Total Posts:26|Showing Posts:1-26
Jump to topic:

Is the electoral college logical?

jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 4:25:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
5 people are on a road trip. 2 are sitting in the front seat and 3 are in back.

It's time to eat. They see a Burger King and a McDonalds up the road. They cannot agree on which restaurant to stop at so they decide to take a vote.

Lets assume that they are using the electoral college. The back seat has a population of 3 people so they get 3 electoral votes. The front seat has a population of 2 so they get 2 electoral votes.

The 2 people in the front seat both vote to stop at McDonalds. In the back 2 people vote for Burger King while McDonalds receives just 1vote. Burger King it is!

5 people had to eat Burger King because 2 of them voted for it.
___________

Am I missing something?
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 8:59:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
First. The driver decides where to eat. Their vote is the only vote that matters.

Second, no, the EC is not rational (unless democracy is not their goal... Fun dun DUN!!!)
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 9:07:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 8:59:00 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
First. The driver decides where to eat. Their vote is the only vote that matters.

Second, no, the EC is not rational (unless democracy is not their goal... Fun dun DUN!!!)

I would say who's buying is the only vote that counts.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 9:17:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 9:07:02 AM, jharry wrote:
At 10/24/2014 8:59:00 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
First. The driver decides where to eat. Their vote is the only vote that matters.

Second, no, the EC is not rational (unless democracy is not their goal... Fun dun DUN!!!)

I would say who's buying is the only vote that counts.

If he's not driving, he has no control unless the driver willingly gives up his vote on where to go. And that is assuming that only one person is paying for everyone.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 9:17:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 9:07:02 AM, jharry wrote:
At 10/24/2014 8:59:00 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
First. The driver decides where to eat. Their vote is the only vote that matters.

Second, no, the EC is not rational (unless democracy is not their goal... Fun dun DUN!!!)

I would say who's buying is the only vote that counts.

If he's not driving, he has no control unless the driver willingly gives up his vote on where to go. And that is assuming that only one person is paying for everyone.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 9:25:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 9:17:21 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/24/2014 9:07:02 AM, jharry wrote:
At 10/24/2014 8:59:00 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
First. The driver decides where to eat. Their vote is the only vote that matters.

Second, no, the EC is not rational (unless democracy is not their goal... Fun dun DUN!!!)

I would say who's buying is the only vote that counts.

If he's not driving, he has no control unless the driver willingly gives up his vote on where to go. And that is assuming that only one person is paying for everyone.

If the driver isn't buying than I'd think he'd be willing to go where the free food is.....unless he's an idiot maybe. He's still controlling the vehicle but in the direction of free food.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 9:43:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
How a bout a 3 seat SUV?

2 small seats (States) in the front with 3 people.

One large state in the back. 5 people.

so the voting goes

M M B
M M B
B B B B M.

Under electorate, the majority of the 2 small states trumps the majority in the large state. in this case, 2 majorities worth 3 a piece trumps the one majority of a large state.

Under pure democracy, The large state can abuse super-majorities to dictate the small states to go to Burger King. (6 to 5 votes counted).

EC supposedly limits corruption of the abuse of "buying" a super majority in large states.

If we didn't have states or abuses of corruption in how the federal government awards tax dollars to states, EC wouldn't even be necessary.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 10:06:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 9:43:34 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
How a bout a 3 seat SUV?

2 small seats (States) in the front with 3 people.

One large state in the back. 5 people.

so the voting goes

M M B
M M B
B B B B M.

Under electorate, the majority of the 2 small states trumps the majority in the large state. in this case, 2 majorities worth 3 a piece trumps the one majority of a large state.

Under pure democracy, The large state can abuse super-majorities to dictate the small states to go to Burger King. (6 to 5 votes counted).

EC supposedly limits corruption of the abuse of "buying" a super majority in large states.

If we didn't have states or abuses of corruption in how the federal government awards tax dollars to states, EC wouldn't even be necessary.

And there's the problem. .......federal government tax dollars
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 10:09:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 9:25:50 AM, jharry wrote:
At 10/24/2014 9:17:21 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/24/2014 9:07:02 AM, jharry wrote:
At 10/24/2014 8:59:00 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
First. The driver decides where to eat. Their vote is the only vote that matters.

Second, no, the EC is not rational (unless democracy is not their goal... Fun dun DUN!!!)

I would say who's buying is the only vote that counts.

If he's not driving, he has no control unless the driver willingly gives up his vote on where to go. And that is assuming that only one person is paying for everyone.

If the driver isn't buying than I'd think he'd be willing to go where the free food is.....unless he's an idiot maybe. He's still controlling the vehicle but in the direction of free food.

Well, of course he "should" but that is still his vote to mess up if he wants. Of course, if the driver doesn't go with the. It's of the passengers too much, they may revolt and take over his car. You can only take Burger King so much before the torches and pitch forks come out.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 10:18:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 10:09:29 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/24/2014 9:25:50 AM, jharry wrote:
At 10/24/2014 9:17:21 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/24/2014 9:07:02 AM, jharry wrote:
At 10/24/2014 8:59:00 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
First. The driver decides where to eat. Their vote is the only vote that matters.

Second, no, the EC is not rational (unless democracy is not their goal... Fun dun DUN!!!)

I would say who's buying is the only vote that counts.

If he's not driving, he has no control unless the driver willingly gives up his vote on where to go. And that is assuming that only one person is paying for everyone.

If the driver isn't buying than I'd think he'd be willing to go where the free food is.....unless he's an idiot maybe. He's still controlling the vehicle but in the direction of free food.

Well, of course he "should" but that is still his vote to mess up if he wants. Of course, if the driver doesn't go with the. It's of the passengers too much, they may revolt and take over his car. You can only take Burger King so much before the torches and pitch forks come out.

Definitely hahaha, torches and pitch forks is the best option at this point.

But why could the passengers that want McDonalds just walk across the street?
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 10:20:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
It's logical for this reason:
Political pandering is kept in check.

Imagine if I 18% of the nation lived in California, while they represent about 10% of the electoral college, which I believe is true. If the president were to run on a platform that helped California, he's got 18% of the vote, assuming everyone voted and they were all that shallow. Conversely, why cater to Alaska, Iowa, and a few other states at all, when their combined votes are only 2%, but their combined electoral vote is 5%.

It helps keep the nation's best interest in heart, as opposed to just key demographics, like geographical area or a strong minority.
My work here is, finally, done.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 10:48:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 10:20:42 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
It's logical for this reason:
Political pandering is kept in check.

Imagine if I 18% of the nation lived in California, while they represent about 10% of the electoral college, which I believe is true. If the president were to run on a platform that helped California, he's got 18% of the vote, assuming everyone voted and they were all that shallow. Conversely, why cater to Alaska, Iowa, and a few other states at all, when their combined votes are only 2%, but their combined electoral vote is 5%.

It helps keep the nation's best interest in heart, as opposed to just key demographics, like geographical area or a strong minority.

No it doesn't. It just changes who they are pandering to. It doesn't reduce the pandering.

In a straight democracy (much like governor elections) we see politicians pander to their bases. Dems target the city, Reps target the country. They do a little cross firing based on where they think they'll get more bang for their buck, but it mostly focused on encouraging their base to get active and vote.

While the EC makes them only pander to certain "swing" states. And even then, they only pander to their bases in those states. They do not change to try to represent the nation.

All it does it focuses the pandering by making the other votes worthless.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 10:57:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 10:48:07 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/24/2014 10:20:42 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
It's logical for this reason:
Political pandering is kept in check.

Imagine if I 18% of the nation lived in California, while they represent about 10% of the electoral college, which I believe is true. If the president were to run on a platform that helped California, he's got 18% of the vote, assuming everyone voted and they were all that shallow. Conversely, why cater to Alaska, Iowa, and a few other states at all, when their combined votes are only 2%, but their combined electoral vote is 5%.

It helps keep the nation's best interest in heart, as opposed to just key demographics, like geographical area or a strong minority.

No it doesn't. It just changes who they are pandering to. It doesn't reduce the pandering.

In a straight democracy (much like governor elections) we see politicians pander to their bases. Dems target the city, Reps target the country. They do a little cross firing based on where they think they'll get more bang for their buck, but it mostly focused on encouraging their base to get active and vote.

While the EC makes them only pander to certain "swing" states. And even then, they only pander to their bases in those states. They do not change to try to represent the nation.

All it does it focuses the pandering by making the other votes worthless.

It still mitigates the pandering.
If it was straight democracy, I doubt the same strategy would be employed.
My work here is, finally, done.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 11:50:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 10:48:07 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/24/2014 10:20:42 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
It's logical for this reason:
Political pandering is kept in check.

Imagine if I 18% of the nation lived in California, while they represent about 10% of the electoral college, which I believe is true. If the president were to run on a platform that helped California, he's got 18% of the vote, assuming everyone voted and they were all that shallow. Conversely, why cater to Alaska, Iowa, and a few other states at all, when their combined votes are only 2%, but their combined electoral vote is 5%.

It helps keep the nation's best interest in heart, as opposed to just key demographics, like geographical area or a strong minority.

No it doesn't. It just changes who they are pandering to. It doesn't reduce the pandering.

In a straight democracy (much like governor elections) we see politicians pander to their bases. Dems target the city, Reps target the country. They do a little cross firing based on where they think they'll get more bang for their buck, but it mostly focused on encouraging their base to get active and vote.

While the EC makes them only pander to certain "swing" states. And even then, they only pander to their bases in those states. They do not change to try to represent the nation.

All it does it focuses the pandering by making the other votes worthless.

You guys are both wrong. It limits super-majority abuse of large states due to super pandering.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 12:15:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 4:25:15 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
5 people are on a road trip. 2 are sitting in the front seat and 3 are in back.

It's time to eat. They see a Burger King and a McDonalds up the road. They cannot agree on which restaurant to stop at so they decide to take a vote.

Lets assume that they are using the electoral college. The back seat has a population of 3 people so they get 3 electoral votes. The front seat has a population of 2 so they get 2 electoral votes.

The 2 people in the front seat both vote to stop at McDonalds. In the back 2 people vote for Burger King while McDonalds receives just 1vote. Burger King it is!

5 people had to eat Burger King because 2 of them voted for it.
___________

Am I missing something?

The state I live in would have the equivalent of 1 electoral vote (if I remember correctly) if we didn't have the electoral college, with it we get 3 electoral votes. The electoral college is there to give smaller states a voice (similar to the Senate giving all states equal representation). If the population of each state was the same, then the electoral college would be stupid. However, because there are smaller states, it is not.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 1:10:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 11:50:36 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 10/24/2014 10:48:07 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/24/2014 10:20:42 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
It's logical for this reason:
Political pandering is kept in check.

Imagine if I 18% of the nation lived in California, while they represent about 10% of the electoral college, which I believe is true. If the president were to run on a platform that helped California, he's got 18% of the vote, assuming everyone voted and they were all that shallow. Conversely, why cater to Alaska, Iowa, and a few other states at all, when their combined votes are only 2%, but their combined electoral vote is 5%.

It helps keep the nation's best interest in heart, as opposed to just key demographics, like geographical area or a strong minority.

No it doesn't. It just changes who they are pandering to. It doesn't reduce the pandering.

In a straight democracy (much like governor elections) we see politicians pander to their bases. Dems target the city, Reps target the country. They do a little cross firing based on where they think they'll get more bang for their buck, but it mostly focused on encouraging their base to get active and vote.

While the EC makes them only pander to certain "swing" states. And even then, they only pander to their bases in those states. They do not change to try to represent the nation.

All it does it focuses the pandering by making the other votes worthless.

You guys are both wrong. It limits super-majority abuse of large states due to super pandering.

By giving the power of abuse to a super minority. Sounds great.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 1:16:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 10:57:09 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 10/24/2014 10:48:07 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/24/2014 10:20:42 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
It's logical for this reason:
Political pandering is kept in check.

Imagine if I 18% of the nation lived in California, while they represent about 10% of the electoral college, which I believe is true. If the president were to run on a platform that helped California, he's got 18% of the vote, assuming everyone voted and they were all that shallow. Conversely, why cater to Alaska, Iowa, and a few other states at all, when their combined votes are only 2%, but their combined electoral vote is 5%.

It helps keep the nation's best interest in heart, as opposed to just key demographics, like geographical area or a strong minority.

No it doesn't. It just changes who they are pandering to. It doesn't reduce the pandering.

In a straight democracy (much like governor elections) we see politicians pander to their bases. Dems target the city, Reps target the country. They do a little cross firing based on where they think they'll get more bang for their buck, but it mostly focused on encouraging their base to get active and vote.

While the EC makes them only pander to certain "swing" states. And even then, they only pander to their bases in those states. They do not change to try to represent the nation.

All it does it focuses the pandering by making the other votes worthless.

It still mitigates the pandering.
If it was straight democracy, I doubt the same strategy would be employed.

It only focuses the pandering. You could say there is "less" pandering on the technicality that most voters not longer have a voice. But that would be like suggesting that an absolute dictatorship would have less corruption and abuse because they don't pander to any voters.

Right now. The dems will get, let's say 65% of Cali votes. If they reach out to that state, they could grow it to 75%. If the reps reach out, they might cut it to 55%. There is a 20% swing, but because of the EC, those people are not cared about. The things that matter to them will have zero barring, and so you will be left with a government that isn't even pretending to represent them.

This makes it so only swing state issues become the national issues. That is not a better representation of the nation and only leads to more corruption (since $100,000,000 will go further in a handful of states than for the whole nation).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 1:20:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 12:15:23 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 10/24/2014 4:25:15 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
5 people are on a road trip. 2 are sitting in the front seat and 3 are in back.

It's time to eat. They see a Burger King and a McDonalds up the road. They cannot agree on which restaurant to stop at so they decide to take a vote.

Lets assume that they are using the electoral college. The back seat has a population of 3 people so they get 3 electoral votes. The front seat has a population of 2 so they get 2 electoral votes.

The 2 people in the front seat both vote to stop at McDonalds. In the back 2 people vote for Burger King while McDonalds receives just 1vote. Burger King it is!

5 people had to eat Burger King because 2 of them voted for it.
___________

Am I missing something?

The state I live in would have the equivalent of 1 electoral vote (if I remember correctly) if we didn't have the electoral college, with it we get 3 electoral votes. The electoral college is there to give smaller states a voice (similar to the Senate giving all states equal representation). If the population of each state was the same, then the electoral college would be stupid. However, because there are smaller states, it is not.

The question becomes "why should they?" Why should a greater voice be given to them? Should should the minority dictate to everyone else? What makes their issues more important? We want representation for all the people, not just the people in a handful of states.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 1:48:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Right now, the will of 28 million voters can control the senate over the will of the other 280 million (and it would only take 17.8 million voters to be able to create a filibuster to halt the senate).

It takes 85.7 million voters to control the House. But only 32.35 million to win the presidency.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 1:57:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 1:51:02 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
I don't know if I'd say logical so much as necessary to prevent the worst form of tyranny there is - the tyranny of the majority.

Tyranny of a manority is far worse.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 1:57:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 1:57:07 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/24/2014 1:51:02 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
I don't know if I'd say logical so much as necessary to prevent the worst form of tyranny there is - the tyranny of the majority.

Tyranny of a manority is far worse.

I would disagree with that.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 2:40:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 1:57:07 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/24/2014 1:51:02 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
I don't know if I'd say logical so much as necessary to prevent the worst form of tyranny there is - the tyranny of the majority.

Tyranny of a manority is far worse.

Is that supposed to be minority? Not calling out your spelling, just curious what a manority is. And where do I find one.

If it is minority I strongly agree, why force people in 23 states to abide by some rule or regulation that only concerns one state ir even just the majority of that state.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 3:11:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Also, imagine if the Democratically controlled Congress granted Obamacare exemptions to the entire state of California and New York. How many of those 25% non-democrats would STILL not vote for them? Even Sarah Palin couldn't say no to government handouts....

Talk about a super-majority.... and the rest of the states could do nothing about it.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 3:23:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 9:43:34 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
How a bout a 3 seat SUV?

2 small seats (States) in the front with 3 people.

One large state in the back. 5 people.

so the voting goes

M M B
M M B
B B B B M.

Under electorate, the majority of the 2 small states trumps the majority in the large state. in this case, 2 majorities worth 3 a piece trumps the one majority of a large state.

Under pure democracy, The large state can abuse super-majorities to dictate the small states to go to Burger King. (6 to 5 votes counted).

EC supposedly limits corruption of the abuse of "buying" a super majority in large states.

If we didn't have states or abuses of corruption in how the federal government awards tax dollars to states, EC wouldn't even be necessary.

This example is also a lot closer than the OP's example to real states as there are more amounts of smaller states than larger states.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 4:38:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 1:57:43 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 10/24/2014 1:57:07 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/24/2014 1:51:02 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
I don't know if I'd say logical so much as necessary to prevent the worst form of tyranny there is - the tyranny of the majority.

Tyranny of a manority is far worse.

I would disagree with that.

http://www.debate.org...
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"