General Election Discussion (US election)

[bascule]

I don't think an online voting system is practical at this point. If you're worried about people hacking the vote now...

[Mr Skeptic]

Another thing is that if voting is too easy, people who have not invested the time and effort to figure out which candidate is better might also vote. Also, internet voting would benefit the Democrats, since the young people who use the internet tend to be Democrats (not that I would mind). Plus, the requirement that people vote only once, yet vote anonymously, might not work so well with the internet. The risk of hacking or of cyberspace attacks/interference is also there. Lots of problems that I doubt will be solved anytime soon.

[iNow]

Hence my explicit caveat:

 

So long as we put proper controls in place...

[Pangloss]

Interestingly enough, the government has already implemented a system of online identification for a critical federal program -- financial aid. It's called FAFSA, or the Free Application for Federal Student Aid.

 

Unfortunately it's a bit awful -- impossible for even many intelligent people to fathom, and not really very secure.

[doG]

I guess I'm one of those crazy people who thinks the electoral college is antiquated and needs to be abolished

 

Is that a way of saying that you don't see the advantages of the Electoral College system?

 

The founders chose it to avoid the popular vote, to avoid making the choosing of the Executive a popularity contest because they believed "that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications."

 

As an example, Obama was not elected because of his qualifications to do the job. He was elected because some voted for him believing things like he could lower their gas prices of pay their mortgage. Some even voted against him because they believed he took his Senate oath of office on a Koran. Votes on both sides based on lies and gossip. In the end he was elected because of a gross volume of misinformation fed to the public through the media and internet gossip. In the end, we the people don't truly know what kind of man we've ended up with. In the end we have not used a process which would give us what we know to be the best qualified individual for the job, whomever that may be.

 

With appointed electors, appointed to the specific task of deliberating, investigating and analyzing the very requisite qualifications that we the people should expect, we have a panel choosing for the people whomever is best qualified with no concern for that individuals popularity. A panel that we the people have chosen. Isn't that what we deserve, all of us collectively? A process that finds the best CEO from the lot, whether we like him or not. Don't we deserve a process that truly looks at the accurate and truthful information of all the candidates, not just the winners of some primary beauty contests, one that finds the best one in the lot to serve us?

 

Think of past Presidents and imagine which may or may not have passed the scrutiny of a body of electors performing the due diligence they were intended to do. Would GW Bush have made the cut? Jimmy Carter? Hoover? Had better candidates been chosen then where would we be today? Our forefathers applied wisdom and careful deliberation in choosing a system that avoided the pitfalls of a popular vote. Why should we now cast aside their efforts?

[D H]

Interestingly enough, the government has already implemented a system of online identification for a critical federal program -- financial aid. It's called FAFSA, or the Free Application for Federal Student Aid.

 

Unfortunately it's a bit awful -- impossible for even many intelligent people to fathom, and not really very secure.

Pangloss opened the door to this off-topic rant.

 

I have three things to say about FAFSA: #$&^, @#$!, and %#@?

 

One more thing: I am so glad that last two of my kids to put through college are now in their senior year.

[ParanoiA]

The founders chose it to avoid the popular vote, to avoid making the choosing of the Executive a popularity contest because they believed "that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications."

 

Well, this may be arguable I guess, but per the US Electoral College website "The Electoral College was established by the founding fathers as a compromise between election of the president by Congress and election by popular vote."

 

To me that does imply some capacity to represent the people. If this reasoning is to be believed, the founders must of seen the value in a measure of the people's popular choice. And, just as obviously must of seen the disadvantage of this popularity contest. This, if for no other reason, makes the case to keep the Electoral College, and I guess some reform and corrective public education.

 

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/procedural_guide.html

 

In the end, we the people don't truly know what kind of man we've ended up with. In the end we have not used a process which would give us what we know to be the best qualified individual for the job, whomever that may be.

 

I think that's a terrific point. Really, all of the things I bitch about, the disgusting nature of these candidates and their despicable behavior can be traced back to the low bar the populus sets for these opportunists. I keep indicting us, the citizenry, and it seems the electoral college was an attempt to remedy just that.

 

My question though, is how does this really reconcile the popular vote with the electoral imperative to be "appointed to the specific task of deliberating, investigating and analyzing the very requisite qualifications that we the people should expect"? I think I remember reading that only twice has an electorate NOT voted for the candidate they were elected to.

 

Also, the electors have little alternatives. How do they really achieve a higher standard of selection, when they are still left with a limited shitty lot to choose from?

 

It would seem more effective if they were involved in the front end of the nomination process. I would almost rather see a slate of candidates selected by them, and then a popular vote, for one of that lot, by the people. That would ensure a quality pool, while retaining popular election. That would also satisfy the intent of the founders to compromise between congressional and popular selection.

[iNow]

In the end, we the people don't truly know what kind of man we've ended up with. In the end we have not used a process which would give us what we know to be the best qualified individual for the job, whomever that may be.

Here's the rub, though, and why a consensus needs to be found by sampling large numbers.

 

We each define "the job" differently. We all inside of ourselves define what it means to be President, what the person is charged with doing, and also what defines a job well done based on those criteria.

 

You might see the president as the person who signs the bills from congress, not much else.

Another might see the president as someone who is solely responsible for heading the military.

I might see the president as someone who changes the path of the country and alters our economy and environmental damages.

 

Either way, we each have a differing perspective, and hence we each define "the job" uniquely, and also then what it means to do it well.

 

Hence, the need for larger population samples to find the consensus of these issues and intersecting/competing skills and abilities.

 

 

 

 

 

It would seem more effective if [electors] were involved in the front end of the nomination process. I would almost rather see a slate of candidates selected by them, and then a popular vote, for one of that lot, by the people. That would ensure a quality pool, while retaining popular election. That would also satisfy the intent of the founders to compromise between congressional and popular selection.

 

You are wearing the rose colored glasses here, my friend. It would not, by default, ensure "a quality pool," it would more likely ensure cronyism. The founding fathers were well aware of how power changed hands when controlled by the few, and how friends were "appointed" and loved ones "granted charge," so they quite rightly understood the need to put the real power in the hands of the people... the larger populace.

Edited November 7, 2008 by iNow
multiple post merged

[ParanoiA]

Here's the rub' date=' though, and why a consensus needs to be found by sampling large numbers.

 

We each define "the job" differently. We all inside of ourselves define what it means to be President, what the person is charged with doing, and also what defines a job well done based on those criteria.[/quote']

 

Ok, you don't see the ignorance in that? We each define the job differently? That's the problem iNow, the constitution defines the job. We aren't supposed to "define it differently". If we want to define it differently, then we need to amend the document, which means we also need rethink how that changes the structure and checks.

 

This redefinition is more about being ignorant to the president's actual job in the first place, and the intellectual laziness to go learn it and understand it. (not a shot at you, I mean the sheeple syndrome) So, instead, we "redefine" it, as if we're qualified to do that in the first damn place.

 

You are wearing the rose colored glasses here, my friend. It would not, by default, ensure "a quality pool," it would more likely ensure cronyism. The founding fathers were well aware of how power changed hands when controlled by the few, and how friends were "appointed" and loved ones "granted charge," so they quite rightly understood the need to put the real power in the hands of the people... the larger populace.

 

That's a valid point, but are you sure though? I'm thinking if the party members are elected by the people, then that may be enough of a check to be sure they don't engage in blatant cronyism. Maybe you disagree. I'm not wholly sure myself actually.

[doG]

Here's the rub, though, and why a consensus needs to be found by sampling large numbers.

 

What is a consensus of large numbers of misinformed or poorly informed numbers of people worth? Many of those very numbers that don't even understand the nature of the job to begin with.

 

We each define "the job" differently. We all inside of ourselves define what it means to be President, what the person is charged with doing, and also what defines a job well done based on those criteria.

 

Our differing opinions do not define the job of the President. The job of the Executive branch is specified in the Constitution and his/her authority to delegate those functions and additional rights are spelled out in Title 3 of the U.S. Code.

[D H]

Ok, you don't see the ignorance in that? We each define the job differently? That's the problem iNow, the constitution defines the job.

The Constitution gives an outline, and a somewhat vague one at that, of what the job entails. Some silly nations, and some silly states (*cough* California *cough*), have very explicit and very inflexible constitutions. Our Constitution has a lot of wiggle room. IMHO, that those who argue that judges must always defer to the founding fathers' original intent are way off-base, because it is rather obvious to me that the founding fathers' original intent was to be rather non-specific. The Constitution makes no mention of the Air Force, or NASA, or the NIH, for example.

 

Speaking of lack of direction: The Constitution is intentionally vague in the makeup of the Electoral College. "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress ...". The selection method is explicitly deferred to the states and there is absolutely nothing about the mechanics of the Electoral College. The only explicit direction in the Constitution is "... but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."

 

Unintended Consequences result because of this lack of direction. (That the popular vote may be in conflict with the Electoral vote is an intended consequence.) One unintended consequence results from the winner-take-all scheme adopted by all but two states. Residents of Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and a handful of other states get to choose our President. The other states essentially don't count.

 

Getting rid of the winner-take-all selection scheme would help fix this problem. "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, an Elector to represent each Congressional District and two Electors to represent the State as a whole. Each Elector shall, on the first ballot of the Electoral College, vote for President and Vice President in concordance with the plurality vote for President/Vice President of the United State of the District or State they represent."

 

The Unintended Consequence of this proposal is that it gives small states even more power. Win Wyoming and you get three electoral votes. Win the Umpteenth District of some largish state and you get one electoral vote, even though that district might well have three times the population of Wyoming.

[npts2020]

It would seem more effective if they were involved in the front end of the nomination process. I would almost rather see a slate of candidates selected by them, and then a popular vote, for one of that lot, by the people. That would ensure a quality pool, while retaining popular election. That would also satisfy the intent of the founders to compromise between congressional and popular selection.

 

Isn't this what Americans complain about happening in Iran and other places?

[ParanoiA]

The Constitution gives an outline, and a somewhat vague one at that, of what the job entails. Some silly nations, and some silly states (*cough* California *cough*), have very explicit and very inflexible constitutions. Our Constitution has a lot of wiggle room. IMHO, that those who argue that judges must always defer to the founding fathers' original intent are way off-base, because it is rather obvious to me that the founding fathers' original intent was to be rather non-specific. The Constitution makes no mention of the Air Force, or NASA, or the NIH, for example.

 

Right, but I'm taking issue with this:

 

You might see the president as the person who signs the bills from congress, not much else.

Another might see the president as someone who is solely responsible for heading the military.

I might see the president as someone who changes the path of the country and alters our economy and environmental damages.

 

Presidential responsibilities are outlined in Article II. He is in command of the military. He is responsible for intitiating treaties. He is to appoint judges, ambassadors, and etc. He is to address the state of the union and make recommendations to congress. He is to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed".

 

I do appreciate the vague nature of the articles, but I don't think it so vague that one can actually determine, on their own, that only the military is his responsibility, or that he's supposed to pursue environmental change. Within his outlined responsibilities, there are dynamics and flexibile interpretation to be had, but outside of them there are not.

 

I believe the public views the president as a more powerful representative. Representation is part of his job (the nature of treaties, receiving foreign leaders), but it's more about the kinetic exercise of congess. He executes their laws. They have 435 representatives in the house.

 

I think this definitely hurts the office. We have a twisted notion of his job, and I believe it comes from lack of understanding it in the first place, and then remedying that by daydreaming and self discovery rather than reading and learning.

 

That said, I don't profess to be an expert by any stretch, but I do believe it's my responsibility to learn it rather than make it up, or believe "X" without having actually read a damn thing. I think most americans fall in that category.

Edited November 7, 2008 by ParanoiA

[D H]

Right, but I'm taking issue with this:

You might see the president as the person who signs the bills from congress, not much else.

Another might see the president as someone who is solely responsible for heading the military.

I might see the president as someone who changes the path of the country and alters our economy and environmental damages.

Right. Especially that last line, "I might see the president as someone who changes the path of the country and alters our economy and environmental damages." None of that is in the Constitution.

[Mr Skeptic]

Also, the electors have little alternatives. How do they really achieve a higher standard of selection, when they are still left with a limited shitty lot to choose from?

 

It would seem more effective if they were involved in the front end of the nomination process. I would almost rather see a slate of candidates selected by them, and then a popular vote, for one of that lot, by the people. That would ensure a quality pool, while retaining popular election. That would also satisfy the intent of the founders to compromise between congressional and popular selection.

 

That could work. I think it would also be good if these, or some other group elected by the people, could inform the people of all the BS that is flying about. If the people could more or less trust an elected group to tell them these things instead of relying on emails that say Obama is a secret Muslim, perhaps they would vote better as well.

 

The advantage of this is that it could be done within our framework without messing much with the way things are done.

[Saryctos]

That could work. I think it would also be good if these, or some other group elected by the people, could inform the people of all the BS that is flying about. If the people could more or less trust an elected group to tell them these things instead of relying on emails that say Obama is a secret Muslim, perhaps they would vote better as well.

 

The advantage of this is that it could be done within our framework without messing much with the way things are done.

 

The office of Truthiness? Head director Steven Colbert =P

[Pangloss]

Mark Begich took the lead off Ted Stevens in Alaska this afternoon, and now leads by three (yes three) votes. They're still counting absentee ballots and may not be finished until some time next week.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a4tLU.mMRFGk&refer=home