Jump to content

Here is an idea to improve our political election process


Recommended Posts

marvinthemartian (1/30/2008)
The Dems nominate their nominee and place that person on the ballot

The Repubs nominate their nominee and place that person on the ballot

The bottom line on the ballot states "NONE OF THE ABOVE"

If NONE OF THE ABOVE wins, both parties have to go back and start over.

That would work like an anti-social message board. I like it:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

marvinthemartian (1/30/2008)
Waterproof_ace83 (1/30/2008)
there is a none of the above option every time, actually there is more than one. no one votes for it.

I have never, ever seen that option on any ballot I have ever voted on.

green party

libertatian

constitution party

independent

if you dont like the republicrats, pick one of the alternatives

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Waterproof_ace83 (1/30/2008)
marvinthemartian (1/30/2008)
Waterproof_ace83 (1/30/2008)
there is a none of the above option every time, actually there is more than one. no one votes for it.[/q

green party.......LOL a bunch of wackos....Cynthia McKinney anyone?

libertatian.......Good ideas on many topics..not so good on others..unelectable at this point nationally

constitution party.....dont know a whole lot about them

independent......becoming more an independent with every passing day

if you dont like the republicrats, pick one of the alternatives

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Waterproof_ace83 (1/30/2008)
marvinthemartian (1/30/2008)
Waterproof_ace83 (1/30/2008)
there is a none of the above option every time, actually there is more than one. no one votes for it.

I have never, ever seen that option on any ballot I have ever voted on.

green party

libertatian

constitution party

independent

if you dont like the republicrats, pick one of the alternatives

As it stands now, Id vote straight Libertarian or anti incumbent where thats not a choice. Maybe a few years of suffering will shake some sense into the populace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

marvinthemartian (1/30/2008)
Waterproof_ace83 (1/30/2008)
marvinthemartian (1/30/2008)
Waterproof_ace83 (1/30/2008)
there is a none of the above option every time, actually there is more than one. no one votes for it.[/q

green party.......LOL a bunch of wackos....Cynthia McKinney anyone?

libertatian.......Good ideas on many topics..not so good on others..unelectable at this point nationally

constitution party.....dont know a whole lot about them

independent......becoming more an independent with every passing day

if you dont like the republicrats, pick one of the alternatives

those are just a few of the parties, there are a bunch out there, if you really dont like who the major 2 have find one of the smaller ones that you like and start the steps towards real change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

XLDenaliReturns (1/31/2008)
GET RID OF THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE

You would end up marginalizing most of the states. Since most of the population of the country rests in just a few states (California, New York, Georgia, Florida, Texas, a few others), the polticians would spend all their time in those states and states like Wyoming, Montana, Alaska, Hawaii, Vermont, and many other small-population states would be almost completely ignored.

The electoral college guarantees that each state has at least some voice in who will be President. Getting rid of it would be a big mistake.

You know, I never cease to be amazed at the brilliance of the Founding Fathers.

Direwolf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

direwolf (1/31/2008)
XLDenaliReturns (1/31/2008)
GET RID OF THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE

You would end up marginalizing most of the states. Since most of the population of the country rests in just a few states (California, New York, Georgia, Florida, Texas, a few others), the polticians would spend all their time in those states and states like Wyoming, Montana, Alaska, Hawaii, Vermont, and many other small-population states would be almost completely ignored.

The electoral college guarantees that each state has at least some voice in who will be President. Getting rid of it would be a big mistake.

You know, I never cease to be amazed at the brilliance of the Founding Fathers.

Direwolf

Compared to the MASSIVE attention these small states receive from candidates today. There's a reason it's called "fly-over country". ;)

Btw, the "brilliance" of the Founding Fathers is offset in this case by the stupidity of the state legislatures who apportion their electoral votes in a winner-take-all system. Apportioning the electoral votes proportional to each candidate's vote share would be the better way to go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ramen (1/31/2008)
direwolf (1/31/2008)
XLDenaliReturns (1/31/2008)
GET RID OF THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE

You would end up marginalizing most of the states. Since most of the population of the country rests in just a few states (California, New York, Georgia, Florida, Texas, a few others), the polticians would spend all their time in those states and states like Wyoming, Montana, Alaska, Hawaii, Vermont, and many other small-population states would be almost completely ignored.

The electoral college guarantees that each state has at least some voice in who will be President. Getting rid of it would be a big mistake.

You know, I never cease to be amazed at the brilliance of the Founding Fathers.

Direwolf

Compared to the MASSIVE attention these small states receive from candidates today. There's a reason it's called "fly-over country". ;)

True. But if you think it's bad now, imagine what it would be like if those states didn't have any voice at all.

Think about the power they have. If not for all those small, insignificant states going the same way, we have a different president for the past eight years and history is completely changed. I'm not trying to start a political argument here over that president, but it is a fact that it was only because Bush won ALL of the small states that he won the Presidency. Those small states with their three electoral votes apiece are critical to providing balance to the massive states like California and New York. If we had a purely popular election, it's entirely possible that California would be the deciding ground all by itself since the state is so huge and has such a massive population.

The only change I would make to the system would be to split California in half as far as the electoral college is concerned. It is ridiculous to have 50+ electoral votes in the hands of one state, no matter who gets those votes.

Direwolf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

octoslash (1/31/2008)
Ramen (1/31/2008)
octoslash (1/31/2008)

GET RID OF THE POPULAR VOTE

THIS ISN'T A DEMOCRACY

Yeah, because the Founding Fathers NEVER wanted the public to elect their representatives. :hehe:

Well they sure as **** didn't want a DEMOCRACY, either, smart guy.

They wanted public opinion to influence policy outcomes (e.g., democracy) via the election of representatives. So yes, they did want democracy. They simply wanted the democratic aspect of the system to be checked by republican institutions. Remember that selection of Electoral College delegates is given to state legislatures in the Constitution, and state legislatures were always selected by popular vote. Over time the state legislatures each decided to cut out the middle man and let the public choose the allocation of delegates.

The Founders were extremely practical when they created this government. Most of their choices were not based on brilliant insight but rather on pragmatic compromises between the competing factions of the day. Some of those compromises are antiquated, no longer serving their original function, and it's time to consider their usefulness in modern politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

octoslash (1/31/2008)

GET RID OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

IT WASN'T CREATED TO HAVE POWER OVER THE STATES TO BEGIN WITH

THAT'S RIGHT. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WAS NEVER INTENDED TO BE SUPREME OVER STATES:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

direwolf (1/31/2008)
True. But if you think it's bad now, imagine what it would be like if those states didn't have any voice at all.

Think about the power they have. If not for all those small, insignificant states going the same way, we have a different president for the past eight years and history is completely changed. I'm not trying to start a political argument here over that president, but it is a fact that it was only because Bush won ALL of the small states that he won the Presidency. Those small states with their three electoral votes apiece are critical to providing balance to the massive states like California and New York. If we had a purely popular election, it's entirely possible that California would be the deciding ground all by itself since the state is so huge and has such a massive population.

The only change I would make to the system would be to split California in half as far as the electoral college is concerned. It is ridiculous to have 50+ electoral votes in the hands of one state, no matter who gets those votes.

Direwolf

So you want Republican states [::cough:: TEXAS ::cough::] allocated winner-take-all but Democratic states allocated proportionally or have their power split (presumably to give more electoral votes to Republicans).

How convenient. :hehe:

Your argument about the small states is akin to saying that jumping two feet in the air makes you more likely to bump your head on the moon. The states get so little attention now that any change wouldn't be noticeable. Allocating delegates proportionally would split California's 50+ electoral college votes (as well as Texas, New York, and other large states), which would mean that the opposite party would visit those states more often.

You could have a threshold (say 60%) for electoral votes so that if a candidate receives more than that percent of the vote they win all of the state's delegates. That way GOPers could get all of the small state's vote IF they campaigned there, giving those smaller states more power.

From my perspective, the overwhelming power of the larger states (combined with the winner-take-all system) offsets whatever slight problems there would be for smaller states as a result of changing the current system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...