[escapeartist]

Whats the deal with the electoral college. As far as I know, the whole purpose of it in the beggining was becasue America didnt have the technology to count all the votes, now that most american's home computors could do this, why not change the system. The only advantage I can see to the electoral college is that without it, politicians would only pick the few, highly populated cities to campaign most heavilly in. Personally though, I'd rather be sure my vote is truly counted than have the candidates come to my city. You'd think that after our election was decided by the Supreme Court four years ago, we'd change the system. This shouldnt be a partisan argument becasue in a true democracy (which, I'd be willing to guess, most of us agree with) every one gets a vote.

 

[MikeD]

Whats the deal with the electoral college. As far as I know, the whole purpose of it in the beggining was becasue America didnt have the technology to count all the votes,

While that's a common idea, it's not really true. The electoral college is a states' rights issue. It was developed not to overcome technical problems, but (in part, and very basically) because there was a strong desire to keep the states' independent voices heard, especially the smaller states.

Now that the country thinks of itself as the "US" before a collaboration of independent states, the EC seems like an outmoded idea to many people. Whether it is or not, I'm not prepared to argue...personally, I don't think it's such a bad thing.

MD

 

[Changleen]

Although Mike, whilst the principal is as repectable as any of the other democratic methods out there, you must admit it has been somewhat corrupted by the allocation of votes. Did you see that stuff about the shapes voting regions have been contorted into these days?

 

[zod]

I think there are more important things to be dealt with than the EC. Namely, a National I.D. requirement to vote so we can put an end to voter fraud. Do you know that several states have more registered voters than there are people over 18 in their state......

 

[HedgeHog]

I think splitting the EC votes based on the popular vote (like Colorado is considering) may be a way to more accurately represent the population's votes in a state. If you're anything but a republican in GA, you are a LONG way from having any GA EC votes go to your candidate.

Who knows? A split of each states EC votes may even open up the presidential race to other parties.

 

[MikeD]

Who knows? A split of each states EC votes may even open up the presidential race to other parties.

Although we tend to hate the two party system here (anyone see South Park last night??), I have to say, I think it's a lot better than the multi-party systems in, say, Italy or someplace. Multi-party systems end up representing nobody and keep a country completely occupied with its internal politics. True, that keeps you harmless as far as the rest of the world is concerned, but that's not where I want the US to be. That works when you're small and harmless. The US can't afford to be harmless, especially with where we've put ourselves now.

Changleen, I wasn't trying to argue for or against the EC, really, just explain the fallacy of the 'technological limitations' explanation. It's not about representing the people, it's about representing the states. The US is a republic, not really a democracy.

MD

 

[DRB]

I think splitting the EC votes based on the popular vote (like Colorado is considering) may be a way to more accurately represent the population's votes in a state. If you're anything but a republican in GA, you are a LONG way from having any GA EC votes go to your candidate.

Who knows? A split of each states EC votes may even open up the presidential race to other parties.

If this had happened in the last election, neither candidate would have gotten the required 270. Which would have sent the election to the House of Representatives.....

 

[valve bouncer]

Although we tend to hate the two party system here (anyone see South Park last night??), I have to say, I think it's a lot better than the multi-party systems in, say, Italy or someplace. Multi-party systems end up representing nobody and keep a country completely occupied with its internal politics. True, that keeps you harmless as far as the rest of the world is concerned, but that's not where I want the US to be. That works when you're small and harmless. The US can't afford to be harmless, especially with where we've put ourselves now.



MD

Mike it hasn't stopped Italy from becoming a pretty successfull country currently a G8 member. I don't necessarily buy the arguement that a complex political system stops you from having a say in world affairs. I would argue that such a system makes you think long and hard before you do get involved something that GW and co didn't really do before this present debacle.

 

[Changleen]

I also agree that a multi party system is preferable to a two party system. A two party system breeds stagnation, reactive polarisation of the sides and even in a small country (like Italy?) fails to accurately represent the views of the people.

You have to admit that in the US there are a lot of people who'd love to vote libertarian or green or some other small choice, but due to the way the system is run now, this is a) pointless and b) in most cases impossible.

I think it'd be much cooler if the system allowed all the people who voted, say libertarian, across the US to have their votes counted towards one or two (maybe more?) libertarian seats in the senate. I think pretty quickly you'd see the influence and ideas of quite a few more ideas in politics.

The UK, traditionally a 2 party system (by voter choice) is now opening up considerably and the lib dems are now a significant force. This in turn has reduced the number of votes the main parties get and made it statistically easier for even more small parties to get their voices heard. In the UK now we have the UK first party (bunch of Nazis ) getting airtime on the news and in the media generally.

I think that the more opinions are out there and availible for public digestion the better. It keeps a check on the excesses of the main parties and if nothing else can force them to back away from their more extreme ideas.

 

[Changleen]

The US is a republic, not really a democracy.

The truth at last! :love:

 

[zod]

I thought that was an understood???

 

[Changleen]

I thought that was an understood???

Not if you listen to your cocksucker-in-chief.

 

[zod]

Changleen, you won't hear ANY U.S. politician call our Country a Republic but I don't see you flying off the handle at them in general.....only GW. Does someone need a hug?

 

[MikeD]

I thought that was an understood???

Yeah, I didn't consider it much of a revelation...

 

[Changleen]

Changleen, you won't hear ANY U.S. politician call our Country a Republic but I don't see you flying off the handle at them in general.....only GW. Does someone need a hug?

Nah, I'm good thanks. I can hold out for another 4 days....

 

[zod]

Yeah, I didn't consider it much of a revelation...

Changleen did........that damn cocksucker GW is lying to the people and telling us all it's Democracy........f*cking cocksucker liar

 

[zod]

Nah, I'm good thanks. I can hold out for another 4 days....

How about another 4 days and 4 years?????

 

[Changleen]

Changleen did........that damn cocksucker GW is lying to the people and telling us all it's Democracy........f*cking cocksucker liar

Damn right!

 

[Changleen]

How about another 4 days and 4 years?????