POL - A movement for direct election of the president

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I'm so tired of elections being reduced to sound bites and overly simplistic platforms which play only to fears and hot buttons.

Compulsory voting would only exacerbate this problem.

I know it ain't the best solution, but I guess I'm laboring under the (probably wrong) assumption that if people have to vote, they'll educate themselves better about it.

We do have proportional representation in the House. Not in the Senate. Probably a good compromise there, too. A strong third party would make things much more interesting.

Did you mean we should have PR in the House? Otherwise, I'm confused.

We need to be more involved. Because we're not, our participation has been reduced to selecting from one of two cadres of pretty people who can't even begin to grasp the issues themselves. We are all to blame for Iraq.

Yep... and the lowering and lowering of voter turnout has seemingly made the politicians in Washington more bold in their egregeous practices. Its almost like they are daring people to vote them out sometimes!

[Riggins44]

2000 election. Red counties voted for Bush, blue ones for Gore.

I'm in no way a Bush (heck, or Gore) advocate, but I think this clearly shows that the coastal counties would/could dominate an election.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by timmynausea

I was actually referring to you reading Barkeep's post and somehow concluding that he was endorsing a "New World Order," which I believe is, in fact, more evidence that you are deranged. Hence the joke that you are out of touch with "Earth," as in reality.

How can you read his post about the states becoming 'administrative departments' or whatever and not conclude that would be a radical reformation of our present 'world order?"

In fact, this has been an actual debate in some circles, usually promoted by 'new world order' types and communists/socialists as a more effective way of distibuting goods and services to 'the masses.' Of course, individual liberties and the safe-guards that present-day state soverignty provide would have to be 'brushed away' for the 'common good.'

It would also be a much more effective way of controlling the populance by the government.

Wouldn't have expected your type to have ever heard of this though, not the kind of thing usually discussed by Jon Stewart.

[Riggins44]

Some interesting definitions back from the 1920's... before we changed the meaning of Democracy.


CITIZENSHIP Democracy:

A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct" expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic--negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether is be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demogogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy

CITIZENSHIP Republic:

Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them. Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences. A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass. Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy. Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress. Is the "standard form" of government throughout the world. A republic is a form of government under a constitution which provides for the election of

(1) an executive and (2) a legislative body, who working together in a representative capacity, have all the power of appointment, all power of legislation, all power to raise revenue and appropriate expenditures, and are required to create (3) a judiciary to pass upon the justice and legality of their government acts and to recognize (4) certain inherent individual rights.

Take away any one or more of those four elements and you are drifting into autocracy. Add one or more to those four elements and you are drifting into democracy.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

How can you read his post about the states becoming 'administrative departments' or whatever and not conclude that would be a radical reformation of our present 'world order?"

Easy.. if you have ever had a class on reading comprehension, then you read his post and come to a vastly different conclusion than you have.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Easy.. if you have ever had a class on reading comprehension, then you read his post and come to a vastly different conclusion than you have.

Right, but even you don't seem to know what that would be.

[timmynausea]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Right, but even you don't seem to know what that would be.

Yeah we do. Barkeep merely used the term "administrative units" to describe states and you started foaming at the mouth.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Riggins44

Some interesting definitions back from the 1920's... before we changed the meaning of Democracy.


CITIZENSHIP Democracy:

A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct" expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic--negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether is be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demogogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy

CITIZENSHIP Republic:

Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them. Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences. A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass. Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy. Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress. Is the "standard form" of government throughout the world. A republic is a form of government under a constitution which provides for the election of

(1) an executive and (2) a legislative body, who working together in a representative capacity, have all the power of appointment, all power of legislation, all power to raise revenue and appropriate expenditures, and are required to create (3) a judiciary to pass upon the justice and legality of their government acts and to recognize (4) certain inherent individual rights.

Take away any one or more of those four elements and you are drifting into autocracy. Add one or more to those four elements and you are drifting into democracy.

Good stuff...and just more evidence that our education system today is dumbing down its students and future voting citizens to pave the way for the creation of something like 'administrative departments' in place of soverign states.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by timmynausea

Yeah we do. Barkeep merely used the term "administrative units" to describe states and you started foaming at the mouth.

Somewhere there is a map that has the U.S. divided into 10 new 'zones' or 'administrative units.' It was done by the U.N. to promote all the stuff about 'better distribution of goods' and such. If I can find it, I'll post it. Make no mistake, though, this is someone's vision of our future.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Somewhere there is a map that has the U.S. divided into 10 new 'zones' or 'administrative units.' It was done by the U.N. to promote all the stuff about 'better distribution of goods' and such. If I can find it, I'll post it. Make no mistake, though, this is someone's vision of our future.

And this has absolutely what to do with Barkeep's post? Though I must ask, does the map have black Sikorsky helicopters in the corner?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Somewhere there is a map that has the U.S. divided into 10 new 'zones' or 'administrative units.' It was done by the U.N. to promote all the stuff about 'better distribution of goods' and such. If I can find it, I'll post it. Make no mistake, though, this is someone's vision of our future.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

And this has absolutely what to do with Barkeep's post? Though I must ask, does the map have black Sikorsky helicopters in the corner?

Just amazed that someone would use those words in describing states and not fully realize what he/she was saying. Personally, I think the battle was lost long ago and what we are witnessing today is just the continuing spiral towards that.

Not sure about the helicopters, do know however that Walmart will now require each and every item sold to it by manufacturers and distributors to come equiped with RFID. Other companies are working with the government to better exploit the information they gather.

One example I heard of (technology is already developed, just needs to be installed) allows for this RFID to be imbedded into the sole of a pair of shoes that could then be tracked by sensors inside a doorway when the person walkes thru it. Trust me or not, things will be radically different in the next 5-10years.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by cartman

HA! Good one! I'm out!

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Just amazed that someone would use those words in describing states and not fully realize what he/she was saying. Personally, I think the battle was lost long ago and what we are witnessing today is just the continuing spiral towards that.

Not sure about the helicopters, do know however that Walmart will now require each and every item sold to it by manufacturers and distributors to come equiped with RFID. Other companies are working with the government to better exploit the information they gather.

One example I heard of (technology is already developed, just needs to be installed) allows for this RFID to be imbedded into the sole of a pair of shoes that could then be tracked by sensors inside a doorway when the person walkes thru it. Trust me or not, things will be radically different in the next 5-10years.

Also, you will be able to upload your consciousness onto a network. That's the part I'm most looking forward to.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Also, you will be able to upload your consciousness onto a network. That's the part I'm most looking forward to.

Oh, Bubba... by "you" here, he doesn't mean the generic third person... he means you personally. Have at it.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by Riggins44

2000 election. Red counties voted for Bush, blue ones for Gore.

I'm in no way a Bush (heck, or Gore) advocate, but I think this clearly shows that the coastal counties would/could dominate an election.

Which of course they should because they have the most people and thus the most affected by the choice of president.

In addition, the map is misleading for this type of argument. Because it's not winner take all under the new scenario being proposed; some of those blue counties you see will also have a lot of red votes (which will actually count) and vice versa.

[larrymcg421]

That map actually prove my argument, I think. That election was so close, within .5% I don't see how you can see the big cities dominated. They didn't. They barely won. The rural areas coiuld just as easily have won, like they did in 2004.

[Groundhog]

I found this article quite interesting (and scary):

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/sto...ction_stolen/1

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

That map actually prove my argument, I think. That election was so close, within .5% I don't see how you can see the big cities dominated. They didn't. They barely won. The rural areas coiuld just as easily have won, like they did in 2004.

But the point is that they would not have won in 2k if it was one man, one vote. They would have lost. That tiny patch of blue in a nation of red was enough for a majority of the voters.

Now, for those who don't believe in the sovereignity of states that's all fine and dandy but the people in all those red states would have to be convinced that the fairer method of allowing those tiny patches of blue to outvote them before this idea would fly.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Axxon

But the point is that they would not have won in 2k if it was one man, one vote. They would have lost. That tiny patch of blue in a nation of red was enough for a majority of the voters.

Now, for those who don't believe in the sovereignity of states that's all fine and dandy but the people in all those red states would have to be convinced that the fairer method of allowing those tiny patches of blue to outvote them before this idea would fly.

But I don;t buy that argument, because in 2000, Gore very nearly could have won the electoral college. With a couple more thousand votes in Florida, that map would look almost identical and Gore would still have won. So I still fail to see how the electoral college prevents what you guys are so concerned about.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

But I don;t buy that argument, because in 2000, Gore very nearly could have won the electoral college. With a couple more thousand votes in Florida, that map would look almost identical and Gore would still have won. So I still fail to see how the electoral college prevents what you guys are so concerned about.

It's not that it prevents it, exactly.

But I think both sides would argue that perception outweighs reality here.

So which perception dominates?

1) I'm a blue stater in a red state or a red stater in a blue state. Candidate X will get our electoral votes regardless of for whom I actually cast my vote. Direct election would be better.

2) The big cities are a massed bloc of power that, in a direct election, would greatly sway the outcome of the election. Their vote will have a greater impact than mine on the outcome in a direct election> The Electoral method is best.

I'm not suggesting that either of the above stances are necessarily true or reflective of the reality of the situation - just that in a political system that engenders pessimism in its electorate, those are the views I see being pre-eminent whether we stay with the current system or switch to direct election.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

That's easy. If an extreme issue comes up, the Dems and Repubs will get together to shut out the 3rd party. Theoretically. Hopefully.

I think the most likely scenario for a 3rd party is not on the fringe, though - I think it's in the center, coming up in the space left as the Ass and the Elephant move to their respective right and left.

I think I edited my post after you replied, but my point wasn't about the extreme issue. It's about every other issue. Basically both big parties will come up with a plan and try to persuade the 3rd party to vote their way, giving up concessions here and there to the point where the 3rd party, despite having only 1/10th of the votes gets to decide almost every issue.

Originally Posted by Axxon

But the point is that they would not have won in 2k if it was one man, one vote. They would have lost. That tiny patch of blue in a nation of red was enough for a majority of the voters.

That's at best misleading though because the candidates would not have campaigned the same way under your proposed system. Instead of spending time in toss-up states like Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, Bush would have just gone down Texas and the rest of the South/Midwest to get the vote out, while Gore would have done the same in SoCal/NY/DC. And there were probably an electorally significant number of voters who just didn't vote because they knew their state was decided.

Originally Posted by Ryche

If anything, I'd probably prefer a plan similar to Colorado's(?). One electoral vote for the winner of each congressional district and the other two electoral votes in each state for the winner of the state.

I know Maine does that and I think New Mexico is the other state. Colorado was voting on the issue via referendum before the election, but I think the measure failed. There was/(is?) speculation that devious operatives for both sides will start agitating for it in states where they are clearly not winning the whole state but could pick up districts (ie - Republicans in California, Democrats in Texas.)

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

But I don;t buy that argument, because in 2000, Gore very nearly could have won the electoral college. With a couple more thousand votes in Florida, that map would look almost identical and Gore would still have won. So I still fail to see how the electoral college prevents what you guys are so concerned about.

So, you're saying that when confronted with the facts you'd rather ignore them and play what if's? We can do that with most close elections and say if candidate x had done better in state y he would have won ( not still won though ).

I give up. You're right. 2k4 is the perfect example for you and 2k doesn't count because had people voted differently it would support your position.

Clearly I can't assail that logic.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

That's at best misleading though because the candidates would not have campaigned the same way under your proposed system. Instead of spending time in toss-up states like Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, Bush would have just gone down Texas and the rest of the South/Midwest to get the vote out, while Gore would have done the same in SoCal/NY/DC. And there were probably an electorally significant number of voters who just didn't vote because they knew their state was decided.

Actually Bishop that is exactly my point. In a one vote per person system each candidate would spend time focusing on the the big population centers that they can garner the most votes in and would have no incentive to move out to other states.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

1) I'm a blue stater in a red state or a red stater in a blue state. Candidate X will get our electoral votes regardless of for whom I actually cast my vote. Direct election would be better.

2) The big cities are a massed bloc of power that, in a direct election, would greatly sway the outcome of the election. Their vote will have a greater impact than mine on the outcome in a direct election> The Electoral method is best.

I would propose #1 is true; and #2 is definitely false (although some perceive it as true). Under #2, the guy walking down the paved sidewalk to the voting booth would have just as much power in his little hands as the woman walking down the dirt trail to her voting booth under the direct vote method. But that is definitely not the case under the electoral college method depending on whether your state is in play.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez

I would propose #1 is true; and #2 is definitely false (although some perceive it as true). Under #2, the guy walking down the paved sidewalk to the voting booth would have just as much power in his little hands as the woman walking down the dirt trail to her voting booth under the direct vote method. But that is definitely not the case under the electoral college method depending on whether your state is in play.

Right.

What I'm saying, sir, is that it doesn't matter whether the perception is TRUE - only how deeply held the perception is, and to what action the perception drives its adherents.

In other words, does the potential for self-fulfilling prophecy exist?

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Axxon

So, you're saying that when confronted with the facts you'd rather ignore them and play what if's? We can do that with most close elections and say if candidate x had done better in state y he would have won ( not still won though ).

I give up. You're right. 2k4 is the perfect example for you and 2k doesn't count because had people voted differently it would support your position.

Clearly I can't assail that logic.

No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying in 2000 and 2004 you had candidates that appealed to different types of voters. Bush appealed to rural voters and Gore/Kerry appealed to urban voters. The results show that sometimes the urban voters will dominate (2000), but also that there are enough rural voters to overcome that (2004). Never ever in any of my arguments did I say the rural voters will always win.

[clintl]

Actually, both elections were so close that the situation we have right now is that neither urban nor rural voters dominate under either system. So I wish people would move away from that argument, because it's a red herring that almost no resemblance to current reality.

[MalcPow]

I think one of the things about the electoral college that is seldom brought up in these discussions is the 270 requirement for election, and the mechanisms that are triggered if 270 is not met. It's important to realize that under our current system a third party candidate that say won Florida in 2000 (and no other state) would have sent the election to the House where the Presidency would be decided with each state having a single vote (North Dakota's .2% population now becomes 2% of the vote). I'm not sure how I feel about direct election, but I feel very strongly that a national third party cannot emerge until the EC system is amended again.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Not that I disagree with your overall point, but Kennedy won the popular vote.

I stand corrected - what a stupid mistake! :o

[MalcPow]

Having thought about it now for a few minutes I also think we should examine the ramifications of direct election on our fairly stable (and in my opinion comparably efficient to many other governments) two party system. Without the EC and the 270 requirement, who's to say that we won't see an explosion in the size of candidates, regional specialization, and a President like the founding fathers feared, representing only a handful of constituencies and with almost total incentive to pander to them completely? Direct election taped onto our current two party system sounds logical, but does its implementation to cure an occasional (and slight in my mind, but the stakes are obviously quite large) injustice destroy an otherwise effective system? I don't have an immediate answer, but there are serious ramifications that I think we are glossing over by getting bogged down in the urban/rural debate. I don't think it's absurd to think that depending on how it is implemented direct election could completely dismantle the republic as we know it and create a more pluralistic and bickering hodge podge that many european countries are plagued with.

[flere-imsaho]

Edit: Nevermind - ignore me.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by MalcPow

Having thought about it now for a few minutes I also think we should examine the ramifications of direct election on our fairly stable (and in my opinion comparably efficient to many other governments) two party system. Without the EC and the 270 requirement, who's to say that we won't see an explosion in the size of candidates, regional specialization, and a President like the founding fathers feared, representing only a handful of constituencies and with almost total incentive to pander to them completely? Direct election taped onto our current two party system sounds logical, but does its implementation to cure an occasional (and slight in my mind, but the stakes are obviously quite large) injustice destroy an otherwise effective system? I don't have an immediate answer, but there are serious ramifications that I think we are glossing over by getting bogged down in the urban/rural debate. I don't think it's absurd to think that depending on how it is implemented direct election could completely dismantle the republic as we know it and create a more pluralistic and bickering hodge podge that many european countries are plagued with.

I don't agree that "a more pluralistic and bickering hodge podge" is necessarily a bad thing. But I think that the argument for abolishing the EC doesn't imply any particular method for determining the winner, in the case that nobody garners > 50% of the vote.

[timmynausea]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I don't agree that "a more pluralistic and bickering hodge podge" is necessarily a bad thing. But I think that the argument for abolishing the EC doesn't imply any particular method for determining the winner, in the case that nobody garners > 50% of the vote.

I always thought instant runoff voting seemed pretty sweet. What are the arguments against that?

[Ryche]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

I found this article quite interesting (and scary):

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/sto...ction_stolen/1

I work in elections here and from my experience, 'rigging' these things would be extremely hard and even harder to keep secret. And a lot of the incidents that get reported as efforts to undermine voting are generally overblown and have very real, non-partisan reasons. For instance, our office was accused of trying to hold down the number of new registrations by running out of registration cards. There was no maliciousness involved though, we simply got overwhelmed by the number of groups coming in to pick up boxes of cards and for a couple days, we ran out until the new shipment arrived.

Suspect activity does take place with some voter registration groups, but it happens on both sides. If you ever want to register to vote, mail your registration in yourself, don't have someone else do it for you.

[MalcPow]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I don't agree that "a more pluralistic and bickering hodge podge" is necessarily a bad thing. But I think that the argument for abolishing the EC doesn't imply any particular method for determining the winner, in the case that nobody garners > 50% of the vote.

Yeah but I think that the lack of a necessity to garner at least close to that negates the need for two large parties and their organizational backing. We have to remember that Perot won 18% of the popular vote and people thought he was just wasting his time because there was no way he was winning an electoral college election. Without the EC, I think you have a lot more Perot's, and subsequently, a President elected by fewer and fewer Americans. I think this stresses our political system more than the current electoral process. A President elected by 20% of the voting population does not seem to have the popular mandate to do much of anything.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by MalcPow

Yeah but I think that the lack of a necessity to garner at least close to that negates the need for two large parties and their organizational backing. We have to remember that Perot won 18% of the popular vote and people thought he was just wasting his time because there was no way he was winning an electoral college election. Without the EC, I think you have a lot more Perot's, and subsequently, a President elected by fewer and fewer Americans. I think this stresses our political system more than the current electoral process. A President elected by 20% of the voting population does not seem to have the popular mandate to do much of anything.

Well, but if you have a run-off election, where Perot drops off, and the top two candidates go at it, then you CAN'T have a Presidente elected by 20%, or even 48% (as has been fairly common in recent years). I do understand your point, though. I don't really know how I feel about this.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Aside from the tragic math going on in this thread, there's an awful lot of attention being paid to "visits" here... is that what really matters in presidential elctions? Do you vote for the candidate who most frequently or most nearly visits your home town? Does anyone?


Anyway... I think the supposed debate about big state/small state is mostly specious. The modern electoral college campaign, fueled by highly sensitive polling data, does not segregate based on the size of the state -- it segregates based on the "availability" of the votes in the state, much as several people here have intimated.

Under a direct election sysytem (however implemented), the biggest change would not be a refocusing onto specific large urban areas...it would be the diffusion of the campaign to reach the many areas that are not currently really a part of the campaign. Like Daimyo, I have basically been irrelevant to the recent presiedneital elections, living in a state that was never in play, and even my local media has largely been ignored -- as Maryland, DC, and even Virginia are all easy calls in advance. My mother in Ohio, however, was barraged by presidential ads all year long last go-round... for good reason, it seems.


While the conceptual injustice of the elctoral college is an affront to my philosophical sensibilities, it's the practical effect that is the much bigger issue. It's not really about big or small states... it's about hot or cold states...
and direct election would eliminate the artificial value of arbitrary state lines and count every vote the same, resolving the problems on both fronts.

I don't think it can be stated any clearer or more correctly than this, the electoral college goes against the very democratic process we claim to love so dearly, it takes every vote and makes them all but irrelevent to the grande scheme of things.

Direct Elections NOW.

EDIT: and to add, for all those arguing that direct elections change the focus to the two big state of CA and NY, its rather odd that the republicans have won two straight elections without winning either of those states. They haven't in a VERY long time. If anything a direct election will take power away from those states as it will break up the total votes to each party instead of all for one.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Quiksand

I have basically been irrelevant to the recent presiedneital elections, living in a state that was never in play, and even my local media has largely been ignored -- as Maryland, DC, and even Virginia are all easy calls in advance. My mother in Ohio, however, was barraged by presidential ads all year long last go-round... for good reason, it seems.

I hadn't considered this angle... maybe I'm glad I live in a state decided before the election. Is the slim chance of my vote counting (even in 2000 Florida it was a difference of about 500 votes, not 3) worth a year of political advertisements?

[Huckleberry]

Originally Posted by RendeR

I don't think it can be stated any clearer or more correctly than this, the electoral college goes against the very democratic process we claim to love so dearly, it takes every vote and makes them all but irrelevent to the grande scheme of things.

Direct Elections NOW.

This would be a good point if it were true.

The fact that the Senate exists, and furthermore exists as the higher of the two legislative bodies, disputes your theory that this country is about 100% direct voting.

We directly elect our legislators and the document that founded our government provided for the Electoral College. I find it hard to swallow the idea that it goes against what "we claim to love so dearly" when it is in fact what we were founded on.

Meanwhile, what you should really campaign for is a modified electoral college. The winner of the state gets both "Senator" electors and the "House" electors are apportioned by percentage of the vote.

So in 2004 California had 55 electoral votes. Kerry gets 2 for the win. He gets 29 for the percentage and Bush gets 24 for the percentage. California goes 31-24 for Kerry.

Texas gives 2 to Bush. Then 20 to him and 12 to Kerry. 22-12 for Bush.
And so on down the line. I'm working on the election results if it were done this way. Should be interesting. So far it's 62-58 for Kerry after California, New York, and Texas. That sure doesn't look good for Kerry.

[Huckleberry]

The new method results in Bush 288, Kerry 250. Real results were Bush 286, Kerry 252 IIRC.

Still, I like this method as it reflects how we elect our federal legislature. No decisions are made directly by the people in Washington. I don't see why the Presidential election should be different. We directly elect our state leaders and our state's representatives in Congress.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

This would be a good point if it were true.

The fact that the Senate exists, and furthermore exists as the higher of the two legislative bodies, disputes your theory that this country is about 100% direct voting.

We directly elect our legislators and the document that founded our government provided for the Electoral College. I find it hard to swallow the idea that it goes against what "we claim to love so dearly" when it is in fact what we were founded on.

Meanwhile, what you should really campaign for is a modified electoral college. The winner of the state gets both "Senator" electors and the "House" electors are apportioned by percentage of the vote.

So in 2004 California had 55 electoral votes. Kerry gets 2 for the win. He gets 29 for the percentage and Bush gets 24 for the percentage. California goes 31-24 for Kerry.

Texas gives 2 to Bush. Then 20 to him and 12 to Kerry. 22-12 for Bush.
And so on down the line. I'm working on the election results if it were done this way. Should be interesting. So far it's 62-58 for Kerry after California, New York, and Texas. That sure doesn't look good for Kerry.

So, your premise for keeping a broken system like the electoral college is "because we started out with it"?

Preposterous. Its antiquated and unnecessary in todays era of mass communications and access to information. Your so called "modified electoral college" is no more useful than the old one, it doesn't change the election , it does get closer to a true vote for each american, but its still not complete.

There is NO valid reason to not have direct elections of all officials. Save perhaps a genuine fear of what the american populace might choose. From both sides. Turning a possible 300 million votes into 600 or so is idiocy and fraudulates the actual voting numbers.

Is fraudulates a real word? it sounded good....ahh well. Invalidates sounds too harsh for what I'm trying to say.

[Huckleberry]

Originally Posted by RendeR

So, your premise for keeping a broken system like the electoral college is "because we started out with it"?

Preposterous. Its antiquated and unnecessary in todays era of mass communications and access to information. Your so called "modified electoral college" is no more useful than the old one, it doesn't change the election , it does get closer to a true vote for each american, but its still not complete.

That's the thing. It isn't broken.

The United States were* not set up with one American, one vote as the only division of powers. Not only is each citizen to be equal, but also each state, which led to the Senate's design. It was a perfect compromise to appease both sides of the debate. There is a house where each American is equal and a house where each State is equal. This is how our national government is designed.

So, in fact, there most certainly is a valid reason to not elect our President by direct vote. And that reason is because this is not the way that our federal government was designed to work.

I highlighted the portion of your post where it becomes quite clear what your real problem with the electoral college is.

* - Typically speaking the United States were referred to as a plural noun pre-Civil War and a singular noun after. When designed, they were plural in common usage. This is another hint that the States are to be distinct and equal.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Oh, Bubba... by "you" here, he doesn't mean the generic third person... he means you personally. Have at it.

Who are you? Who rattled your cage? You one of them 'fleet followers?"

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

That's the thing. It isn't broken.

The United States were* not set up with one American, one vote as the only division of powers. Not only is each citizen to be equal, but also each state, which led to the Senate's design. It was a perfect compromise to appease both sides of the debate. There is a house where each American is equal and a house where each State is equal. This is how our national government is designed.

So, in fact, there most certainly is a valid reason to not elect our President by direct vote. And that reason is because this is not the way that our federal government was designed to work.

I highlighted the portion of your post where it becomes quite clear what your real problem with the electoral college is.

* - Typically speaking the United States were referred to as a plural noun pre-Civil War and a singular noun after. When designed, they were plural in common usage. This is another hint that the States are to be distinct and equal.

See this is the ting, it was desgned that way over 200 years ago, it IS broken in modern society. This current system was antiquated as soon as telephones reached 99.99 percent of homes back in the 30's and 40's. The designers had to deal with the fact that 200+ years ago the young states and new territories had little or no population and would have been steamrolled buy the original colonies in any election.

That isn't the case today. As it is the electoral college doesn't give every state any real say in things as has been shown before, its design and implementation make all but a dozen of the large states all but irrelevent.

Create a direct election and suddenly everyone, everywhere matters, its no longer a win these states and yer in election. its about individual votes. I don't care what effect this would have had on past elections, seriously, I'd still be pissed with W in office, I doubt I'd be any happier with a democrat, they're all bought and paid for losers. What I WANT to see is individual rights and votes of every american citizen to MATTER.

We might be one in 300 million, but thats better than being a 0 in the current system. Thats what about 40% of voters are right now, 0 meaning in elections.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by RendeR

See this is the ting, it was desgned that way over 200 years ago, it IS broken in modern society. This current system was antiquated as soon as telephones reached 99.99 percent of homes back in the 30's and 40's. The designers had to deal with the fact that 200+ years ago the young states and new territories had little or no population and would have been steamrolled buy the original colonies in any election.

That isn't the case today. As it is the electoral college doesn't give every state any real say in things as has been shown before, its design and implementation make all but a dozen of the large states all but irrelevent.

Create a direct election and suddenly everyone, everywhere matters, its no longer a win these states and yer in election. its about individual votes. I don't care what effect this would have had on past elections, seriously, I'd still be pissed with W in office, I doubt I'd be any happier with a democrat, they're all bought and paid for losers. What I WANT to see is individual rights and votes of every american citizen to MATTER.

We might be one in 300 million, but thats better than being a 0 in the current system. Thats what about 40% of voters are right now, 0 meaning in elections.

Your types always make this argument, the 'living Constitution' bullcrap. According to your logic, Citizen Kane should be colorized and Shakespear should be sold only in comic book form.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Shakespeare should be sold only in comic book form.

This is the platform of a potential 3rd party that I could get behind.

[Grammaticus]

I think we should just split into two countries. Then let the most successful governing philosophy prevail.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Your types always make this argument, the 'living Constitution' bullcrap. According to your logic, Citizen Kane should be colorized and Shakespear should be sold only in comic book form.

So you are saying, Bubba, that the Constitution is a finite, unchangeable document? If it is not a living document, then it must be dead and static, correct? So, by your logic, why is it your types are pushing for an amendment to the Constitution to ban gay marriage? If it is a static document, unable to be changed, I guess they are just spinning their (Bubba) wheels.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Your types always make this argument, the 'living Constitution' bullcrap. According to your logic, Citizen Kane should be colorized and Shakespear should be sold only in comic book form.

Crawl back under "Ignorance is Bliss" Rock. If you think the constitution wasn't designed to adjust to the times and society then we wouldn't be able to AMMEND IT.

My god your an ass.