-TSS- Posted March 9, 2013 Report Posted March 9, 2013 An interesting article in the Economist a couple of weeks ago. http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21571485-plan-change-electoral-college-carries-whiff-desperation-moving-goalposts?zid=309&ah=80dcf288b8561b012f603b9fd9577f0e Namely, should the whole idea of the electoral college be consigned to the dustbin and move to a pure popular vote? If not as radical as that should the Congress-districts be the winner-takes-all mandates rather than entire states? On the other hand, changes to the current system would change the campaigning as well. When everything is not decided in 2-3 swing states the candidates should reach out to every voter across the country. This would pose a problem too. The so-called big tent candidates win on being moderate. In a different system you must stand out and the election could polarise people even more. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted March 9, 2013 Report Posted March 9, 2013 I like the idea of non-Americans on a Canadian forum commenting on a British article on how the American system should be changed. I'm sure B_C will love this one. Since the US vote is almost a straight-up national vote as it is, then this arrangement would not be such a shift or too difficult to imagine. But, at first glance I think the Democrats would gain from such an arrangement and as such it wouldn't be an easy go of it. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
-TSS- Posted March 9, 2013 Author Report Posted March 9, 2013 If it were a question of any other country than the US your tantrum would make sense. As the question is about the US, we all on this globe do have a right to say how the US-president is elected. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted March 9, 2013 Report Posted March 9, 2013 If it were a question of any other country than the US your tantrum would make sense. As the question is about the US, we all on this globe do have a right to say how the US-president is elected. You must see a lot of tantrums in your daily life, if my post was a tantrum. Why do you think we have a ride to override American ideas of how the president is elected ? Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Shady Posted March 9, 2013 Report Posted March 9, 2013 If it were a question of any other country than the US your tantrum would make sense. As the question is about the US, we all on this globe do have a right to say how the US-president is elected.You consider that a tantrum? Come'on man, don't be ridiculous.Btw, should Americans have a say in how we elect our government? How about the Chinese too? Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 9, 2013 Report Posted March 9, 2013 Why do you think we have a ride to override American ideas of how the president is elected ? Stock answer: Because whatever the Americans do impacts all the people of the earth, all the animals, all the trees, all the rocks, and certainly all the petroleum. The Americans are even taking over on Mars ! Their dark machines are leaving the solar system right now to dominate the galaxy, and killing innocent terrorists around the world. They must be stopped with votes from Finland ! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
-TSS- Posted March 9, 2013 Author Report Posted March 9, 2013 In order to direct this thread again on the op of the question I must answer to the question posed by myself: No Having said that, I fully understand the problems people have with Ohio or other swing states every time electing the president. However, in my opinion the US-system is a splendid in its way how it emphasises the very federalism the country is built on. So, if it were up to me, I wouldn't change it but as it is not just up to me and there is a lot of discontent hence the discussion. Quote
Bryan Posted March 9, 2013 Report Posted March 9, 2013 Americans can do whatever they want, it's their system. It is, however, one of the most corrupt, least democratic systems around. Even Cuba has straight up democracy in comparison. Quote
Shady Posted March 9, 2013 Report Posted March 9, 2013 Americans can do whatever they want, it's their system. It is, however, one of the most corrupt, least democratic systems around. Even Cuba has straight up democracy in comparison. Complete nonsense. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 9, 2013 Report Posted March 9, 2013 Yeah....what the Americans need is a system whereby their head of state is determined by the marriage and mating habits of the European 1%. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Michael Hardner Posted March 9, 2013 Report Posted March 9, 2013 Stock answer: Because whatever the Americans do impacts all the people of the earth, all the animals, all the trees, all the rocks, and certainly all the petroleum. The Americans are even taking over on Mars ! Their dark machines are leaving the solar system right now to dominate the galaxy, and killing innocent terrorists around the world. They must be stopped with votes from Finland !That means Chile and Africa (and America) gets to vote for our Canadian PM ? And if we get Proportional Representation then ... ohboy ... Green Party here we come ! Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Michael Hardner Posted March 9, 2013 Report Posted March 9, 2013 Americans can do whatever they want, it's their system. It is, however, one of the most corrupt, least democratic systems around. Even Cuba has straight up democracy in comparison.How many Cubans can pick their own topping at Dairy Queen, hmmmm ? You call that choice ? Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Bryan Posted March 9, 2013 Report Posted March 9, 2013 How many Cubans can pick their own topping at Dairy Queen, hmmmm ? You call that choice ? Cubans have Coppelia, way better than Dairy Queen. Quote
Topaz Posted March 9, 2013 Report Posted March 9, 2013 Canadian or American, I sure most would agree campaigning is toooooooooo long and cost toooooooo much. Quote
ReeferMadness Posted March 10, 2013 Report Posted March 10, 2013 An interesting article in the Economist a couple of weeks ago. http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21571485-plan-change-electoral-college-carries-whiff-desperation-moving-goalposts?zid=309&ah=80dcf288b8561b012f603b9fd9577f0e Namely, should the whole idea of the electoral college be consigned to the dustbin and move to a pure popular vote? If not as radical as that should the Congress-districts be the winner-takes-all mandates rather than entire states? On the other hand, changes to the current system would change the campaigning as well. When everything is not decided in 2-3 swing states the candidates should reach out to every voter across the country. This would pose a problem too. The so-called big tent candidates win on being moderate. In a different system you must stand out and the election could polarise people even more. The electoral college is an anachronism and should go. However, it's a small problem compared to the role that big money plays in the campaigns. When it takes a billion or so dollars to win the presidency, it means that a relatively small group of super-wealthy have a virtual veto on anyone who is detrimental to their interests. Plutocracy, thy name is the USA. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
roy baty Posted March 10, 2013 Report Posted March 10, 2013 The electoral college is an anachronism and should go. However, it's a small problem compared to the role that big money plays in the campaigns. When it takes a billion or so dollars to win the presidency, it means that a relatively small group of super-wealthy have a virtual veto on anyone who is detrimental to their interests. Plutocracy, thy name is the USA. You forgot to mention that in this last election it also took milliions of ignorant and uninformed voters with their heads up their behinds to win the election.. Quote
ReeferMadness Posted March 10, 2013 Report Posted March 10, 2013 You forgot to mention that in this last election it also took milliions of ignorant and uninformed voters with their heads up their behinds to win the election.. With billions of advertising dollars spent "informing" the voters, how could any of them be uniformed? I agree with you but ignorant and uninformed voters are not unique to the USA. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
roy baty Posted March 10, 2013 Report Posted March 10, 2013 (edited) With billions of advertising dollars spent "informing" the voters, how could any of them be uniformed? I agree with you but ignorant and uninformed voters are not unique to the USA. True. Perhaps stupidity is a more suitable word. It may be too early to say, but I'd say there's a good chance that we will get a taste of that same stupidity and head submersion in Canada in 2015 if Trudeau gets the Grits' ticket.. Edited March 10, 2013 by roy baty Quote
ReeferMadness Posted March 10, 2013 Report Posted March 10, 2013 True. Perhaps stupidity is a more suitable word. It may be too early to say, but I'd say there's a good chance that we will get a taste of that same stupidity and head submersion in Canada in 2015 if Trudeau gets the Grits' ticket.. Why not? We got it in 2011. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
-TSS- Posted March 10, 2013 Author Report Posted March 10, 2013 The current system must be frustrating if you live in a state which always goes to the same party but you support the other party. Let's say for example if you vote for the Republicans but live in Minnesota. I think that is the best example of a vote going to be wasted every time. Quote
Pliny Posted March 10, 2013 Report Posted March 10, 2013 The system of voting and electing is itself fine. It is when special interests form the electorate that it becomes a problem. People with no interest in the governance of the country and only a self-interest or single issue interest should not have a vote. It is individual rights and freedoms that a national government should be concerned with. Not the rights of white men or black men or women or gays or lawyers or accountants. If the people in Minnesota are voting for a right or claim to the prosperity of other States then their vote should be worthless. Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
Pliny Posted March 10, 2013 Report Posted March 10, 2013 With billions of advertising dollars spent "informing" the voters, how could any of them be uniformed? I agree with you but ignorant and uninformed voters are not unique to the USA. Good one "uniformed". If they get their information from advertising they will end up uniformed. Being propagandized is not being informed. Denying wealth re-distribution by government is a socialist tenant and claiming it to be simply fair is propaganda. Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
Guest American Woman Posted March 10, 2013 Report Posted March 10, 2013 The current system must be frustrating if you live in a state which always goes to the same party but you support the other party. Let's say for example if you vote for the Republicans but live in Minnesota. I think that is the best example of a vote going to be wasted every time. You could say the same for anyone, anywhere who always votes for a party/candidate that didn't get elected. It's not a wasted vote anyway, as it tells those who are elected what the population thinks and supports. The purpose of the electoral system is to try to give small states a meaningful vote, too. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 11, 2013 Report Posted March 11, 2013 The current system must be frustrating if you live in a state which always goes to the same party but you support the other party. Let's say for example if you vote for the Republicans but live in Minnesota. I think that is the best example of a vote going to be wasted every time. This is not the case, as elections at the federal, state, and local level do not always favor a single party on a consistent basis. The way Americans vote (or choose not to vote) is just fine.....and non-citizens who can't vote in American elections should find something better to worry about in their own countries. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.