the electoral college- should it be changed?

[Hooahguy]

i think it should be changed.
in the 2004 election, bush won all but 19 states + DC.
and he only won by 35 electoral votes.
now, this doesnt seem right.

i think the system of electoral votes is obsolete, just by the fact that most people now are making somewhat educated votes, and even if they didnt, the people who cast the electoral votes dont have the guts to cast against what the state voted for.

so i think either:
we should throw out the electoral system, and go solely by popular vote,
or make every state count the same, so now every state is made important.

so, is there a reason to keep the electoral college anymore?
just my random thoughts again.... :sweatdrop:

[Koga No Goshi]

i think it should be changed.
in the 2004 election, bush won all but 19 states + DC.
and he only won by 35 electoral votes.
now, this doesnt seem right.

i think the system of electoral votes is obsolete, just by the fact that most people now are making somewhat educated votes, and even if they didnt, the people who cast the electoral votes dont have the guts to cast against what the state voted for.

so i think either:
we should throw out the electoral system, and go solely by popular vote,
or make every state count the same, so now every state is made important.

so, is there a reason to keep the electoral college anymore?
just my random thoughts again.... :sweatdrop:

If anything, the first option. The second option gives vastly more power to these small nothing states with like 130,000 people in them like the Dakotas. It's quite undemocratic for the couple hundred thousand in S. Dakota and the 34 million in California to have exactly the same say.

[Crazed Rabbit]

No, it should stay the way it is.

The EC is necessary so politicians don't just pander to urban folk.

And as much as I'd love Alaska to count as much as California, I don't agree with the second option.

I do think we shouldn't let people who receive net money from the government vote. If the government is going to rob Peter to pay Paul, we shouldn't let Paul vote. :beam:

CR

[seireikhaan]

I'll take the Electoral College as a lesser of the evils. Popular vote as a whole would likely result, as CR pointed out, in politicians simply doing anything to get the vote of the urban centers such as Chicago, New York, LA, etc...

Every state counting the same is absurd. Iowa doesn't deserve the same overall sway as Florida or Ohio. That's why we got the Senate.

[TinCow]

I want it changed to a proportional system to give third parties a fighting chance. If you win 10% of the Presidential vote, you should get 10% of the electoral college. This would be nice for Congress seats as well.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I do think we shouldn't let people who receive net money from the government vote. If the government is going to rob Peter to pay Paul, we shouldn't let Paul vote. :beam:


Love it. A quick way to sidestep de Tocqueville's warning.

[Lemur]

I do think we shouldn't let people who receive net money from the government vote. If the government is going to rob Peter to pay Paul, we shouldn't let Paul vote.
I'll second this as a fine idea. I would couple it with a proposal floated some years ago that the order of states in the primaries should be in descending order of voter turnout. In other words, if Rhode Island has a 43% voter turnout, they'll vote after Maine, which had a 44% turnout.

The thing I like about this is that it awards participation and punishes apathy. Good things, yes?

[Crazed Rabbit]

Sure, I'd go along with that Lemur. Well, I'd let the parties set their own primaries. But your system sounds like a good guide.

CR

[Louis VI the Fat]

I do think we shouldn't let people who receive net money from the government vote. If the government is going to rob Peter to pay Paul, we shouldn't let Paul vote. :beam:

CRThe line should be at average income, instead of median income. This would instantly strip those 70% of Americans who are thieves of their right to vote.
Also, the average median income earner earns an income above the median only during about a third of his life. Say age 40-65. This strips even those who can one day be expected to be net payers from the right to vote for half their lives. This leaves a mere 15% or so of eligible voters.

Of course, of this 15% some will pay thousands of times more tax than the lowest of these 15%. Needless to say, this is grossly unfair. Bill Gates obviously needs more votes than the rest of Washington State combined. Mere peasants.

Taxes are based on income and wealth.
So of course, one doesn't have to wait until the age of forty. What income a person makes should not be decisive, but the total of his taxes. Inherited wealth must be considered for the right to vote.
I mean, it is obviously unfair that Joe the Plumber, even though he toils and sweats day after day until he reaches a middle class income, should have the right to vote until he has reached this goal. He obviously shouldn't, not until his income has reached the above average level of a twenty year old trust fund princess from the Valley. How dare he even think otherwise, that thief. This is America, a man's worth and rights are not measured by what he can create for himself by the fruit of his sweat, his hopes and his tears, but by the size of his silver spoon.
So I start with making the right to vote hereditary for America's wealthiest families. Maybe give these eligable voters a name. Say, aristocrats. Give them fancy titles, and priviliges too. And grant them exclusive voting rights. After all, it's not like America would ever object to being ruled by that lot.



Secondly, government 'robbery' is not a zero sum game between citizens. Most people will find they are a net payer in direct financial payments. The vast majority pays more in taxes than they can steal back through education, healthcare, social benefits. This is because government robbery isn't merely wealth redistribution. The largest part of taxes are spend on common goods like administration, defense, road maintenance etcetera.



Thirdly, even when a person has a negative 'theft' score, that is, he steals more via education, health care etcetera than he ever pays in taxes, then he still works, consumes, defends his country, procreates. The ones richer than him couldn't exist if he didn't rob them. The wealth of the rich depends on the thieves.

Theoretically, one could strip the masses of income to its bare minimum: just what's needed for primary goods and procreation. The disadvantage is that they don't consume. Hence, there can be no mass production. And thus the highest level of wealth attainable, even for the wealthiest, is pre-industrial wealth. Now, the aristocrats of old lived opulently. But I guess many of them would prefer 21st century living. Medicine, mobility, communication, quality of fresh food and water.

'Communism' and theft, otherwise known as human rights and living wages, have made America wealthy. :yes:

Henry Ford understood it. Only by paying his workers a living wage could they afford to buy the actual products that he mass produced. Without a mass market, there is no mass production, because there is no demand. Without mass production, wealth is stuck at a pre-industrial level. This is the economical aspect. The way in which even citizens below the average income threshold have a net contribution to economical prosperity.
From a political aspect, only as a free and equal man is a man a citizen. Without a stake in society, without a vote, citizens are not citizens, but an unruly proletariat. This is what plagues dictatorships. What brought down Russia. Economically too, this is quite detrimental.
Not to mention, people have an intrinsic worth, a certain inalieble right to be citizens. Human rights and such self evident truths that all men were created equal and that sort of old-fashioned communist ideas.

[Koga No Goshi]

Spoken like a bunch of middle class Americans on a message board. I'm happy to see so many of you eager to relinquish the Constitutional rights of others if it would serve what you perceive to be your fiscal interests. It's quite enlightened of you.

[Strike For The South]

Spoken like a bunch of middle class Americans on a message board. I'm happy to see so many of you eager to relinquish the Constitutional rights of others if it would serve what you perceive to be your fiscal interests. It's quite enlightened of you.

Before you go off on a marx like rant my friend. How many people actually receive net money from the net government?

[CountArach]

Voting is a right and there is no way that anyone should ever have that removed from them. Ever.

Quite frankly I'm sickened by the idea that people still think that way.

[Strike For The South]

Voting is a right and there is no way that anyone should ever have that removed from them. Ever.

Perhaps but these fears aren't unfounded. Bread and circuses always carry the day over the common good.

[CountArach]

Perhaps but these fears aren't unfounded. Bread and circuses always carry the day over the common good.
That ignores the fact it is a right. In fact, Article 21 of the Declaration of Human Rights states:

Article 21.

(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.

(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Spoken like a bunch of middle class Americans on a message board. I'm happy to see so many of you eager to relinquish the Constitutional rights of others if it would serve what you perceive to be your fiscal interests. It's quite enlightened of you.

Should we go back to the system that was around when the Constitution was signed? :laugh4:


That ignores the fact it is a right.

We don't let 17-year-olds vote or buy tobacco or 20-year-olds buy booze or handguns. I see no problem with holding back the vote until a person is able to support themselves.

CR

[ICantSpellDawg]

I like the idea of the EC. It serves as a rational counterweight to the other 2 branches. Legislature is directly elected, Scotus is appointed and confirmed and Executive is a representative of the States. People seem to think that it was a method of disenfranchising the ignorant, but I dont see it that way. I wouldn't be against seeing third parties given a greater voice, though.

[woad&fangs]

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
People who receive a net income from the government shouldn't vote???:laugh4::laugh4:

I guess I shouldn't ask for any Pell grants or government loans next year:laugh4:
Or what about people employed by the gov??:laugh4:
Or the Elderly?:laugh4:

That being said, I want it to be like the olden days when congressmen elected the president without any help from the mob.:elephant:

[Crazed Rabbit]

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
People who receive a net income from the government shouldn't vote???:laugh4::laugh4:

I guess I shouldn't ask for any Pell grants or government loans next year:laugh4:
Yup. :yes:


Or what about people employed by the gov??:laugh4:

Hmm. I suppose we can treat it as regular income. But DC shouldn't get any EC votes.


Or the Elderly?:laugh4:

Depends.

CR

[CountArach]

We don't let 17-year-olds vote or buy tobacco or 20-year-olds buy booze or handguns. I see no problem with holding back the vote until a person is able to support themselves.

CR
I think the voting age should be 16, but that's another thing entirely. The age argument is irrelevant because it is a matter of being able to think and reason properly. This is not an issue for people who are unable to support themselves - many of them were born into poverty or are unemployed through no fault of their own. They are still entirely capable of rational thinking.

[KukriKhan]

Very fine thread, on a perennial topic. Look for it to be merged with the "Final Election" thread on election day.

As to my personal opinion, I basically side with TuffStuffMcGruff on this. The EC is antiquated, clumsy, and goes against my populist, and accountability principles, which would normally dictate a popular election for all positions.

But it is yet another, final check, and balance, thrown into the equation, to temper american zeitgeist, and the passion of the moment, to hopefully find the best guy for the times anticipated - not just currently endured. It's one more hurdle for a man or woman who would be King or Queen of America.

[Strike For The South]

That ignores the fact it is a right. In fact, Article 21 of the Declaration of Human Rights states:

That document holds no weight

[CountArach]

That document holds no weight
Then how do you determine what your rights are?

[Strike For The South]

Then how do you determine what your rights are?

The United States Constitution and its amendments. Im not saying we should do it, Im not saying we shouldnt. Im just saying there is no legal reason why we couldn't and the faux outrage in this thread is lol.

[CountArach]

The United States Constitution and its amendments.
Which state that people have the right to Universal Suffrage.

[Strike For The South]

Which state that people have the right to Universal Suffrage.

which we amended and which we can amend back.

[AlexanderSextus]

Then how do you determine what your rights are?


Uhh, i dunno, maybe the..... Constitution for the United states of America perhaps???????:yes::unitedstates::unitedstates::unitedstates: :unitedstates:


oops, my fellow libertarian beat me to it.

[Xiahou]

Which state that people have the right to Universal Suffrage.
Things that are not in the US Constitution (http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#vote):
The Right To Vote

The Constitution contains many phrases, clauses, and amendments detailing ways people cannot be denied the right to vote. You cannot deny the right to vote because of race or gender. Citizens of Washington DC can vote for President; 18-year-olds can vote; you can vote even if you fail to pay a poll tax. The Constitution also requires that anyone who can vote for the "most numerous branch" of their state legislature can vote for House members and Senate members.

Note that in all of this, though, the Constitution never explicitly ensures the right to vote, as it does the right to speech, for example. It does require that Representatives be chosen and Senators be elected by "the People," and who comprises "the People" has been expanded by the aforementioned amendments several times. Aside from these requirements, though, the qualifications for voters are left to the states. And as long as the qualifications do not conflict with anything in the Constitution, that right can be withheld. For example, in Texas, persons declared mentally incompetent and felons currently in prison or on probation are denied the right to vote. It is interesting to note that though the 26th Amendment requires that 18-year-olds must be able to vote, states can allow persons younger than 18 to vote, if they chose to.



Love it. A quick way to sidestep de Tocqueville's warning.
This one?
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury.

We absolutely should not disband the electoral college. It's one of the last checks on mob rule that are still functioning in our government. :sweatdrop:

[Strike For The South]

How could I let that slip. Oh my I must brush up on my document :sad:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I'll second this as a fine idea. I would couple it with a proposal floated some years ago that the order of states in the primaries should be in descending order of voter turnout. In other words, if Rhode Island has a 43% voter turnout, they'll vote after Maine, which had a 44% turnout.

The thing I like about this is that it awards participation and punishes apathy. Good things, yes?

That wouldn't work because it would create a vicious cycle.


The United States Constitution and its amendments.

None of our rights come from the constitution or its amendments. Some of them are stated there, that's all.




I like the electoral college and the two party system. They both work pretty well.

[Strike For The South]

That wouldn't work because it would create a vicious cycle.



None of our rights come from the constitution or its amendments. Some of them are stated there, that's all.




I like the electoral college and the two party system. They both work pretty well.

Um I dont follow...

[CountArach]

Strike would you say that the rights listed in the Bill of Rights are the only Rights you have?

Do you also believe that the US should hold true to documents it has signed.

[KarlXII]

I don't think the right to drink, party, or go to school is stated in the Bill of Rights.

[Strike For The South]

Strike would you say that the rights listed in the Bill of Rights are the only Rights you have?

Do you also believe that the US should hold true to documents it has signed.

The only rights? no, but they provide a base.

I do not. I hate the UN and any other of those feel good treaties they sign. The US should answer only to its citizens. Tyranny can come from home or abroad.

[Strike For The South]

I don't think the right to drink, party, or go to school is stated in the Bill of Rights.

it isnt what does this have to do with anything

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I don't think the right to drink, party, or go to school is stated in the Bill of Rights.

Of course not, you have to fight for your right to party :smash:

[KarlXII]

it isnt what does this have to do with anything


The United States Constitution and its amendments.

If we are to determine our rights based off the Constitution, we would only be left with freedoms of speech and prayer.

[Strike For The South]

If we are to determine our rights based off the Constitution, we would only be left with freedoms of speech and prayer.


The only rights? no, but they provide a base



Do try to keep up dear

[KarlXII]

Do try to keep up dear

A base? Well, hell, if you can find your right to be educated branch out from your right to pray ina church, feel free :2thumbsup:

[Strike For The South]

A base? Well, hell, if you can find your right to be educated branch out from your right to pray ina church, feel free :2thumbsup:

A base, building blocks. What in Gods name does this have to do with voting rights? At times laws need to be passed and at times they need to be abolished. Free education (IMO) is needed. What are you getting at?

[CountArach]

So they provide a base for your other rights? How can you determine what these other rights are without some external document to guide you?

I do not. I hate the UN and any other of those feel good treaties they sign. The US should answer only to its citizens. Tyranny can come from home or abroad.
Yes, damn the UN and their feel-good treaties that save millions of lives!

The US has to realise that it lives in the same world as everyone else and it has an equal share in that world. If you go down you are taking billions of other people with you. I for one loathe anyone who is fine with that.

Besides, Strike the overwhelming majority (http://usforeignpolicy.about.com/od/unitednations/a/unpoll.htm) of Americans supports strengthening the United Nations. You can't have a Government that answers only to its own people, but also ignores its own people's wishes.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Louis, since no-one has yet referenced it: marvellous, eloquent post.

That's the kind of oratory that makes you revolutionaries so beguiling. Marianne would be proud. :bow:

[LittleGrizzly]

Never been a fan of the electoral college, it is there to stop politicians pandering to big population density's which seems like a good enough goal, but it ends up just leaving politicians caring about a few swing states, at least with the other system every extra vote would count, but what is the point in a republican going to california, or actually why would a democrat bother, its not a swing state so no-one needs to go there, whereas without ec you would go there and try to get as many voters as possible...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

This one? [de Tocqueville quotation above]


He shoots, he SCORES! Got it in one X-man.


Arach, I love your idealism. You are consistent and ardent in your support for your own views. Kudos to you.


No state on the planet practices universal suffrage. All, as noted indirectly here, restrict the vote in some means: age, sex, pelf, and (historically) a host of other criteria deemed important at the time.

I agree with you, CA, that chronological age is, at best, a mediocre determinant of someone's fitness to vote. Why should a smart, informed 14-year-old from Baltimore be denied suffrage when, a few counties away, a felon whose crime was committed as part of an effort to suborn a U.S. presidential election is entitled to vote? A 17-year old can, with permission of guardian, join the U.S. military, complete training, and be serving in combat prior to age 18 -- but despite putting her :daisy: on the line to protect ME, she can't submit an absentee vote.

Voting rights are riddled with inequities.


I, myself, lliked CR's idea because I believe that those who are receiving more money from the government in some fashion have a direct interest in voting for whomever will increase the size, scope, and remuneration provided by government. It is their most logical choice! What de Tocqueville said in the passage quoted by Xiahou above really is the achilles heel of a Democratic Republic.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I, myself, lliked CR's idea because I believe that those who are receiving more money from the government in some fashion have a direct interest in voting for whomever will increase the size, scope, and remuneration provided by government. It is their most logical choice! What de Tocqueville said in the passage quoted by Xiahou above really is the achilles heel of a Democratic Republic.

But everyone has a direct interest in voting for whomever will increase the amount of money they get or decrease the amount of money they pay in taxes. CR's rule creates an arbitrary distinction between the poor voting to help themselves and the rich voting to help themselves.

[LittleGrizzly]

If your going to talk of vested interests then what of people in the military, surely they can't be allowed to vote for someone more likely to goto war (make them useful) or someone who probably won't go to war (chill out for a few years) then you get onto defense contractors and thier employee's, then federal employee's, what about people who could potentially vote to remove regulation from thier own industry, or people who secure goverment contracts for services in general....

The reason we don't need to worry about such things is the fact people's vote varies within the same income brackets, you don't have the rich voting exclusively republican, despite the fact the tax cuts are aimed at them, so this show that people vote based off a number of issues despite thier own finaincial interest, im struggling to see this view as anything more than an attempt to disenfranchise our worst off citizens even more...

[ICantSpellDawg]

But everyone has a direct interest in voting for whomever will increase the amount of money they get or decrease the amount of money they pay in taxes. CR's rule creates an arbitrary distinction between the poor voting to help themselves and the rich voting to help themselves.

I agree to an extent. We have already have laws barring those who actively seek to ruin the nation (felons) and those are appropriate, but we shouldn't have laws barring passive morons from voting.

[LittleGrizzly]

but we shouldn't have laws barring passive morons from voting.

By passive morons you mean people who make a net gain from the goverment ?

Hugely insulting, a single mother on welfare is no more of a moron than the average american, i have had money off the goverment at one time, and i can run intellectual circles around plenty of people who are not morons, infact i would venture paris hilton is far more of a moron than i am, or a large number of single mothers...

[ICantSpellDawg]

but we shouldn't have laws barring passive morons from voting.

By passive morons you mean people who make a net gain from the goverment ?

Hugely insulting, a single mother on welfare is no more of a moron than the average american, i have had money off the goverment at one time, and i can run intellectual circles around plenty of people who are not morons, infact i would venture paris hilton is far more of a moron than i am, or a large number of single mothers...

You called her a moron, not me. Morons might also vote against Obama because he's black, for McCain because of something unrelated that he did 40 years ago, etc. Do you dispute that some people are morons?

They should be allowed to vote because you can be sure that they understand at least something that pertains to them.

[LittleGrizzly]

You called her a moron, not me.

I would only be calling her a moron if i thought the average american was a moron.... which i don't...

Maybe you could explain your comment then, you were agreeing with sasaki that those that have a net gain from the goverment should be allowed to vote, you said that others (felons) can't and that is right but passive morons should be allowed to vote...

I can only assume your talking about net recipients from the goverment as the only other group you mentioned you said the no voting rights were appropriate...

The only thing i can think of is that you were referring to some group not mentioned in your post or the quote from sasaki, which doesn't make any sense what so ever... infact take the felon part out of your post and you are infact talking about net recipients of goverment money..maybe you could clarify what group you referred to as passive morons that should be allowed to vote ?

Do you dispute that some people are morons?

Not at all, but i wouldn't call people who like palin morons, despite my severe reservations about the woman, im sure net recipients of goverment welfare and palin supporters are full or moronical people, but to generalise the entire group as morons is insulting and wrong....

Edit: incase you were talking about paris hilton in reference to the calling her a moron bit, i wasn't actually calling her a moron just stating my opinion that she is probably more of a moron than me or average american with a net gain from tax, i would probably reserve the word moron for racists and other destructive thought processes, paris seems more of a harmless air head...

[ICantSpellDawg]

You called her a moron, not me.

I would only be calling her a moron if i thought the average american was a moron.... which i don't...

Maybe you could explain your comment then, you were agreeing with sasaki that those that have a net gain from the goverment should be allowed to vote, you said that others (felons) can't and that is right but passive morons should be allowed to vote...

I can only assume your talking about net recipients from the goverment as the only other group you mentioned you said the no voting rights were appropriate...

The only thing i can think of is that you were referring to some group not mentioned in your post or the quote from sasaki, which doesn't make any sense what so ever... infact take the felon part out of your post and you are infact talking about net recipients of goverment money..maybe you could clarify what group you referred to as passive morons that should be allowed to vote ?

Do you dispute that some people are morons?

Not at all, but i wouldn't call people who like palin morons, despite my severe reservations about the woman, im sure net recipients of goverment welfare and palin supporters are full or moronical people, but to generalise the entire group as morons is insulting and wrong....

Edit: incase you were talking about paris hilton in reference to the calling her a moron bit, i wasn't actually calling her a moron just stating my opinion that she is probably more of a moron than me or average american with a net gain from tax, i would probably reserve the word moron for racists and other destructive thought processes, paris seems more of a harmless air head...

I don't know why I need to tell you this, but some people voting for Palin are morons. In turn, some people voting for Obama are morons. I believe that I can often be a moron, but that the term wouldn't accurately characterize me as it might others.

Again, I'm not reserving the title "moron" for those of a particular political affiliation.

Ie: If some moron fell off of a ledge because they were doing ballet on it and their head hit a voting lever - whether the velocity of their head hitting the lever ticked off a vote for Obama or McCain would be irrelevant for the inevitable "moron" label that I would bestow on them.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Grizz, TSM:

With all due respect and affection for you both....CAN IT!

You want to discuss morons voting, start a new thread.


The discussion of the role of the electoral college and the suffrage is an important issue, so I'd like to see it discussed, not closed.

[LittleGrizzly]

Ok ill leave it as.... my problem wasn't that some people are morons, a great many people from all walks of life are morons, my problem was the classification of an entire group as morons when there are obviously plenty of non moronic people at every level of income... (it was the income related insult that annoyed me rather than any political one, i just figured palin was a good example)

quickly moving back on topic...

My biggest problem with the ec is texans and californians, neither party has to bother making an effort to secure either of these states, the republicans now they have texas and the democrats now that they have california, this reduces to voting in either of these states to more of a show of support for a candidate (assuming everyone doesn't think thier vote won't count at the same time)

The advertised advantage of making the smaller states more important doesn't ring too true for me, all it seems to do is push the majority of states of to the side as in the bag for one cadidate or the other, leaving just the swing states to concentrate on, this means that big states like texas and california are ignored, whilst they are two of the biggest states in the union and should perhaps recieve the most attention they recieve barely any, whereas a far smaller state with a tiny population gets lots of attention by comparison...

Edit: i have similarish concerns about our parlimentary system in the uk...

[LittleGrizzly]

Actually i did miss out my main concern, and it also runs true for the UK

A person's vote means more in a smaller state than a bigger state... i did the actual numbers last time i had this discussion, back in '04 i think before the election of bush...

Anyway basically im compared the population of a state to its elecoral votes and got a figure for how much of an electroral college vote each individual has, it worked out that a calfornian has far less of an electoral vote than a member of a far smaller state, its also a problem in the UK where the amount of people living in the catchment area for 1 parlimentary seat can vary quite a decent bit, so a rural voter individually has more say than a city voter.

[Crazed Rabbit]

But everyone has a direct interest in voting for whomever will increase the amount of money they get or decrease the amount of money they pay in taxes. CR's rule creates an arbitrary distinction between the poor voting to help themselves and the rich voting to help themselves.

No, it doesn't, because people who pay less taxes are not receiving money from other people, as people on the dole are. Paying less taxes is not equivalent of receiving money taken from other people.

At any rate, there's a lot of rich people, people better off under McCain's tax plan, who are voting for Obama.


I think the voting age should be 16, but that's another thing entirely. The age argument is irrelevant because it is a matter of being able to think and reason properly. This is not an issue for people who are unable to support themselves - many of them were born into poverty or are unemployed through no fault of their own. They are still entirely capable of rational thinking.

The only issue I see is people injured and really unable to work. But assistance for them won't end, because other people will support giving those type of people help.
CR

[Prince Cobra]

I want it changed to a proportional system to give third parties a fighting chance. If you win 10% of the Presidential vote, you should get 10% of the electoral college. This would be nice for Congress seats as well.

Well,I'm slightly a fan of the bipolar model... Why? Because when you have too many parties then it is hard to make a stable government and to excercise the power. Or at least it is harder to do it.

In the Elctions for President: Well, I'm living on the other end of the ocean plus one sea beyond and it's really hard to say if it is good or not to change the system. It is right you can rule with about 45% of the voters supporting you and that's somehow not fair. But on the other hand, there must be a reason to keep that, right? Maybe. maybe this has much to do with the Federal system of government in USA.

[Koga No Goshi]

Yes, damn the UN and their feel-good treaties that save millions of lives!

The US has to realise that it lives in the same world as everyone else and it has an equal share in that world.

Indeed, and in many cases, a greater share. I want the U.S. to be responsible for the problem of fossil fuels, seeing as how we're the biggest consumer of oil, in the same way I want to be able to hold China accountable for air pollution, since their coal plant smoke travels around the pacific rim and winds up windtrapped in California. (Really true, look it up.)

I don't think a U.S. mass withdrawal from international organizations is likely and even if it did happen, we'd be a "rogue nation"... gulp. (That is, if our own standards applied to ourselves at least, hehe.) There are really just two "real" schools of thought on it: that we should try to lead in international organizations, and that we should scorn them but use them to validate various things we do in our own interests. (Such as trying to get the U.N. stamp on military actions to legitimize them, but happily disregarding the U.N. and doing it anyway if they won't go along.) Given those two choices I'd rather try to lead, even if we never get 100% efficiency or effectiveness out of the attempts, than to just use it cynically and with contempt in the mold that neocon policymakers do.

[Prince Cobra]

Indeed, and in many cases, a greater share. I want the U.S. to be responsible for the problem of fossil fuels, seeing as how we're the biggest consumer of oil, in the same way I want to be able to hold China accountable for air pollution, since their coal plant smoke travels around the pacific rim and winds up windtrapped in California. (Really true, look it up.)

I don't think a U.S. mass withdrawal from international organizations is likely and even if it did happen, we'd be a "rogue nation"... gulp. (That is, if our own standards applied to ourselves at least, hehe.) There are really just two "real" schools of thought on it: that we should try to lead in international organizations, and that we should scorn them but use them to validate various things we do in our own interests. (Such as trying to get the U.N. stamp on military actions to legitimize them, but happily disregarding the U.N. and doing it anyway if they won't go along.) Given those two choices I'd rather try to lead, even if we never get 100% efficiency or effectiveness out of the attempts, than to just use it cynically and with contempt in the mold that neocon policymakers do.

WWII made USA feel super power and I really do not know any politician who would sacrfice his right to be a world policeman. The problem with International Leadership is that it is expensive. If U.S.A. can do it, that's fine. I do not hate U.S.A for that but I also do not sympathise it as well.Golden Middle. Facts.

About China: yet it was U.S.A that refused to sign the Kyoto protocol(sustainable development!!!). Not that it justifies China.

Idea: Ooops, got out of topic. :no:

[Koga No Goshi]

WWII made USA feel super power and I really do not know any politician who would sacrfice his right to be a world policeman. The problem with International Leadership is that it is expensive. If U.S.A. can do it, that's fine. I do not hate U.S.A for that but I also do not sympathise it as well.Golden Middle. Facts.

About China: yet it was U.S.A that refused to sign the Kyoto protocol(sustainable development!!!). Not that it justifies China.

Idea: Ooops, got out of topic. :no:

You are absolutely correct. People who say that the U.S. pulling out of "meaningless" or "feel-good" international treaties need to examine the levels of imported coal pollution in California that's been travelling around from China. Now granted, China would have been doing this anyway. But if the U.S. hadn't given the Kyoto accords an abortion we would have the credibility to say something about it, or do something about it. We took a serious attempt to negotiate with any credibility on the topic off the table by pulling out, so at this point saying "well China would never have listened anyway" is an argument of convenience.

[Strike For The South]

So they provide a base for your other rights? How can you determine what these other rights are without some external document to guide you?

Yes, damn the UN and their feel-good treaties that save millions of lives!

The US has to realise that it lives in the same world as everyone else and it has an equal share in that world. If you go down you are taking billions of other people with you. I for one loathe anyone who is fine with that.

Besides, Strike the overwhelming majority (http://usforeignpolicy.about.com/od/unitednations/a/unpoll.htm) of Americans supports strengthening the United Nations. You can't have a Government that answers only to its own people, but also ignores its own people's wishes.

Rights are given to us by the people we put in office. If they lose touch with us we vote them out. Crazy system I know. I put my countrymen first over all others. I find the UN to be utterly useless and merely an organization that hamstrings us. If my countrymen feel differently then so be it.

The US should put its own interests above all else. Saying this I am an isolationist. I feel the cons of military action in todays age far outweigh the pros ESP in a economic sense and because I am a firm believer in the concept of blowback and believe that if mess with someone they have every right to mess with you.

This whole citizen of the world thing is utterly laughable.

[Koga No Goshi]

Rights are given to us by the people we put in office.

No. Sorry but that's not really true. Rights can't be "given" anyway, if they were given that would be a privilege wouldn't it?


This whole citizen of the world thing is utterly laughable.

No it's not. I mean, we've been torturing people and leading the world in pollution and pulled out of all kinds of important treaties like anti-ballistic nuclear missile treaties and Kyoto, so I can see why an American would be in the position of having to say "all this world stuff is stupid anyway", but that's really a childish stance.

[Strike For The South]

No. Sorry but that's not really true. Rights can't be "given" anyway, if they were given that would be a privilege wouldn't it?

You know what I mean. We put people in office to pass laws and protect our rights. The constitution provides a base but is not all of our rights.




No it's not. I mean, we've been torturing people and leading the world in pollution and pulled out of all kinds of important treaties like anti-ballistic nuclear missile treaties and Kyoto, so I can see why an American would be in the position of having to say "all this world stuff is stupid anyway", but that's really a childish stance.

My goal is not to pollute the world nor hurt people however our main adversaries do not care about any of these treaties. Russia China Iran dont give a :flower: about whats on those pieces of paper. I know its en vouge to please the Europeans but I will not do so if it means falling behind these powers who I guarantee you will be much worse than us.

America should aspire to be better than everyone as well. So why should we hamstring ourselves?

[Prince Cobra]

You know what I mean. We put people in office to pass laws and protect our rights. The constitution provides a base but is not all of our rights.





My goal is not to pollute the world nor hurt people however our main adversaries do not care about any of these treaties. Russia China Iran dont give a :flower: about whats on those pieces of paper. I know its en vouge to please the Europeans but I will not do so if it means falling behind these powers who I guarantee you will be much worse than us.

America should aspire to be better than everyone as well. So why should we hamstring ourselves?

I suggest opening new thread...on this...

[Strike For The South]

I suggest opening new thread...on this...

On what exactly?

[Banquo's Ghost]

On what exactly?

On the United Nations and the USA's role in foreign policy.

This is a thread about the Electoral College. Let's keep discussion to that topic, please.

Thank you kindly.

:bow:

[Strike For The South]

On the United Nations and the USA's role in foreign policy.

This is a thread about the Electoral College. Let's keep discussion to that topic, please.

Thank you kindly.

:bow:

ok will do

[Hooahguy]

leading the world in pollution

just to go quickly OT, isnt china and india leading?
i thought we were 3rd.....

[CountArach]

just to go quickly OT, isnt china and india leading?
i thought we were 3rd.....
Per Capita, America is leading. China and India each have at least 3 times your population.

[Hooahguy]

ah.... i see....

[gaelic cowboy]

Actually European members might be surprised to realise we have an electoral college of sorts too. We vote in elections for members of parties and they elect our Taoiseach in case of Ireland or a Prime Minister in the case of UK. The people actually have no say in who is the leader the elected representatives pick one from there ranks. This pretty much the same except the Electoral college only come into the equation once and they dont have any other voting right.

[CountArach]

Actually European members might be surprised to realise we have an electoral college of sorts too. We vote in elections for members of parties and they elect our Taoiseach in case of Ireland or a Prime Minister in the case of UK. The people actually have no say in who is the leader the elected representatives pick one from there ranks. This pretty much the same except the Electoral college only come into the equation once and they dont have any other voting right.
Some parties allow their members to pick the Prime Minister or party leader.

[gaelic cowboy]

Some parties allow their members to pick the Prime Minister or party leader.

Not true all elected members of say england or Ireland of the main chamber of parliment not senate or house of lords attend the first day of the new session of goverment and propose a new leader this gets voted on and is either passed and then accepted or we vote again thats why coalitions can happen in our system picking party leaders means nothing its just a face for the election not neccessarily who will be leader.

I aint sure but I believe Sonia Ghandi could be an example of a party leader who has not taken office due to voting deliberations. Obviously it was felt to be a disadvantage to governance of the country for her to be the leader of the party and the country.

[CountArach]

Not true all elected members of say england or Ireland of the main chamber of parliment not senate or house of lords attend the first day of the new session of goverment and propose a new leader this gets voted on and is either passed and then accepted or we vote again thats why coalitions can happen in our system picking party leaders means nothing its just a face for the election not neccessarily who will be leader.
Maybe not in England, but that is how it works in some other places. I know the Australian Greens hold elections amongst their members for these sort of things. Though I could be wrong and that may be executive positions only.

[gaelic cowboy]

Electoral College is flawed but not deeply flawed its only had maybe a couple of ocassions where its malfunctioned. However maybe they might consider a proviso that you must win more than a certain number of states and get 270 college votes too.

I was told once its possible to win with only 13 states is this true and i heard it agin on RTE 1 last night during the results coverage.

[drone]

I prefer the electoral college method, but there are two changes I would like to see. One, electors based on districts, not statewide, like Nebraska and Maine do it. This is a state decision to make, but it would benefit all from a campaign standpoint. Two, fewer electors. Do we really need 435 leechescongressmen?

[Koga No Goshi]

If we keep the electoral college as-is, I have one change in mind that I think would benefit everyone, and hurt no one.

Lock down ALL airings of results and tallies until every single state election is closed, including Hawaii. A lot of west coast state voters stay home because by the time they are ready to go to the precinct after work, the election has already been decided. There is also the perception that by the time they are even counting the western states' votes, the election is probably set, so what's the point.

[gaelic cowboy]

Maybe not in England, but that is how it works in some other places. I know the Australian Greens hold elections amongst their members for these sort of things. Though I could be wrong and that may be executive positions only.

Australia has a system based on UK same as Ireland so its gonna be the same for the three really.

The Party Leader is a face for the party for the election but he/she is still up for reelection same as other member of the parliament.

If picking a leader to be Prime minister before the election was the deal then said person would not be put to an election but we would vote for the party and then they would be the leader.

Once elected all members get together and pick a Prime Minister by forming a government this can be a majority or coalition government.

So in effect its quite possible to have an entire government of independent candidates if you think of it this way you can see the similarity between parliamentary democracy and the electoral college system.

[gaelic cowboy]

I prefer the electoral college method, but there are two changes I would like to see. One, electors based on districts, not statewide, like Nebraska and Maine do it. This is a state decision to make, but it would benefit all from a campaign standpoint. Two, fewer electors. Do we really need 435 leechescongressmen?

If this system is used it is in effect a popular vote and then the focus will only be big states the electoral college only works because of its present setup if its dismantled to a district basis then you might as well get rid it all together.

[gaelic cowboy]

If we keep the electoral college as-is, I have one change in mind that I think would benefit everyone, and hurt no one.

Lock down ALL airings of results and tallies until every single state election is closed, including Hawaii. A lot of west coast state voters stay home because by the time they are ready to go to the precinct after work, the election has already been decided. There is also the perception that by the time they are even counting the western states' votes, the election is probably set, so what's the point.

Agreed the result should be given only after all votes counted then you can have your speeches and news polls etc etc to your hearts content.

[drone]

If this system is used it is in effect a popular vote and then the focus will only be big states the electoral college only works because of its present setup if its dismantled to a district basis then you might as well get rid it all together.

Not so. Winning the state outright gets a candidate the 2 senator votes as well. This gives the smaller states a little more say. So it's not a straight popular vote.

As it stands, a Republican doesn't even waste his time with California, while a Democrat doesn't waste his time with Texas. Even though there are districts that would heavily favor them.

[gaelic cowboy]

Not so. Winning the state outright gets a candidate the 2 senator votes as well. This gives the smaller states a little more say. So it's not a straight popular vote.

As it stands, a Republican doesn't even waste his time with California, while a Democrat doesn't waste his time with Texas. Even though there are districts that would heavily favor them.

I take it you mean give them the districts and then the overall winner gets the two extra from the senate weighting say thats not a bad idea it forces you to campaign all over.

Then I suggest that you also should have to win over 26 states as well as 270 college votes then you are getting a better fit in my view

[m52nickerson]

See that most of the campaigning happens in just a few swing states, and a republican vote in California is worth as much as a fart in church, I say we go with the popular vote.

[spmetla]

Yes! Get rid of the electoral college, it served it's purpose well in times past but it's now rather silly. Popular vote should decide, this way votes matter no matter if your in a swing state or not.

[Ronin]

Obama won with about 55% of the popular vote....whoever he got almost 65% of the electoral college vote......clearly this system works fine and needs not to be revised ~:rolleyes::surrender2:

this year it made no difference, but 2000 shows the wacky situations this can lead to.

[CountArach]

Obama won with about 55% of the popular vote....whoever he got almost 65% of the electoral college vote......clearly this system works fine and needs not to be revised ~:rolleyes::surrender2:

this year it made no difference, but 2000 shows the wacky situations this can lead to.
52% of the vote, actually.

/nitpick

[Uesugi Kenshin]

Electoral College is flawed but not deeply flawed its only had maybe a couple of ocassions where its malfunctioned. However maybe they might consider a proviso that you must win more than a certain number of states and get 270 college votes too.

I was told once its possible to win with only 13 states is this true and i heard it agin on RTE 1 last night during the results coverage.

After some fiddling on 270towin.com I came up with a scenario where one could win 271 electoral votes with only the 11 biggest states. This would probably never happen though because who sees Georgia, Texas, California, New York, Michigan and Pennsylvania all agreeing on something, much less the other states?

[Quirinus]

But it is yet another, final check, and balance, thrown into the equation, to temper american zeitgeist, and the passion of the moment, to hopefully find the best guy for the times anticipated - not just currently endured. It's one more hurdle for a man or woman who would be King or Queen of America.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the EC magnify Obama's victory-- "the American zeitgeist and the passion of the moment" this time? Obama got "only" 52% -slightly more than half- of the popular vote but about two-thirds of the EC.

How would using the EC system pick a better-qualified person for the job than the direct popular vote, or present a hurdle for an immensely popular leader?

[CountArach]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the EC magnify Obama's victory-- "the American zeitgeist and the passion of the moment" this time? Obama got "only" 52% -slightly more than half- of the popular vote but about two-thirds of the EC.
"Once again proving that the Electoral College makes perfect sense" - Jon Stewart.