Plurality or Majority

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Salty, Oct 21, 2008.

?

Is a plurality of votes sufficent to win an election

  1. Yes,

    4 vote(s)
    44.4%
  2. Yes, but only if a candidate has at least 33%

    1 vote(s)
    11.1%
  3. Yes, but only if a candidate has at least 40%

    1 vote(s)
    11.1%
  4. No, at least a simple majority should be required

    3 vote(s)
    33.3%
  5. Not sure

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  6. other answer

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,129
    Likes Received:
    221
    Currently a man receives all the electoral votes of a State or Commonwealth if he receives a plurality. (eg - candidate wins by 45 -43 % with 3rd parties getting 8%)

    Do you think that a person should receive a majority (50% + 1) to win the States or Commonwealths electoral votes?

    Suppose a State or Commonwealth did change their laws - and a candidate did not receive a majority, would you support a runoff of the top two candidates?

    I started this thread due to the disscussion on
    the thread "To Those Casting a McCain Vote"

    Salty
     
  2. saturneptune

    saturneptune
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think I would support, as far as electors go, is an election by Congressional district with the 2 votes for the Senate going to the overall state winner or giving out electoral votes in proportion to the popular vote within the given state.
     
  3. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,129
    Likes Received:
    221
    I think it should be by proportional to the popular vote. That way in a large State or Commonwealth, (some 50 EV) then a minor party may actually be able to recieve some EV.
     
  4. just-want-peace

    just-want-peace
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    5,505
    Likes Received:
    40
    Two points:
    1) Winner should get a minimum of 50% +1.
    2) Every ballot slot should have the option of "NONE OF THE ABOVE"
     
  5. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,129
    Likes Received:
    221
    I agree 100%:thumbs:
     
  6. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    Terrible idea (no offense) because if you think we have gerrymandering now......

    Bad idea. The person coming in fourth in Cal could conceivably get more electors than the person who wins Wyoming with 80% of the vote.

    I still think an EC with tiered numbers of electors would be the only change I'd be for at the present.
     
  7. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think much of Yankee Land should be consolidated into one State and sold to Canada to pay off the bail out.
     
  8. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    Don't worry. Our owners will protect their apple cart. Nothing will change.
     
  9. windcatcher

    windcatcher
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,764
    Likes Received:
    0
    Honestly, I'm not sure I understand the question.

    I do know that the original design of our constitutional government created a republic...... which, in part means, a democratic participation in government by the people, with a check on rule based upon strict majority, which could be used to oppress minority factions. All of which would have representation in law, and only by the law were leaders constrained from excesses of their powers or majority against minorities.

    Even the electorial college is a participant in this system of checks and balances to moderate the majority rule:

    As I understand it, in its simplest form:

    Example:

    4 states, each has representation of 1 vote per every 4.67 million people or fraction thereof so:

    State A has 14 million voters and 3 reps in the electorial college.

    State B has 18 million voters and 4 reps in the electorial college.

    State C has 7 million voters and 2 reps in the electorial college.

    State D has 11 million voters and 3 reps in the electorial college.



    Assumming that all eligible persons vote, the following is the hypothetical outcome of popular vote for each state with the accompanying electorial college vote based upon representation:



    For party X the popular vote for each state is

    State A 6 million with 0 electorial college votes (abrev. hereafter as ECV) for party X

    State B 9.5 million with 4 ECV.

    State C 2 million with 0 ECV.

    State D 6 million with 3 ECV.


    The total population vote for this national election is Party X gets 23.5 of the popular vote of 50 million... with the other party getting 26.5 which IS a majority........

    But the candidate for Party X is elected by the ECV of 7 of the 12 ECVs cast, based upon representation.



    Is this fair?



    Let's see:

    No state is exactly like another in needs, in demographics, in wealth and weaknesses, in terms of services and demands, etc.



    State A is compact and dense with majority of population having access to public transportation, is considered 'progressive' and has a large immigrant population.

    State B is largely industrialized and has unions but majority of population is poor, agririan, rural.

    State C has relatively balanced distribution with many densely populated centers but large rural areas; it is a haven for senior citizens, has competative higher education and research centers.

    State D has large rural areas, is sparsely populated with clustered urban areas of intense density, the medium income is lower than that of the other states but taxes are high and services are limited.



    The very fact that a popular vote doesn't necessarily equate to ECV, means the winner cannot presume upon a mandate by a majority, because he must consider the voice of the minority..... which is usually reflected in the legislature and representation necessary for the making of law which is necessary for funding and actions and powers.



    Hope this helps explain the intentional moderation of the 'majority' vote by the use of the Electorial College as designed by our forefathers
     
  10. windcatcher

    windcatcher
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,764
    Likes Received:
    0
    If I understand the question correctly



    I voted for plurality.

    Why? Not only does it present the possibility of a '3rd party 'spoiler.... but it also gives a 3rd party a chance.


    The 2 main parties and their candidates are already so much controlled by the powers behind the scenes that the only REAL chance that we have of returning to a Constitutional government (short of changing the constitution to agree with the globalist goals and influence) is to vote for a third choice.... which is available in every state as on the ballot or as a write in except for the states of OK and NC.


    But, as it is, the people in our country are convinced (deluded/ deceived into believing the lie/ blinded by the lies of this world) that they have no choice except for 2 parties. There is a difference in the character of the fore runners..... but the Presidency of either one is going to be driven by the power behind their sails.... which is more in agreement than different. A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump....... Both parties are under the globalist influence.

    McCain, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, as fine a person as he is, is so 'in' with the globalist... with Kissinger advising him, and others........ and his voting record, while more conservative than some, does not show the strength of constitutional knowledge.

    Rockefeller, founded the CFR which has limited membership.... but its members are the 'movers and shakers' behind both parties.
    David Rockefeller, who stated "For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the

    political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my

    encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate

    influence they claim we wield over American political and economic

    institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working

    against the best interests of the United States
    , characterizing my family

    and me as "internationalists" and of conspiring with others around the world

    to build a more integrated global political and economic structure — one

    world,
    if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of

    it."


    —David Rockefeller, "Memoirs" autobiography (2002, Random House publishers),

    pp 404, 405.
     

Share This Page

Loading...