Popular Vs. Electorial

[Volradon]

Whats your opinion on these? I think that after this election people mihg reconsider changing the constitution to popular vote. The reason it started with electorial is because in colonial times it was hard to travel so they just sent a representatinve from each state. If duringh a popular election its 5000000 gore and 50000200 bush in say california those 5000000 people just lost their votes in the void because bush one.

 

[Cateran Emperor]

Yes, I also feel the electoral college is rather idiotic. We have no need for it any longer. We should just have the popular vote elect the President as that was how the founders of the nation wanted it to be, but realized that they just couldn't do it at the time.

 

[Baskil]

One change I would make would be to have all states split up their electors like Nebraska and Maine do. Otherwise I have no problem with the system.

 

[Spiderman]

What do you mean they split up their electors?

I haven't done the math to figure out if it would work, but would having the electors vote the way the popular vote goes in their state work?

 

[dw51688]

Electoral college sucks!

 

[Baskil]

Maine has 4 (iirc) electoral votes. There are essentially 4 elections that went on for Maine, one for each elector. whoever won in that region got to vote. Until about 10 on election night, they still hadn't called the 4th electoral vote. That's what I mean. Keep the same amount of electoral votes, just allow each state to split it up.


Example:

Michigan has 18 electoral votes. Have Detriot be one area, Ann Arbor be another, Grand Rapids, Flint, A couple areas in the UP, etc. That way, the people's votes matter more.

For instance, let's say Bush won California by one vote. Now, he would get 54 electoral votes. However, under this idea, he may not get 54. The areas that he won (say for aguments sake LA, Sacremento, and San Diego) would have his electors, while the areas his opponents won (for arguments sake Oakland, San Jose) would be for him.

 

[Volradon]

Originally posted by Baskil
Keep the same amount of electoral votes, just allow each state to split it up.

Why? Electorial college is an old, outdated idea that, probably, half of the amrican population doesnt understand

+ why is it that no other major country does it that way (correct me if i am wrong here)

 

[Zhaneel]

In some ways, the Electoral college is good- they are informed people who (hopefully) have the people's interests in mind... hopefully. Much of the public is not well informed and might not make a choice for the right reasons.

Now, I'm not saying that I love that way... I rather like direct popular vote. But I just felt like pointing that piece out.

I think it would help a lot to keep the public more well-informed.

 

[arachiron]

"Oh do the little-wittle insignificant people want to vote? What, you want democracy? How cute! Don't you want these nice gentlemen to vote for you? I'm sure they're much smarter than you, and their opinion is worth sooo much more."

 

[Landkiller]

The electoral college denies voters the right to make a difference.

Not all states are important. Presidents need only campaign in sections of the country that, according to polls, are "up for grabs". If 80 percent of state A is Democratic, Bush has no chance in state A. Therefore, the 20 percent of voters that oppose the Democrats have no impact on the national election process. Also, 29 percent of the Democratic votes are wasted. A victory of 51% assures as many electoral votes as a victory of 80%. So, I favor the popular vote for the direct election of Presidents by the public. Obviously, no matter where one lived, the election would be fair. The only 'special case' election could occur if an exact tie of the most popular nominees existed. And this would happen with the same regularity as the sun exploding in little pieces of confetti on the New Year.

 

[Apollo]

I'm for the popular vote.

Note: according to books I've read, and teachers I've had, the founding fathers didn't want a popular vote, as CE said. The real reason they did it was cause they thought the people were stupid. The founding fathers were all wealthy, and didn't trust normal people to make decisions that would affect our country that way. So they set up the College. They figured that the people that got into the College would mostly be upper-class like themselves, and would make smart choices. The people couldn't screw it up. Of course, as it turned out, the College members just vote for whoever the people wanted, so it didn't work as the Fathers thought it would. If it did, Bush would never get anywhere near the White House.

People have such a high opinion of the Founding Fathers, but they think you're an idiot.

 

[Ristik]

Before I say anything else, I want to make it clear that the electoral system will not change. Not enough people are so upset that will go out of their way to change it.

That said, I believe we should switch to a parliamentary system. Under the current system, third parties have absolutely no chance to win anything, and the two major parties don't really have to think too much; they just set up platforms and go. Under a parliamentary system, all the parties would have to think a lot about their platforms and then co-operate after the election to ensure stability. That's the best way to get laws that are best for the greatest amount of people. Unfortunately, it would take a massive rewrite of the Constitution to achieve this, so it will never happen.

 

[Multani]

I must say both points are valid.
It comes down to:
Do you want Democracy at the cost of efficency?
If you do the popular vote, the entire Political Campaign will basically be lying to the voters.

Personally, I think Electorial College is better, but most of you Democratic diehards think the Popular Vote is better.
To quote Agent K form MIB:
"A person is smart. People are panicky, dumb animals."

 

[Sleepy]

since they don't do anything but lie to us anyway. more power to us dumb animals!

 

[Ristik]

Multani, there are THREE points. Popular, electoral, and throw the whole thing out and go parliamentary. Just because I am the only one supporting the third point does not mean that it's invalid!!!... OK, maybe it does, but that's NOT the point!

 

[Jaws10387]

I sorta support #3 but it will never happen. It would be cool. Then it would be much more even. Then the US would be more like other countries too.

Electorial is just evil. It makes a person's vote almost worthless. It takes the winner in the state by 1 vote and says: "ok in this state candidate X wins by 1 vote. And the candidate gets all of the electoral vote.

Popular is a bit crazy and it would take forever to determine the winner. On the other hand, it would give more power to the people.

Parlimentary would be cool. It would require a lot of work to get it started but, it would be worth it. It would be much better than the electoral thing where 3rd party candidates have no chance.

Another idea is like the electoral college, but more complex. You give each county, every region with a certain # of people, or major city 1 electoral vote. It gives a better view of the people's opinion.

 

[Landkiller]

Hey, Jaws, I would hope that a major city would recvieve more than one vote under your system. Having several million people and all, should be worth more than Hillybilly county, Tennessee, right?

 

[Ura]

just my 46% of 2 cents, (damn this bad exchange rate), in reply to Ristik.

In Canada we have a parlimentary system much like you are suggesting, or at least we are much closer to it then the US is.
And all I can say is that the politicians still lie to us with their campaign promises, and there still is very little that gets done to the benefit of the people. They bicker alot and like to argue with each other in the house, but as for progress. There isn't any.
Take it from me, I've lived here all my life and Canada is still covered in layers of stupid problems, some of which could be solved or at least helped if our government would get off its lasy ass and start doing something for the people.

 

[Ristik]

Ura: actually, out of all the systems I've seen, I prefer Canada's. It's not perfect; no system is. It is, however, very nice. First, it's parliamentary. Second, the government programs are top-notch. Yes, I do realize the taxes are somewhat high, but if most people are taken care of, what's the problem? Also, I believe Canada's standard of living is the highest in the world; I know it's higher than ours. Plus, you guys have a better drinking age. Just a few more of my cents; I think these political discussions have cost me a few bucks just in two cents' worths.

 

[Ura]

Hehe, well thanks the compliments Ristik.

However I will contend that despite the shiney exterior, the government programs here are kinda lousy, they are covered in FAR to much red tape.
For instance, this is from experience:
A person with no home, no food, and only the clothing in their backpack, has a minimum 1 month waiting list for welfare application because of all the meetings they MUST go to and different papers they have to get processed in succession.
I know this because I had to go on welfare once when I was unemployed and if it wasn't for some VERY good friends helping me out, I wouldn't be here right now or I'd be in jail cause I'd try to steal something to survive. Most places don't even have something close to shelters and those that do are horribly over crowded.
This is just one example, probably the harshest one too mind you. But as a person who has had to deal with several of the government programs and branches, its a real pain in the ass to deal with anything the government here offers.
The taxes are somewhat high, which doesn't help when our economy is just now recovering from a huge slump and our exchange rate with the US, who we do alot of trading with, is very bad.
The only thing that the government actually offers is medi-care, which is actually provincially controlled, not federally. Its a nice thing to have, but I'd rather have something to eat and a roof over my head most of the time.
Canada's standard of living high? That explains why I'm always broke.
Actually you are right about that, Canada does have one of the highest qualities of living in the world.
Otherwise Canada is a very nice place to live, I know I love it despite all the problems.

Oh yeah, and about the drinking age, thats something thats been argued about whether it should be changed or not for years. Though we do have better beer, imho.

[Edited by Ura on 11-10-00 at 02:00 AM]