USA Do you like the idea of the Electoral College?

[Lamb]

Do you like the idea of the Electoral College? Do you think it's time to change over to where we elect our President directly through our votes or is the Electoral College still a good representative of the people?

 

[tango]

Do you like the idea of the Electoral College? Do you think it's time to change over to where we elect our President directly through our votes or is the Electoral College still a good representative of the people?

I don't honestly think that any system is perfect. I imagine the Electoral College system works really badly if, say, you're a Republican in California. That said it's sometimes hard to know whether a direct vote would be any better overall.

I often think it's more important to figure who should be allowed to vote. I've always found it rather ironic that the original Tea Party had the call "no taxation without representation" and yet lawful immigrants to the US pay tax but don't get to vote. What's wrong with this picture?

 

[Lamb]

Heh, I used to live in an area where the dead would vote...and often

:zombie:

 

[psalms 91]

I think that the Electorial College should be replaced perhaps by direct vote

 

[Brighten04]

It has worked for over 200 years. I don't think it is broken. Men have just found it harder to manipulate.But any voting system has it's flaws, even if we change to popular vote count.

 

[Josiah]

While it's not an issue for me, yes, I think the Electorial College is an idea whose time has past and should be eliminated, replaced with direct vote.

I also think the "born an American citizen" thing should be dropped.... BTW, Ted Cruz (whom I like a lot) was born in Canada. His father was Cuban and his mother an American; technically is he a NATIVE BORN citizen of the USA? Perhaps.... but then whatever the purpose of this provision of our Constitution is irrelevant and meaningless.

AND we need to get a handle on our elections, which are by no means democratic. In California, MANY voters aren't even US Citizens.

 

[NewCreation435]

I believe the point of the electoral college was to put into play all of the states instead of just the most populated ones. If we got rid of it, some states would be completely ignored

 

[psalms 91]

And perhaps it should be direct vote with campaign reforms to limit the money involved

 

[tango]

And perhaps it should be direct vote with campaign reforms to limit the money involved

I've always thought the fixed electoral cycles were a good thing in a way. In the UK the government serves for up to five years, but the Prime Minister of the day decides when an election is held. The only caveats are that s/he must give a month's notice, it must be on a Thursday, and it cannot be more than five years after the previous one.

It's good that here you get a known cycle, but not so good in that everything builds up to it in such a relentless manner. The mudslinging seems inevitable however things are done.

I'd like to see term limits imposed at all levels of state and federal government, funding limits, and a restriction on campaigning style. My call to politicians is simple - if you want to tell me why I should vote for you, go right ahead, I'm listening. If all you want to do is explain why I shouldn't vote for the other guy save it - I won't vote for you just because you talk trash about your opponent unless you give me a reason why I should vote for you. And if you tell me why I should vote for you then you don't need to trash the other guy.

 

[psalms 91]

I've always thought the fixed electoral cycles were a good thing in a way. In the UK the government serves for up to five years, but the Prime Minister of the day decides when an election is held. The only caveats are that s/he must give a month's notice, it must be on a Thursday, and it cannot be more than five years after the previous one.

It's good that here you get a known cycle, but not so good in that everything builds up to it in such a relentless manner. The mudslinging seems inevitable however things are done.

I'd like to see term limits imposed at all levels of state and federal government, funding limits, and a restriction on campaigning style. My call to politicians is simple - if you want to tell me why I should vote for you, go right ahead, I'm listening. If all you want to do is explain why I shouldn't vote for the other guy save it - I won't vote for you just because you talk trash about your opponent unless you give me a reason why I should vote for you. And if you tell me why I should vote for you then you don't need to trash the other guy.

Yes, I agree, common sense and good practice if we could only get the politeceans to agree

 

[visionary]

We have to use our ID for everything except voting. Anyone with a driver's license can vote. They don't even have to be an American.

 

[tango]

We have to use our ID for everything except voting. Anyone with a driver's license can vote. They don't even have to be an American.

Since the call of the Boston Tea Party was "no taxation without representation " it's ironic that immigrants pay tax but don't get to vote, no?

 

[psalms 91]

Even more ironic that they are here illegally and drain our system in many cases

 

[Josiah]

I believe the point of the electoral college was to put into play all of the states instead of just the most populated ones. If we got rid of it, some states would be completely ignored

Good point. Now, campaigns are often focused on "critical states" such as Ohio, Florida, etc. We in California don't see much of the campaign because CA is pretty much a slam-dunk for the Democrat (even is such is Satin incarnate) - it's now very unlikely any Republican candidate for President will win the huge block of CA electorial votes. Eliminating that electorial college will mean the election will focus on population centers - CA, NY, Texas - smaller states, smaller towns, rural areas will be ignored. It would mean a shift in focus, and since large urban areas tend to be more democrat, likely an advantage to the Democrat candidates.


My half cent.


Pax


- Josiah

 

[tango]

Even more ironic that they are here illegally and drain our system in many cases

I was talking about legal immigrants rather than illegals, but either way it's a bit ironic that "no taxation without representation" only applies to some these days. It's a bit odd that an immigrant who runs a business that employs American citizens and pays a lot of taxes doesn't get a say in what happens to those taxes, but a workshy American who has never worked and never plans to work does get a say.

 

[tango]

Good point. Now, campaigns are often focused on "critical states" such as Ohio, Florida, etc. We in California don't see much of the campaign because CA is pretty much a slam-dunk for the Democrat (even is such is Satin incarnate) - it's now very unlikely any Republican candidate for President will win the huge block of CA electorial votes. Eliminating that electorial college will mean the election will focus on population centers - CA, NY, Texas - smaller states, smaller towns, rural areas will be ignored. It would mean a shift in focus, and since large urban areas tend to be more democrat, likely an advantage to the Democrat candidates.


My half cent.


Pax


- Josiah

That's why I like the idea of small government, as small as possible such that it can still function.

If we figure that government should protect the fabric of society rather than endlessly trying to protect people from themselves and regulating activities conducted between consenting adults, we could shrink it hugely.

To be clear, when I refer to activities between consenting adults I'm not just talking about sexual activity but anything from sex to business to association to anything else that adults may decide to do. If I want to buy your diseased cow and we agree a price, whose business is it except yours and mine? If two or more consenting adults want to engage in sexual activity in private, it's nobody's business except theirs. If people want to conduct trade and agree the terms and the price, why does the government need to get involved? If I want to place a bet with another person or a casino, why does the government feel the need to say I'm not allowed to place that bet?

That's not to say there's no place for regulation at all, but the less the government meddles in our day-to-day lives the less it matters what flavor of politician occupies the White House. And since a lot of legislation appears to be little more than one group of people trying to impose their preferences on everyone else, the concept of "live and let live" could be revived and people encouraged to mind their own business.

 

[Ruth]

I don't know how they came up with the electoral vote but I would rather have the popular vote win considering it is the most realistic vote.

 

[visionary]

It has worked for over 200 years. I don't think it is broken. Men have just found it harder to manipulate.But any voting system has it's flaws, even if we change to popular vote count.

Have Obama as the default in the computer voting machine... That is how he got elected.

 

[Highlander]

I don't know how they came up with the electoral vote but I would rather have the popular vote win considering it is the most realistic vote.

They originally came up with the electoral college in the early years of our country when communications were very slow and poor. The thought was that the bigger population centers would have more complete knowledge of candidates and, thus, their states were given more weight than states further out from the urban areas. So basically it is a hangover from America's youth.

I used to hate the electoral college -- until it saved us from having a "President Algore." But, all in all, I do believe that the popular vote is the best way to determine our presidents. If more people want candidate X than candidate Y, then candidate x should be the winner.

 

[psalms 91]

Popular vote would be the better choice