So... the current system has had no political legitimacy since... ever? Or only those administrations with whom you disagree? Do you seriously not see this slippery slope?Bob78164 wrote:I'd be fine with ranked choice voting to solve that problem. But even a plurality would confer more political legitimacy than the current system. --BobEstonut wrote:But a Hillary win (because of popular vote) would have done the same thing, as she had no majority, either.Bob78164 wrote:No, that's a result I'll be willing to live with. Hell, this result would be more palatable if Republicans would govern with humility arising from the knowledge that their policies don't enjoy majority support, even if they have (for the moment) the political power to impose their will on the majority. But instead, they're exploiting their political power for all it's worth.
Polinquin wants to change the election's rules
- tlynn78
- Posts: 8781
- Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:31 am
- Location: Montana
Re: Polinquin wants to change the election's rules
To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead. -Thomas Paine
You can ignore reality, but you can't ignore the consequences of ignoring reality. -Ayn Rand
Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire
You can ignore reality, but you can't ignore the consequences of ignoring reality. -Ayn Rand
Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire
- Bob78164
- Bored Moderator
- Posts: 21686
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
- Location: By the phone
Re: Polinquin wants to change the election's rules
When a minority uses raw political power to impose its will on a majority, with no apparent sense of restraint (as has been happening for nearly two years), there's a serious problem. So it's a really good idea for such a minority to exercise some self-restraint. --Bobtlynn78 wrote:So... the current system has had no political legitimacy since... ever? Or only those administrations with whom you disagree? Do you seriously not see this slippery slope?Bob78164 wrote:I'd be fine with ranked choice voting to solve that problem. But even a plurality would confer more political legitimacy than the current system. --BobEstonut wrote:But a Hillary win (because of popular vote) would have done the same thing, as she had no majority, either.
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson
- Estonut
- Evil Genius
- Posts: 10495
- Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 1:16 am
- Location: Garden Grove, CA
Re: Polinquin wants to change the election's rules
Ranked choice voting does not solve that problem. After the machinations take place, you will still have a leader who was the first choice of a minority of voters. "Adjusting" the vote counts by successively ignoring candidates with lower first-place vote counts may narrow it down to a single candidate, but it most certainly does not reflect the first choice of any majority. Further, this method is fairly seriously flawed, too. If candidate C received 1% of the first-choice votes and 100% of the second-place votes, all votes for this candidate would be thrown out, even though they are the clear second choice of ALL voters.Bob78164 wrote:I'd be fine with ranked choice voting to solve that problem. But even a plurality would confer more political legitimacy than the current system.Estonut wrote:But a Hillary win (because of popular vote) would have done the same thing, as she had no majority, either.Bob78164 wrote:No, that's a result I'll be willing to live with. Hell, this result would be more palatable if Republicans would govern with humility arising from the knowledge that their policies don't enjoy majority support, even if they have (for the moment) the political power to impose their will on the majority. But instead, they're exploiting their political power for all it's worth.
A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five.
Groucho Marx
Groucho Marx
- flockofseagulls104
- Posts: 7924
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
- Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: Polinquin wants to change the election's rules
bob-tel, consider that you are getting that information from the same people who are still trying to tell you that trump called neo-nazis good people. From my viewpoint, the minority imposed their will on me, who it considers deplorable, who believe I was bitterly clinging to my (non-existant) guns and religion, who regularly considers me a racist, homophobic, islamophobe for 8 years, and is still doing it. .Bob78164 wrote:When a minority uses raw political power to impose its will on a majority, with no apparent sense of restraint (as has been happening for nearly two years), there's a serious problem. So it's a really good idea for such a minority to exercise some self-restraint. --Bobtlynn78 wrote:So... the current system has had no political legitimacy since... ever? Or only those administrations with whom you disagree? Do you seriously not see this slippery slope?Bob78164 wrote:I'd be fine with ranked choice voting to solve that problem. But even a plurality would confer more political legitimacy than the current system. --Bob
Your friendly neighborhood racist. On the waiting list to be a nazi. Designated an honorary 'snowflake'. Trolled by the very best, as well as by BJ. Always typical, unlike others.., Fulminator, Hopelessly in the tank for trump... inappropriate... Flocking himself... Probably a tucking sexist, too... All thought comes from the right wing noise machine(TM)... A clear and present threat to The Future Of Our Democracy.. Doesn't understand anything... Made the trump apologist and enabler playoffs... Heathen bastard... Knows nothing about history... Liar.... don't know much about statistics and polling... Nothing at all about biology... Ignorant Bigot... Potential Future Pariah... Big Nerd... Spiraling, Anti-Trans Bigot.. A Lunatic AND a Bigot.. Very Ignorant of the World in General... Sounds deranged... Fake Christian... Weird... has the mind of a child... has paranoid delusions... Simpleton
- Bob78164
- Bored Moderator
- Posts: 21686
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
- Location: By the phone
Re: Polinquin wants to change the election's rules
We know from Arrow's Theorem that there's no perfect system, but ranked choice solves the problem that happens much more often in real life than does your scenario -- multiple candidates on one side of a political divide splitting the vote while the lone member on the other side attains a plurality by consolidating the minority of voters on that side. We're about to see that play out in Maine's Second Congressional District. --BobEstonut wrote:Ranked choice voting does not solve that problem. After the machinations take place, you will still have a leader who was the first choice of a minority of voters. "Adjusting" the vote counts by successively ignoring candidates with lower first-place vote counts may narrow it down to a single candidate, but it most certainly does not reflect the first choice of any majority. Further, this method is fairly seriously flawed, too. If candidate C received 1% of the first-choice votes and 100% of the second-place votes, all votes for this candidate would be thrown out, even though they are the clear second choice of ALL voters.Bob78164 wrote:I'd be fine with ranked choice voting to solve that problem. But even a plurality would confer more political legitimacy than the current system.Estonut wrote:But a Hillary win (because of popular vote) would have done the same thing, as she had no majority, either.
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson
- jarnon
- Posts: 6374
- Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:52 pm
- Location: Merion, Pa.
Re: Polinquin wants to change the election's rules
Actually, if no presidential candidate gets a majority, the House chooses the president, with each state delegation having one vote. That’s hardly democratic.Bob78164 wrote:I'd be fine with ranked choice voting to solve that problem. But even a plurality would confer more political legitimacy than the current system. --BobEstonut wrote:But a Hillary win (because of popular vote) would have done the same thing, as she had no majority, either.
Last edited by jarnon on Wed Nov 14, 2018 8:24 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Слава Україні!
עם ישראל חי
עם ישראל חי
- Bob78164
- Bored Moderator
- Posts: 21686
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
- Location: By the phone
Re: Polinquin wants to change the election's rules
If no presidential candidate gets a majority of the Electoral College, the election of a President goes to the House (in the manner that you described) and the election for Vice President goes to the Senate. --Bobjarnon wrote:Actually, if no presidential candidate gets a majority, the House chooses the president, with each state delegation having one vote. That’s hardly democratic.Bob78164 wrote:I'd be fine with ranked choice voting to solve that problem. But even a plurality would confer more political legitimacy than the current system. --BobEstonut wrote:But a Hillary win (because of popular vote) would have done the same thing, as she had no majority, either.
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson
- silverscreenselect
- Posts: 23453
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
- Contact:
Re: Polinquin wants to change the election's rules
There's a partial solution that wouldn't require a Congressional amendment. The size of the House has been 435 members since Arizona and New Mexico were admitted in 1912, and that number was fixed by law in 1929. In 1912, the population of the US was about 95 million; in 1929, it was about 122 million. Today, it is about 325 million. So, one representative represents over three times as many people today as the last time the House expanded. You don't need to triple the House, but add another hundred members or so (600 would be a good number to work with) and the electoral college would more evenly reflect the relative populations of the various states.
By the way, the House of Commons in the UK has 650 members with a population of 66 million people. Canada's House of Commons has 338 members with a population of 37 million. Japan's lower house has 465 members with a population of 127 million.
By the way, the House of Commons in the UK has 650 members with a population of 66 million people. Canada's House of Commons has 338 members with a population of 37 million. Japan's lower house has 465 members with a population of 127 million.
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com
- Bob78164
- Bored Moderator
- Posts: 21686
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
- Location: By the phone
Re: Polinquin wants to change the election's rules
I read recently that growing the body proportionally to the cube root of population works well. I think in our case that takes the House up to the mid-500s. --Bobsilverscreenselect wrote:There's a partial solution that wouldn't require a Congressional amendment. The size of the House has been 435 members since Arizona and New Mexico were admitted in 1912, and that number was fixed by law in 1929. In 1912, the population of the US was about 95 million; in 1929, it was about 122 million. Today, it is about 325 million. So, one representative represents over three times as many people today as the last time the House expanded. You don't need to triple the House, but add another hundred members or so (600 would be a good number to work with) and the electoral college would more evenly reflect the relative populations of the various states.
By the way, the House of Commons in the UK has 650 members with a population of 66 million people. Canada's House of Commons has 338 members with a population of 37 million. Japan's lower house has 465 members with a population of 127 million.
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson
- silverscreenselect
- Posts: 23453
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
- Contact:
Re: Polinquin wants to change the election's rules
The federal court rejected Polinquin's request to stop the recount, so the recount will continue today. Results should be announced this afternoon:
https://www.pressherald.com/2018/11/15/ ... -for-noon/
https://www.pressherald.com/2018/11/15/ ... -for-noon/
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com
- Bob78164
- Bored Moderator
- Posts: 21686
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
- Location: By the phone
Re: Polinquin wants to change the election's rules
I wouldn't call it a recount. But whatever you call it, Golden won, as expected, for another flip. --Bobsilverscreenselect wrote:The federal court rejected Polinquin's request to stop the recount, so the recount will continue today. Results should be announced this afternoon:
https://www.pressherald.com/2018/11/15/ ... -for-noon/
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson
- ghostjmf
- Posts: 7421
- Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 11:09 am
Re: Polinquin wants to change the election's rules
Background on ranked voting in Maine is that for 2 elections, Maine has had a governor, Paul LePage, who is up there with Arpaio & Trump for jackassitude. I would bet he embarrassed even some Republicans.
All because the Indies, Greens etc couldn't get it together to put a Dem in. But apparently they could get it together to get ranked choice voting in. So now they can vote with their hearts for 1st & their brains for 2nd.
All because the Indies, Greens etc couldn't get it together to put a Dem in. But apparently they could get it together to get ranked choice voting in. So now they can vote with their hearts for 1st & their brains for 2nd.
- Bob78164
- Bored Moderator
- Posts: 21686
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
- Location: By the phone
Re: Polinquin wants to change the election's rules
Actually, the Maine Supreme Court has held that under the Maine Constitution, general elections for state offices have to be decided by a plurality. So in elections for state offices ranked choice is only used in the primary. I think Maine voters are in the process of amending their constitution to fix this. --Bobghostjmf wrote:Background on ranked voting in Maine is that for 2 elections, Maine has had a governor, Paul LePage, who is up there with Arpaio & Trump for jackassitude. I would bet he embarrassed even some Republicans.
All because the Indies, Greens etc couldn't get it together to put a Dem in. But apparently they could get it together to get ranked choice voting in. So now they can vote with their hearts for 1st & their brains for 2nd.
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson
- silverscreenselect
- Posts: 23453
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
- Contact:
Re: Polinquin wants to change the election's rules
This district was the northern, more rural district of Maine (the largest Congressional district in area east of the Mississippi River). The last incumbent to lose in this district was in 1916. With this flip, the Democrats now hold every Congressional district in New England.
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com
- bazodee
- Posts: 944
- Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 10:23 am
- Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Re: Polinquin wants to change the election's rules
Maine Secretary of State announces results of ranked choice voting. Democrats flip the seat held by Poloquin who is still trying to litigate the legitimacy of this voting method.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/15/politics ... index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/15/politics ... index.html