Texas Republicans propose State Electoral college

[Fahran]

Actually I think if what someone higher in this thread pointed out is true, then it would give Blue Team an advantage, which is absolutely hilarious if you ask me

I think they were talking about the Federal Senate rather than the State Senate. I don't recall precisely but I'm pretty certain the electoral mechanisms and districts are different. But, again, I don't especially care about Red Team winning. I like Red Team, Blue Team, and other teams for different reasons and different offices.

[Fahran]

How in any way does it make it more efficient?

You avoid gridlock from having a Lieutenant Governor from one faction and a Senate dominated by the other. It's arguably an erosion of separation of powers but our Lieutenant Governor is powerful principally because the office has a lot of influence over our Senate.

[San Lumen]

How in any way does it make it more efficient?

You avoid gridlock from having a Lieutenant Governor from one faction and a Senate dominated by the other. It's arguably an erosion of separation of powers but our Lieutenant Governor is powerful principally because the office has a lot of influence over our Senate.

So? Why should the person with less votes take office?

[La Xinga]

You avoid gridlock from having a Lieutenant Governor from one faction and a Senate dominated by the other. It's arguably an erosion of separation of powers but our Lieutenant Governor is powerful principally because the office has a lot of influence over our Senate.

So? Why should the person with less votes take office?

It's a filter. It allows more experienced people to vote rather then people who don't know anything about politics much.

[San Lumen]

So? Why should the person with less votes take office?

It's a filter. It allows more experienced people to vote rather then people who don't know anything about politics much.

Elections should not have filters. Whoever gets the most votes should be elected end of story. Period. Goodbye. The end

[Dresderstan]

It's a filter. It allows more experienced people to vote rather then people who don't know anything about politics much.

Elections should not have filters. Whoever gets the most votes should be elected end of story. Period. Goodbye. The end

No, not everything is that simple, or easy with your black and white narrative.

[La Xinga]

It's a filter. It allows more experienced people to vote rather then people who don't know anything about politics much.

Elections should not have filters. Whoever gets the most votes should be elected end of story. Period. Goodbye. The end

Who said? Why should they?

[Jedi Council]

It's a filter. It allows more experienced people to vote rather then people who don't know anything about politics much.

Elections should not have filters. Whoever gets the most votes should be elected end of story. Period. Goodbye. The end

Well, for directly elected positions like Governor, or President, I would generally agree.

There are certainly some caveats when it comes to legislative elections, especially in Parliamentary democracies.

Regarding the American system specifically, the issue of "The most votes wins" is exacerbated by the two party system.

[Outer Acharet]

It's a filter. It allows more experienced people to vote rather then people who don't know anything about politics much.

Elections should not have filters. Whoever gets the most votes should be elected end of story. Period. Goodbye. The end

I, uh, hate to break it to you, but every government election in the first world has filters. You can't vote below a certain age.
Also, you ever heard of the tyranny of the majority?

[Thermodolia]

You avoid gridlock from having a Lieutenant Governor from one faction and a Senate dominated by the other. It's arguably an erosion of separation of powers but our Lieutenant Governor is powerful principally because the office has a lot of influence over our Senate.

So? Why should the person with less votes take office?

Happens quite a lot actually. You’ll have sometimes have situations where the winner only got 28% of the vote but beat the next several guys who only had 26%, 23%, 20%, 3%

[Fahran]

So? Why should the person with less votes take office?

I gave you a reason. If your belief is that the person who wins the plurality of votes in a unitary election should take power in every circumstance, regardless of the impact on political cohesion within the polity and regardless of how that impacts government function, there's not really anything that's going to sway you from the position. It's akin to a religious belief in that nothing can really refute it. It's not an argument even. It's an axiom that you adhere to rigidly. I'm not overly committed to that model and, really, I don't think you are either beyond concrete examples where they benefit Blue Team. Otherwise, you'd support a unitary system across the board.

[San Lumen]

Elections should not have filters. Whoever gets the most votes should be elected end of story. Period. Goodbye. The end

I, uh, hate to break it to you, but every government election in the first world has filters. You can't vote below a certain age.
Also, you ever heard of the tyranny of the majority?

No one said to have no age requirement to run for office. How is getting the most votes and taking office tyranny of the majority?

So? Why should the person with less votes take office?

Happens quite a lot actually. You’ll have sometimes have situations where the winner only got 28% of the vote but beat the next several guys who only had 26%, 23%, 20%, 3%

Having a runoff election for primaries if no one gets a certain percentage isn’t a bad idea.

[Jedi Council]

I, uh, hate to break it to you, but every government election in the first world has filters. You can't vote below a certain age.
Also, you ever heard of the tyranny of the majority?

No one said to have no age requirement to run for office. How is getting the most votes and taking office tyranny of the majority?

Happens quite a lot actually. You’ll have sometimes have situations where the winner only got 28% of the vote but beat the next several guys who only had 26%, 23%, 20%, 3%

Having a runoff election for primaries if no one gets a certain percentage isn’t a bad idea.

Having a runoff for all elections if no one gets above 50% is generally a good idea.

[Outer Acharet]

No one said to have no age requirement to run for office. How is getting the most votes and taking office tyranny of the majority?



Having a runoff election for primaries if no one gets a certain percentage isn’t a bad idea.

Having a runoff for all elections if no one gets above 50% is generally a good idea.

1) I was sort of joking, 2) Purely popular votes aren't very good for ensuring that candidates supporting broad platforms get elected if one base holds a simple majority, 3) Parliamentary systems are arguably more democratic than two-party systems and parties there rarely get 50% of the vote

[San Lumen]

No one said to have no age requirement to run for office. How is getting the most votes and taking office tyranny of the majority?



Having a runoff election for primaries if no one gets a certain percentage isn’t a bad idea.

Having a runoff for all elections if no one gets above 50% is generally a good idea.

For a primary it’s not a bad idea. I don’t think it should be for all elections

[Laurentia-Uman]

https://americanindependent.com/texas-gop-electoral-college-rig-elections-popular-vote-senate/?fbclid=IwAR2XnNrZoxrLTk5t9ULJ49q7JO8v1vQQJ9sRNQWLhDz6NmFaPm1s-sXtZIs

https://lawandcrime.com/2020-election/l ... itutional/

Republicans in Texas are proposing a state electoral college to chose statewide officials to overturn a popular vote victory. Delegates would chosen by each state senate district who when then chose state officials. They are likely proposing this due to the most populous counties leftward trend.

This proposal is undemocratic and unconstitutional as it would violate one man one vote and could mean a Republican always wins a statewide election. Land area shouldn’t determine who wins only the number of votes you get. It’s beyond obvious at this point Republicans hate democracy.

Your thoughts nsg?

Republicans are corrupt right-wingers that do fascist things to gain more political power.

Fascist things? You don't really believe that. And news flash: both parties in America are corrupt!

[North American Soviet Socialist Republic]

https://americanindependent.com/texas-gop-electoral-college-rig-elections-popular-vote-senate/?fbclid=IwAR2XnNrZoxrLTk5t9ULJ49q7JO8v1vQQJ9sRNQWLhDz6NmFaPm1s-sXtZIs

https://lawandcrime.com/2020-election/l ... itutional/

Republicans in Texas are proposing a state electoral college to chose statewide officials to overturn a popular vote victory. Delegates would chosen by each state senate district who would then chose state officials. They are likely proposing this due to the most populous counties leftward trend.

This proposal is undemocratic and unconstitutional as it would violate one man one vote and could mean a Republican always wins a statewide election. Land area shouldn’t determine who wins only the number of votes you get. It’s beyond obvious at this point Republicans hate democracy.

Your thoughts nsg?

I think it is a great idea. Just look at Oregon, 75% of the people are in the Portland and Eugene areas so the rest of the state doesn't really have a say in a gubertorial election. I can see why those people want to join Idaho.

[San Lumen]

https://americanindependent.com/texas-gop-electoral-college-rig-elections-popular-vote-senate/?fbclid=IwAR2XnNrZoxrLTk5t9ULJ49q7JO8v1vQQJ9sRNQWLhDz6NmFaPm1s-sXtZIs

https://lawandcrime.com/2020-election/l ... itutional/

Republicans in Texas are proposing a state electoral college to chose statewide officials to overturn a popular vote victory. Delegates would chosen by each state senate district who would then chose state officials. They are likely proposing this due to the most populous counties leftward trend.

This proposal is undemocratic and unconstitutional as it would violate one man one vote and could mean a Republican always wins a statewide election. Land area shouldn’t determine who wins only the number of votes you get. It’s beyond obvious at this point Republicans hate democracy.

Your thoughts nsg?

I think it is a great idea. Just look at Oregon, 75% of the people are in the Portland and Eugene areas so the rest of the state doesn't really have a say in a gubertorial election. I can see why those people want to join Idaho.

How is it fair for the person with less votes to win? Why should land area matter more then votes?

[The American Free States]

Taps Mic

“Is this on? Yes it is.”

Ahem

“Single transferable vote.”
“Thank you.”

Drops Mic

[North American Soviet Socialist Republic]

I think it is a great idea. Just look at Oregon, 75% of the people are in the Portland and Eugene areas so the rest of the state doesn't really have a say in a gubertorial election. I can see why those people want to join Idaho.

How is it fair for the person with less votes to win? Why should land area matter more then votes?

The reason for the electoral college was so that major cities wouldn't dominate the elections. It gives rural areas a better chance to choose who he or she wants. Its takes some of the power away from the big cities. If we chose the president by popular vote, the big cities of New York,LA,San Francisco,Seattle,Chicago and other big cities would the ones choosing and that would be completely unfair to those people who live out in the suburbs and rural areas. If you wish to change the system, there's a process written in the Constitution and has been used 17 times so far. All it takes to make this legal is a simple change to the Texas State Constitution.

[Jedi Council]

How is it fair for the person with less votes to win? Why should land area matter more then votes?

The reason for the electoral college was so that major cities wouldn't dominate the elections. It gives rural areas a better chance to choose who he or she wants. Its takes some of the power away from the big cities. If we chose the president by popular vote, the big cities of New York,LA,San Francisco,Seattle,Chicago and other big cities would the ones choosing and that would be completely unfair to those people who live out in the suburbs and rural areas. If you wish to change the system, there's a process written in the Constitution and has been used 17 times so far. All it takes to make this legal is a simple change to the Texas State Constitution.

Ironically the Electoral College has not helped in this regard. Rather than have the divide between urban and rural, now its between swing states and not swing states. A handful of states essentially determine the outcome of elections, which results in small rural states like the Dakota's religiously voting for the GOP, and thus feeling screwed when the Democrats win, and urban, liberal states like Massachusetts and New York getting sewered when the GOP wins.

So, if the issue is avoiding rural voters getting ignored, the EC has only ensured that both Urban and Rural voters have been ignored, if they happen to live outside of the 5-10 states that actually matter each election cycle.

For a primary it’s not a bad idea. I don’t think it should be for all elections

If the hope is that the the person elected commands a majority of the votes, I dont see why runoffs are not a good idea.

[Cordel One]

How is it fair for the person with less votes to win? Why should land area matter more then votes?

The reason for the electoral college was so that major cities wouldn't dominate the elections. It gives rural areas a better chance to choose who he or she wants. Its takes some of the power away from the big cities. If we chose the president by popular vote, the big cities of New York,LA,San Francisco,Seattle,Chicago and other big cities would the ones choosing and that would be completely unfair to those people who live out in the suburbs and rural areas. If you wish to change the system, there's a process written in the Constitution and has been used 17 times so far. All it takes to make this legal is a simple change to the Texas State Constitution.

Cities wouldn't be deciding anything, though. The majority of the people would, and the fact that so many people focus so much attention on where they live is just weird. Votes are only decided by land because we have the Electoral College.

[San Lumen]

How is it fair for the person with less votes to win? Why should land area matter more then votes?

The reason for the electoral college was so that major cities wouldn't dominate the elections. It gives rural areas a better chance to choose who he or she wants. Its takes some of the power away from the big cities. If we chose the president by popular vote, the big cities of New York,LA,San Francisco,Seattle,Chicago and other big cities would the ones choosing and that would be completely unfair to those people who live out in the suburbs and rural areas. If you wish to change the system, there's a process written in the Constitution and has been used 17 times so far. All it takes to make this legal is a simple change to the Texas State Constitution.

How many times are people going to perpetuate this myth? There were no major cities like we have today in 1789. It was an agrarian society. You could not win 1789 with just the urban vote. The founding fathers weren’t even thinking about that.

We are talking about a state electoral college to decide statewide elections not the us electoral college

[Fahran]

Cities wouldn't be deciding anything, though. The majority of the people would, and the fact that so many people focus so much attention on where they live is just weird. Votes are only decided by land because we have the Electoral College.

People do not exist in a vacuum. Political outlooks are certainly determined to some extent by the material conditions and social mores that predominate in particular communal subdivisions. We have the Electoral College at the federal level, in part, because the states were unwilling to ratify the Constitution without some acknowledgement of this fact. Nobody wanted to be dominated by Virginia, New York, and South Carolina.

[Fahran]

We are talking about a state electoral college to decide statewide elections not the us electoral college

I'm glad we're on the same page on that at last.