NOW is it Time to Talk About Abolishing the Electoral College???...

[Rickster C]

Trump seems to be attempting to subvert the Electoral College by asking states to declare their elections invalid for no good reason and putting Trumps in as electors. That\'s an awfully good damn reason to abolish the Electoral College and use a simple, popular vote to determine the outcome.

I really can\'t believe anyone with half a brain can\'t see the many ways the Electoral College distorts and perverts our Presidential elections.

--

Rick C.

- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[bitrex]

On 11/20/2020 5:16 PM, Rickster C wrote:

Trump seems to be attempting to subvert the Electoral College by asking states to declare their elections invalid for no good reason and putting Trumps in as electors. That\'s an awfully good damn reason to abolish the Electoral College and use a simple, popular vote to determine the outcome.

I really can\'t believe anyone with half a brain can\'t see the many ways the Electoral College distorts and perverts our Presidential elections.

If Biden had lost the popular vote but won the electoral college it
would have been gone before Amy Barrett could put her high priestess of
I-don\'t-know-the-text-of-the-First-Amendment robes on.

 

[Brent Locher]

On Friday, November 20, 2020 at 5:17:01 PM UTC-5, Rickster C wrote:

Trump seems to be attempting to subvert the Electoral College by asking states to declare their elections invalid for no good reason and putting Trumps in as electors. That\'s an awfully good damn reason to abolish the Electoral College and use a simple, popular vote to determine the outcome.

I really can\'t believe anyone with half a brain can\'t see the many ways the Electoral College distorts and perverts our Presidential elections.

--

Rick C.

- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

How do you suggest we go about abolishing the electoral college?

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 21-Nov-20 9:16 am, Rickster C wrote:

Trump seems to be attempting to subvert the Electoral College by asking states to declare their elections invalid for no good reason and putting Trumps in as electors. That\'s an awfully good damn reason to abolish the Electoral College and use a simple, popular vote to determine the outcome.

I really can\'t believe anyone with half a brain can\'t see the many ways the Electoral College distorts and perverts our Presidential elections.

It was originally conceived as a way to ensure that the electorate
didn\'t make a disastrous choice. However, as of 2016, we know that it
doesn\'t work, so it might as well be abolished.

Sylvia.

 

[Don Y]

On 11/20/2020 8:48 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:

The electorate seems to have realized its mistake relatively quickly and if
the EC survives Trump\'s failings intact as I expect it will that could be
interpreted as a reason to hold on to it.

That one mistake has already cost USA dearly, and the rest of the world now
knows that the USA can elect someone who throws a wrecking ball around. It
won\'t forget that, and will constantly be asking itself whether it will be
dealing with another Trump-like president in a few years.

B-O-R-I-S

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 21-Nov-20 3:06 pm, Don Y wrote:

On 11/20/2020 8:48 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
The electorate seems to have realized its mistake relatively quickly
and if the EC survives Trump\'s failings intact as I expect it will
that could be interpreted as a reason to hold on to it.

That one mistake has already cost USA dearly, and the rest of the
world now knows that the USA can elect someone who throws a wrecking
ball around. It won\'t forget that, and will constantly be asking
itself whether it will be dealing with another Trump-like president in
a few years.

B-O-R-I-S

The choice of Boris was unfortunate, but he\'s nothing like as awful as
Trump.

Sylvia.

 

[Don Y]

On 11/20/2020 10:32 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 21-Nov-20 3:06 pm, Don Y wrote:
On 11/20/2020 8:48 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
The electorate seems to have realized its mistake relatively quickly and if
the EC survives Trump\'s failings intact as I expect it will that could be
interpreted as a reason to hold on to it.

That one mistake has already cost USA dearly, and the rest of the world now
knows that the USA can elect someone who throws a wrecking ball around. It
won\'t forget that, and will constantly be asking itself whether it will be
dealing with another Trump-like president in a few years.

B-O-R-I-S

The choice of Boris was unfortunate, but he\'s nothing like as awful as Trump.

The point is the US doesn\'t have a monopoly on electing/selecting/empowering
\"unfortunate\" leaders. Anyone for Turkey?

The whole point of the electoral college was to elect \"responsible\" people
to make the selection of President (and Vice President, originally). For
much the same reason that we have Representatives and Senators to decide
which laws need to be written and HOW they should be written. In the
18th century, folks were far too busy tending their livelihoods than to
have to invest time/effort into \"self government\".

In 2020, surely we could have a \"true\" democracy and let the entire electorate
vote on *everything*. But, how many people would take the time to \"be
informed\" (beyond sound bites and robocalls)? How much LESS participation
would there be if \"government\" became one of your day-to-day activities?

We vote, here (AZ), at least once EVERY year -- sometimes twice. We allow
\"ballot initiatives\" to be presented to the electorate and, if passed,
enacted DIRECTLY into law. I.e., you are voting on the actual TEXT of the
legislation that will be enacted. (or, amendments to the state\'s constitution,
repeal of laws, etc. -- as well as \"local\" initiatives) These can be sourced
by the legislature or the citizenry.

So, to be an INFORMED (responsible) voter, you want to actually THINK about
that text and its consequences -- not just rely on the innumerable deceptive
(or outright dishonest!) adverts/pitches (paid for by ANYONE who can afford
air time -- regardless of their location in or out of the state!) to make
up your mind.

Because it\'s always a BINARY choice: yes or no. You can\'t say, \"I want this
but with the following additional conditions added\". Or, \"I\'ll take that
*if* you remove these conditions\".

And, the \"education\" process also GREATLY precedes the vote as signatures
must be collected before an initiative even makes it ONTO the ballot.
(do you sign that petition BEFORE understanding the ballot measure being
proposed?)

Most of these have far more *direct* consequences than a \"national election\".
So, you\'d imagine greater effort at self-educating...?

[BTW, as an aussie? you may want to view \"That\'s Not My Dog\". A neighbor
turned us onto it and we enjoyed the comedic diversion...]

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, November 21, 2020 at 5:28:40 PM UTC+11, Don Y wrote:

On 11/20/2020 10:32 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 21-Nov-20 3:06 pm, Don Y wrote:
On 11/20/2020 8:48 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
The electorate seems to have realized its mistake relatively quickly and if
the EC survives Trump\'s failings intact as I expect it will that could be
interpreted as a reason to hold on to it.

That one mistake has already cost USA dearly, and the rest of the world now
knows that the USA can elect someone who throws a wrecking ball around. It
won\'t forget that, and will constantly be asking itself whether it will be
dealing with another Trump-like president in a few years.

B-O-R-I-S

The choice of Boris was unfortunate, but he\'s nothing like as awful as Trump.
The point is the US doesn\'t have a monopoly on electing/selecting/empowering
\"unfortunate\" leaders. Anyone for Turkey?

The whole point of the electoral college was to elect \"responsible\" people
to make the selection of President (and Vice President, originally).

That\'s what Federalist 68 claims. In fact the whole point of the electoral college was to provide another sweetener to get the smaller states to accept the 1787 constitution.

The over-representation of the smaller states in the Senate was another such sweetener, but a rather more useful one, which later constitutions have adopted.

For much the same reason that we have Representatives and Senators to decide
which laws need to be written and HOW they should be written. In the
18th century, folks were far too busy tending their livelihoods than to
have to invest time/effort into \"self government\".

Nonsense. The business of running a business has always involved keeping the local politicians on-side.

In 2020, surely we could have a \"true\" democracy and let the entire electorate
vote on *everything*. But, how many people would take the time to \"be
informed\" (beyond sound bites and robocalls)?

How many people have got that much time? I pay doctors to keep track of my health. I don\'t do it for myself. Politicians ought to be the same kind of disinterested experts, but nobody has found a scheme which rewards disinterested expertise half as liberally as it rewards people who will promote special interests.

Multiparty democracy and coalition government comes closer than two party democracy, but not all that close.

<snip>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 21-Nov-20 3:06 pm, Don Y wrote:

On 11/20/2020 8:48 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
The electorate seems to have realized its mistake relatively quickly
and if the EC survives Trump\'s failings intact as I expect it will
that could be interpreted as a reason to hold on to it.

That one mistake has already cost USA dearly, and the rest of the
world now knows that the USA can elect someone who throws a wrecking
ball around. It won\'t forget that, and will constantly be asking
itself whether it will be dealing with another Trump-like president in
a few years.

B-O-R-I-S

I\'d also mention that Boris can be removed at any moment if the party
decides that he\'s become a liability.

Sylvia.

 

[Don Y]

On 11/21/2020 7:08 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 21-Nov-20 3:06 pm, Don Y wrote:
On 11/20/2020 8:48 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
The electorate seems to have realized its mistake relatively quickly and if
the EC survives Trump\'s failings intact as I expect it will that could be
interpreted as a reason to hold on to it.

That one mistake has already cost USA dearly, and the rest of the world now
knows that the USA can elect someone who throws a wrecking ball around. It
won\'t forget that, and will constantly be asking itself whether it will be
dealing with another Trump-like president in a few years.

B-O-R-I-S

I\'d also mention that Boris can be removed at any moment if the party decides
that he\'s become a liability.

So, then you have Boris AND a party (of enablers) that are intent on messing
things up; is that much better? :>

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, November 22, 2020 at 1:30:37 PM UTC+11, Don Y wrote:

On 11/21/2020 7:08 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 21-Nov-20 3:06 pm, Don Y wrote:
On 11/20/2020 8:48 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
The electorate seems to have realized its mistake relatively quickly and if
the EC survives Trump\'s failings intact as I expect it will that could be
interpreted as a reason to hold on to it.

That one mistake has already cost USA dearly, and the rest of the world now
knows that the USA can elect someone who throws a wrecking ball around. It
won\'t forget that, and will constantly be asking itself whether it will be
dealing with another Trump-like president in a few years.

B-O-R-I-S

I\'d also mention that Boris can be removed at any moment if the party decides
that he\'s become a liability.

So, then you have Boris AND a party (of enablers) that are intent on messing
things up; is that much better? :

The way it would work is that the House of Commons would pass a vote of no-confidence in the cabinet lead by Boris Johnson.

The Queen would then invite him - or some other politician - to try to form a cabinet which might be able to command the confidence of the house.

One option would be a cabinet of national unity, with enough ministers from the opposition to have a decent change of getting the confidence of the house.

Boris is famously unprincipled - pragmatic - so he\'d be happy to head such a cabinet and get on with implementing policies that might work better.

Whether he\'d be able to put together a cabinet to do it is an open question. I\'m nowhere near interested enough in UK politics to have any idea how that might play out.

May 1940, when Churchill took over from Chamberlain, would be an example of how it might work. There\'s nobody in the Commons today who looks much like a Churchill to me, but I\'m way out of touch.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 22/11/20 02:08, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 21-Nov-20 3:06 pm, Don Y wrote:
On 11/20/2020 8:48 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
The electorate seems to have realized its mistake relatively quickly and if
the EC survives Trump\'s failings intact as I expect it will that could be
interpreted as a reason to hold on to it.

That one mistake has already cost USA dearly, and the rest of the world now
knows that the USA can elect someone who throws a wrecking ball around. It
won\'t forget that, and will constantly be asking itself whether it will be
dealing with another Trump-like president in a few years.

B-O-R-I-S


I\'d also mention that Boris can be removed at any moment if the party decides
that he\'s become a liability.

He will be removed, shortly after he has become the scapegoat
for the clusterfuck of the Brexit deal.

I would be very surprised to find bookies accepting bets that
Alexander B. de Pfeffel Johnson will be PM in March.

 

[Rick C]

On Friday, November 20, 2020 at 5:17:01 PM UTC-5, Rick C wrote:

Trump seems to be attempting to subvert the Electoral College by asking states to declare their elections invalid for no good reason and putting Trumps in as electors. That\'s an awfully good damn reason to abolish the Electoral College and use a simple, popular vote to determine the outcome.

I really can\'t believe anyone with half a brain can\'t see the many ways the Electoral College distorts and perverts our Presidential elections.

I\'ve been seeing more items in the news about ending the absurdity of the Electoral College. I guess I\'m not the only person in the US who sees clearly the many problems it causes. On top of that there is a clear majority of people in the US who support getting rid of it. Now all we need to do is to convince a few more states to join the Interstate Compact. Even if that is ruled unconstitutional, I think it will make enough outcry to get an amendment passed.

--

Rick C.

-++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Rick C]

On Friday, November 20, 2020 at 5:17:01 PM UTC-5, Rick C wrote:

Trump seems to be attempting to subvert the Electoral College by asking states to declare their elections invalid for no good reason and putting Trumps in as electors. That\'s an awfully good damn reason to abolish the Electoral College and use a simple, popular vote to determine the outcome.

I really can\'t believe anyone with half a brain can\'t see the many ways the Electoral College distorts and perverts our Presidential elections.

I\'ve been seeing more items in the news about ending the absurdity of the Electoral College. I guess I\'m not the only person in the US who sees clearly the many problems it causes. On top of that there is a clear majority of people in the US who support getting rid of it. Now all we need to do is to convince a few more states to join the Interstate Compact. Even if that is ruled unconstitutional, I think it will make enough outcry to get an amendment passed.

--

Rick C.

-++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[bitrex]

On 12/6/2020 9:29 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:

Probably not. No subsequent constitution has included anything like the Electoral College.

(The electors could be locked into a room, until they voted unanimously
for one person, like the election of the pope. Would be interesting.)

Perhaps. But the deciding factor would then be which member of electoral college was most intransigent, which isn\'t necessarily going to lead the electoral college to choose the best president, but rather the one with the most pig-headed supporter.

The application to be an Electoral College appointee in the US is
probably like the application to be a bank employee in the US, there\'s a
question like \"If you had no other options, would you steal $10 from
this bank to feed a starving orphan. It is important that you answer
this question honestly.\" And then if you check Y you\'re disqualified for
the job.

That is to say they screen for loyalty or ability to dissemble, but
having a sensibility that combines the characteristics of \"justice\" and
\"honesty\" is not in the job description

 

[bitrex]

On 12/6/2020 9:29 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:

Probably not. No subsequent constitution has included anything like the Electoral College.

(The electors could be locked into a room, until they voted unanimously
for one person, like the election of the pope. Would be interesting.)

Perhaps. But the deciding factor would then be which member of electoral college was most intransigent, which isn\'t necessarily going to lead the electoral college to choose the best president, but rather the one with the most pig-headed supporter.

The application to be an Electoral College appointee in the US is
probably like the application to be a bank employee in the US, there\'s a
question like \"If you had no other options, would you steal $10 from
this bank to feed a starving orphan. It is important that you answer
this question honestly.\" And then if you check Y you\'re disqualified for
the job.

That is to say they screen for loyalty or ability to dissemble, but
having a sensibility that combines the characteristics of \"justice\" and
\"honesty\" is not in the job description

 

[bitrex]

On 12/7/2020 12:15 AM, bitrex wrote:

On 12/6/2020 9:29 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:

Probably not.  No subsequent constitution has included anything like
the Electoral College.

(The electors could be locked into a room, until they voted unanimously
for one person, like the election of the pope. Would be interesting.)

Perhaps. But the deciding factor would then be which member of
electoral college was most intransigent, which isn\'t necessarily going
to lead the electoral college to choose the best president, but rather
the one with the most pig-headed supporter.


The application to be an Electoral College appointee in the US is
probably like the application to be a bank employee in the US, there\'s a
question like \"If you had no other options, would you steal $10 from
this bank to feed a starving orphan. It is important that you answer
this question honestly.\" And then if you check Y you\'re disqualified for
the job.

That is to say they screen for loyalty or ability to dissemble, but
having a sensibility that combines the characteristics of \"justice\" and
\"honesty\" is not in the job description

Or at least test your knowledge of \"facts and logic\" such that you
understand that openly telling your employer you might steal from them
under _any_ circumstances on a job application is a stupid-ass thing to do.

When an American says they make decisions in accordance with \"facts and
logic\" this tends to be the kind of \"logic\" they\'re referring to.

 

[bitrex]

On 12/7/2020 12:15 AM, bitrex wrote:

On 12/6/2020 9:29 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:

Probably not.  No subsequent constitution has included anything like
the Electoral College.

(The electors could be locked into a room, until they voted unanimously
for one person, like the election of the pope. Would be interesting.)

Perhaps. But the deciding factor would then be which member of
electoral college was most intransigent, which isn\'t necessarily going
to lead the electoral college to choose the best president, but rather
the one with the most pig-headed supporter.


The application to be an Electoral College appointee in the US is
probably like the application to be a bank employee in the US, there\'s a
question like \"If you had no other options, would you steal $10 from
this bank to feed a starving orphan. It is important that you answer
this question honestly.\" And then if you check Y you\'re disqualified for
the job.

That is to say they screen for loyalty or ability to dissemble, but
having a sensibility that combines the characteristics of \"justice\" and
\"honesty\" is not in the job description

Or at least test your knowledge of \"facts and logic\" such that you
understand that openly telling your employer you might steal from them
under _any_ circumstances on a job application is a stupid-ass thing to do.

When an American says they make decisions in accordance with \"facts and
logic\" this tends to be the kind of \"logic\" they\'re referring to.