Don't want to vote for Nader in your swing state?

[Jingus 0]

If that did happen, those people could easily fuck with the food supply, thus evening out the system once again.

 

Why is the concept of majority rule so hard to understand? It's not a perfect system, but our founding fathers understood that; that's why we have both a House and a Senate. I don't think that eliminating the bugs in an old and obsolete voting system would cause the farmers of America to get treated any worse than they do now.

[Guest MikeSC]

If that did happen, those people could easily fuck with the food supply, thus evening out the system once again.

 

Why is the concept of majority rule so hard to understand? It's not a perfect system, but our founding fathers understood that; that's why we have both a House and a Senate. I don't think that eliminating the bugs in an old and obsolete voting system would cause the farmers of America to get treated any worse than they do now.

You live in a big city?

-=Mike

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

Because, I don't want New York and California dictating what the rest of the country does. The fact that people in those states refer to the mid-west as fly over country just makes me want to backhand them. That's the kind of elitist bullshit that I don't want.

 

With the current system most states come into play. Take Ohio, no candidate wins an election without winning our state. So we get plenty of visits and get to see the candidates about once a month instead of maybe getting one stop and a speech. The system benefits my state greatly.

[Jingus 0]

You live in a big city?

 

Nope, never have.

 

Because, I don't want New York and California dictating what the rest of the country does...

 

Take Ohio, no candidate wins an election without winning our state.

 

What if I don't want Ohio dictating what the rest of the country does?

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

Ohio doesn't and won't. With the current system we play our part in the scheme of things. We just actually get attention instead of being ignored for New York and California.

[Jingus 0]

I don't think that geographical positioning has that much of an effect on presidential voting these days. No matter who you are or where you live, odds are that you'll never get to speak to a candidate, and probably never even get to hear one live unless you're willing to travel a bit. Both Bush and Kerry have given speeches and held conferences near where I live; all of them were invitation-only affairs which were closed to the general public.

 

So, considering that 1. I never even get to see a candidate with my own eyes, and 2. That I already know who is going to win my state no matter who I vote for, it makes me feel less than satisfied with the electoral college.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

No, your state gets an inordinate amount of attention, not just "attention".

[Guest BDC]

If that did happen, those people could easily fuck with the food supply, thus evening out the system once again.

Tell me what's good about this. The urban population is determining the policy for the rest of the country which is NOT urban and our recourse is to withhold food? Fantastic.

 

You realize that you're bitching over an anomoly, right? Four times out of the entire history of the country?

[2GOLD 0]

If that did happen, those people could easily fuck with the food supply, thus evening out the system once again.

Tell me what's good about this. The urban population is determining the policy for the rest of the country which is NOT urban and our recourse is to withhold food? Fantastic.

 

You realize that you're bitching over an anomoly, right? Four times out of the entire history of the country?

 

And if we did change it to popular, one side would be bitching when they lost the first election under said system.

 

It's a no win discussion.

 

Just make the damn popular vote worth 10 electoral votes and leave the old system in place.

[Jingus 0]

Tell me what's good about this. The urban population is determining the policy for the rest of the country which is NOT urban and our recourse is to withhold food? Fantastic.

Not a serious suggestion, more of a "modest proposal".

 

What is so hard to understand? The majority of people get to make the decisions, period. Whether you like it or not, that's the way a democratic system of government works.

 

You realize that you're bitching over an anomoly, right?  Four times out of the entire history of the country?

 

Four out of forty-three presidents have been elected this way. Almost ten percent of the people who've made it to the Oval Office were actually voted against more than they were voted for. I'd say that's a serious glitch in the system.

[Guest GreatOne]

Oh the hilarity that would ensue if say the rules were changed and the popular vote were in effect as the ultimate winner this year. Bush wins the popular vote, but Kerry wins the electoral in this hypothetical situation.

 

I mean christ you think AngleSault wears out the sports threads going on about the Yankees, that'd have nothing on Jobber, snuffbox and co. (BUT KERRY HAD MORE ELECTORAL VOTES DAMMIT!!!!!)

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

I think the important issue here is that I'm disenfranchising Nader voters with every breath.

[Guest BDC]

I think the important issue here is that I'm disenfranchising Nader voters with every breath.

And, sir, you're doing a fine, fine job. Keep up the good work.

[Guest MikeSC]

Tell me what's good about this.  The urban population is determining the policy for the rest of the country which is NOT urban and our recourse is to withhold food?  Fantastic.

Not a serious suggestion, more of a "modest proposal".

 

What is so hard to understand? The majority of people get to make the decisions, period. Whether you like it or not, that's the way a democratic system of government works.

Do you really want a gov't where the majority gets EVERYTHING it wants?

 

Hell, what good would a popular vote system do, given the LONG history of unbelievable corruption in big-city politics?

[Jingus 0]

Personally, I do think the electoral college does have some good features, and shouldn't be dropped completely. I think we should do what Maine is already doing: split the electoral votes by the percentage of popular votes either candidate receives in that state.

Why does everyone keep thinking that I want a popular vote system? True, I do think it'd serve better than a system where the loser can win, but read the above for what I wish would happen.

[Guest GreatOne]

Why does everyone keep thinking that I want a popular vote system?

Cause you're going on and on about it, perhaps?

[Perfxion 0]

How hard is it for people to understand that the popular vote means every vote is equal. So if someone from CA votes for a Republican holds the same weight as if someone from Texas were to do so. It makes every vote weight the same.

[Guest BDC]

Because they wouldn't campaign for people in rural areas. Why bother? Hit up and pander to the urban vote if you're going to win, screw us, we just occupy most of the rest of the nation.

[Jingus 0]

It would be impossible to win by campaigning in only New York and Los Angeles. When every vote counts, you'd have to canvas the entire country.

 

Or, to put it another way: how often do the Democrats stop in Texas now to make speeches? How many Republican press conferences were held in New York lately? Answer: not many, because we already know where all those electoral votes are going.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

Because they wouldn't campaign for people in rural areas. Why bother? Hit up and pander to the urban vote if you're going to win, screw us, we just occupy most of the rest of the nation.

The Republican Party, the party which has lost the majority of urban areas since 1932, will go to those areas to get votes and ignore you guys.

 

The Democratic Party, which wins large majorities in those urban areas wouldn't try to branch out and get some more votes.

 

Something tells me that there'll be campaigning in suburban areas and get out the vote efforts in rural areas.

 

Do you suspect there's also people living in Kansas or Utah who would vote Democrat but won't do it because it won't matter?

 

Do you suspect the same about Republican voters in Rhode Island or Hawaii?

 

But, since George W. Bush will hit the stump in Heavily Democratic areas.. i'm sure that proves the badness of the Popular vote.

 

But anyways.. I'd imagine there would be a rise in turnout with a popular vote.

 

Anyways.. put "None of the Above" on the ballots. You'd at least get the disgruntled voters to show up for that.

[BX 0]

Media, media, media. That's all I hear about why Dean failed.

 

Since this isn't a Dean thread I'll just say that good advertising can make a good product great but no amount of good advertising can make a shitty product good

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Because they wouldn't campaign for people in rural areas. Why bother? Hit up and pander to the urban vote if you're going to win, screw us, we just occupy most of the rest of the nation.

So far, campaign in rural areas is majorily what they do.

 

Again, unless I can afford a $250,000 a plate dinner, I don't get to see anyone important. Meanwhile in Rural Ohio they just about can't walk to the Post Office without having to walk around another candidate "town hall meeting."

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Because, I don't want New York and California dictating what the rest of the country does.  The fact that people in those states refer to the mid-west as fly over country just makes me want to backhand them.  That's the kind of elitist bullshit that I don't want.

This is the root thought of every small state citizen who can't stand the idea that the guy who gets the most votes wins because it reduces his power.

 

Give it up. This is a DEMOCRACY. It is the worst system of government in the world, but only if you don't count everything else.

 

I don't understand where all this shit is about urban people being the only ones considered important. I know from living here that people outside of the big city can get together enough votes to defeat an initiative to give money to where we don't want it. Almost every election I and many others vote down propositions to give arm sacks of money to Los Angeles and screw the rest of us. So yes, I have lived in a small city, we're barely on the outskirts of a large city which means we often get ignored services-wise to serve the people in the big city.

 

My midway proposition, if you will, is to keep the college but split a state's electoral votes into an appropriate percentage for how much each candidate got. This way you don't have 49% of the people's votes being discounted because 51% voted for another guy.

 

If you think you'd be screwed, look at the above, that's even screwier.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Re: BX's picture posts:

 

I remember that McDonald's story -- I didn't know the manager offered her free meals. Hahahahahaha. I think 100k is a bit overkill, but that chicken's head is worth more than a few greasy burgers...

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

My midway proposition, if you will, is to keep the college but split a state's electoral votes into an appropriate percentage for how much each candidate got. This way you don't have 49% of the people's votes being discounted because 51% voted for another guy.

 

I find that to be agreeable as well.

[Dr. Tom 0]

Give it up. This is a DEMOCRACY.

Actually, it's a democratic republic. Big difference.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

it seems to be a difference that Bush isn't mentioning when it comes to Iraq.

 

One idea..

 

combine the proportional system with the winner takes all.. either have 1076 votes, or split the votes to have 538 votes total