After seeing the election mess, who will now consider supporting a third party?
- Thread starter Shuxclams
- Start date
Adul
Elite Member
Bakwetu
Golden Member
- Oct 10, 1999
- 1,681
- 0
- 0
If you Americans are going to change from the electorial system to a direct election (popular vote system), you will break up the two party domination system. This would mean voting for smaller parties would be more meaningful. But are you going to do that?
Not until the electoral college is fixed.
I propose limiting each state, no matter the population, to one binding electoral vote.
The presidency will be decided for the candidate, from whatever party, by a simple majority of electors.
I propose limiting each state, no matter the population, to one binding electoral vote.
The presidency will be decided for the candidate, from whatever party, by a simple majority of electors.
apoppin
Lifer
Why not dump the electorial college system completely? It's beyond archaic.
A popular vote and simple majority seems right for the times.
Trying to give each state one electoral vote - regardless of population - seems really undemocratic and totally unfair. Think about it.
A popular vote and simple majority seems right for the times.
Trying to give each state one electoral vote - regardless of population - seems really undemocratic and totally unfair. Think about it.
apoppin,
I have thought about it. Going to a straight popular vote would make this current fiasco look like a walk in the park. Can you imagine doing recounts in all 50 states. We need the electoral college, even one where the most populace states don't get to dictate the results of elections to the rest of the country. Take a look at the electoral college map in this election. Bush won 29 of 50 states. If you don't like the idea of 1 electoral vote per state how about proportionality of electoral votes to the popular vote in each state? Either way, we'd have to get rid of the rigid 270 electoral votes needed for a win and go straight plurality in the electoral college. It's the only chance for a third party to ever win.
I have thought about it. Going to a straight popular vote would make this current fiasco look like a walk in the park. Can you imagine doing recounts in all 50 states. We need the electoral college, even one where the most populace states don't get to dictate the results of elections to the rest of the country. Take a look at the electoral college map in this election. Bush won 29 of 50 states. If you don't like the idea of 1 electoral vote per state how about proportionality of electoral votes to the popular vote in each state? Either way, we'd have to get rid of the rigid 270 electoral votes needed for a win and go straight plurality in the electoral college. It's the only chance for a third party to ever win.
Shux, if you are serious about third-party candidates, then start a campaign to have the "vote by party" boxes removed from ballots.
They annoy me every time I vote. On the last election you could vote straight party for either the Republicans or the Democrats, but of course no other party. Since I believe in voting for the best candidate for the office, straight party voting is wrong and detrimental to the greater establishment of other parties.
BTW, I voted for Gov. Bush.
They annoy me every time I vote. On the last election you could vote straight party for either the Republicans or the Democrats, but of course no other party. Since I believe in voting for the best candidate for the office, straight party voting is wrong and detrimental to the greater establishment of other parties.
BTW, I voted for Gov. Bush.
Red,
What the fsck do taxes have to do with a presidential election?
I didn't suggest we do away with the ridiculous number of representatives that Saddom and Gamora send to DC.
What the fsck do taxes have to do with a presidential election?
I didn't suggest we do away with the ridiculous number of representatives that Saddom and Gamora send to DC.
You just proved my point california boy.
You have no problem extolling the virtues of California.
"Your remark about California being Sodom and Gomorra proves to me that those like you would want nothing more than to force your hypocritical beliefs on those who still embody the American spirit on individualism and free spirit".
While taking a shot at a state like Oklahoma.
"Rubes in Oklahoma"
Another good reason for keeping the electoral college. Forcing candidates to take seriously the people in states not quite so chi-chi as California.
You have no problem extolling the virtues of California.
"Your remark about California being Sodom and Gomorra proves to me that those like you would want nothing more than to force your hypocritical beliefs on those who still embody the American spirit on individualism and free spirit".
While taking a shot at a state like Oklahoma.
"Rubes in Oklahoma"
Another good reason for keeping the electoral college. Forcing candidates to take seriously the people in states not quite so chi-chi as California.
Out of curiosity, how would you go about removing the straight party voting box from the ballots. Is that nation-wide or just in some counties in some states?
Where is it mandated that those boxes be on the ballots?
Where is it mandated that those boxes be on the ballots?
Well Red,
It may surprise you to know that I voted for McCain too. Well I shouldn't say "voted" for, I had to stand up in front of a precinct caucus of my neighbors and do it. My first presidential election was 1980 and I voted for Reagan. I do know that california isn't made up of left leaning wacko's. I get upset when somebody from california starts taking shots at other small states.
I voted for Bush this time because I wanted my vote to count for something other than a protest vote. Was I absolutely thrilled about it? No. When McCain endorsed him it was good enough for me. Gore was out of the question as he is definetly to the left of Slick Willy, and Buchannan and Nader are way out in right and left field respectively.
Peace.
It may surprise you to know that I voted for McCain too. Well I shouldn't say "voted" for, I had to stand up in front of a precinct caucus of my neighbors and do it. My first presidential election was 1980 and I voted for Reagan. I do know that california isn't made up of left leaning wacko's. I get upset when somebody from california starts taking shots at other small states.
I voted for Bush this time because I wanted my vote to count for something other than a protest vote. Was I absolutely thrilled about it? No. When McCain endorsed him it was good enough for me. Gore was out of the question as he is definetly to the left of Slick Willy, and Buchannan and Nader are way out in right and left field respectively.
Peace.
It would not be very difficult to 'fix' the electoral college system to give third party candidates a fair chance. How? Simple, just do like Nebraska and Main -- have the electors in each state be devided proportionately based on the percentage of votes received. So if Bush gets 40%, Gore gets 40% and candidate X gets 20%, then Bush would get 40% of that state's electoral votes, Gore would get 40% and the other candidate would get the remaining 20%.
Doing it this way preserves some of the balance the electoral college brings, while still allowing third party candidates a legitimate shot at winning electoral votes and becomming a political force.
Each state has good and bad, and the values of a small number of states should not be forced on the other states. The values of the people in Montana should not be forced unto those in California -- and conversely the values of the people in California shouldn't run roughshot over those of the poeple in Montana simply because there are more people in California. You have to keep some balance.
Doing it this way preserves some of the balance the electoral college brings, while still allowing third party candidates a legitimate shot at winning electoral votes and becomming a political force.
Each state has good and bad, and the values of a small number of states should not be forced on the other states. The values of the people in Montana should not be forced unto those in California -- and conversely the values of the people in California shouldn't run roughshot over those of the poeple in Montana simply because there are more people in California. You have to keep some balance.
The people in California (as a whole, on average) are a lot more liberal than those of other states. Take a peek at who your reps are in the senate and house, and you'll see what I mean. What do you think the odds are of Feinstein or Boxer representing Ohio in the senate???
Yeah yeah, you can try and paint every state outside of California as a bunch of hooded KKK members running around, but the truth of the matter is that different regions and states in the country have different values, and each state/area should be able to maintain it's own values without having those of some other area forced on it by virtue of wealth or sheer population numbers.
apoppin
Lifer
What you are missing, Tiger, in one vote for each state is that the 1 million people in Hawaii will have the same say as the 30 million people in California. Ridiculous (in a democracy).
As far as recounting all fifty states in a popular election. . . simply upgrade the backwards areas to electronic voting. Costs too much, you think? Not compared with the current fiasco.
What's wrong with dumping the electoral system?
As far as recounting all fifty states in a popular election. . . simply upgrade the backwards areas to electronic voting. Costs too much, you think? Not compared with the current fiasco.
What's wrong with dumping the electoral system?
apoppin,
Scratch my idea about 1 electoral vote per state. I like tagej's idea of proportional electoral votes to popular vote. It leaves the electoral college in place to protect the smaller states and gives the third parties a chance.
As far as recounting a total popular vote we here in Iowa use an optical reader system and cast 1.3M votes. I suspect it would take nearly 2 weeks to recount every single vote in the state. Multiply that times California and add any and all legal challenges and it would take 3 months before we selected a president.
It's fine and dandy for smaller countries around the world to do the popular vote thing. Here in the US with only 50% participation we end up with 100 million ballots.
Scratch my idea about 1 electoral vote per state. I like tagej's idea of proportional electoral votes to popular vote. It leaves the electoral college in place to protect the smaller states and gives the third parties a chance.
As far as recounting a total popular vote we here in Iowa use an optical reader system and cast 1.3M votes. I suspect it would take nearly 2 weeks to recount every single vote in the state. Multiply that times California and add any and all legal challenges and it would take 3 months before we selected a president.
It's fine and dandy for smaller countries around the world to do the popular vote thing. Here in the US with only 50% participation we end up with 100 million ballots.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter