Skip to main content

View Diary: If it is not stopped, the Republican war on democracy will tear this nation apart (264 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Not "the whole point." (4+ / 0-)

    The whole point is a system that does not allow a candidate to win the electoral college while losing the popular vote by 4%.  This far super cedes state rights to apportion their electors.

    Since the beginning of the electoral college, neither party has ever attempted this, as far as I know. There's a reason for that. The republicans risk major blow back with this, further erosion of their brand, mid term losses and imo, not a great chance of success in any state.

    "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

    by StellaRay on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 03:37:11 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Disagree (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      nextstep

      There is no reason why a popular vote winner is any more legitimate than an electoral vote winner. The principle is that the states are supposed to select electors, not individual voters. The fact that each state does it this way is more of an accident of history than anything else (and some, like Maine and Nebraska, don't).

      (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
      Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

      by Sparhawk on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 03:51:32 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  why would a popular vote winner not be any more (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VirginiaBlue, Sarenth

        legitimate than an electoral vote winner?

        it seems that the winner of the popular vote would be the only legitimate winner.  the electoral college is an anachronism that outlived its original purpose long, long ago.

        most of the world's largest democracies award the election to the winner of the popular vote.  it's time we did, too.

        •  Re (0+ / 0-)
          why would a popular vote winner not be any more legitimate than an electoral vote winner?
          Uh, because one of them is the federalized system we have and the other is something else.
          it seems that the winner of the popular vote would be the only legitimate winner.  the electoral college is an anachronism that outlived its original purpose long, long ago.
          If you don't believe in the principle of federalism that our nation is founded upon, sure.
          most of the world's largest democracies award the election to the winner of the popular vote.  it's time we did, too.
          In Britain, the Prime Minister isn't even elected, (s)he is selected by the House of Commons.

          Same thing in Canada (slightly different system).

          In both cases, not one individual vote is cast for the titular head of state. The assumption is that you do that when you elect your local representative.

          (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
          Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

          by Sparhawk on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 05:18:32 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  How unsurprising (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Boreal Ecologist, jts327

        that Sparhawk would be all for dismantling democracy.
        Troll.

        +++ The law is a weapon used to bludgeon us peasants into submission. It is not to be applied to the monied elite.

        by cybersaur on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 04:41:42 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  What democracy (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          nextstep, Mikey

          Many other "democratic" systems that I'm sure you approve of do not allow even a single individual citizen to vote for the head of state (Canada, Britain, and more).

          The head of state is selected by the democratically-elected legislatures in these cases.

          These systems seem to get along just fine without being accused of being anti-democratic despotisms (Britain could do with a few less closed circuit television cameras, but I digress...).

          (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
          Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

          by Sparhawk on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 05:22:52 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Your ingorance is showing. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            cybersaur
            Many other "democratic" systems that I'm sure you approve of do not allow even a single individual citizen to vote for the head of state (Canada, Britain, and more).
            The bolded head of state is not elected at all. She is currently the hereditary Monarch known as Queen Elizabeth II. Maybe you should educate yourself a bit before making such statements.

            There are also a series of court cases that could blast these CD EC schemes. I haven't had time to read every word, but each is a precedent in "one man, one vote" decisions as applied to state imbalances and rather specifically to state efforts to weight the scales to rural voters.

            The only foes that threaten America are the enemies at home, and those are ignorance, superstition, and incompetence. [Elbert Hubbard]

            by pelagicray on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 12:09:00 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  No, yours is (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              nextstep

              The head of state in Britain in most ways that matter is the prime minister. The Queen or King has little real power, just a figurehead.

              (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
              Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

              by Sparhawk on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 03:24:19 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Wrong Answer. The parlimentary system separates (0+ / 0-)

                "head of state" from political. One advantage is the HOS, the sort of embodied flag, is focus of that national pride stuff while the legislative power, the prime minister, can be booted without some of the trauma we and others with both features wrapped in one body seem to face.

                That is the practical reality and the HOS for such countries is most definitely the monarch or elected official serving the function of HOS. By the way, on visiting, those prime ministers do not get the 21 gun salutes their HOS would, so you are just making excuses.

                The only foes that threaten America are the enemies at home, and those are ignorance, superstition, and incompetence. [Elbert Hubbard]

                by pelagicray on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 07:31:42 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Yes (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  nextstep

                  And in all cases, neither the monarch nor the Prime Minister is directly elected, which is what we are discussing here. Why you continue to muddy the waters with trivial irrelevancies is a mystery to me.

                  (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
                  Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

                  by Sparhawk on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 08:02:52 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Because you mixed apples and oranges, with an (0+ / 0-)

                    error, at the start?

                    The particular problem of mixing both Head of State and elected political leader in systems such as ours is a recognized issue if you do your research. The pro is that our system, with a fixed term for both, provides stability. The con is that we are often stuck with either a completely ineffective or sometimes a corrupt political head for that reason and the reluctance of much of our population to see the embodiment of the State subject of "regicide." Yes, that is a foolish view, but a known factor in our extreme reluctance to use the impeachment process when rather well deserved.

                    Enough. If you don't want to do some self education on the issues of the systems, the pros and cons and the factual blunder of including Britain in the first instance that is your problem.

                    The only foes that threaten America are the enemies at home, and those are ignorance, superstition, and incompetence. [Elbert Hubbard]

                    by pelagicray on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 09:07:39 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

      •  Here's what's "supposed" to happen: (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ranton

        One person, one vote. You talk about states like they're people too.  To hell with the individual voter, huh?

        "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

        by StellaRay on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 04:55:49 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  No, what is "supposed" to happen is the state (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          nextstep

          legislature is supposed to select the electors.  The fact that they are chosen by popular vote is just a quirk of history, nothing more.

          You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

          by Throw The Bums Out on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 05:18:44 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Sorry, but... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Sparhawk

            This country was founded on the idea that it is a republic made up of states.  No other nation (to my knowledge) puts stars or markers on their flag for each province in their country.  The individual states (and their "rights", though that term was later used as code) were considered to be sacrosanct by the founders.

            The reality is that voters in California and Mississippi have different values and different ways of life, and the entire structure of the nation was setup so that neither could tell the other how to live.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site