Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Ya-ta Boy]

A reasonable suggestion was made to end the other thread and start again on a more constructive note. I agree and have asked the mods to pull the other thread.

If you posted something before, you'll need to transfer it here or repost it. Sorry for the inconvenience.

[Ya-ta Boy]

I object to the Congressional District method of allocating electoral votes (as currently used in Maine and Nebraska) because it presumes the State Legislatures didn't gerrymander their state to the benefit of one party or the other. Some states have come up with reasonably good nonpartisan redistricting plans, but most haven't. Until that problem is addressed satisfactorily, I would oppose any move in the direction of adopting that particular alternative.


For purposes of discussion:

Since the country was designed as a republic, not a direct democracy, and since the Electoral College has never functioned the way it was originally intended...

Would anyone be in favor of some kind of reform where the Electoral College was redesigned to make it functional?

[Hater Depot]

I'm for moving to straight popular vote... as I recall from past discussions you think the electoral college protects small states, but they already get plenty of pork from their senators and representatives who have to pay more attention to each possible vote. A president isn't really going to spend much time worrying about rural concerns whatever rhetoric to the contrary.

[Kuros]

The electoral college actually works out at least as well for larger states as it does for the smallest ones. The large and upper-large states get more attention from leading candidates. Look at Florida and Ohio. Why California is pushing this, I don't understand.

But I remember I was in Annapolis when I first heard of this movement, and that's where the legislation was first floated. MD gets SCREWED by the electoral system. Its right in the middle there with 4.5million and 10 electoral votes. So do all other states whose boosts from the Senate votes are not quite enough to make a difference, but who do become proportionately more equal to states like Wyoming and Montana (states with less than a million people and 3-4 electoral votes).

Still, I'm for the system. I don't understand why people who are worried about the Senate votes are asking for a popular vote? Why not just ask that the Senate votes not be counted? I.e., Wyoming gets a single electoral vote?

Or we could have a compromise: you get 1 vote for being a state (instead of 2), and then 1 vote for every ~500k people you have.

[keane]

There was no need to reconstitute. People have done far worse to the global warming and peak oil threads, yet they survive.

The saddest thing about this is, not once when I have made legitimate complaints about serious violations has anything been done. In some cases I BEGGED for a week, yet nothing was ever done. I've had people wish me dead, encourage me to commit suicide, try to steal away threads by starting exactly the same thread title... but not once have they taken action. Well, they did once. Against me, even though it was another poster instigating.

You ask them to unnecessarily remove a thread and they do within hours.

Go figure.

[keane]

Already stated: direct vote. There is no federal/state argument here. The president does not represent states, he represents Americans. The electoral college exists for one reason and one reason only: the FF's didn't trust the riff-raff, i.e. Avg. Joes, to run the country so they created a way to take the reins when they wished.

That's it. Time to undo one of the few flaws in a great, great document.

[Ya-ta Boy]

I will admit that I like our Constitution more now than I used to. I have grown fond of the idea of a mixed constitution where the lower house is elected directly, the upper house (which until a hundred years ago was elected indirectly) is elected directly and the executive elected indirectly. Since we did change the way the Senators are elected, I'd hate to see the executive elected the same way. It would remove one of the last vestiges of the indirect principal, and I'm not comfortable with that.

I think one of my fears is that soon people would be for changing the nature of the Senate. Now each State is equal, much as if we were a collection of states, whereas in the House we are one People.

I'm more of a small 'r' republican than a small 'd' democrat, although I am a proud big 'D' Democrat. I very much like the way power is divided and balanced. I want to keep the States with some power because too much power at the national level is as dangerous as too little. Eliminating the Electoral College and going to direct election of the president would be taking too much power away from the States to suit my taste.

[cbclark4]

I agree with Keane and now my fingers hurt from typing that.

I also wish for the Senate to disappear but that will never happen.

I also believe New England should be one state and Delaware and
Maryland are part of Pennsylvania and there is only one Virginia and
one Carolina and one Dakota and one Michigan.

Okay compromise abolish the EC and I'll stop posting.

(I will settle for one at large rep. from each state in lieu of a senate
provided that the above mentioned state fusion occur, option cities
exceeding X million my have may have an extra seat all rules of the
senate are revoked, all powers of the senate assumed in congress, 1 rep
for every 500k pop no limit on seats, possible compromise a lower house
of ratification unpaid members, seats in the thousand maybe 1 seat per
100K pop. to approve any house rules or rule changes).

What about the corrupt primary system all that does is keep the party
bosses in power.... sorry wrong rant.

[Ya-ta Boy]

I think we can put cb down in the popular election of the president column.

PS: there is only one Michigan.

[cbclark4]

[keane]

[Ya-ta Boy]

[Rteacher]

Let the record show that I complained to the mods about unnecessary personal insults in the last thread (so God probably intervened to expedite the process... )

[Kuros]

[cbclark4]