Repair the Electoral College

[EXman]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Fix? I say abolish. Here is a sample amendment: Whoever gets more Americans to vote for them gets to be president.
For bonus points we could have a run-off system too.

Super why don't we just let people in cities vote then we can just appoint a new dem every 8 years until one figures out how to make this into a monarchy then we have to get that piece of crap out of power and still we are stuck with an single ruler as a head pops back up into the void. Et tu Brute?

Go to the liabrary read a roman history book about government watch the movie gladiator and wake up refreshed to know that we do have an electoral college based on a roman blueprint.

sorry I'm kinda hyper right now.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Any chance you would be so kind as to translate that to English for me?

brainwashing for the win!

 

[DanDaManJC]

Well...

I think the electoral college as it is, is best. Because of the way things are now, the bible-belt, which consists of many low population states save a few, get their voice in political matters and with enough thump to actually get a president with their ideals in office (george dubya for example) while the larger more liberal states still have their power (common CA and 54 votes, that's still significant).

So in the end the "hardcore biggoted evangelicals" (rural, bible belt) still get their voice heard while the "tree hugging hippies" (urban, the coasts) get their voice in as well. Obviously I am making big generalizations... but we can all agree that there is a "bible belt" and that the coasts are generally more liberal.

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: DanDaManJC
Well...

I think the electoral college as it is, is best. Because of the way things are now, the bible-belt, which consists of many low population states save a few, get their voice in political matters and with enough thump to actually get a president with their ideals in office (george dubya for example) while the larger more liberal states still have their power (common CA and 54 votes, that's still significant).

So in the end the "hardcore biggoted evangelicals" (rural, bible belt) still get their voice heard while the "tree hugging hippies" (urban, the coasts) get their voice in as well. Obviously I am making big generalizations... but we can all agree that there is a "bible belt" and that the coasts are generally more liberal.

pPease call the treehuggers biggots as well biggoted against the bible belt Christians it is accurate and fair. otherwise you are dead on.

 

[Rainsford]

I think a system where the person with fewer supporters can actually become president is clearly broken...anything that could improve on that would be welcomed.

 

[bdude]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Sure, do you have a specific argument you like?

I'll give you one argument I'm not fond of. THat we need to pay more attention to rurals and other groups. This is hogwash. Rurals and minorities will not be ignored (in fact I think ethnic minorities who live in cities and would form large national voting blocks would be benifitted). They would get their attention, but their fair share of attention. The way it is now the three largest states are being ignored. This is not democratic. In a democracy, you get power in numbers.

this is a democratic republic. democracy is what republics degenerate into.

What does that have to do with my post or the electoral college? Frankly, it sounds like you're spouting off something you heard somewhere. If you are responding to my democracy reference then you are misunderstanding democracy or using a very limited definition of it. Democracy and REPRESENTATIVE Republic are not mutually exclusive.

here

again, i like political stability

Buddy, that ain't the book to recommend.


read this

 

[DanDaManJC]

Well we're all entitled to our opinions, but ya the founding fathers had a good time with this issue as well... so bleh, just read up on their arguments, I don't really wanna re-argue my history homework. hehe...

and exman, yup you're right. I didn't really think about it when I named the left/right people, I just shot off the most common names given each group.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
It isn't a necessarily waste, it is a long shot for sure, but diligent education the population could lead to a non-violent revolution where as a nation we elect officials willing to see such a plan though.

Why on earth would a state like wyoming (and about 24 others) give thier power away? If anything, more education on the issue would have it's citizenry less willing, since 166,000 of wyomings people count as 555,000 californians.

I was speaking in terms of education on the virtues of democracy and respect for individuality rather than superficial concerns over what they might gain or loose as a state. I know that is asking a hell of a lot, but that is why I called it a long shot.

 

[preslove]

I like Colorado's example. If states just split up their electoral votes, then candidates would have to go to every state and third party candidates would be able to pick up at least a few.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: preslove
I like Colorado's example. If states just split up their electoral votes, then candidates would have to go to every state and third party candidates would be able to pick up at least a few.

then no one would ever get to 270 and congress would pick a winner. might as well just implement a parliamentary system

 

[kylebisme]

I hoping Colorado's amendment will pass and other states will follow the example, I consider it a big step in the right direction and a lot easier to pull of than changeing the election laws on the federal level. Sure, Congress would almost definatly be picking a winner this time if the amendment does pass; but I really don't have any problem with that.