Public Address | Cafe | Legal Beagle: You always wanted a compact

Graeme Edgeler

Mon, 01 Sep 2008 07:47:07 +1200

alas there was only the note that they're going to end up with a mass plurality system for their President, which will leave them even further away from any chance of a Condorcet election for the most powerful idiot in the world.

Agreed (well it seems like the right word,…

Just Milly

Mon, 01 Sep 2008 07:33:35 +1200

So no-one read to the end of my piece? :-(
Are they too long :-)

Hell no keep them coming, most informative, thanks

tussock

Mon, 01 Sep 2008 03:04:23 +1200

So no-one read to the end of my piece? :-(

I did in hope to find something new, but alas there was only the note that they're going to end up with a mass plurality system for their President, which will leave them even further away from any chance of…

Gareth Ward

Fri, 29 Aug 2008 13:45:44 +1200

So no-one read to the end of my piece? :-(

Or read the title either it seems =)

Don't worry, I did – and even kinda half almost possibly understood a partial amount of it. On the second read.
But when I DID get there, I agree – that Compact…

Steve Barnes

Fri, 29 Aug 2008 12:29:12 +1200

Is there a legal distinction between the US Constitution's "chuse" and the ordinary word "choose"? :)

As Graeme said but a valid point considering spelling mistakes were not unheard of in the constitution.

Idiot Savant

Fri, 29 Aug 2008 00:56:28 +1200

So no-one read to the end of my piece? :-(

D'oh.

I hope the link helped anyway.

Susan Snowdon

Thu, 28 Aug 2008 21:58:47 +1200

So no-one read to the end of my piece? :-(

I really really wanted to. I think I needed some visuals, maybe a map and some graphs. Or pie charts.

Graeme Edgeler

Thu, 28 Aug 2008 20:09:44 +1200

No.

Tim McKenzie

Thu, 28 Aug 2008 18:01:30 +1200

... and the Senate chuses the Vice President (which, if you think about it, is how we choose our Prime Minister).

Is there a legal distinction between the US Constitution's "chuse" and the ordinary word "choose"? :)

Sacha

Thu, 28 Aug 2008 17:17:24 +1200

And not in a nice way.. :)

Sacha

Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:16:41 +1200

Graeme, I have to admit my eyes glazed over before I got there. :)

Simon Grigg

Thu, 28 Aug 2008 14:07:08 +1200

Hey, it worked for the USSR so why fix it?

And is roughly equivalent to the way it works in China, or at least is supposed to work in China, albeit with several layers of electors.

Don Christie

Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:05:55 +1200

Um, I just quoted the end...does that count?

Graeme Edgeler

Thu, 28 Aug 2008 12:39:39 +1200

So no-one read to the end of my piece? :-(

Are they too long :-)

Idiot Savant

Thu, 28 Aug 2008 12:24:26 +1200

A few years ago there was a push for a solution to the "change all at once" problem where some big state people proposed local changes that do along the lines of "if our state plus enough other states to hold a majority of the electoral college then we will…

Don Christie

Thu, 28 Aug 2008 11:29:39 +1200

I'm not a great critic of the electoral college – sure it's an anachronism, but I think it is a legitimate way for a country (particularly a federation) to choose its head of Government – the national compact is just a really clever idea...

Hey, it worked for the USSR…

Paul Campbell

Thu, 28 Aug 2008 11:16:43 +1200

hmm you're right – I wonder why I ended up think they actually got to meet and argue? I guess it has something to do with some states which used to actually directly elect (or appoint) the electors and they potentially get to argue

Graeme Edgeler

Thu, 28 Aug 2008 10:45:14 +1200

remember the electoral college is supposed nut out the president between them – they don't have to vote for the guy they represent – in 2000 Nader would probably have ended up holding some electoral votes and eventually would have fallen in behind one of the other candidates – the…

Paul Campbell

Thu, 28 Aug 2008 10:34:50 +1200

ah but remember the electoral college is supposed nut out the president between them – they don't have to vote for the guy they represent – in 2000 Nader would probably have ended up holding some electoral votes and eventually would have fallen in behind one of the other candidates…

Graeme Edgeler

Thu, 28 Aug 2008 10:18:13 +1200

well I'd disagree – allocating electoral voters for the presidency would make sense if every state did it

And if every state did it, the 2000 Presidential election would have been won by George Bush, and Joe Lieberman would have been his Vice President.

And just about every presidential election…

Paul Campbell

Thu, 28 Aug 2008 08:57:48 +1200

well I'd disagree – allocating electoral voters for the presidency would make sense if every state did it (and that avoids a constitutional change) but doing it piecemeal would disrupt the rather delicate balance that keeps the bigger states out of play and gives the smaller states more relative power…

Graeme Edgeler

Thu, 28 Aug 2008 07:45:01 +1200

I think that the main reason why the big states wont move to proportional representation is because of the effect that would have on the dominant party in their state – for example in California there's been a push from the Republicans to change – because they would win the…

Paul Campbell

Thu, 28 Aug 2008 06:28:10 +1200

The electoral college made sense pre-telegraph where the logistics of electing a national president in such a large country involved taking the ballot results to a central location – electing people to represent you to do that made a lot of sense – these days CNN wants results within hours…

Public Address

Thu, 28 Aug 2008 06:28:10 +1200

Discussion from blog post.