RE: dump the electoral college [here]

RE: dump the electoral college [here] (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

dcnovice -> RE: dump the electoral college [here] (4/9/2008 3:30:42 PM)
I see your point about third parties, Merc, but that could be handled with a run-off system. There's also the question of whether we want to be stuck with the current two parties for the rest of time. In any case, the third-party issue doesn't negate my point, which is that I suspect that many of our more conservative posters might be less enthusiastic about the EC if it consistently nullified the popular vote in favor of Democrats.

kittinSol -> RE: dump the electoral college [here] (4/9/2008 3:32:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth Think Ralph Nader took more votes from Bush or Gore? Take those 97,000 he got in Florida and allocate them proportionally to the rest of the country and there'd be no 'Global Warming' problem today. That's an interesting take on global warming.

celticlord2112 -> RE: dump the electoral college [here] (4/9/2008 3:53:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice There's also the question of whether we want to be stuck with the current two parties for the rest of time. We aren't, and historically, we haven't been. While there have always been two parties, those parties have changed over time. Personally, I suspect time is running out for the Democratic Party. They are too beholden to too many special interests, too lacking in cohesion and coherent ideology, to function effectively at the national level. (Given Bush's current low ratings, the inability of the Democrats to meaningfully alter the national agenda with majorities in both houses speaks volumes about the quality of their national leadership). If they don't find a unifying banner this election cycle (and being anti-Bush won't cut it, since he's not running for re-election), what remains of Howard Dean's "50 state" strategy to hold the Democrats together? If the Democrats disintegrate on the national level, one of the many 3rd parties in this country will rise to take its place. Perhaps at some juncture the Republicans will disintegrate as well--I just don't see that happening quite yet.

dcnovice -> RE: dump the electoral college [here] (4/9/2008 4:03:10 PM)
quote: We aren't, and historically, we haven't been. While there have always been two parties, those parties have changed over time. True, though we've had the same two for most of our history. Do you disagree, then, with Merc's point that the EC makes third parties less likely?

Mercnbeth -> RE: dump the electoral college [here] (4/9/2008 4:14:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth Think Ralph Nader took more votes from Bush or Gore? Take those 97,000 he got in Florida and allocate them proportionally to the rest of the country and there'd be no 'Global Warming' problem today. That's an interesting take on global warming. Well, as President, Senator Gore wouldn't have been able to start a religion. quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice I see your point about third parties, Merc, but that could be handled with a run-off system. There's also the question of whether we want to be stuck with the current two parties for the rest of time. In any case, the third-party issue doesn't negate my point, which is that I suspect that many of our more conservative posters might be less enthusiastic about the EC if it consistently nullified the popular vote in favor of Democrats. DC, I am politically neutral on the subject. I didn't know the history you cited before 2000. However, the scrutiny should only come if the EC votes for a particular State did not reflect the popular vote from that State. Although they technically are not required to cast votes reflective of the State's results; to the best of my knowledge that has never happened. You are more likely to get a minority candidate elected as the population migrates southward. In theory, a President can be elected carrying only the 11 States. 270 EC votes were needed in 2000. A candidate can carry CA-54, NY-33, TX-32, FL-25, PA-23, IL-22, OH-21, MI-18, NJ-15, NC-14 and GA-13; to get there. Eleven states with a one vote plurality and you're President, even if you get zero votes anyplace else. VERY unlikely, but that's how the system math works. Changing the EC set up would require a revamping of the entire election process. A more equitable solution would be the end of gerrymandering congressional districts. However the politics involved with any attempt to do so make it pragmatically impossible. I don't think either party over the years is innocent in manipulating the process over the years. I know the exceptional anomalies make it seem bad; however in a broader perspective it does serve the best interests of the citizens. Compared to the other manners this is accomplished throughout the world it seems that an idea 225 years old works most of the time. It is like many issues; not a simple as many believe if the surface is scratched.

celticlord2112 -> RE: dump the electoral college [here] (4/9/2008 4:32:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: We aren't, and historically, we haven't been. While there have always been two parties, those parties have changed over time. True, though we've had the same two for most of our history. Do you disagree, then, with Merc's point that the EC makes third parties less likely? Yes, I do. Third parties are less a consequence of the electoral system for President and more a consequence of the evolving social and cultural landscape of this country. Prior to the Civil War, this was the process by which the Democrat-Republicans and Federalists merged, by which the Whigs flashed and faded, leading to the rise of the Republican Party in 1856 and 1860. The century between the Civil War and Vietnam was sufficiently tumultous as to provide numerous transient issues for the parties to differentiate themselves, effectively pushing them away from the political center. During the period between the Civil War and Vietnam, the role of the third party was to evangelize specific issues (e.g., the Populist Party of the 1880s, and it's opposition to the gold standard), which eventually were coopted by either the Democrats or Republicans--a truism of the time was that "third parties are like bees--once they sting, they die." Third parties have not galvanized national debate on specfic issues in recent times--even Perot was more of a reaction to the minimal distinctions between Democrat and Republican circa 1992, as was Nader in 2000. Political rhetoric notwithstanding, the US has seen a remarkably stable period during the last 40 years, sufficiently so for the two national parties to gravitate towards a political center--as evidenced by the centrist platforms of Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II (pre-9/11). As an interesting footnote, the "Era of Good Feeling" where differences between the Federalists and Democrat-Republicans vanished, occurred roughly 30-40 years after the Constitutional convention. 9/11 and Iraq altered the landscape, creating new divisions between Democrat and Republican. However, it is unlikely those divisions will last for long, and again the parties will coelesce around a political center. At that time, one (or both) will disappear and new parties will emerge, with new platforms and ideologies to set them apart. When Democrats and Republicans again become wholly indistinguishable from each other, one or both will fade and new parties with new distinctions will emerge, and the cycle will begin again. The Electoral College has a minimal impact on this process at best.

Mercnbeth -> RE: dump the electoral college [here] (4/9/2008 4:39:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: We aren't, and historically, we haven't been. While there have always been two parties, those parties have changed over time. True, though we've had the same two for most of our history. Do you disagree, then, with Merc's point that the EC makes third parties less likely? I don't think the EC stands in the way of a good third party candidate. Having it there prevents the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th... party candidates from coming into existence. Remember, it only takes a one vote majority to get the EC votes. What it would takes would be a boat load of money. Next in importance would be a standard-bearer. Best case being he/she would also be the source of the initial seed money. I thought Ross Perot was an opportunity for a new party. He had the money to accomplish it but it was obvious that he suffered from dementia when held up the light of the national press. Currently the Mayor of NY, Michael Bloomberg, stands poised to make an attempt. NYC is 'apolitical'; presenting an excellent version of 'social-capitalism'. Say four years from now - assuming for a minute my belief that any of the current 3 candidates are unqualified and the resulting administration will be a disaster in any event - the US is in worse shape than now; the opportunity would be there. There are some 'good' people of integrity in both parties who would welcome an opportunity to get out from under the burden of the existing two 'lesser evil' party choices. Mayor Bloomberg's ego may be suited for such an attempt. A pragmatic New Yorker would have my support.

DomKen -> RE: dump the electoral college [here] (4/9/2008 7:57:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth DC, I am politically neutral on the subject. I didn't know the history you cited before 2000. However, the scrutiny should only come if the EC votes for a particular State did not reflect the popular vote from that State. Although they technically are not required to cast votes reflective of the State's results; to the best of my knowledge that has never happened. Happened in 1960. Check how the electors from Alabama and Mississippi voted.

Real0ne -> RE: dump the electoral college [here] (4/9/2008 11:08:02 PM)
quote: If the Democrats disintegrate on the national level, one of the many 3rd parties in this country will rise to take its place. disagree, ron paul case in point. Left out from debates by the news media who have vested interests in the standing 2 prties and vice versa. No money hunny in a 3rd party, no one under the thumb is bad business.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.054688E-02