With a popular vote, the entire nation would have a say.
by IrishJosh24 (2024-02-28 10:56:35)
Edited on 2024-02-28 11:14:32

In reply to: I would prefer NY and CA govern themselves and not me *  posted by El Kabong

Cannot Reply Return to Political

A Republican in CA, IL, or NY would have far more incentive to vote. Same for a Democrat in WY, UT, or OK.

In a real sense, with a popular vote, the entire nation would collectively decide who governs the nation. That approach makes sense to me. And you would get more of a say in that case, not less.

As it is now, the matter is decided state by state. In that system, whether your vote matters at all depends on where you live. And that's true in at least two ways. First, I think it's relatively safe to say a Republican's vote doesn't much matter in CA, IL, or NY. Same for a Democrat's vote in WY, UT, or OK. The result will be the same whether that voter votes or stays home. Second, the electoral college creates a relative weight problem that gives more power to certain states. For example, CA gets one vote in the electoral college for every 718,909 people. MT gets one for every 360,000. It's as though every vote in MT really counts for two CA votes.

I'm not convinced there is anything obviously superior about the electoral college. And I am not convinced, at all, that a popular vote would somehow mean CA and NY would govern the entire nation.

With a popular vote we would be a slightly better functionin
by airborneirish  (2024-02-28 10:58:24)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

Version of the eu.

That's not at all how the EU works
by sprack  (2024-02-28 12:06:23)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

Because they don't rule anything in the individual countries. The EU is subject to treaties among the members, currently the Treaty of Lisbon, ratified in 2009. They typically need to have unanimous consent to do anything with the force of law.

Since they're in the news, as just one example I invite you to compare the current governments of Sweden and Hungary.

There is absolutely no comparison to the President of the United States in any capacity in the EU. The President of the European Commission is a completely different position with a completely different purpose. It's an appointed position. The EU also has no military aspect whatsoever (it can provide military aid, as it has to Ukraine, but it has no military). And there is still no ratified European Constitution. If there ever is one (the last vote on one failed in 2006 when France and the Netherlands voted it down; there were other member states who hadn't voted yet), it's likely a very long way off.

Hold on, we need to wait for airborne's usual deep analysis.
by BigBadBrewer  (2024-02-28 12:48:12)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

Like the others, I genuinely don't know what point he's trying to make. I get the sense he doesn't know what point he's trying to make either.
I'm not sure what this claim means.
by IrishJosh24  (2024-02-28 11:19:10)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

Does the EU elect a chief executive that is anything at all like the President of the United States?

You think the manner of the presidential election controls how we function as a country?

Sorry, but you'll have to walk me through this one a bit more. I'll note that it seems like a very different point than the one El Kabong was making (and I was responding to).
Answer: no, not even close. See post immediately above *
by sprack  (2024-02-28 12:21:59)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply