Should 2/3 or even 100% of electoral votes be required to become President?

[Anarchist420]

That would obviously require the State legislatures having to vote for the electors, but it would help end the 2 party system. The only problems I have with that are that it still gives an executive and even if there was a requirement of unanimity, then anything more than 1/4 of the people would still be sufficient consent in election of the president (representative democracy is only capable of >1/2 consent of the governed when legislation may pass only when every representative consents to the same). However, both 2/3 and unanimous would come closer to a majority of the people consenting than having Presidents elected by a majority of electors chosen by a majority of each State legislature (that would be anything more than 1/8 of the consent of the governed assuming 100% of the people voted in State elections).

Anyway, the fact that republics allow for legislation to be passed with less than 1/2 of the consent of the governed is why they don't work. The fact that they're a government makes them undesirable.

Finally, let us wish a Happy 175th Birthday to the Last Good Democrat

 

[Capt Caveman]

Stop taking drugs.

 

[waggy]

100%? impossible.

 

[Rainsford]

Consent of the governed doesn't mean consent from you personally. There's nothing undemocratic about the President being chosen by 50%+1 electoral votes or voters. As long as your rights are still protected even under a President you don't personally support (and they are), the system works as a democracy.

It's also worth noting that Obama got 2/3 of the electoral votes in 2008, and it's hardly the first time that happened. That did not end the two party system or result in better democracy...

 

[JEDIYoda]

That would obviously require the State legislatures having to vote for the electors, but it would help end the 2 party system. The only problems I have with that are that it still gives an executive and even if there was a requirement of unanimity, then anything more than 1/4 of the people would still be sufficient consent in election of the president (representative democracy is only capable of >1/2 consent of the governed when legislation may pass only when every representative consents to the same). However, both 2/3 and unanimous would come closer to a majority of the people consenting than having Presidents elected by a majority of electors chosen by a majority of each State legislature (that would be anything more than 1/8 of the consent of the governed assuming 100% of the people voted in State elections).

Anyway, the fact that republics allow for legislation to be passed with less than 1/2 of the consent of the governed is why they don't work. The fact that they're a government makes them undesirable.

Finally, let us wish a Happy 175th Birthday to the Last Good Democrat

Do you miss your home planet much??

 

[Anarchist420]

Consent of the governed doesn't mean consent from you personally. There's nothing undemocratic about the President being chosen by 50%+1 electoral votes or voters. As long as your rights are still protected even under a President you don't personally support (and they are), the system works as a democracy.

It's also worth noting that Obama got 2/3 of the electoral votes in 2008, and it's hardly the first time that happened. That did not end the two party system or result in better democracy...

I had forgot that Obama got 2/3 of the electoral votes, so I guess I should've have asked if it should be 100%

Also, my natural rights aren't protected. I don't have a right to the use the medium of exchange I wish to for one, at least not without penalty. I don't have the right to purchase a firearm without a background check. My household pays taxes which means less money I'll be able to benefit from. If my dad didn't pay them, then I wouldn't have the right to live with him because he'd be in jail. I don't have the right to expose myself on Federal U.S. property (that wouldn't aggress against anyone) even though I'm a citizen. I don't have the right to grow marijuana in my back yard. I don't even have the right to use medical marijuana. I don't have the right to waive my alleged "protection" (even though the military is the opposite of my protection).

Governments can't protect rights without taking away at least as many on average. Then it turns out they often aggress disproportionately more than private criminals do.

 

[Rainsford]

I had forgot that Obama got 2/3 of the electoral votes, so I guess I should've have asked if it should be 100%

Also, my natural rights aren't protected. I don't have a right to the use the medium of exchange I wish to for one, at least not without penalty. I don't have the right to purchase a firearm without a background check. My household pays taxes which means less money I'll be able to benefit from. If my dad didn't pay them, then I wouldn't have the right to live with him because he'd be in jail. I don't have the right to expose myself on Federal U.S. property (that wouldn't aggress against anyone) even though I'm a citizen. I don't have the right to grow marijuana in my back yard. I don't even have the right to use medical marijuana. I don't have the right to waive my alleged "protection" (even though the military is the opposite of my protection).

Governments can't protect rights without taking away at least as many on average. Then it turns out they often aggress disproportionately more than private criminals do.

I don't see how your proposed changes to the electoral system would help with any of that. The fact is that you live in a country where the VAST majority of people think we live in a cooperative society and so the government will continue to reflect that. Anarchists aren't going to gain any ground politically because there aren't enough of you and you are, no offense, TERRIBLE at convincing anyone to support your ideas.

 

[BoomerD]

Better yet...do away with the electoral college. It's not needed in today's world of instantaneous communications.
Let the popular vote decide who becomes president.

 

[Lemon law]

Earth to Anarchist420, I can only politely ask, please quit asking such endless stupid questions. The questions you are asking today, were basically all answered by 1792, or in today's terms, 220 years ago and by our founding father's. Nor do you seem to have even a rudimentary understanding of the world of 1792 and the concern's of the times.

Yet you come to these forums today, questioning why the world is the way it is today, while acting if ONLY YOU have some SPECIAL GOD GIVEN RIGHT AND ENLIGHTENMENT TO RE-WRITE THE US CONSTITUTION ON YOUR OWN WHIM.

Sure the US constitution can be changed by the Amendment Process, but its far harder process than I think Anarchist420 is ever capable of conceiving.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Earth to Anarchist420, I can only politely ask, please quit asking such endless stupid questions. The questions you are asking today, were basically all answered by 1792, or in today's terms, 220 years ago and by our founding father's. Nor do you seem to have even a rudimentary understanding of the world of 1792 and the concern's of the times.

Yet you come to these forums today, questioning why the world is the way it is today, while acting if ONLY YOU have some SPECIAL GOD GIVEN RIGHT AND ENLIGHTENMENT TO RE-WRITE THE US CONSTITUTION ON YOUR OWN WHIM.

Sure the US constitution can be changed by the Amendment Process, but its far harder process than I think Anarchist420 is ever capable of conceiving.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[amish]

electoral college??? psh, you don't need that. whoever wins an online poll would win the presidency!

 

[Demo24]

I had forgot that Obama got 2/3 of the electoral votes, so I guess I should've have asked if it should be 100%

Mildly clever tactic to support your anti-government views since 100% will NEVER happen thus in your theory no elected official, thus no legal government. It doesn't work that way naturally, cause that ideology is flawed and incredibly naive, but I suppose this does fit with everything else you've posted.

 

[Doppel]

Another crazy idea thread from Anarchist.

 

[Moonbeam]

Earth to Anarchist420, I can only politely ask, please quit asking such endless stupid questions. The questions you are asking today, were basically all answered by 1792, or in today's terms, 220 years ago and by our founding father's. Nor do you seem to have even a rudimentary understanding of the world of 1792 and the concern's of the times.

Yet you come to these forums today, questioning why the world is the way it is today, while acting if ONLY YOU have some SPECIAL GOD GIVEN RIGHT AND ENLIGHTENMENT TO RE-WRITE THE US CONSTITUTION ON YOUR OWN WHIM.

Sure the US constitution can be changed by the Amendment Process, but its far harder process than I think Anarchist420 is ever capable of conceiving.

Earlier today I recalled, after posting in another of the OP's threads, that I long ago determined never to do so, lo, the failings of memory, and look, here I've done it gain.

 

[Thump553]

I will never understand why someone who claims to be an anarchist constantly proposes taking power AWAY from the people and giving it to the state. Makes absolutely no sense at all, even in a 420 world.

 

[LunarRay]

Earth to Anarchist420, I can only politely ask, please quit asking such endless stupid questions. The questions you are asking today, were basically all answered by 1792, or in today's terms, 220 years ago and by our founding father's. Nor do you seem to have even a rudimentary understanding of the world of 1792 and the concern's of the times.

Yet you come to these forums today, questioning why the world is the way it is today, while acting if ONLY YOU have some SPECIAL GOD GIVEN RIGHT AND ENLIGHTENMENT TO RE-WRITE THE US CONSTITUTION ON YOUR OWN WHIM.

Sure the US constitution can be changed by the Amendment Process, but its far harder process than I think Anarchist420 is ever capable of conceiving.

I think that I've concluded that Anarchist has read The Federalist and all 85 papers that make it up BUT, given that Madison, Hamilton and Jay were pushing for ratification he, Anarchist, does not agree with the logic they used.
On the one hand he supports States Rights which the Electoral College seems to defend for the smaller States on the other he seems to object to the 'Swing State' influence on a Presidential Election. But, it seems to me that a 'Swing State', IF he resided there would please him...

Ergo, There is no real answer that would please him. I presume he knows that the electors are not chosen directly by the people... and they are not mandated to vote one way or another but they 'Pledge' to vote based on some individual State criteria... An Anarchist liking, me thinks.
I think further that he'd be better off moving to a State filled with Like minded folks - Montana? - and seek to effect disproportionate influence.

 

[Lemon law]

A somewhat strange and interesting contention LunarRay, that in a free thinking state like Montana, Anarchist420 would somehow become a aristocrat leader and more mainstream?

Oh well, anything is possible.

 

[LunarRay]

A somewhat strange and interesting contention LunarRay, that in a free thinking state like Montana, Anarchist420 would somehow become a aristocrat leader and more mainstream?

Oh well, anything is possible.

()

hehehee vote for Burns and Bakus but Red for the President does seem free thinking all right..

 

[Joepublic2]

I think this is what you're looking for:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation

 

[Matthiasa]

100%? impossible.

100%... please... if we get the dead to vote we will get at least 110%.

 

[Anarchist420]

I will never understand why someone who claims to be an anarchist constantly proposes taking power AWAY from the people and giving it to the state. Makes absolutely no sense at all, even in a 420 world.

I propose giving it to states and requiring unanimous consent among them precisely so that no one will be able to agree on a government. Confederalism is a lot closer to anarchy than nationally centralized democracy is. That is, many, free, small, and independent States is closer to anarchy than world union would be.

 

[feralkid]

 

[nonlnear]

This is a very compelling point, and significantly improved the quality of this thread.

 

[cybrsage]

 

[nonlnear]

This is also a compelling point. (I wasn't being sarcastic earlier.) Now putting it all together, I see exactly where you were going with it. The batty pic was sufficient, but the belfry really drives it home.