Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > American History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

American History American History Forum - United States, Canada, Mexico, Central and South America


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old July 8th, 2018, 10:11 AM   #41

Lord Fairfax's Avatar
Tickling the Dragons tail
 
Joined: Jan 2015
From: Rupert's Land ;)
Posts: 2,817

Quote:
Originally Posted by royal744 View Post
In the last election, California’s Electoral College “vote” was worth much less than Wyoming’s EC vote.
Wyoming had 3 EC votes, California had 55, so California is an order of magnitude more important.
The reason that California doesn't get more attention is that it hasn't been competitive for the Republicans since Reagan

Quote:
Originally Posted by royal744 View Post
Tell me how that makes any sense at all, and yes, I believe fervently that my vote should be the equal of any other voter’s in any state. It’s just ridiculous nonsense that we need to stop now.

(And No, Lord Fairfax, I was not singling you out...)
No offence taken, I disagree with you on the benefits of a straight popularity contest, so more than happy to debate it.
If it was a contest where highest number of votes wins then nobody would give a damn about Wyoming or Vermont or Alaska or Montana or Delaware, they would be ignored as the candidates would just focus on the big cities (NYC, LA, Philly, Chicago etc)
This was exactly the reason that the founders set it up as it is.
Lord Fairfax is online now  
Remove Ads
Old July 9th, 2018, 09:42 AM   #42
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2013
From: San Antonio, Tx
Posts: 9,147

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Fairfax View Post
Wyoming had 3 EC votes, California had 55, so California is an order of magnitude more important.
The reason that California doesn't get more attention is that it hasn't been competitive for the Republicans since Reagan



No offence taken, I disagree with you on the benefits of a straight popularity contest, so more than happy to debate it.
If it was a contest where highest number of votes wins then nobody would give a damn about Wyoming or Vermont or Alaska or Montana or Delaware, they would be ignored as the candidates would just focus on the big cities (NYC, LA, Philly, Chicago etc)
This was exactly the reason that the founders set it up as it is.
California has 55 EC votes. Wyoming has 3. That’s 18.5 times more EC votes for California than Wyoming. California has about 37,500,000 population; Wyoming has a population of around 600,000 people.

In other words, California’s population is 62.5 times larger than that of Wyoming. California’s 55 EC votes is about 18 times larger than Wyoming’s, but California’s population is 62.5 times larger than Wyoming’s, meaning that a vote cast in California is worth much less than a vote cast in Wyoming. That’s not only not fair, it’s outrageous to punish a state for being more populous than another. California was/is screwed. This needs to stop or, better, the EC needs to be eliminated.

One EC vote in Wyoming = 200,000 people. In California, 1 EC vote = 681,000 people; therefore, California should have no fewer than 165 EC votes. Tell me who is screwed here.

At the time of the Founding Fathers, there were very, very few cities of any size at all anywhere in the USA, so that’s an unconvincing argument at best. If democracy means that my vote is equal to anyone else’s vote, then the EC is decidedly un-democratic.

Last edited by royal744; July 9th, 2018 at 09:52 AM.
royal744 is offline  
Old July 10th, 2018, 08:08 AM   #43
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2015
From: Caribbean
Posts: 3,305

Quote:
Originally Posted by royal744 View Post
One EC vote in Wyoming = 200,000 people. In California, 1 EC vote = 681,000 people; therefore, California should have no fewer than 165 EC votes. Tell me who is screwed here.
No one.

Quote:
If democracy means that my vote is equal to anyone else’s vote, then the EC is decidedly un-democratic.
True. It that is what it means.
Code Blue is offline  
Old July 10th, 2018, 08:12 AM   #44
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2015
From: Caribbean
Posts: 3,305

Quote:
Originally Posted by Emperor of Wurttemburg 43 View Post
The wrong definition has become so common it has become the right definition.
In many cases that is how language evolves.
Code Blue is offline  
Old July 10th, 2018, 08:35 AM   #45
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2015
From: Caribbean
Posts: 3,305

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Fairfax View Post
It was never intended to be one man-one vote.
Yes. And it was never intended for the President to have ongoing jurisdiction over individual citizens.

There was a mesh between forms and jurisdiction that, starting with the 14th amendment, has become mess. Today, the US government is so hybridized, and operating pursuant to so many declared and perceived emergencies that few of its forms or instrumentalities make apparent sense. Perhaps first on that list is the US Senate.

Last edited by Code Blue; July 10th, 2018 at 08:38 AM.
Code Blue is offline  
Old July 12th, 2018, 11:29 AM   #46

David Vagamundo's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: Atlanta, Georgia USA
Posts: 3,749

Quote:
Originally Posted by Code Blue View Post
No one.

True. It that is what it means.
For once, I agree with Code Blue. The US system is NOT a democratic system. It is a Republic. The Founders were well aware that a majority can be every bit or more as oppressive than an oligarchic minority.

See Tocqueville's Democracy in America which discusses at length what he thought the greatest threat to the US was. Hint: it is not oligarchs.
David Vagamundo is offline  
Old July 12th, 2018, 11:44 AM   #47

LatinoEuropa's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2015
From: Matosinhos Portugal
Posts: 4,240

I do not believe in democracy this word is false.
I believe more in money he buys everything.



Real democracy was how I say it.
See how much a deputy wins and see how much a carpenter earns for a year and then in the year to continue to change wages

Real democracia era como vou dizer.
Ver quanto ganha um deputado, e ver quanto ganha um carpinteiro durante um ano, e depois no ano a seguir trocarem os salarios. Se assim fosse eu dizia Real democracia.

Last edited by LatinoEuropa; July 12th, 2018 at 11:54 AM.
LatinoEuropa is offline  
Old July 12th, 2018, 02:03 PM   #48
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2012
From: Here
Posts: 4,321
Blog Entries: 9

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Vagamundo View Post
For once, I agree with Code Blue. The US system is NOT a democratic system. It is a Republic. The Founders were well aware that a majority can be every bit or more as oppressive than an oligarchic minority.
The U.S. is a republic which is a representative, Constitutional democracy.

Quote:

Democracy (Greek: δημοκρατία dēmokratía, literally "rule by people"), in modern usage, has three senses all for a system of government where the citizens exercise power by voting.

In a direct democracy, the citizens as a whole form a governing body, and vote directly on each issue, e.g. on the passage of a particular tax law. In a representative democracy the citizens elect representatives from among themselves. These representative meet to form a governing body, such as a legislature.

In a constitutional democracy the powers of the majority are exercised within the framework of a representative democracy, but the constitution limits the majority and protects the minority, usually through the enjoyment by all of certain individual rights, e.g. freedom of speech, or freedom of association.[1][2]

Democracy is sometimes referred to as "rule of the majority".[3] Democracy is a system of processing conflicts in which outcomes depend on what participants do, but no single force controls what occurs and its outcomes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy


The founders were referring to a "pure democracy" when they used the word democracy to compare it to a republic. They just did not always qualify it but sometimes they did. Here is Madison in Federalist Paper No. 10...

Quote:
From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.
If the Madison thought there was only one type of democracy, he would have no need to precede the noun "democracy" with the adjective "pure" because an adjective is used to create a subset from the items contained in the noun it precedes. e.g. "white cars" are a subset of cars of every color.

And this thinking was not started by the American founders. The merits of republics over direct democracies were thoroughly discussed by the Enlightenment philosophers. The only one I know who advocated for pure democracy was Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and he only thought it would work in a small political entity like the Republic of Geneva. Many there were a couple others, but most preferred constitutional republics or constitutional monarchies to pure democracies.
Jax Historian is offline  
Old July 14th, 2018, 05:53 AM   #49

Lord Fairfax's Avatar
Tickling the Dragons tail
 
Joined: Jan 2015
From: Rupert's Land ;)
Posts: 2,817

Quote:
Originally Posted by royal744 View Post
At the time of the Founding Fathers, there were very, very few cities of any size at all anywhere in the USA, so that’s an unconvincing argument at best. If democracy means that my vote is equal to anyone else’s vote, then the EC is decidedly un-democratic.
Your vote is drefinately equal to everyone else's vote - in your state.
My take is that the founder's didn't really envision a strong central government, but a confederation of states, perhaps more like United Nations type arrangement, with each "state" being the primary political entity. The delegates were each trying to preserve the influence and voting of their "state", not thinking about citizen's voting rights in some future hypothetical America.

At the time, the population of Virginia was about 13 times as large a Delaware, Delaware definitely didn't want to be outvoted 13 to one, so by adding in the two extra votes per state makes it 15 to 3, a far less drastic difference

Quote:
Originally Posted by royal744 View Post
California has 55 EC votes. Wyoming has 3. That’s 18.5 times more EC votes for California than Wyoming. California has about 37,500,000 population; Wyoming has a population of around 600,000 people.

In other words, California’s population is 62.5 times larger than that of Wyoming. California’s 55 EC votes is about 18 times larger than Wyoming’s, but California’s population is 62.5 times larger than Wyoming’s, meaning that a vote cast in California is worth much less than a vote cast in Wyoming. That’s not only not fair, it’s outrageous to punish a state for being more populous than another. California was/is screwed. This needs to stop or, better, the EC needs to be eliminated.

One EC vote in Wyoming = 200,000 people. In California, 1 EC vote = 681,000 people; therefore, California should have no fewer than 165 EC votes. Tell me who is screwed here.
Not really anybody?

Do you really think most people care if the Presidents winning vote for their candidate comes from Yeehaw Junction or Yazoo County?
Is there any difference if the President's winning votes came from Boone county IL or Boone county WV? Or Boone county IA? Or Boone county AR? (Or Boone county IN, KY, MO or NE?)
No, 99% of voters really only care if their guy (Or gal!) wins.

With a two party system it means that the system only makes a difference if it favors one side over the other, the facts don't very little bias, if any. Instead of looking at population per EC vote, consider that each state has two "extra" EC votes, which really only skew things for the very small states.
So how many EC small states are there?
Of the 12 smallest EC votes (11 states + DC), each with less than 1.5 million voters, "Team Blue" has 6 (HI, ME, RI, DE, VT & DC), "Team Red" has 5 (WY, MT, ND, SD & AK), with one tossup (NH). If you expand that to the 16 smallest EC voting states (all at about 2 million or less), it adds two Red states (ID, NE), one Blue (NM) and one toss up (WV)

So the grand total for the 16 smallest EC voters (32 "extra" EC votes) is 7 Blue, 7 Red and two tossup.
The small states are remarkably evenly balanced between the two sides, and that doesn't look like it will change anytime soon.
Lord Fairfax is online now  
Old July 14th, 2018, 06:44 AM   #50
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2012
From: Here
Posts: 4,321
Blog Entries: 9

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Fairfax View Post
My take is that the founder's didn't really envision a strong central government, but a confederation of states, perhaps more like United Nations type arrangement, with each "state" being the primary political entity. The delegates were each trying to preserve the influence and voting of their "state", not thinking about citizen's voting rights in some future hypothetical America.
This isn't very accurate. The U.S. was already a confederation of states under the 1781 Articles of Confederation before the Constitution was adopted to create a stronger central government. The Constitution has a "necessary and proper" clause that allowed for disagreements on the strength of the central government as early as 1791 when Alexander Hamilton used it to push for the creation of a national bank to which he got great resistance. Lumping the founders together that they all believed or wanted the same thing about anything other than they were anti-monarchical and believed that ones station at birth should not block his ability to move to the top of society is usually a misnomer. But many of them feared factionalism, "local passions", and "corruption"' and the Electoral College was more an attempt to prevent this in federal elections more than each state's interest in protecting their own power.

A reading of the Wiki article on the electoral college will clear up some of the misconceptions about what was intended to do, including Hamilton and Madison's thoughts on it in the Federalist Papers and it early days of existence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electo...#Original_plan
Jax Historian is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > American History

Tags
democracy, elections, exist, interesting, usa, video



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Interesting Video on Roman Evolution Spike117 War and Military History 0 November 27th, 2017 07:14 PM
Is our modern democracy based on the democracy of the old Athens after Pericles? Dilly69 History Help 10 February 5th, 2017 10:46 AM
A very interesting historical video presentations of Mr. Nobody rizhov General History 12 May 21st, 2016 11:26 AM
Interesting Video about shieldwalls Thegn Ansgar War and Military History 1 March 24th, 2011 03:40 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.