Will every vote really count?
-
The governator has a chance to get the ball rolling.[^] Alvaro
If [God] knows what we are going to do then we have no free will and are just characters in a play written by him. Without free will, morality for humans makes no sense. Without free will and morality, any sort of punishment or reward system loses any justification. Heaven and hell would be places where [God] could watch the souls he created, predestined just for eternal happiness or agony. - Mark Thomas
-
The governator has a chance to get the ball rolling.[^] Alvaro
If [God] knows what we are going to do then we have no free will and are just characters in a play written by him. Without free will, morality for humans makes no sense. Without free will and morality, any sort of punishment or reward system loses any justification. Heaven and hell would be places where [God] could watch the souls he created, predestined just for eternal happiness or agony. - Mark Thomas
That's a pretty interesting way to circumvent the electoral college and would certainly shake up the political system. I'm not sure if I approve (but would have to give it more thought). If not done universally (and it certainly wouldn't be universal), it would basically just serve to underrepresent that participating states electoral votes, but transferring them across the country. I think a constitutional amendment would be a more honest route.
"You act like jew." -Score: 1.0 (3 votes).
-
That's a pretty interesting way to circumvent the electoral college and would certainly shake up the political system. I'm not sure if I approve (but would have to give it more thought). If not done universally (and it certainly wouldn't be universal), it would basically just serve to underrepresent that participating states electoral votes, but transferring them across the country. I think a constitutional amendment would be a more honest route.
"You act like jew." -Score: 1.0 (3 votes).
As the article points out, it's not really circumventing the electoral college, since it's up to each state to determine how the electoral college votes are divided up (some already allocate proportionally, others are winner take all). I agree though, that the intent is to circumvent, by tying thestates allocation to a national proportion, rather than to that states proportion. In close elections, the winner take all states would still get more attention, and excercise more leverage. An ammendment would be a more intellectually honest approach, since that would force debate on why the founding fathers chose the electoral college system in the first place. They did not do that blindly, and it was debated hotly at the time. I'm not entirely convinced that they were wrong in their final decision - pure democracy would give the edge to New York and California, since a candidate could affort to tie or lose in all the rest if assured of a sufficient majority in just those two.
-
As the article points out, it's not really circumventing the electoral college, since it's up to each state to determine how the electoral college votes are divided up (some already allocate proportionally, others are winner take all). I agree though, that the intent is to circumvent, by tying thestates allocation to a national proportion, rather than to that states proportion. In close elections, the winner take all states would still get more attention, and excercise more leverage. An ammendment would be a more intellectually honest approach, since that would force debate on why the founding fathers chose the electoral college system in the first place. They did not do that blindly, and it was debated hotly at the time. I'm not entirely convinced that they were wrong in their final decision - pure democracy would give the edge to New York and California, since a candidate could affort to tie or lose in all the rest if assured of a sufficient majority in just those two.
Rob Graham wrote:
As the article points out, it's not really circumventing the electoral college, since it's up to each state to determine how the electoral college votes are divided up (some already allocate proportionally, others are winner take all).
I think it does so long as each state agrees to the compact because it effectively bypasses the electoral college by considering national results rather than state results. I also think is probably unconstitutional per Section 10:
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage,
keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or
Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless
actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delayI believe this is probably something only Congress would be authorized to do and, even then, only through an amendment (since such legislation would go against the electoral college.
Rob Graham wrote:
They did not do that blindly, and it was debated hotly at the time. I'm not entirely convinced that they were wrong in their final decision - pure democracy would give the edge to New York and California, since a candidate could affort to tie or lose in all the rest if assured of a sufficient majority in just those two.
I think it goes back to the fact that our government is a republic composed of states with their own governments. I think that's a good system, but people tend to minimize the role of the state government in national affairs.
"You act like jew." -Score: 1.0 (3 votes).