[

The only nationwide vote we have in the United States is for president/vice president and, guess what, that is carried by a simple majority of electors which can actually (and at times has been) result in the winner not even carrying a plurality of the popular vote, much less a simple majority.

So I assume you really meant, "GopherT, you are correct because even elections for President of the United States have a regional filter though the Electoral College that usurps the simple majority vote on a nation-wide election because it can actually (and at times has been) result in the winner not even carrying a plurality of the popular vote, much less a simple majority."

Many (not all) States have popular referenda and most, if not all, of those are passed by simple majority, including amendments to State Constitutions.

So I assume you mean, the closest thing to a Simple Majority is State-wide referenda but, GopherT, you are correct, there are no National ballots where a simple majority wins.

The difference is the people voting vice their representatives voting.

Yes we have it in the US on statewide referendums.

So, my criteria was NATIONAL ELECTIONS and SIMPLE MAJORITY.

Your answer was YES but then you limited it to STATE wide referenia? So, I assume you meant, "NO, we only have it on Statewide Referendums".

NOTE: if the answer is given in terms of STATE-wide races, then it is not limited to referenda as posted by @WBahn and @JoeJester above - it would also include governor races and US Senate races (possibly more - like attorney General in Pennsylvania and some Judge positions in PA). But, since state races were not what surprised me, the process of setting up a national race as a simple majority surprised me, all state-wide examples are moot.

 

Fine. GopherT you were right -- you were surprised. Satisfied? It's still a Whoop-de-do.

 

Fine. GopherT you were right

Thanks for restating the obvious.

It's still a Whoop-de-do.

I made a simple observation. You tried to put words in my mouth that completely missed the intention of my statement and turn it into one (see definition #3).

Definition of whoop–de–do

1 : noisy and exuberant or attention-getting activity
2 : a lively social affair
3 : agitated public discussion or debate

​

Satisfied?

​

​

Oh, I'll be running out to K-mart later today to get a frame so I can remember this glorious day.

 

@GopherT

You might want to read why the electorial college was created. It is a political creation. If not for the electorial college, the candidate only has to visit the most populous areas to get enough for a simple majority. That meant Philadelphia, new York city, Boston, etc bad in 1788. We have two senators and apportioned representatives.

Our system of government was designed for compromises and conflicts.

 

@GopherT

You might want to read why the electorial college was created. It is a political creation.

Has it changed in the last 50 years? Have my posts meant nothing? Was my example of the Electoral college not clear? When I mentioned the Electoral College is a regional filter (think Attenuator) to limit influence of a single state or region - did you interpret that differently than: "the candidate only has to visit the most populous areas to get enough for a simple majority."

 

In an attempt to get back on topic of this off-topic thread,

The interviews with some of the LEAVE proponents seem like they don't know what to do next. I am wondering whether they will ever invoking Article 50. Merkel is not going to discuss Brexit (Formally or Informally) until the UK does invoke Article 50. The more read & watch on this topic, the more I like @bertus ' joke about United Kingdom is now Divided Kingdom.

 

Thanks for restating the obvious.

Gee, GopherT taking something completely out of context? Now why am I NOT surprised at that?

But we got it -- the intention of your statement was just that you were surprised that they didn't do what you think they should have done. Fine. Got it.

 

Gee, GopherT taking something completely out of context? Now why am I NOT surprised at that?

But we got it -- the intention of your statement was just that you were surprised that they didn't do what you think they should have done. Fine. Got it.

Your medication is next to the sink.

 

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/683739/EU-referendum-German-French-European-superstate-Brexit

The foreign ministers of France and Germany are due to reveal a blueprint to effectively do away with individual member states in what is being described as an “ultimatum”.

Under the radical proposals EU countries will lose the right to have their own army, criminal law, taxation system or central bank, with all those powers being transferred to Brussels.

Controversially member states would also lose what few controls they have left over their own borders, including the procedure for admitting and relocating refugees.

The plot has sparked fury and panic in Poland - a traditional ally of Britain in the fight against federalism - after being leaked to Polish news channel TVP Info.
...
A few weeks before the Brexit vote European Council president Donald Tusk warned that European citizens did not share the enthusiasm of some of their leaders for “a utopia of Europe without conflicting interests and ambitions, a utopia of Europe imposing its own values on the external world, a utopia of Euro-Asian unity”.

 

http://www.express.co.uk/news/polit...ed-power?_ga=1.61978028.1011413741.1467101391

Instead there would be a new system: government by an enlightened elite of bureaucrats. The hoi polloi (you and me) were simply too dim, too emotional, too uneducated to be safely allowed to choose their governments. It never occurred to him to devise a way to strengthen and fortify democracy to ensure that what happened in Italy and Germany in the 1920s and 1930s could not happen again. No, democracy was unsafe and had to be replaced. (This is not propaganda, he wrote it all down).

Brexit ... a wakeup call.

 

My question is, "Has the requirement for 'representative' government been obviated by the technological advances of the last 25 years?" Why should I need to tell my "local" congressmen what my preferences are so that they can "represent" my interests in Washington? Am I not perfectly capable of voting my conscience right from my own computer, and wouldn't more public referenda would be an improvement over what we have now?

 

My question is, "Has the requirement for 'representative' government been obviated by the technological advances of the last 25 years?" Why should I need to tell my "local" congressmen what my preferences are so that they can "represent" my interests in Washington? Am I not perfectly capable of voting my conscience right from my own computer, and wouldn't more public referenda would be an improvement over what we have now?

I'm interested in our resident "experts'" comments on this one.

 

My question is, "Has the requirement for 'representative' government been obviated by the technological advances of the last 25 years?" Why should I need to tell my "local" congressmen what my preferences are so that they can "represent" my interests in Washington? Am I not perfectly capable of voting my conscience right from my own computer, and wouldn't more public referenda would be an improvement over what we have now?

Oh, yes. Let's have the Russians, Chinese, and Nigerians involved in our local elections. I guess dead and ineligible voters are not enough.

Anyone who can't get out of bed to go vote in person on the first Tuesday in November every two years doesn't deserve a vote.

 

My question is, "Has the requirement for 'representative' government been obviated by the technological advances of the last 25 years?" Why should I need to tell my "local" congressmen what my preferences are so that they can "represent" my interests in Washington? Am I not perfectly capable of voting my conscience right from my own computer, and wouldn't more public referenda would be an improvement over what we have now?

Think our politics are corrupt and awash with money now. Just imagine what would happen if campaign contributions and advertising and political consultants could drop a few bucks directly in the public's back pocket for every national policy. I'm sure you're perfectly capable of voting from your computer on every item in congress and I also sure there will be BOTS designed to vote for you even if your sleeping and don't know about it.

 

My question is, "Has the requirement for 'representative' government been obviated by the technological advances of the last 25 years?" Why should I need to tell my "local" congressmen what my preferences are so that they can "represent" my interests in Washington? Am I not perfectly capable of voting my conscience right from my own computer, and wouldn't more public referenda would be an improvement over what we have now?

So how much time are you going to spend deciding how to vote on what protections should be put in place for the endangered giant water lilly?

How much information should you have access to when voting on policy decisions regarding the use of ballistic missile submarines?

Who's going to even determine what you need to vote on?

Given that a good fraction of voters can't even name the vice-president, even when the vice-president is their party's presidential candidate, how likely are you to get any semblance of informed voting on thousands of issues (there's around 5000 bills before Congress each session)? At best you will have hugely self-selective voting in which most bills are only voted on by a tiny fraction of the population by people that have strong, vested interests in it. That's not only the opposite of pure democracy, but invites corruption because it becomes a lot easier to bribe enough voters to sway the outcome.

Aside from that, voting from your own computer (even if nothing else about our system changes) invites corruption because there is no way to enforce anonymous voting. With in-person ballot-box voting, even if someone threatens my family or pays me a lot of money, there is no way for them to know how I actually voted -- so there's no percentage in threatening my family or buying my vote to begin with. But if someone could either stand behind my shoulder while I cast my vote from my computer or make me think that it is possible that they can determine how I voted by compromising the electronic data once it leaves my computer, then those tactics are back on the table. That's one of the problems I have with widespread mail-in voting.

 

Sure, there are problems to be solved, but our present system is rife with problems and the people who should be solving them are actually the ones creating most of them. Politicians make decisions that are in their own best interests and their best interests almost never coincide with those of their constituents.

I believe that the technology and security issues could be overcome. I believe that the public would take more interest in the issues if they thought their vote actually made a difference. I believe that power should reside with the people, not with the government. I believe that congress involves itself in far too many issues and creates far too many bills. I believe that policy decisions should be made at the lowest level of government possible. I think that the framers of the constitution would agree with me, and that if travel and communication had been as easy in their day as it is now, they would have created a far different government than they did. If you believe otherwise, that's just as well because the establishment is so entrenched that any significant change in the system is doomed at conception.

 

Or to put it succinctly,

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.
Winston Churchill
​

Just think about it at your most local level. Do you really want to get involved in hiring a new police officer, or choosing a road paving contractor, getting a new flag for the pole in front of the school, and on and on endlessly?

It should be a more efficient division of labor to let a few people represent us in all those decisions while we get on doing what WE are productive at. The problem, of course, is oversight. If our representatives enjoy their new-found power a little too much, we get a top-heavy monster that thinks it should tell us what to do.

 

I believe that the technology and security issues could be overcome.

Microsoft will get right on it.

 

I'm not a big fan of the EU but a major reason for it's existence was the ability of the former dictators in several of the member countries to use direct democracy to create a genocidal monster that threatened the entire world. Post WW2 Germany has very strict rules on referendum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendums_in_Germany

 

.

Or to put it succinctly,

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.
Winston Churchill
​

Just think about it at your most local level. Do you really want to get involved in hiring a new police officer, or choosing a road paving contractor, getting a new flag for the pole in front of the school, and on and on endlessly?

It should be a more efficient division of labor to let a few people represent us in all those decisions while we get on doing what WE are productive at. The problem, of course, is oversight. If our representatives enjoy their new-found power a little too much, we get a top-heavy monster that thinks it should tell us what to do.

As to the Churchill quote, it is an elitist view popular with monarchists and dictators.

My comments pertain to the federal government. We need a federal government and we need local government; we just need less of it.

BTW, my comments are political, a violation of the AAC TOS, and should be deleted by a moderator (along with a lot of others.)