So this discussion started here. And it requires an image for a better answer.
"Moose, Now don't be silly... They still only have 3 votes... Now each individual citizen has more power, but it is still just a pittance compared to the urban States. So yes the system is working great. And I am thankful because Wyoming is beautiful. I am always amazed when urban Liberals want to rule the whole country with an iron fist... So much for that tolerance of different beliefs and peoples." G2AMy point was that even with the weighted electoral college system, Wyoming only gets 3 votes out 538... That is a pittance when it comes to national control. And strangely Liberals who usually want the minority voices to be heard would happily quiet them further. As is often the case, I find this ironic.
"Voting Power You were saying...?" Moose
"Excellent source... And I believe I was saying... "Now each individual citizen has more power, but it is still just a pittance compared to the urban States.
This is a trade off we make to keep America whole and stable. And to ensure the dominant majority of City/Coastal Americans do not run rough shod over everyone else.
Imagine how much better off and stable Iraq would be if the Shiites could not run rough shod over the Sunnis and Kurds as they can with their form of government." G2A
"Not according to my previous source." Moose
44 comments:
I don't have strong feelings about overturning the Electoral College. But there are some elements of the discussion above and on the previous thread that should be addressed.
The whole concept of "minority voices" is interesting. I know you meant it in another context, but let's be clear about what we're largely talking about here. Rural states with small numbers of electoral votes tend to be significantly more white than the rest of the country as a whole (Wyoming 85% white, Montana 90% white, North Dakota 85% white, South Dakota 83% white, Idaho 84% white, Nebraska 79% white, West Virginia 93% white). When one combines this with the notion -- often heard here and elsewhere -- that these rural Americans are "real Americans" or are "more grounded" or that they know what "real work" is, it comes off like we're defining "American" in a way that isn't exactly color-blind.
Thankfully I don't care much about race... I care if people understand the following...
"Hal Urban had 4 aims in writing Life's Greatest Lessons:
1. To state that we are never too young or too old to learn life's greatest lessons.
2. He wanted to teach "how life works" and "what is essential in life".
3. He wanted to bring out the positives in a world that seems to dwell on negatives.
4. He wanted to share the enduring universal values of kindness, honesty, appreciation, desire, hard work, commitment, and just being a good person.
The 20 essential lessons are as follows:
1. Success Is More Than Making Money
2. Life Is Hard...and Not Always Fair
3. Life Is Also Fun...and Incredibly Funny
4. We Live by Choice, Not by Chance
5. Attitude Is a Choice -- the Most Important One You'll Ever Make
6. Habits Are the Key to All Success
7. Being Thankful Is a Habit -- the Best One You'll Ever Have
8. Good People Build Their Lives on a Foundation of Respect
9. Honesty Is Still the Best Policy
10. Kind Words Cost Little but Accomplish Much
11. Real Motivation Comes from Within
12. Goals Are Dreams with Deadlines
13. There's No Substitute for Hard Work
14. You Have to Give Up Something to Get Something
15. Successful People Don't Find Time -- They Make Time
16. No One Else Can Raise Your Self-esteem
17. The Body Needs Nutrition and Exercise -- So Do the Mind and Spirit
18. It's OK to Fail -- Everyone Else Has
19. Life Is Simpler When We Know What's Essential
20. Essential #1 Is Being a Good Person
And I often find that Urban Liberals often just don't get them.
Where as many people who live in smaller communities understand.
You can make it about race if you wish...
Liberals who usually want the minority voices to be heard would happily quiet them further.
Not all that minority people live in Wyoming. They live in places like California, and New York who oddly enough, are underrepresented in a system created by people who were comfortable with the idea that some minority individuals were three-fiths of a human being.
==Hiram
There are a number of ways to examine how the electoral college might be fair or unfair. I have looked at one issue, that the impact of a vote is dependent on where it is cast, but there are myriads of myriads of others. The fact is, if the question is, "What would an electoral college that is universally regarded as fair, look like?", I have no real idea what the answer might be. Bear in mind also, fairness is only one quality this or any other system might have, it also needs to be effective.
--Hiram
Hiram,
I realize that as a Liberal you desire to make most things about race... :-) However please note that minority does not necessarily mean race. In fact race is no where in the definition.
As we have noted, the rural population is also a minority of the voters in our country. I support a system that ensures their voices are heard.
Minority
1a: the period before attainment of majority (see majority 2)
1b: the state of being a legal minor
2a: the smaller in number of two groups constituting a whole; specifically a group having less than the number of votes necessary for control •The proposition was opposed by a minority of voters.
3a: a part of a population differing from others in some characteristics and often subjected to differential treatment •the country's ethnic minorities
3b: a member of a minority group •an effort to hire more minorities
Hiram,
I do like your comment regard being effective. I think that is my point, the current system while not being perfect ensures that power is shared across every State and citizen in our Union of 50. Specific regions may have more power because more people live there, and yet the smaller regions can band together to be heard.
This has been very effective in keeping our very large and diverse country stable and peaceful for a long time. Unlike so many others.
the current system while not being perfect ensures that power is shared across every State and citizen in our Union of 50.
And price we pay for it is the risk of electing illegitimate presidents. Is a system that does that effective?
I will be frank. I don't care much about states. States don't go to schools that need to be paid for. States don't need urgent medical care. States don't keep anyone up at night with fears about where they might be. States don't grow old and require nursing home care. States don't have pensions that need to be protected.
States don't vote so and I would ask why should I care what they think except that they don't either. To sum it up, I just don't think there is any rationale for putting the interests of states ahead of those who live in them. And I would point out that when we did that, the result was the most catastrophic event in our history, The Civil War, the consequences we are living with to this very day.
--Hiram
"And I often find that Urban Liberals often just don't get them.
Where as many people who live in smaller communities understand."
That's just stereotyping. There are lots of successful urban liberals who have those values, and there are plenty of rural folks who don't.
I'd also point out that in a lot of cases the notion that rural folks are self-sufficient "makers" is myth and legend. A lot of these folks are dependent on their farm subsidies and ag price supports, their ability to graze their herds on public lands at a nice discount, and public investments at the state and federal level to support building infrastructure in sparsely populated areas that couldn't be supported by local governments or the private sector.
"You can make it about race if you wish..."
I understand that you don't consciously think it's about race. And I'm sure you are well-intentioned. But the net effect of a lot of these things you promote to tend to disproportionately impact folks who aren't white or reflect majority culture to the exclusion of minority cultures.
Hiram,
"putting the interests of states ahead of those who live in them"
Again with that egotistical liberal view... The belief that the people in rural America and smaller states do not know what is good for them and that they should comply with their superiors.
Is there a class where Liberals go to learn this? :-)
The people in the States choose their government and their representatives for the Federal level. The "State" does nothing of it's own accord.
Sorry Sean but preferred Liberal policies seem at odds with some of them.
The 20 essential lessons are as follows:
1. Success Is More Than Making Money
2. Life Is Hard...and Not Always Fair
3. Life Is Also Fun...and Incredibly Funny
4. We Live by Choice, Not by Chance
5. Attitude Is a Choice -- the Most Important One You'll Ever Make
6. Habits Are the Key to All Success
7. Being Thankful Is a Habit -- the Best One You'll Ever Have
8. Good People Build Their Lives on a Foundation of Respect
9. Honesty Is Still the Best Policy
10. Kind Words Cost Little but Accomplish Much
11. Real Motivation Comes from Within
12. Goals Are Dreams with Deadlines
13. There's No Substitute for Hard Work
14. You Have to Give Up Something to Get Something
15. Successful People Don't Find Time -- They Make Time
16. No One Else Can Raise Your Self-esteem
17. The Body Needs Nutrition and Exercise -- So Do the Mind and Spirit
18. It's OK to Fail -- Everyone Else Has
19. Life Is Simpler When We Know What's Essential
20. Essential #1 Is Being a Good Person
"And I often find that Urban Liberals often just don't get them. Where as many people who live in smaller communities understand."
And yes it is an opinion based on working with people from all over the country and world. And I do not use it to judge any individual that I meet. And yes there are a mix of people that live in the country and the city.
Which also means that there are many Urban Conservatives in the city... And Rural Liberals in the country...
So maybe I am correct after all.
"impact folks who aren't white or reflect majority culture to the exclusion of minority cultures."
Now for the BIG QUESTIONS...
- Do people from certain cultures have limiting belief systems, that are odds with the above, due to history, liberal preachings, etc and therefore they fail.
- Is society truly out to stifle / harm people from those cultures?
You know my view... The Liberals have told certain groups of people so often and for so long that they are victims who are doomed to failure that now they believe it and behave accordingly.
Thus dooming themselves to continuing failure and suffering.
"Is society truly out to stifle / harm people from those cultures?"
Whether it's intended or not, it's happening. The struggles I posted about a few weeks ago where black women have faced employment discrimination for wearing their hair naturally is just one of many examples. Blacks were enslaved, and then once given their freedom were expected to align themselves with the cultural norms of the society that had enslaved them. Which works out great for you and I, but maybe not so much for them.
"And I do not use it to judge any individual that I meet."
You don't? Are you not aware of the things that you write here?
Yes I think people are much more successful if they "align themselves with the cultural norms of the society" they live in. If they want to resist and rebel against them that is their choice... And there are consequences to doing so.
Remember:
2. Life Is Hard...and Not Always Fair
4. We Live by Choice, Not by Chance
5. Attitude Is a Choice
6. Habits Are the Key to All Success
And of course the majority of businesses expect employees to conform to business casual/formal, good English, polite / professional behaviors, etc.
As for the women's hair, some bosses are idiots and some employees are rebellious. Remember the rules above...
Since I have worked with people from pretty much every race, I can assure you that each person is very unique and I get along great with any person who is professional, competent, etc.
Since we rarely ever discuss any particular individual here, I am not sure how you would know how I judge / perceive unique individuals. The exception of course being our welfare queen Angel, and I think my frustration with her choices is earned.
What do you think would happen if you told people and children this every day of their lives?
"you are victims who are doomed to failure because society and the system is against you..."
How damaging to their attitudes and beliefs would that be?
How hard would it be on their work ethic and self esteem?
I think the Liberals have caused more damage to people who are now trapped in dependency than any other thing or person.
Remember Rolle's view on this...
"ROLLE: No. I honestly - I never had a doubt. And I cannot take the credit. I give that to my parents. You know, we came from the islands of the Bahamas, and I left there when I was very young, ended up moving to New Jersey. And in New Jersey, my parents were prophesied to my brothers and I and speak and hardwire into our minds that just because we come from a small country, just because we have dark skin, just because we don't have a lot of money does not mean that we cannot accomplish our goals in this country that has an abundancy (ph) of resources.
We have to develop our firm foundation of education. We have to believe in ourselves. We have to be good citizens, good leaders, stay true to our Christian principles, and these things could happen for us. So they poured the confidence in me, and I walked out of my house in New Jersey every morning thinking, yeah, why not? Why can't I do both? Why can't I do all things? Once I had that firm belief, it gave me, you know, the initiative to kind of go and pursue those things with all veracity."
The belief that the people in rural America and smaller states do not know what is good for them and that they should comply with their superiors.
What happens with people from smaller states is that they move to larger states if that decision is good for them.
The "State" does nothing of it's own accord.
So what does it need rights for?
--Hiram
That's funny, I thought they voted for politicians who they think represent beliefs similar to their own. Kind of like what we all do.
State's need power and rights so they can represent the will of the people who live there. I mean remember what USA stands for... United States of America
Interesting thought... Do folks who want to transfer most of the money and power from the States to the Fed want to rename our country??? Maybe something in a Native American language...
you do realize that we are currently living the opposite of this, right?
"And to ensure the dominant majority of City/Coastal Americans do not run rough shod over everyone else."
Clinton got 3 million more votes yet Trump is president. More people voted to be represented by a democratic senate candidate yet the GOP is in the majority of the senate. To regain the house majority dems need to win 55% of of the vote in 2018.
Seems to me conservative voters are running rough shod over the rights of liberals.
I think that is a question of perception.
The Presidency pendulum has been swinging back and forth pretty consistently for the past 50+ years. So has congress. Seems like the balance is pretty good.
And yet as I say it is the Liberals who want change the rules so we become a mob rules country. (ie national majority rules all) I think the electoral college 2 senators / state is much better.
As I often say... If the Liberals would stop catering nearly exclusively to the far Left Urban Liberals they would like get more votes from people in other parts of the country.
So with the above in mind... What do you think the Liberals have been doing or not doing to alienate so many active voters in so many States?
I have another thought... The Dems focus on trying to take from the successful to give to the unsuccessful. Unfortunately for them the unsuccessful folks are often unsuccessful for a reason... Which likely leads to their not being personally organized, disciplined or motivated enough to get in to vote.
"And yet as I say it is the Liberals who want change the rules so we become a mob rules country. (ie national majority rules all)"
Interestingly enough, in the days before the 2000 election, many pundits considered a scenario where George W. Bush won the popular vote while Al Gore won the Electoral College. The Bush campaign itself considered such a possibility, and were planning an effort to stoke public protest to try and delegitimize a Gore win under such circumstances. Even pundits like Chris Matthews preemptively criticized Gore for winning under such a scenario.
Funny how the worm turns when the results end up differently.
It is a question of whose ox is gored. But I would add that when people speak about the toxicity of our political atmosphere, a substantial contributing factor is the the person we elected to presidency was not the individual who won the popular vote. Added to that is the fact that his approval polling numbers which were awful and the best of times are in decline. Mr. Trump's only source of legitimacy is the electoral college, a two hundred plus year old institution that no on understands or knows anything about. How many electors can you name?
It's not that there aren't ways to address the legitimacy issue. It's just that Mr. Trump hasn't tried any of them, the result being a presidency that is melting away right before our eyes.
--Hiram
Per the map above and how the vast majority of States have chosen to allocate their Electors... (ie winner gets all) It seems pretty simple and straight forward unless a "Faithless Elector" strays from the norm.
What confuses you about this very proven robust institution?
Per the map above and how the vast majority of States have chosen to allocate their Electors... (ie winner gets all) It seems pretty simple and straight forward unless a "Faithless Elector" strays from the norm.
Is it? Donald Trump has argued that the electoral college favors Democrats. Does it? How would we go about answering that question. What would the protocols of our analysis be? I have a few of my own theories about how we would go about that, but those theories wouldn't be universally accepted. Others would have perfectly valid theories I wouldn't accept. What that tells me is that the problem Mr. Trump raises is an enormously complicated one, certainly beyond my own understanding. Things just aren't as simple as efforts to simplify would make them.
--Hiram
Well you keep looking for the complex solution.
I like to keep things simple.
The electoral system applies to a weighting to balance majority rule and regional power sharing.
simple would be to elect the president with a simple majority. The rules for the senate give people from small or rural states much more voting power than the people of california. The living patterns of liberals being packed into cities gives conservatives more voting power in the house. Liberals deserve to have fair voting power and representation in some branch of govt. The fact that you defend a system that leaves the majority powerless in Washington seems idiotic to me.
Laurie,
Are you ignoring my excellent link?
The current system results in a mix of governments over time. Your plan would ensure that the people who are not on the coasts or in the big cities would be ignored.
Why do you think the Democratic party should be encouraged to ignore the beliefs and wants of these people?
What is wrong with the Democratic party that they are unable to appeal to these people?
Why do you think the Democratic party should be encouraged to ignore the beliefs and wants of these people?
Because they have the votes.
What is wrong with the Democratic party that they are unable to appeal to these people?
I should point out we do appeal lot to what I generally don't describe as "these people". A party who most people vote for, and whose leader isn't disapproved of by 60 percent of the people doesn't really have to explain why people aren't on it's side.
--hiram
Well... If they want to get back in power they need to change something...
The rules of the game were set long ago and are unlikely to change anytime soon.
If they want to get back in power they need to change something...
The fact that they can't, the fact that they are stuck with a president who they didn't want for years is a huge contributor to the toxicity of our political culture.
And the argument that it's all a game, doesn't help much. We really shouldn't try to explain that Americans who put their lives on the line throughout the world do it because the outcome of a game. It's that kind of lack of seriousness that resulted in the election of an unfit minority president.
--Hiram
If they want to get back in power they need to change something...
We can start by killing gerrymandering.
Moose
That will be interesting since it seems both parties like to do it...
"That will be interesting since it seems both parties like to do it..."
Not so much. Or, to be more accurate, one side does it a lot more than the other.
Princeton: Gerrymanders: Busting the Both Sides Do It Myth
"That will be interesting since it seems both parties like to do it..."
Sure they do.
Moose
Please note that I did not say they were identical. Just that they both do it and it is apparently legal to do it in most cases.
And Manson and Hitler both had people killed.
Moose
How many do you think Manson would have killed if he had not been put in jail?
I like this much more pragmatic view. Why gerrymandering is here to stay
"How many do you think Manson would have killed if he had not been put in jail?"
And how many more millions would Hitler have killed if we'd have been unable to stop him?
Moose
Does this mean that the Democrats are just as crazy as the Republicans and they all need to be stopped?
Democrats just got some very good news from the Supreme Court on gerrymandering
Post a Comment