McCain-warns-there-will-be- war

[Amianthus]

So that in Wyoming and Alaska, the votes are worth more individually than in populous states like Texas. Do you disagree?

Aye, and they are worth more in Congress as well.

As I said, the system was setup so that the most representative government (the state) was closer to the people. The federal government is supposed to represent the states, not the people.

[_JS]

I don't know where it's stated.

Probably because it's not.

Well, I guess Congress is more obviously a relic of the Federal system.  Seems to work pretty well as it is, so "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."   The Electoral College is also a relic, but obviously a broken one if we look to the 2000 Presidential election, which was a catastrophe.

The votes in the Electoral College are calculated the same way the votes in Congress are calculated¹ so I guess if Congress "ain't broke" neither is the Electoral College. And what happened in 2000 is no different than what happened in a number of other elections going back to the early 1800s; except that the loser filed a court case.

This is all really silly. I mean, we even have JS making the claim that "no other [democratically elected] government uses a board to elect their leader." Actually, in most Parliamentary systems (which most democracies use), it's worse than in the US system. In those systems, the head of state is the Prime Minster, and that office is usually voted on by only the majority party (or coalition), therefore denying a vote to everyone who is not affiliated with the majority party. The US system allows everyone to vote for an Elector (and the number of electors are based on population), so it is "defacto" more representative of the population. The several times the Electoral College vote did not match the popular vote were statistical quirks, mostly based on large population moves just before a census (as was the case with the late 90s and the 2000 election).

¹ - With one exception: DC gets 3 votes in the Electoral College, but gets no votes in Congress. Though, if this is the point where the Electoral College is broken, it would be an easy fix to remove those 3 votes.

It isn't "worse" and you are knowingly distorting what I said Ami.

You are comparing apples and oranges. The Westminster System is entirely different as I've explained. The Cabinet and the Prime Minister are ALL from Parliament. They are sitting MP's or peers. As sitting MP's they are directly elected.

You're best effort was at laying it at the monarch's feet, which was another distortion of the truth. While technically correct according to tradition in the UK, it is not the reality of the situation. You know this as well.

[_JS]

So that in Wyoming and Alaska, the votes are worth more individually than in populous states like Texas. Do you disagree?

Aye, and they are worth more in Congress as well.

As I said, the system was setup so that the most representative government (the state) was closer to the people. The federal government is supposed to represent the states, not the people.

So, then you'll agree that it is NOT one man = one vote due to the electoral college. It is instead, in some states one vote is worth more than in other states - correct?

[Amianthus]

So, then you'll agree that it is NOT one man = one vote due to the electoral college. It is instead, in some states one vote is worth more than in other states - correct?

I never claimed that "one man = one vote" was ever the system in the US, nor did I ever claim that it was an ideal. It's not true for any federal position; never has been, never will be. As I pointed out, this is not true in Congress, and it's not true for the Presidential election. The federal government was never intended to be representative of citizens, it's a place for the states to get their say.

[Amianthus]

You are comparing apples and oranges.

Then why did you bring it up?

[sirs]

As I said, the system was setup so that the most representative government (the state) was closer to the people. The federal government is supposed to represent the states, not the people.

BEST summation to date.  Knocked that one out of the park, Ami

*golf clap*

[Amianthus]

You are comparing apples and oranges. The Westminster System is entirely different as I've explained. The Cabinet and the Prime Minister are ALL from Parliament. They are sitting MP's or peers. As sitting MP's they are directly elected.

And the Electors are directly elected as well.

So, you got one system where a bunch of guys are directly elected, and they vote one of their own as the head of state. And you got another system where a bunch of guys are directly elected and vote someone outside of their group as head of state.

They're not so different, are they?

[_JS]

You are comparing apples and oranges. The Westminster System is entirely different as I've explained. The Cabinet and the Prime Minister are ALL from Parliament. They are sitting MP's or peers. As sitting MP's they are directly elected.

And the Electors are directly elected as well.

So, you got one system where a bunch of guys are directly elected, and they vote one of their own as the head of state. And you got another system where a bunch of guys are directly elected and vote someone outside of their group as head of state.

They're not so different, are they?

Our system and Westminster?

Yes, they are very different.

[_JS]

As I said, the system was setup so that the most representative government (the state) was closer to the people. The federal government is supposed to represent the states, not the people.

BEST summation to date.  Knocked that one out of the park, Ami

*golf clap*

Then at least be honest Sirs and state that you do not support one man = one vote, but instead support a system where people in Wyoming and Alaska have votes that are worth more than your vote and my vote.

I'm not attacking that system, I'd just like some straight-forward honesty for once.

[Amianthus]

I'm not attacking that system, I'd just like some straight-forward honesty for once.

I believe the only people here claiming "one man = one vote" are arguing on your side.

"Allocated based on population" is not the same as "one man = one vote" - in this system or any other.

[_JS]

Allocated based on population would mean that one vote in one region should be equal in weight to one vote in another region.

Granted that no system can be perfect and actual voters are not equal to population of course.

Hey, maybe one man = one vote is a bit cliche, but your side has used "if it ain't broke don't fix it" 

[Plane]

Allocated based on population would mean that one vote in one region should be equal in weight to one vote in another region.

Granted that no system can be perfect and actual voters are not equal to population of course.

Hey, maybe one man = one vote is a bit cliche, but your side has used "if it ain't broke don't fix it" 

So what is broke about it?

In the constitional convention where the constitution was written the big states like New York wanted one man one vote but the more rural states would refus to join the club under cicumstances that ensured that practicly all decisions to be made in New York City , simularly Southern states wanted indians and slaves to be counted in the   census but northern states objected that this wouldn't be fair since these people were not allowed to vote.

I don't know why Rode Island would ever join a club in which it had no influence  , or why New Hampshire should have to put up wih a Slaves ficticious right to vote carrying representation in congress.

So to get the club together comprmises were made. The contract got signed .

[Amianthus]

Hey, maybe one man = one vote is a bit cliche, but your side has used "if it ain't broke don't fix it" 

Mikey is not on my side. And he used that to declare that the representation in Congress was ok. Since the representation in Congress "ain't broke" then why is the representation in the Electoral College "broke"?

[sirs]

As I said, the system was setup so that the most representative government (the state) was closer to the people. The federal government is supposed to represent the states, not the people.

BEST summation to date.  Knocked that one out of the park, Ami

Then at least be honest Sirs and state that you do not support one man = one vote, but instead support a system where people in Wyoming and Alaska have votes that are worth more than your vote and my vote.

If you're asking do I support that the President be representative to ALL states, and not just the one I happen to be living in, then, yea.  That is how our Country was founded and is represented.  And it works, thank God, so that mob rule isn't the SOP

[Amianthus]

Allocated based on population would mean that one vote in one region should be equal in weight to one vote in another region.

Granted that no system can be perfect and actual voters are not equal to population of course.

And, BTW, "allocated based on population" is the system used for Congress and the Electoral
College.