[quote=tallguy;129979]Clearly, this is a fairly ethereal conversation here, but if one were to seriously prescribe a popular vote as a new methodology -- the medicine is completely disproportionate to the disease (to the degree one might even think there is a problem in the first place).[/quote]One small change that I think I'd support is to make electoral votes automatic -- that is, if Candidate A wins in state S which has N electoral votes, instead of having N people who are the official electors cast their ballots in December, have N electoral votes directly and autoatically credited to Candidate A.

This eliminates the possibility for an elector to cast an official vote for someone other than Candidate A, whom that elector was supposedly pledged to support according to the ballot in the polling places on election day. This has happened only a few times in U.S. history, and has never yet happened often enough in any one election year to change or seriously threaten to change the election outcome, but I'd agree that this shouldn't be allowed to happen at all.

I think a constitutional amendment to make that change ought to be fairly easy to get ratified, since it seems not to be in any state's interest to allow this "loophole" to continue.

[quote=Spherical Cow;130050]Contrary to Cheesehead's exaggeration, I don't advocate overthrowing the government.[/quote]Sorry! I didn't mean that you advocated an overthrow, but what I wrote gives that wrong impression. :redface:

What I should have written was that IMO the change you [I]did[/I] want could not come about without such an overthrow, because of the improbability that enough states would ratify a constitutional amendment.

I apologize for my misleading wording.:redface:

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;130043] Many still think that having the senators being directly elected was a bad change. They represent the states, and thus should be elected by the state government.[/QUOTE]

Back on this: Did some quick self-re-education on the history of the direct election of senators. Here is one good link:

[URL="http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Direct_Election_Senators.htm"]http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Direct_Election_Senators.htm[/URL]

though it portrays the change to popular election of senators as correcting some serious problems, and mainly having very good results. That is the Senate's own web site, though, so it may be a tad biased.

I learn something new every day...

Norm

[QUOTE=cheesehead;130053]Sorry! I didn't mean that you advocated an overthrow, but what I wrote gives that wrong impression. :redface:
[/QUOTE]

No problem- I took it in a humorous and/or exaggerated vein, much like my statement that we should use home address elevation as the units in the EC instead of using state boundaries. I'm sure you realize I don't actually think that elevation is the proper way to group voters together, and I realize you don't actually think I advocate overthrowing the US gov't. My comment just above in the post to UncWilly was just a sideways friendly jab while I try to formulate responses to your points. Sorry if it sounded otherwise-

Norm

[QUOTE=cheesehead;130052]This eliminates the possibility for an elector to cast an official vote for someone other than Candidate A, whom that elector was supposedly pledged to support according to the ballot in the polling places on election day.[/QUOTE]

But what about the voters/electors pledged to Candidate X who has, after the voting in question, determined that his/her candidacy is not viable and, in the interest of their party, withdrawn from the contest.

There have been very few circumstances where a pledged delegate did not cast their initial vote in accordance with their pledge.

Except that the political parties wish to have their "convention" a media show of unity rather than a true deliberation, the present system works pretty well.

I, personally, would prefer that we go back to the original intent of successive layers of "representatives". We don't need candidates "playing to the media" and often falsifying claims about themselves in order to achieve "popular" support.

I don't think that anyone should be allowed to vote for anyone that they do not personally know (and trust to represent their interests).

[quote=Wacky;130068]But what about the voters/electors pledged to Candidate X who has, after the voting in question, determined that his/her candidacy is not viable and, in the interest of their party, withdrawn from the contest.[/quote]I was referring to U.S. Electoral College electors chosen at state general elections (in November), not to party delegates chosen at earlier primary elections prior to party conventions.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;130073]I was referring to U.S. Electoral College electors chosen at state general elections (in November), not to party delegates chosen at earlier primary elections prior to party conventions.[/QUOTE]

Again, the same arguments apply. Once elected, the members of the Electoral College, almost without exception, vote in the manner that they pledged to do.

[quote=cheesehead;130052]One small change that I think I'd support is to make electoral votes automatic -- that is, if Candidate A wins in state S which has N electoral votes, instead of having N people who are the official electors cast their ballots in December, have N electoral votes directly and autoatically credited to Candidate A.[/quote]Nah... I like it as is. This was touched on by uncwilly in [URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=129704&postcount=262"]post #262[/URL]. If the winning candidate murders their spouse immediately following the election (and would you really blame Hillary, after all? :ermm:), what other mechanism is there to react to the situation?

I know... it's a relatively weak argument. After all, what then happens if Bill were to ingest that arsenic after the EC but before the inaugural?

[quote=cheesehead;130047]"Is Al Gore The Answer?"

[URL]http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1725678,00.html[/URL][/quote]
If I'm John McCain, I'm doing whatever I can to encourage this line of thinking...

[QUOTE=tallguy;130102]If the winning candidate murders their spouse immediately following the election (and would you really blame Hillary, after all? :ermm:), what other mechanism is there to react to the situation?[/QUOTE]

Umm ... the legal statute making murder a crime?

[I know, it's a relatively weak argument...]

president who
 

I keep on feeling I am hearing a tinge of the sword of islam,not looking,
just listening-right or wrongfully insinuated on my part considering the
habit of historical exposure,in accent.
As having grown up as 'a family only -yank' in S.A., I am not
OF the -ama-Xhosa, even as living among the Xosa for the most part.
Nor can I see the wisdom of knocking out the american daily satirist,sadam
husein, and replacing him with a president with the same name.
Comments from elsewhere?