the-pi-guy said:
EricHiggin said:
To initially bring the nation together, compromises needed to be made. You don't get rich and powerful by being a dick and bossing other people around. You get that way by being reasonable and making deals where it's mostly win win. In order to build the nation that exists today, the electoral college was necessary, along with many other things, and still is.
If some administration in the near future was able to do what was necessary to make the change to a strictly pop vote, you can be sure that it would not take all that long for certain states to start to exit. This could end up a major problem, because if all those states who leave, decide to join and create their own country, you can bet they won't exactly be all the friendly to the country who pushed them to leave in the first place. Not like they'll be aggressively hostile, but they sure aren't going to be easy to deal with, and so when it came to efficiency at that point, well, so much for that ideal.
A strictly pop vote will not work for the foreseeable future, because the portion of the pop that will always win that vote, has considerably different views than the rest of the nations voters. It's not like the pop vote would be a vast majority either. The fact that the Presidency has been very equal in terms of party over time, along with the House ending up the opposite mid term, is a good indicator that the system works pretty darn well. Not perfect, but much better than most.
|
>To initially bring the nation together, compromises needed to be made. You don't get rich and powerful by being a dick and bossing other people around. You get that way by being reasonable and making deals where it's mostly win win. In order to build the nation that exists today, the electoral college was necessary, along with many other things, and still is.
It wasn't really. The vast majority of elections ended up with the same outcome. One big reason why it was put together was because the founding fathers didn't think that most people had the resources to be educated about the candidates. That doesn't hold up today. The electoral college doesn't prevent the other things that they were trying to prevent.
>you can be sure that it would not take all that long for certain states to start to exit
You don't seem to be very aware of the history of the US. We've already had that discussion. A very bloody one.
> has considerably different views than the rest of the nations voters.
That's a funny thing to call a "majority".
> The fact that the Presidency has been very equal in terms of party over time, along with the House ending up the opposite mid term, is a good indicator that the system works pretty darn well. Not perfect, but much better than most.
I'd say that the fact that the president wasn't voted by the majority of the people is a sign the system doesn't work very well.
No one has yet to make an actual solid argument for why the electoral college is good to have. Arguing that it diminishes a group of voters that you view as extreme isn't a solid argument. It's basically "The reason things should stay the same is because it benefits my team." Which you could say the same thing about eliminating the electoral college, but it's at least not an arbitrary argument. It's one that suggests that every person should have one equal vote, instead of being based on where people decide to live.
|
No? Are you going to try an tell me that most company mergers end up with one company agreeing to give up majority control, if not give up equal control, just to be able to merge? Sure that happens from time to time and mostly if you're the smaller company and/or in trouble, but only a moron or slimeball would merge like that who didn't have to. Giving up enough control that the other portion of the company can just do what it wants, now or later down the road when someone else is in charge, is a terrible idea. For the most part, if a merger is happening, and both sides care about their company, power will be split as equally as possible.
Maybe it would be better if company mergers and takeovers were handled with employee popular votes and not lawyers? Might even fix the union problem. That's just companies, so imagine how much more important it is when it comes to the people themselves.
How much bloodshed in the UK and EU right now?
If I drink 7 beers out of a 12 pack, then decide that I'll drink the rest later, that means the 5 beers left over is much more than the 7 I drank?
Yes they have. You're saying, that I and others are saying, that the electoral college works better for 'us', so that's why it should remain. Your view is that if it became a pop vote, it would be better for 'them'. This is partially incorrect. The electoral college allows things to remain as fair as possible for both sides. Just look at how power has been balanced over time. With a pop vote, one side has a blatantly clear advantage. The bigger problem, is once that side had control due to a pop vote, and for long enough, which they would, they'll never change it back because why would they? It would only be hurting them, so they would never do it. One party rule doesn't exactly sound democratic to me.
PS1 - ! - We must build a console that can alert our enemies.
PS2 - @- We must build a console that offers online living room gaming.
PS3 - #- We must build a console that’s powerful, social, costs and does everything.
PS4 - $- We must build a console that’s affordable, charges for services, and pumps out exclusives.
PRO -%-We must build a console that's VR ready, checkerboard upscales, and sells but a fraction of the money printer.
PS5 - ^ -We must build a console that’s a generational cross product, with RT lighting, and price hiking.
PRO -&- We must build a console that Super Res upscales and continues the cost increases.
