What's new
By:

Hillary Going For Broke

I think IRV is a good idea. We also need to abolish the electoral college, imo. If you think about it, if literally no one in america voted except 1 californian and every single eligible voter in Utah, and the californian's single vote went to the democratic candidate and every single vote in utah went to the republican, the democrat would win. We have the tech to easily get rid of it. I know the political machine relies heavily on it to avoid the need to campaign in all states so they can pay places like Utah a token visit, but it is time this pre-industrial-revolution holdover goes down.
 
LogGrad98 said:
I think IRV is a good idea. We also need to abolish the electoral college, imo. If you think about it, if literally no one in america voted except 1 californian and every single eligible voter in Utah, and the californian's single vote went to the democratic candidate and every single vote in utah went to the republican, the democrat would win. We have the tech to easily get rid of it. I know the political machine relies heavily on it to avoid the need to campaign in all states so they can pay places like Utah a token visit, but it is time this pre-industrial-revolution holdover goes down.
Click to expand...

I think we need to abolish winner take all states, but the electoral college is a good thing to have in times of mass hysteria. It is the one check on the people voting in tyranny. If all states followed maines exa,ple of splitting their votes it would work out better.
 
I had an idea for the presidency. First, change the term to six years, with no option for re-election. Second, the winner of the presidential election is the president, the runner up is the VP. The term change will give the president a finite time frame to get something done. He can spend the first year kissing special interest ***, as they do now, and the last year campaigning for the next candidate, as they do now, but have an actual 4 years in between to get something done. The runner up part is to force partisan politics. You could also have a separate election for vice president, completely separate from the president. They could even overlap terms, say the VP elections are in the middle year of the term of the president. Shake things up a bit.
 
LogGrad98 said:
I had an idea for the presidency. First, change the term to six years, with no option for re-election. Second, the winner of the presidential election is the president, the runner up is the VP. The term change will give the president a finite time frame to get something done. He can spend the first year kissing special interest ***, as they do now, and the last year campaigning for the next candidate, as they do now, but have an actual 4 years in between to get something done. The runner up part is to force partisan politics. You could also have a separate election for vice president, completely separate from the president. They could even overlap terms, say the VP elections are in the middle year of the term of the president. Shake things up a bit.
Click to expand...

We actually did our first few presidential elections this way. It didn't impede partisanship, it simply put it in the white house. They realized I think that assassinations would be more likely if they kept it this way.
 
heyhey said:
We actually did our first few presidential elections this way. It didn't impede partisanship, it simply put it in the white house. They realized I think that assassinations would be more likely if they kept it this way.
Click to expand...

Hey at least that would be more interesting than what we have now.
 
I agree that the electoral college needs to go. As for the whole tyranny arguement agaisnt it. I do not see that as any more likely than when we have now. Abolishing it and going to popular vote is the only way you truly make every vote count. That way a Republican in Massachusets and a Democrat in Utah have a reason to vote for president. It actually means something.
 
Stoked said:
I agree that the electoral college needs to go. As for the whole tyranny arguement agaisnt it. I do not see that as any more likely than when we have now. Abolishing it and going to popular vote is the only way you truly make every vote count. That way a Republican in Massachusets and a Democrat in Utah have a reason to vote for president. It actually means something.
Click to expand...

Right. Maine has electoral college votes but they split them up. Utah and most states are winner take all. So, if we got rid of winner take all it would solve your problem.

Let's say fascism comes into vogue once every 400 years. Sure an electoral system seems silly for 39 out of 40 decades, but in that one decade it may be the thing that slows down the movement long enough for people to come to their senses.

Everything needs it's checks and balances even the ballot box.
 
heyhey said:
Right. Maine has electoral college votes but they split them up. Utah and most states are winner take all. So, if we got rid of winner take all it would solve your problem.

Let's say fascism comes into vogue once every 400 years. Sure an electoral system seems silly for 39 out of 40 decades, but in that one decade it may be the thing that slows down the movement long enough for people to come to their senses.

Everything needs it's checks and balances even the ballot box.
Click to expand...

There are already measures in place to control that. The constitution and bill of rights. There are certain things that you simply cannot vote in or out.

Even splitting them up by district it still makes some votes worthless. For example: A democrat in St George UT or a republican in Chicago, IL. Their votes still have no meaning on the presidential race. It would reduce that more than the current system sure but it is a half way measure.
 
Stoked said:
There are already measures in place to control that. The constitution and bill of rights. There are certain things that you simply cannot vote in or out.
Click to expand...

The constitution and the bill of rights are only as strong as the people demand. Check out lincoln's suspension of habeus corpus, McCarthyism, or George W. Bushes two terms. While the electors did not prevent these events they also were not part of an election campaign. I do think that a moussolini type figure would have a harder time with an electoral college than without.
Hitler and his Nazi's were supported by by about 40 % of the population and won election effectively through the spoiler effect. The other parties all opposed the nazi's. If they had an electoral system those electors(about 60%) could have chosen the runner up as opposed to a losing candidate. Further more in areas that had lower support the nazi party may not have been able to get say 10% of the electors even if they had 15% of the vote.

Even splitting them up by district it still makes some votes worthless. For example: A democrat in St George UT or a republican in Chicago, IL. Their votes still have no meaning on the presidential race. It would reduce that more than the current system sure but it is a half way measure.
Click to expand...

I totally Agree, which is why I would advocate for splitting electors by percentage of the vote in a given state.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top