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i think the system of electoral votes is obsolete, just by the fact that most people now are making somewhat educated votes, and even if they didnt, the people who cast the electoral votes dont have the guts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

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i think the system of electoral votes is obsolete, just by the fact that most people now are making somewhat educated votes, and even if they didnt, the people who cast the electoral votes dont have the guts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

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.

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.

[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.

[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.

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

[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...

[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.

CR

The 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.

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?

[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?

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