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i think the system of electoral votes is obsolete, just by the fact that most people now are making somewhat educated votes, and even if they didnt, the people who cast the electoral votes dont have the guts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i think the system of electoral votes is obsolete, just by the fact that most people now are making somewhat educated votes, and even if they didnt, the people who cast the electoral votes dont have the guts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

[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

[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?

[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?

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]

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

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

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

[Crazed Rabbit]

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

I guess I shouldn't ask for any Pell grants or government loans next year

Yup.

Or what about people employed by the gov??

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

Or the Elderly?

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???????


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:

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.

[Strike For The South]

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

[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...