Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
British Election
Author Message
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,622
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 106
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #41
RE: British Election
(06-09-2017 08:37 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  Well the SNP took a broadside losing 21 seats (down from 56). The SNP are now a major force in Scotland, not the major force.

The electoral college only distorts the votes if you don't believe in states rights.

The 'beauty' of a pluralist system is that it 'normally' yields a definitive result. However because of the number of political parties in the UK and the anamolistic (made up word) parties in Northern Ireland were in a bit of a quandary.

Theresa May and or her advisors got greedy and tried to address social care funding and the free lunch programme. There is an inherent problem in deciding who pays for social care if the default is government. Attempting to place one's home in the pool of available assets available to pay came a cropper

I'm not sure how you come to the bolded conclusion. The electoral college literally causes it so that a presidential vote in one state is weighted differently than a presidential vote in another, and therefore some votes in some states have more sway.

I'm not sure how that is a states' rights issue. We still have the Senate, which is an even portion of representation for each state, which is a much better example of states' rights.

You can think that the electoral college's skewing of vote influence is an issue and still firmly believe state governance is more important than a federal approach.
06-09-2017 08:48 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MerseyOwl Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,184
Joined: Aug 2006
Reputation: 37
I Root For: The Blue & Gray
Location: Land of Dull Skies
Post: #42
RE: British Election
(06-09-2017 08:48 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(06-09-2017 08:37 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  Well the SNP took a broadside losing 21 seats (down from 56). The SNP are now a major force in Scotland, not the major force.

The electoral college only distorts the votes if you don't believe in states rights.

The 'beauty' of a pluralist system is that it 'normally' yields a definitive result. However because of the number of political parties in the UK and the anamolistic (made up word) parties in Northern Ireland were in a bit of a quandary.

Theresa May and or her advisors got greedy and tried to address social care funding and the free lunch programme. There is an inherent problem in deciding who pays for social care if the default is government. Attempting to place one's home in the pool of available assets available to pay came a cropper

I'm not sure how you come to the bolded conclusion. The electoral college literally causes it so that a presidential vote in one state is weighted differently than a presidential vote in another, and therefore some votes in some states have more sway.

I'm not sure how that is a states' rights issue. We still have the Senate, which is an even portion of representation for each state, which is a much better example of states' rights.

You can think that the electoral college's skewing of vote influence is an issue and still firmly believe state governance is more important than a federal approach.

I accept your point. Maybe my perspective is slightly skewed, but I believe the electoral college is preferable to a national vote and that this directly or indirectly supports the principle that the power of the federal government emanates from the States. If I'm unintelligible I blame lack of sleep and a teenage daughter fighting her way though A-level Chemistry, Maths, and English. I should have let her study Art.
06-09-2017 09:16 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
erice Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 798
Joined: Nov 2006
Reputation: 9
I Root For: Rice
Location: Chicago

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #43
RE: British Election
(06-09-2017 09:16 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  The electoral college only distorts the votes if you don't believe in states rights.

Pushing further OT but does the recent election (among other things) illustrate that "state" isn't necessarily the right common denominator? The people of Austin's votes regularly get rendered moot by Texas at large, and conversely the people of Illinois-except-Chicagoland regularly get railroaded by the city dwellers.

Who decided it was a good thing to have big cities anywhere but the right & left coasts anyhow? But for that, we could have a clean & orderly secession process that I think in 2017 everyone could agree on. 04-cheers
06-09-2017 01:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,500
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 854
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #44
RE: British Election
I am one who used to think the Electoral College was old school and should be scrapped.

No longer.

First, it provides a much needed firewall against voter fraud. They can stuff the ballot boxes in Illinois and Utah as much as they want, but it only affects Illinois and Utah. Usually, ballot stuffing will be most easily done in a state that one party already controls, so there is not that much incentive for national purposes to do it.

Second, the Electoral College reflects the government, in that the votes are related to the number of Congresspeople a state has (S+H). If we are to wreck the EC, might as well revamp Congress so that it is unicameral and elected nationally.

Third, I am fine with secession, if done in an orderly manner (no shooting, whether by those trying to leave or those trying to make them stay.)
(This post was last modified: 06-10-2017 05:45 PM by OptimisticOwl.)
06-09-2017 02:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
georgewebb Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,575
Joined: Oct 2005
Reputation: 110
I Root For: Rice!
Location:

The Parliament AwardsDonators
Post: #45
RE: British Election
(06-09-2017 08:48 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(06-09-2017 08:37 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  Well the SNP took a broadside losing 21 seats (down from 56). The SNP are now a major force in Scotland, not the major force.

The electoral college only distorts the votes if you don't believe in states rights.

The 'beauty' of a pluralist system is that it 'normally' yields a definitive result. However because of the number of political parties in the UK and the anamolistic (made up word) parties in Northern Ireland were in a bit of a quandary.

Theresa May and or her advisors got greedy and tried to address social care funding and the free lunch programme. There is an inherent problem in deciding who pays for social care if the default is government. Attempting to place one's home in the pool of available assets available to pay came a cropper

I'm not sure how you come to the bolded conclusion. The electoral college literally causes it so that a presidential vote in one state is weighted differently than a presidential vote in another, and therefore some votes in some states have more sway.

I'm not sure how that is a states' rights issue. We still have the Senate, which is an even portion of representation for each state, which is a much better example of states' rights.

You can think that the electoral college's skewing of vote influence is an issue and still firmly believe state governance is more important than a federal approach.

The electoral college only "distorts" or "skews" the presidential vote if you believe that the presidential electorate is or ought to be a unitary polity. There is nothing in the history of the United States to suggest that it is such, was intended to be such, or ought to be such -- any more than the Secretary-General of the United Nations is, was intended to be, or should be chosen by a simple majority of the world's population. In the history of associations of sovereigns, the method of equal votes for each entity (as in the Holy Roman Empire, the UN, or the U.S. Senate) is far, far, far more common than a method in which larger entities have even moderately more votes than their smaller peers. Given that background, instead of complaining that the ratio of Texas's electoral votes to Wyoming's is not 52:1 (the ratio of populations), Texans should be grateful that it's not simply 1:1.
(This post was last modified: 06-10-2017 10:19 PM by georgewebb.)
06-10-2017 10:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JustAnotherAustinOwl Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,441
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 56
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location:
Post: #46
RE: British Election
(06-10-2017 10:19 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  
(06-09-2017 08:48 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(06-09-2017 08:37 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  Well the SNP took a broadside losing 21 seats (down from 56). The SNP are now a major force in Scotland, not the major force.

The electoral college only distorts the votes if you don't believe in states rights.

The 'beauty' of a pluralist system is that it 'normally' yields a definitive result. However because of the number of political parties in the UK and the anamolistic (made up word) parties in Northern Ireland were in a bit of a quandary.

Theresa May and or her advisors got greedy and tried to address social care funding and the free lunch programme. There is an inherent problem in deciding who pays for social care if the default is government. Attempting to place one's home in the pool of available assets available to pay came a cropper

I'm not sure how you come to the bolded conclusion. The electoral college literally causes it so that a presidential vote in one state is weighted differently than a presidential vote in another, and therefore some votes in some states have more sway.

I'm not sure how that is a states' rights issue. We still have the Senate, which is an even portion of representation for each state, which is a much better example of states' rights.

You can think that the electoral college's skewing of vote influence is an issue and still firmly believe state governance is more important than a federal approach.

The electoral college only "distorts" or "skews" the presidential vote if you believe that the presidential electorate is or ought to be a unitary polity. There is nothing in the history of the United States to suggest that it is such, was intended to be such, or ought to be such -- any more than the Secretary-General of the United Nations is, was intended to be, or should be chosen by a simple majority of the world's population. In the history of associations of sovereigns, the method of equal votes for each entity (as in the Holy Roman Empire, the UN, or the U.S. Senate) is far, far, far more common than a method in which larger entities have even moderately more votes than their smaller peers. Given that background, instead of complaining that the ratio of Texas's electoral votes to Wyoming's is not 52:1 (the ratio of populations), Texans should be grateful that it's not simply 1:1.

Honestly, my fundamental objection is that I don't like presidential systems relative to parliamentary ones. Way too much riding on a single person, regardless of how they were elected. So on some level, I was just admitting that parliamentary systems aren't perfect either.

If you were to task me with modifying the constitution and wouldn't let me change it to a parliamentary system, I'd make the EC proportional to votes in the state, but give the 2 senate votes to the winner. (I'd also give the house four year terms coinciding with presidential years. And maybe the Senate.)
06-12-2017 09:07 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
georgewebb Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,575
Joined: Oct 2005
Reputation: 110
I Root For: Rice!
Location:

The Parliament AwardsDonators
Post: #47
RE: British Election
(06-12-2017 09:07 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  
(06-10-2017 10:19 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  
(06-09-2017 08:48 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(06-09-2017 08:37 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  Well the SNP took a broadside losing 21 seats (down from 56). The SNP are now a major force in Scotland, not the major force.

The electoral college only distorts the votes if you don't believe in states rights.

The 'beauty' of a pluralist system is that it 'normally' yields a definitive result. However because of the number of political parties in the UK and the anamolistic (made up word) parties in Northern Ireland were in a bit of a quandary.

Theresa May and or her advisors got greedy and tried to address social care funding and the free lunch programme. There is an inherent problem in deciding who pays for social care if the default is government. Attempting to place one's home in the pool of available assets available to pay came a cropper

I'm not sure how you come to the bolded conclusion. The electoral college literally causes it so that a presidential vote in one state is weighted differently than a presidential vote in another, and therefore some votes in some states have more sway.

I'm not sure how that is a states' rights issue. We still have the Senate, which is an even portion of representation for each state, which is a much better example of states' rights.

You can think that the electoral college's skewing of vote influence is an issue and still firmly believe state governance is more important than a federal approach.

The electoral college only "distorts" or "skews" the presidential vote if you believe that the presidential electorate is or ought to be a unitary polity. There is nothing in the history of the United States to suggest that it is such, was intended to be such, or ought to be such -- any more than the Secretary-General of the United Nations is, was intended to be, or should be chosen by a simple majority of the world's population. In the history of associations of sovereigns, the method of equal votes for each entity (as in the Holy Roman Empire, the UN, or the U.S. Senate) is far, far, far more common than a method in which larger entities have even moderately more votes than their smaller peers. Given that background, instead of complaining that the ratio of Texas's electoral votes to Wyoming's is not 52:1 (the ratio of populations), Texans should be grateful that it's not simply 1:1.

Honestly, my fundamental objection is that I don't like presidential systems relative to parliamentary ones. Way too much riding on a single person, regardless of how they were elected. So on some level, I was just admitting that parliamentary systems aren't perfect either.

When I was in a grad school, I heard a talk at Rice by a visiting political scientist who had a fascinating proposal for the US: keep the President and Congress separate, but give each branch the right to dissolve the government and call new elections, which would take place with a month or two. His theory was that:
(1) It would force the two branches to cooperate more;
(2) It would be a check on the imperial presidency;
(3) It would pretty much eliminate the primary system from Federal elections. That would force each party to have a sort of "standing opposition", not only for President but also for Congressional seats. So the voters would generally know who the candidates were before the election began.
Interesting, to say the least.
06-12-2017 09:27 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JustAnotherAustinOwl Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,441
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 56
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location:
Post: #48
RE: British Election
(06-12-2017 09:27 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  
(06-12-2017 09:07 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  
(06-10-2017 10:19 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  
(06-09-2017 08:48 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(06-09-2017 08:37 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  Well the SNP took a broadside losing 21 seats (down from 56). The SNP are now a major force in Scotland, not the major force.

The electoral college only distorts the votes if you don't believe in states rights.

The 'beauty' of a pluralist system is that it 'normally' yields a definitive result. However because of the number of political parties in the UK and the anamolistic (made up word) parties in Northern Ireland were in a bit of a quandary.

Theresa May and or her advisors got greedy and tried to address social care funding and the free lunch programme. There is an inherent problem in deciding who pays for social care if the default is government. Attempting to place one's home in the pool of available assets available to pay came a cropper

I'm not sure how you come to the bolded conclusion. The electoral college literally causes it so that a presidential vote in one state is weighted differently than a presidential vote in another, and therefore some votes in some states have more sway.

I'm not sure how that is a states' rights issue. We still have the Senate, which is an even portion of representation for each state, which is a much better example of states' rights.

You can think that the electoral college's skewing of vote influence is an issue and still firmly believe state governance is more important than a federal approach.

The electoral college only "distorts" or "skews" the presidential vote if you believe that the presidential electorate is or ought to be a unitary polity. There is nothing in the history of the United States to suggest that it is such, was intended to be such, or ought to be such -- any more than the Secretary-General of the United Nations is, was intended to be, or should be chosen by a simple majority of the world's population. In the history of associations of sovereigns, the method of equal votes for each entity (as in the Holy Roman Empire, the UN, or the U.S. Senate) is far, far, far more common than a method in which larger entities have even moderately more votes than their smaller peers. Given that background, instead of complaining that the ratio of Texas's electoral votes to Wyoming's is not 52:1 (the ratio of populations), Texans should be grateful that it's not simply 1:1.

Honestly, my fundamental objection is that I don't like presidential systems relative to parliamentary ones. Way too much riding on a single person, regardless of how they were elected. So on some level, I was just admitting that parliamentary systems aren't perfect either.

When I was in a grad school, I heard a talk at Rice by a visiting political scientist who had a fascinating proposal for the US: keep the President and Congress separate, but give each branch the right to dissolve the government and call new elections, which would take place with a month or two. His theory was that:
(1) It would force the two branches to cooperate more;
(2) It would be a check on the imperial presidency;
(3) It would pretty much eliminate the primary system from Federal elections. That would force each party to have a sort of "standing opposition", not only for President but also for Congressional seats. So the voters would generally know who the candidates were before the election began.
Interesting, to say the least.

Interesting - basically trying to get some of the benefits of a parliamentary system without actually going there.
06-12-2017 09:39 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JSA Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,895
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 16
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #49
RE: British Election
I think it's ironic that "We the People" don't directly elect a single national leader.
06-12-2017 09:43 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
georgewebb Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,575
Joined: Oct 2005
Reputation: 110
I Root For: Rice!
Location:

The Parliament AwardsDonators
Post: #50
RE: British Election
(06-12-2017 09:43 AM)JSA Wrote:  I think it's ironic that "We the People" don't directly elect a single national leader.

There is no irony at all: "We the People" never intended to form a single national polity. "We the People" formed a sovereign union of sovereign states. This type of union is reflected not just in the Electoral College, but in the Senate (obviously) and also in the amendment process, in which amendments are ratified not by 3/4 of the national population, but by 3/4 of the states. It is quite an innovative union and, while from perfect, pretty darn successful.

The greater irony might be that so many citizens of that union -- even those with college degrees -- don't seem to realize this, and in some cases seem to refuse to realize it.
06-12-2017 10:31 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.