5] though concrete evidence that the former directly influenced the latter is absent. It seems odd to me that American schoolchildren are not told much (if anything) about this lengthy Dutch experiment in republican government, free of royalty, which happened long before the American Revolution. Instead, they are given the impression that the republican form of government was a brand new idea originated by the American revolutionaries. Not so. The Dutch were way ahead of them on that idea. |
