@MadFrenchie You have repeatedly used the word disenfranchisement. Can you explain why you feel that is different from a State that has voted 55% for Party A and 45% for Party B but has 2 Senators for Party A. By your logic it would seem that those residents that voted for Party B were disenfranchised.
It's an effect of dividing the voter block and implementing a winner-take-all system.
In any election, dividing voters into subgroups naturally introduces the risk of disenfranchisement.
It isn't a matter of your vote (and those who vote like you) not being enough to win the election, it's the case of Republicans in California (for example again), whose votes receive zero reflection in the overall picture of the election. They got no representation among the electoral college despite making up 31% of the total popular vote in the state. In effect, almost 4.5 million voters in California alone got zero representation in the electoral college picture that chose the President.
Which is EXACTLY the same as my Senate example. Assuming they make up 31% of the popular vote as you say, almost 4.5 million voters in California have zero representation of their views by their Senators.
By your definition it would seem to say that those voters are disenfranchised. I’m some States it could be much closer. 45% of voters may be represented by Senators they do not believe in.
My explanation is that no, those folks are in no way disenfranchised. They voted in their States election and lost. That is quite different from being disenfranchised. The same thing for Presedential elections. They voted to have their State vote one way. They lost.
Again, we are a union of States. This is what we were founded as. I personally do not want that to change as I believe it is vital to our identity and a great source of strength.
I respect that we are a Union of States, and understand where you're coming from.
My argument depends far more largely on the practicality of the current landscape. I find it hard to believe, with all the advances in society in general (remember, the founding fathers, despite all the rhetoric, didn't actually treat every man as equal nor allow every man to even participate in the political process), specifically with regards to human rights and equality, that somehow the process created by a bunch of rich white slave-owners was so flawless as to be impossible to improve upon. The Constitution is a great framework document; it's hard to argue with any confidence that it could be described as "modern," though.
As such, we're really adhering to two different philosophies here, and that's okay. I can see the merits of your perspective.
No one is saying that the original election system is impossible to improve upon. It already has been improved upon many times. For starters, I'd regard the 12th, 15th, 19th, 20th, and 24th amendments as improvements.
And that is to say nothing of the many tweaks to state election processes that didn't require a constitutional amendment. In 1789, voters didn't have the wealth of readily available information about candidates that we have today. Nor did they tend to find out on election night who won most races, as we do today.
To say that one particular proposed change would make things worse rather than better is not to say that it cannot be improved upon at all.
I would ask that we stop using the word disenfranchised to describe our current system. Folks were not disenfranchised and that word carries connotations related to having been denied the right to vote. It’s also used currently to indicate that someone was cheated out of the ability to vote. None of this happened.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
I would ask that we stop using the word disenfranchised to describe our current system. Folks were not disenfranchised and that word carries connotations related to having been denied the right to vote. It’s also used currently to indicate that someone was cheated out of the ability to vote. None of this happened.
When the choice is the lesser of two evils, it becomes disenfranchised. "Do you vote to murder the baby, or the puppy? You CAN choose!" Extreme, I know, but exactly how I feel about American Politics today.
@MadFrenchie, I totally get where you're coming from and understand your own frustrations. I also agree that our constitution is not perfect for the reasons you mentioned, and let's not forget women's right to vote that did not happen until early 1900's.
All in all, I have rarely thought that "popular" anything is a good choice. And in elections there will be losers. Some very mad and tantrum-ish.
To swing this back around, I don't see how a union could help those poor folks at Six Foot. If a company can't pay their employees, they can't pay. Unionizing can't change that.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
@MadFrenchie You have repeatedly used the word disenfranchisement. Can you explain why you feel that is different from a State that has voted 55% for Party A and 45% for Party B but has 2 Senators for Party A. By your logic it would seem that those residents that voted for Party B were disenfranchised.
It's an effect of dividing the voter block and implementing a winner-take-all system.
In any election, dividing voters into subgroups naturally introduces the risk of disenfranchisement.
It isn't a matter of your vote (and those who vote like you) not being enough to win the election, it's the case of Republicans in California (for example again), whose votes receive zero reflection in the overall picture of the election. They got no representation among the electoral college despite making up 31% of the total popular vote in the state. In effect, almost 4.5 million voters in California alone got zero representation in the electoral college picture that chose the President.
Which is EXACTLY the same as my Senate example. Assuming they make up 31% of the popular vote as you say, almost 4.5 million voters in California have zero representation of their views by their Senators.
By your definition it would seem to say that those voters are disenfranchised. I’m some States it could be much closer. 45% of voters may be represented by Senators they do not believe in.
My explanation is that no, those folks are in no way disenfranchised. They voted in their States election and lost. That is quite different from being disenfranchised. The same thing for Presedential elections. They voted to have their State vote one way. They lost.
Again, we are a union of States. This is what we were founded as. I personally do not want that to change as I believe it is vital to our identity and a great source of strength.
I respect that we are a Union of States, and understand where you're coming from.
My argument depends far more largely on the practicality of the current landscape. I find it hard to believe, with all the advances in society in general (remember, the founding fathers, despite all the rhetoric, didn't actually treat every man as equal nor allow every man to even participate in the political process), specifically with regards to human rights and equality, that somehow the process created by a bunch of rich white slave-owners was so flawless as to be impossible to improve upon. The Constitution is a great framework document; it's hard to argue with any confidence that it could be described as "modern," though.
As such, we're really adhering to two different philosophies here, and that's okay. I can see the merits of your perspective.
And I get what you are saying. I wish there were a way for you to have what you want without fundamentally changing what already exists and what I want. The Founders were not perfect, and they realized that. This is why there is a mechanism to change the Constitution. It is, by design, difficult to do and requires 2/3's if Congress or I think 3/4 of the States. It should take that and not just a plurality of voters otherwise things will be tossed into chaos and changing on every public whim. Again though, right now... today... each person that wants can petition their own State to change to a proportional allocation of votes. And I would have zero problems with that because it follows the rules and the Constitution.
In all honesty, when I look 20 years down the road I am not so sure the country exists as on indivisible nation. When you see dark blue on the coasts, red in between and just a sprinkling of purple... it's kind of scary.
I think the tipping point will be when someone decides that they can just appoint as many Supreme Court Justices as they want and the Senate goes along with it because "their guys" are in the minority. That will finally destroy the last leg of government that people still at least kind of respect.
I think the stark differences are scarier then most want to believe. Unless there is a fundamental changer I feel like the like the losers will become more and more angry. Do a majority of communities deserve to be ruled by a majority of the population or vice versa?
Then again things shift. Maybe what the nation is going through is kind of like the next generation is always the worst kind of thing. It always happens on some level.
Comments
And that is to say nothing of the many tweaks to state election processes that didn't require a constitutional amendment. In 1789, voters didn't have the wealth of readily available information about candidates that we have today. Nor did they tend to find out on election night who won most races, as we do today.
To say that one particular proposed change would make things worse rather than better is not to say that it cannot be improved upon at all.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
@MadFrenchie, I totally get where you're coming from and understand your own frustrations. I also agree that our constitution is not perfect for the reasons you mentioned, and let's not forget women's right to vote that did not happen until early 1900's.
All in all, I have rarely thought that "popular" anything is a good choice. And in elections there will be losers. Some very mad and tantrum-ish.
To swing this back around, I don't see how a union could help those poor folks at Six Foot. If a company can't pay their employees, they can't pay. Unionizing can't change that.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
Then again things shift. Maybe what the nation is going through is kind of like the next generation is always the worst kind of thing. It always happens on some level.