It's a simple question. You see when I was in grammar school my 8th grade history teacher defined the electoral college in more or less the following way: politicians thought the average person was too stupid, uneducated, and uninformed. They didn't trust them to make decisions. Granted this teacher was also an alcoholic, but still.
So I would think most would agree people today are smarter, more informed, and more educated. Especially when it comes to being informed.
Should this practice be done away with entirely? If not, should it at least be dramatically altered?
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
It should definitely be reformed so that one winner does not get the entire state- the states should be broken up into areas according the number of college votes they get and each area has its own contest for that one vote.
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
I would just think in the current era why would merely going by popular vote be so bad?
With the way things currently are doesn't it leave candidates trying to cater more towards the states where they can earn the most points by winning?
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
Though I'm still slightly partial to the 'one person = one vote' concept and then tallying those up for the winner. Most straight forward form of voting/electing who the people want which I can think of.
Agreed. No electoral college, no “winner takes all”, heck no breaking the country up into states. Just make it the most simple and basic way, “one person=one vote”.
I agree with removing the electoral college, though the answer to if the average voter is informed enough to make an intelligent vote is a firm "no".
I'll certainly miss throwing my vote away by voting for people I'd actually like to see in office rather than the better of two evils, though. I can do silly things like vote for a green party candidate now because I know that California is going to vote not-Conservative no matter what I or like-minded people do.
In a one person-one vote system, I'd likely have to vote for the shinier turd, lest I accidentally "Ross Perot" the dirtier turd into office with my throwaway vote.
__________________
"The Daemon lied with every breath. It could not help itself but to deceive and dismay, to riddle and ruin. The more we conversed, the closer I drew to one singularly ineluctable fact: I would gain no wisdom here."
"The Daemon lied with every breath. It could not help itself but to deceive and dismay, to riddle and ruin. The more we conversed, the closer I drew to one singularly ineluctable fact: I would gain no wisdom here."
It's horrid, when either party knows they have roughly 45% of the population no matter what, it doesn't force them to keep their word. Get in a strong 3rd party that can pull 25-30ish percent, you'll see both Dem and Repub politicians keep their campaign promises.
Or even a party that consistently pulled 10-15% would accomplish this. This isn't actually impossible; if the Tea Party were to split from the Republicans, they'd probably be a viable third party. Viable not in the sense of ever getting a president elected, but in the sense of possibly getting a sizeable share of congress and getting some governors.
__________________
“Where the longleaf pines are whispering
to him who loved them so.
Where the faint murmurs now dwindling
echo o’er tide and shore."
-A Grave Epitaph in Santa Rosa County, Florida; I wish I could remember the man's name.
We are pretty much slipping into a Soft Tyranny type Gubmint anyway so ....yeah sure. Get rid of peoples right to vote. Today's brain dead citizens won't miss it.
__________________ Banned 30 days for the Crime of "ETC"... and when I "ETC" I do it HARD!!!
One idea people push is it'd 'force' politicians to hit more states and such. Instead, though, they just hit the same battleground states, and hit them heavily.
Some people in some states have their votes matter more, some less.
It favors neither party- both parties have ended up the ones electorally disadvantages before, so it's basically just a random screw-you-over factor.
Not really. The final result is still winner-takes-all, since there's just one president.
Among the advantages of ditching the electoral collage, throwing the doors open for third parties is still not one of them, most of the pressures to consolidate around one party or another are still there.
KMC Community Forums
Nov 4th, 2015 04:15 PM
