Site design:A lot of new content added.
Check the home page.
A lot of new content added.
Check the home page.
New! Thanatopsis "Requiem" Available now.
Studio Videos Live in studio performances
Live in studio performances
Started by gkg, June 21, 2006, 06:07:41 pm
QuoteLOL!!! i could live on pizza. well... and red wine.it\'s funny how often i was told i was naive for thinking that abolishing the electoral college would be feasible. the fact is to me NOT abolishing it is unfeasible. it is the very reason we have such shitty voter turn out, but of course, there are many in the places of power who very much want us to have shitty voter turn out - and to keep the common man from determining his own fate. that whole \'we know what\'s best for you so you just keep tilling the soil and shoeing the horses, we\'ll take care of the hard work of government\' mentality.
QuoteThere is no guarentee this would increase voter turnout, and I don\'t think you can support your claim that the electoral college is the cause for low voter turnout. Were you saying all of this when Bill Clinton was in office? Nice job of throwing out a bunch of unrealistic steretypes.Why was the electoral college useful way back when but not now? I don\'t think it has anything to do with the absence of powdered wigs, as someone else here puts it. It would be nice to have a political discussion, even a heated arguement, but so far everything I\'ve read is irrational, emotional and lacks any logic.
Quote1. The Electoral College gives disproportionate weight to the votes of citizens of small states. For example, a vote by a resident of Wyoming counts about four times more--electorally--than a vote by a California resident. 2. Most Americans believe that the person who receives the most votes should become president. Direct election is seen as more consistent with democratic principles than is the Electoral College system. 3. If presidents were elected by direct popular vote, they would wage a campaign and advertise all across the nation, rather than (as they do in the Electoral College system) concentrating almost all of their time and effort in a handful of battleground states. The Electoral College system encourages candidates to pander to the interests of voters in a few closely contested states. 4. When the winner of the Electoral College is not the candidate who received the most votes of the people, the new president will face questions about his legitimacy.
Quotewhere why and how do you equate doing away with the electoral college with losing the state counts? votes would still be gathered and noted within the town/city/borough and state they are cast.i\'m sorry but to me it makes no sense to have Wyoming have the same weight as California or New York - they don\'t have the same population, don\'t provide the same level of GNP, don\'t use the same number of tax dollars - giving them equal weight makes no sense at all. each state should have the weight of their actual population.the 2004 vote was a sorry excuse for a vote and the actual winner is unknown - far too much tinkering went on. the 2000 vote is likely have been nearly as bad though it\'s hard to tell. all in all - i don\'t frankly believe that Bush was ever truly elected, because we cannot trust the results that put him in office. not to mention that the supreme court decided the 2000 election in the end, not the voters.it makes absolutely no sense to perpetuate the electoral college, i\'m sorry - your arguments don\'t sway my view in the least. especially that one about them trying to connect person to person. the electoral college actually does discourage voters - please understand that. everyone i have talked to has said it is discouraging because they basically believe that their vote does not count. they do it because the feel it is their duty (although some in fact say this is why they do not vote).it does not encourage candidates to do more person to person campaigning - it encourages candidates to try and sway the delegates, not the people on the street. it is the province of the lobbyists.
Quotenot everything was a response to your post - if you read Buswolley\'s you\'d see that much or most of it was actually directed toward that post and not your own.i agree with the notion that lobbyists are a part of the system now and would likely continue to be, and there are differnt types of lobbyists, frankly, so i don\'t see that they should all be done away with. however, having said that, i do find the notion that we are wedded forever to a system created two hundred years ago because of an inability to provide for an individual vote for several reasons that were legitimate 200 years ago and are now obsolete.as you said, things change, and the electoral system in this country is one thing that should change to reflect the best interests of the populace.
Quotenope. i was answering buswolley and you must realize that because your first statement was that you didn\'t understand the "person-to-person remark" - of course you didn\'t because it wasn\'t directed to your remarks it was directed to buswolley. as was most of what i said, not all, but nearly all.you\'re out for an argument not a discussion, so i\'m just going to have to let you have your little steam vent on your own.
QuoteMy predictions: electoral college stays. Iraq will get on its feet eventually and become a strong and productive peaceful country. And far left liberals will continue to be disappointed because the glass is half empty.