1. Home
  2. Electronics Design
  3. OT: Tired of Winning?
  4. Page 8

OT: Tired of Winning?

The rationale for the Electoral College is more-or-less laid out by Madison in the Federalist Papers 51:

"Consequently, the great problem in framing a government is that the government must be able to control the people, but equally important, must be forced to control itself. The dependence of the government on the will of the people is undoubtedly the best control, but experience teaches that other controls are necessary."

That is to say it was felt that a direct popular vote put too much control in the tyranny of the majority. How do you prevent the tyranny of the majority? Basically, you can't, at least not passively.

The electoral college provided a balance against the tyranny of the majority by actively _enabling_ the potential for there to be a tyranny of the minority.

At least that was the rationale in 1776. It's not true so much in 2018, the idea that a direct popular vote could somehow put America under control of the godless coastal liberals forever is straight nonsense from the type of person who thinks votes for Democrat vs. Republican presidential candidates is say 95% to 5% in Massachusetts vs what it actually is, more like 60% to 40%.

Reply to
bitrex
Loading thread data ...

ple would want. One person, one vote. I expect many do not even realize t heir votes often just plain don't count.

es for the winner count.

'As articulated by Hamilton, one reason the Electoral College was created w as so "that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man w ho is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications".'

That seems to be working well...

Interesting to note for the Electoral College to prevent a tyrant (or other unfit candidate) from taking office would require the electors to be "fait hless". Many states have laws prohibiting "faithless" votes and for them t o be withdrawn and recast the way the majority of the electorate intended. Given that the electoral votes of nearly all states are allocated as winne r take all, clearly the Electoral College is no longer functioning as origi nally intended and in fact allow for the election of exactly the type of pe rson it was intended to prevent.

Rick C.

Reply to
gnuarm.deletethisbit

I wouldn't worry ya pretty head about the Right being endangered in the Northeast or California. Voting right is known to linearly scale in proportion to number of Benzes owned and there's no shortage of those in either location, either.

Reply to
bitrex

Depends on whether one thinks the Constitution and everything the Founding Fathers wrote about government was eternally perfect and derived from God or whether they themselves were self-aware there were parts of the system that were kind of a hack-job and would be surprised hadn't been tided up in the intervening 200 years if they had the opportunity to observe the goings on.

Bad analogy: Like the greybeard engineer who comes back to the banking sector at age 70 and sees them using the same COBOL code he wrote in

1974 and it's got /* TODO: FIXME */ comments there still untouched like WTF

They were under time pressure in the way most important projects are

Reply to
bitrex

On Sunday, July 1, 2018 at 11:28:46 AM UTC-4, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote :

nner take all, clearly the Electoral College is no longer functioning as or iginally intended and in fact allow for the election of exactly the type of person it was intended to prevent.

Depends on how you look at it. I think it worked as originally planned in that it stopped Hillary from being elected. She did not have support in en ough states and if elected would have ignored the deplorable states.

Unfortunately when the choice is between Hillary and Trump, it is obvious t hat the system of selecting candidates by primary elections is far from pe rfect.

Dan

Reply to
dcaster

Maybe it's working just fine and the average American is a whack-off who want the government run by whack-offs like them. It's a "representative" government after all.

I'm pretty sure that's a variation on a George Carlin joke

Reply to
bitrex

They had to be far-sighted enough to try to frame a document that covered for every perilous eventuality they could foresee back then, based on the lessons that history had taught them about governmental tyranny and how the interests of the people can be insidiously usurped by the unscrupulous. I think they did a damn fine job of it, considering. It's just typical of human nature that at the exact same time that document was being drafted, the evil-doers (who never rest) were *already* plotting to circumvent its noble aims. There is *always* a war of some sort going on and most of the time it doesn't involve a single shot being fired. Peace is an illusion.

--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via  
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other  
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of  
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet  
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.
Reply to
Cursitor Doom

When the book The Dark Side of Camelot came out, they discussed it on Washington Week in Review. Doris Kearns Goodman actually said, "People shouldn't talk about these things", thus admitting that she is for censorship of Democrats' scandals.

Reply to
Tom Del Rosso

eople would want. One person, one vote. I expect many do not even realize their votes often just plain don't count.

otes for the winner count.

y
,

ed was so "that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any m an who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualification s".'

ther unfit candidate) from taking office would require the electors to be " faithless". Many states have laws prohibiting "faithless" votes and for th em to be withdrawn and recast the way the majority of the electorate intend ed. Given that the electoral votes of nearly all states are allocated as w inner take all, clearly the Electoral College is no longer functioning as o riginally intended and in fact allow for the election of exactly the type o f person it was intended to prevent.

TF

It couldn't be any more clear that the Founding Fathers realized the docume nt was not perfect and that it would need to be changed as they provide the mechanism for change in the document!

I have no idea why you think it could be otherwise. It's a bit like taking a gun to a fight, you don't bring a gun if you aren't prepared to use it.

Rick C.

Reply to
gnuarm.deletethisbit

Yes, that is exactly how it works. Set up a game theory table. If you vote for the winner, you supported your candidate, as infinitesimal as it might be. If you don't, your candidate gets zero. Your vote could be for any non-winning party, it's exactly as useless.

First-past-the-post voting is one of the worst voting systems studied. The above dichotomy forces the evolution of a two party system.

Third parties can only win if one of the primary parties royally screw up, which does happen from time to time. The rest of the time, third parties are present in a comfortable minority position, where they can be used to split the vote.

It also forces the two parties to be very similar, broad, general, mediocre, and to differentiate themselves on relatively trivial elements that don't affect the bulk of the economy or their key supporters (many of whom support both parties, because they ignore the trivialities that capture the masses, and focus on the dollars that matter to them).

It is proven that there can be no perfect voting system, but there are far, far better systems out there, that are just as easy to understand. Some states and countries even use them. As long as most states do not, we will still have this bi-tyranny.

Tim

--
Seven Transistor Labs, LLC 
Electrical Engineering Consultation and Contract Design 
Website: https://www.seventransistorlabs.com/
Reply to
Tim Williams

rote:

s winner take all, clearly the Electoral College is no longer functioning a s originally intended and in fact allow for the election of exactly the typ e of person it was intended to prevent.

in that it stopped Hillary from being elected. She did not have support i n enough states and if elected would have ignored the deplorable states.

us that the system of selecting candidates by primary elections is far fro m perfect.

I know for a fact that some people I know voted for Trump because Trump tal ked more like one of them. I asked if they want the country to be run by o ne of their friends. No one said "yes" to that.

Rick C.

Reply to
gnuarm.deletethisbit

es

ote

t

Not sure what you are trying to say with the gaming theory stuff, but your conclusion is not supported by the facts. Yes, voting for a losing candida te has no impact on running the country. But voting for a Presidential can didate that loses in your state usually means they get ZERO votes from your state in the election that counts, the Electoral College and so you have * no* possibility of impacting the election no matter how the rest of the cou ntry votes. That's not at all comparable.

he

,

re,

ort

s,

r,

ll

Yeah, but no one here is going to support different types of national elect ions until we are accustomed to a new method. Maybe we should start at the local level first.

Rick C.

Reply to
gnuarm.deletethisbit

JFK was a contemptible scumbag in reality and very far away indeed from his popular public image. But, when you think about it, no worse than Bill or Hillary all things considered.

--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via  
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other  
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of  
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet  
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.
Reply to
Cursitor Doom

crat

e.

Maybe not:

formatting link

-break-up-ice

There are many people of integrity in the USA, and they are speaking up.

John

Reply to
John Robertson

It's a bit soon, but there seems to be plenty of possible third party candidates for president in the 2020 election: I wouldn't worry about a shortage of terrible candidates.

--
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com 
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com 
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com 
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558
Reply to
Jeff Liebermann

It is not about there being candidates, it is about how much power they have in the election. In the US Presidential race they typically can't even get on the ballot while the two parties are on the ballot even if they put up a dead guy.

Rick C.

Reply to
gnuarm.deletethisbit

LEfties do like to speak for everyone else. However, the Constitution isn't about "what most people want today". This, fortunately, is

*not* a democracy.
Reply to
krw

And I thought I was describing a big enough asshole. You one-up'd my description.

Let's not. ...and follow the Constitution, as written. You're welcome to try to change it.

You've already topped the ass pile. You're going for the perfecta, it seems.

You haven't the stomach for it.

Reply to
krw

It's not surprising that you're clueless. Admitting that you are is, rather.

Reply to
krw

He doesn't know. It sounded like something that was said by some rioter on the newz today, though.

Reply to
krw

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.