Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't know enough about this to have a strong opinion, but I do think there should be some changes both to the primary and general election.
I think the electoral college should remain, but I also think states should have to split their electoral college votes. If you're a Democrat in Alabama, you have almost no reason to cast a vote because it more than likely going to the Republican. The same goes for Republicans in California. I think the delegates should be split based on the number of votes each candidate receives so that will incentivize everyone in the country to actually cast a vote. That way no state is a sure thing and we don't spend the entire general election wondering what Ohio, Florida, Colorado, and Nevada are gonna do.
Actually, he didn't say either. You do a disservice to the discussion when you misquote people.
And you do a disservice to the discussion when you deliberately mischaracterize the characterization of a statement as a "misquote" when you certainly know what a "quote" is and what a "quote" is not.
I don't know enough about this to have a strong opinion, but I do think there should be some changes both to the primary and general election.
I think the electoral college should remain, but I also think states should have to split their electoral college votes. If you're a Democrat in Alabama, you have almost no reason to cast a vote because it more than likely going to the Republican. The same goes for Republicans in California. I think the delegates should be split based on the number of votes each candidate receives so that will incentivize everyone in the country to actually cast a vote. That way no state is a sure thing and we don't spend the entire general election wondering what Ohio, Florida, Colorado, and Nevada are gonna do.
This is the proportional proposal I put forth in the thread exactly.
And you do a disservice to the discussion when you deliberately mischaracterize the characterization of a statement as a "misquote" when you certainly know what a "quote" is and what a "quote" is not.
Ralph, here's what you said he said: "All you said was, "It's old."" That's your quote in total.
Now here's what he actually said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Astorian31 This thread is disappointing. I thought Great Debates threads were supposed to be held to a higher standard. Half of the defenders of the Electoral College want it kept because thats what our Founders wanted. Our Founders also owned human beings as property, whipped, them and probably even raped them too. They also never intended for women to vote, or be anything other than baby factories. I don't know what obsession people have with Idolizing our Founding Fathers as if they somehow know better than us, and always will.
I will admit that it is unfair to hold historical figures to our modern moral standards, because times change and countries & societies evolve. Our founding fathers KNEW this, and that is why they never intended our government to be stagnate and never changing. They specifically set up the constitution to be able to evolve with the times, and they even imagined a constitutional convention should be called every decade or so as to come up with a new, updated constitution. Unfortunately, when that first decade came to pass, fools in the government idolized what the founding fathers had created too much to call for a convention, and choose to ignore the wishes of the founders. That created the silly precedent of forever idolizing the founders that lasts till this day.
The other half of the defenders of the electoral college mistakenly believe it was created to protect rural areas, or small states, or some other conservative nonsense(seeing as the majority of the country was rural when the electoral college was created.) The electoral college is mentioned nowhere in the constitution, and thats because it was created out of necessity, not as some kind of voter protection enshrined in our constitution.
People forget this fact, but the US is actually the oldest democratic country in existence today. Our founders had nothing to base it to, only ideals left behind from ancient times. When it came time to deciding on a voting system, they needed to find the quickest, most efficient way to elect a president in a vast sparsely populated country. There was no radio, telephone or even telegraph. The fastest communication took days/weeks, and the states still held on to their identities as colonial rivals rather than a single united country.
One election would be a logistical nightmare to oversee, instead each state would hold their own election. This way, not only was easier to hold the election, each state wouldn't have to rely a neighboring rival state to oversee their own election. The states would elect their representatives and send them to the electoral college, where the real election could take place on a more manageable scale. The founding fathers were also kind of intellectual snobs, they didn't want the uneducated masses electing an orange orangutan to office, so the electoral college also functioned as a defense mechanism, through faithless electors, for elites to keep undesirables out of office. And it worked until Andrew Jackson broke through the ranks.
The Electoral College is a relic from colonial days and no longer serves its function. We're not a group of former rival colonies recently banded together against an empire and separated by weeks long communication systems. We don't want power to be focused on a lucky few, rather than the masses. Its time to shake off the relic from the past and come up with a new voting system. And not just for the Presidency. Its sheer lunacy that someone can win an office with less than 50% of the vote. A winner take all system, like we have, leads to a two party system, where people vote for the lesser of 2 evils, rather than the candidate they want to vote for. Rank order voting or the Alternative Voting method would solve much of the problems with our political system.
Trump became president even though nearly 3 million more voters preferred Clinton. How is that democratic? The second-place finisher "winning" -- it couldn't happen for any other office; why is it acceptable for the presidency? There was plenty to fear about Clinton and she ran a stupid campaign as well, but she still got the most votes.
Yes indeed, the electoral college needs to go. It's remarkable that corporate media aren't even talking about the issue... instead they're busy repeating Trump's tweets, or the latest blather about Russia.
Trump became president even though nearly 3 million more voters preferred Clinton. How is that democratic? The second-place finisher "winning" -- it couldn't happen for any other office; why is it acceptable for the presidency? There was plenty to fear about Clinton and she ran a stupid campaign as well, but she still got the most votes.
Yes indeed, the electoral college needs to go. It's remarkable that corporate media aren't even talking about the issue... instead they're busy repeating Trump's tweets, or the latest blather about Russia.
We live in a constitutional republic, not a pure democracy. I get your point, but the way the game is played is by getting the most delegates, not the popular vote. If it went by popular vote, the way both sides campaigned would've been different. Like I said, there are a lot of people in deep-blue and deep-red states that don't even bother voting because they know how their state is going to vote.
I'm not a Democrat, and I'm definitely no Hillary fan, but if she spent more time campaigning in the midwest than at LA and NY fundraisers with her rich friends, she might've won.
The Democratic Party does a very poor job of keeping their grassroots engaged. This may or may not be intentional. Considering how the national level ran roughshod over the Sanders campaign, it appears that the national level Democratic Party intentionally lets their grassroots machine lie fallow between quadrennial elections.
And they are doing it again. Instead of recruiting good candidates for all of the house and 1/3 of the senate in 2018 they still think hating Trump is a campaign strategy.
But it is broken. Twice in recent decades candidates who have gotten the most votes lost the election. That's broken.
Saying "BUT THAT'S THE SYSTEM WE HAVE" doesn't mean it's good. Do you believe that slavery was good because "THAT'S THE SYSTEM WE" HAD? Jim Crow -- good because "THAT'S THE SYSTEM WE" HAD? British colonialism was good because "THAT'S THE SYSTEM WE" HAD?
You believe that the candidate who receives the least votes should be declared the winner.
If those elections were by popular vote the campaigns would have been run differently. No guarantee that Gore and Clinton would have won the popular vote when their opponent would have been campaigning for popular vote.
One complaint about the Clinton campaign from insiders was she didn't understand "how many" is not as important as "who".
its amazing how many people did not pay attention in school. popular vote is not even an issue here
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
where's the outrage?
