PDA

View Full Version : Electoral College



Endymion
10-22-2004, 03:48 AM
pros/cons? can you come up with something better? prefer popular vote (aka mob rule)?

Mota Boy
10-22-2004, 07:14 AM
The American political system was never intended to be a democracy. The founding fathers were a group of brilliant intellectuals terrified of the common man. They may have set up the most progressive government the world had yet seen, but they intended to keep tight control over it to prevent it from going astray. Over the years, democratic ideas have slowly eroded the elitist system the fathers put in place. Unfortunately, the framework of the original system still remains, creating an unwieldy electoral process that desperately needs to be overhauled. The current Electoral College system is undemocratic in that it is not responsive to the will of the people and results in a system where some citizens’ votes weigh more than others merely based on location. In order to rectify this error, an election based on simple national plurality would be much more responsive to the will of Americans.
The Electoral College dates back to a time when the country was relatively empty and easily controlled by a few men. The electoral process, although democratic at its base, was heavily insulated from the “common” voter. Even then, the group of eligible voters that the founding fathers snubbed their noses at composed only a minute portion of the population, and comprised solely of white, adult, land-owning males. These men were elected their local officials and state legislatures, but had very little control over the national government. In fact, at the time the Constitution was ratified in 1788, only the House of Representatives was elected by the general public, a mere one half of one third of the government. The remaining officials were appointed by other elected representatives. State legislatures selected senators and also members of the Electoral College. It was the Electoral College that decided upon the president, who in turn would select, with Congress’s approval, the judicial branch. While a remarkable system for its day, it grew outmoded as the world became increasingly progressive.


The democratization of American politics was a slow, steady process fueled by both a dedication to the ideas on which the country was founded and by political parties looking to further their own interests. The beliefs that had been the backbone of the American Revolution, equality and representation, were only applied to the new nation on very limited basis, but they did not end with the Revolution. Populists pushed for an expansion of suffrage and further democratization of the government. Newly enfranchised voters in turned championed the populists, creating a positive feedback loop. Over the years since the ratification of the Constitution, the nation has made significant gains toward becoming a full-fledged democracy. By the presidential elections of 1828, the land-holding requirement had largely been removed. In 1870 suffrage was extended to black males through the 16th Amendment. In 1913, the 17th Amendment ensured the popular election of senators. With the 19th Amendment in 1920, the vote was at last extended to women. Since the founding of this country, the way America selects its leaders has changed drastically, yet the system for choosing them has not evolved with it, resulting in the embarrassment of the Electoral College.


The Electoral College was created at a time when individual states were very distrustful of one another, an almost laughable concept now. Each state is designated a number of electoral votes based on its number of U.S. Senators and U.S. Representatives. The number of Senators is always two, while the number of Representatives fluctuates based on population, ensuring a minimum of three electoral votes for each state. After the election votes have cast, the winner of the plurality of the votes in a given state receives all of that state’s electoral votes, the exceptions being Maine and Nebraska, where two electoral votes are decided on a statewide vote while the remaining votes go to the winner of the plurality in each district.


Today the Electoral College is but a formality. Electors are selected with the candidates they back. In 26 states, electors are required by law to vote for their party’s candidate, but since the party itself decides which members to send, even electors free to choose almost never deviate from the party line, with only nine instances in the past century, all having no effect on the outcome . The electors are only in place to perform a ritual; in a way they are merely participating in a ceremony honoring a bygone era. The reason behind their actions has long lost its importance, but they carry on nevertheless, seemingly fearful of discontinuing the tradition. Ironically, while the electors themselves have no control over the outcome of the election, their mere existence can be immensely influential on the outcome of any election.


By giving all a states votes to the winner of a plurality in that particular state, the Electoral College allows the possibility that the loser of the popular vote could win the election. If a candidate is immensely popular in only a few states and loses in most of the other states by a small margin, his opponent could emerge victorious, despite receiving fewer votes. Even more outrageous, a candidate could waltz his way into the Oval Office by only carrying the eleven most heavily populated states . As a nation that prides itself in its democratic values, this is intolerable. The mere possibility that a vital democratic process could be subverted should elicit outrage; the fact that it occurs on a regular basis is mind-boggling.

samr
10-22-2004, 07:16 AM
holy crap......

Mota Boy
10-22-2004, 07:16 AM
Four times during the nation’s history, the Electoral College system has prevented the winner of the popular vote from becoming president, most recently in the 2000 election. Over seven percent of the time, the most important political event in the country is determined not by voters, but by an outdated electoral system. With an unrivaled ability to influence government policy and through it the lives of every citizen, the president should be selected with the utmost respect to will of the people he or she will be governing. Fortunately, an undemocratic outcome of the presidential election is fairly uncommon. Unfortunately, the Electoral College has several other undemocratic aspects that not only occur often, but also are essential elements of the system.


Engendered into the Electoral College are several undemocratic state biases. Since every state automatically receives three electoral votes, small states are disproportionately represented under the system, wielding a greater influence than they should based on their population. For instance, while Wyoming has one electoral vote for every 164,808 people, Ohio must divide each of its votes between 541,597 people. This creates a situation where the state of Wyoming has over three times the relative influence of Ohio. Oddly enough, the Electoral College also gives an unfair advantage to large states. Large states, with their numerous electoral votes, are critical players in the election process. This leads to candidates spending much more time and money wooing large states than their less important neighbors. When a Californian casts his ballot, he helps to decide the fate of his state’s 57 electoral votes. In contrast, if the same person lives in Vermont his vote only affects three. Seen in this light, merely by moving from Vermont to California a person automatically ups the value of their vote 19-fold. Keeping the importance of large states in mind, candidates spend a disproportionate amount of time and money fighting for these votes.


Even within this small crowd, however, there is still another group that gobbles up more than its fair share. During the 2000 election, Gore had little to worry about losing the California vote and Texas might as well have already voted for Bush. Other important states, however, remained up in the air until the last minute, and in once case, beyond. Pennsylvania and Florida have 23 and 25 electoral voted respectively, and as the 2000 campaign was wrapping up the two states looked like they could go either way. For this reason, both candidates campaigned vigorously in these locations, one flying in when the other seemed to be taking the lead. In the end, despite millions of dollars spent nation wide and uncounted campaign stops around the country, the choice of whom should be the “leader of the free world” for the next four years was decided by only one state. The utter lunacy of this caused the European press to collapse into howls of laughter over America’s “Electile Dysfunction.1” In retrospect, if Gore had only won his home state, Tennessee, he would be the unquestioned victor. Our Electoral College reduces elections to a game of Monopoly,tm with candidates spending their time fighting over hot properties instead of key minority groups.


Finally, the Electoral College system renders minority voters completely mute. Democrats living in staunchly Republican Utah have almost no hope of winning a plurality. Similarly, Bush managed to round up nearly four and half million votes in California , yet came away empty handed. Despite a turnout number large enough to carry several smaller states simultaneously, Californian Republicans got nothing for their effort, which is what many expected. California had long ago been marked as a sure bet for Gore. Situations such as these doubtlessly contribute to America’s abysmal voter turnout; the Electoral College simply tells local political minorities that they are wasting their time.


And yet, despite these glaring problems, the Electoral College has endured. Since 1804 there have been over 700 attempts to amend the Electoral College system to no avail. It has endured partly because of a reluctance to overhaul the system and because it does have some beneficial qualities. Proponents argue that it forces candidates to have a wide distribution of popular support. Without this system, they warn, the large state bias could easily become a large city bias and cause candidates to focus on a single region of the country. The Electoral College has also stubbornly refused to give up the ghost by proving beneficial to the two parties that ultimately decide its fate. If the Electoral College was thrown out, third party candidates, no longer held hostage by a winner-takes-all system, would have a much better shot at the presidency. With this in mind, Republicans and Democrats would be foolish to work for legislation that could only undermine their authority. While a good explanation for the persistence of the Electoral College, this is a horrible argument for its continued existence.


An election decided by simple plurality may result in some large city bias, but biases are already present within the existing system, and if politicians focus solely on large cities, a more open system would make it much easier for a new party to emerge to give a voice for rural Americans. As for the purely selfish reasons held by the major parties to discourage an overhaul of the system, they are as undemocratic as possible, placing the thirst for power by a few over the will of the electorate.


In conclusion, the Electoral College is an anachronism, a throwback to a time when America was run by an oligarchy, when suffrage was more of a privilege than an inherent right. It is truly appalling that despite its obvious flaws, the skeleton of this now hollow system still haunts us today. Deciding the presidency on a state-by-state basis inherited from colonial suspicions leaves us with the paradoxical situation where votes at one location count more that another based upon the arbitrary division of the country into states. The fact that the Electoral College continues to exist is a slap in the face of our democratic ideals. By throwing off the dusty framework of the Electoral College, America loses nothing, whereas by tolerating its presence we stand to lose another democratic election.

Little_Miss_1565
10-22-2004, 11:10 AM
I would accuse you of lifting that from one of your politics classes/professors, but then I remember that it's you. Bravo.

Vera
10-22-2004, 11:15 AM
Yes, at first look it certainly appears like someone's just been using Google very actively, but then you notice the user name and.

Well, only Mota Boy would sit down and write all that.

nieh
10-22-2004, 02:04 PM
He said "Monopoly,tm". Why did you put the tm? No one ever puts tm unless their either trying to be funny, or publishing what they're saying. Or not...I remember you posting stuff like this before (I think so anyway)

Endymion
10-23-2004, 02:14 AM
i'm sure it was an attempt at humor (i cracked a smile, anyway).

plastic_letterz
10-23-2004, 09:24 AM
I personally don't like the electoral college. I think population vote should count. Imagine how different the past 4 years would have been if the popluation vote would have counted and George Bush wasn't president, we may not have had a war.

Betty
10-23-2004, 02:02 PM
It could work both ways though, remember that. Like, the republicans could win the popular vote as well but not win the individual states and then you'd be complaining that popular vote is bad, etc.

I really don't know how I feel about the structure.

Mota Boy
10-24-2004, 08:52 PM
I would accuse you of lifting that from one of your politics classes/professors, but then I remember that it's you. Bravo.


i'm sure it was an attempt at humor (i cracked a smile, anyway).


You're all right. As much as I hate to kill the magic, this is a paper I wrote late one night/early one morning freshman year, on various chemicals to keep me awake, while simultaneously cramming for an Anthropology exam.

Vera
10-25-2004, 07:35 AM
I actually only read the first part, because I figured that the whole thing could be summarized with:

"Fuck, things are so much better in Finland."

RXP
10-27-2004, 01:19 AM
^I generally agree.

charlesadude
10-28-2004, 10:08 PM
For those of you taking for granted these essays that Mota Boy... or should I say Motor Mouth has been typing, allow me to shed some light on the situation.

Mota Boy says that the electoral system was a process of election that was instituted by the Founding Fathers to supress the lower class and the common man. You gotta laugh at this bull shit THIS IS AMERICA BUDDY!
The electoral system was, in actuality, an ingenious invention put into place by the founding fathers to establish the comptete opposite of what Motor Mouth is depicting.

During the era of the Founding Fathers it was a time of harsh disagreements and arguments between states. Nothing compared to today's debates among canidates. We're talking fist fights and deuls here people.

You see in this time of terrible disagreements, there arose a huge issue of if it was possible for one state to control the election of a president. It was feared that if one state could some how get all of its citizens to unite and vote for one corrupt candidate...then that candidate would win almost hands down. In order to check this terrible possibility of presidential domination, the Founding Fathers instituted the electoral system. This allowed for the states to have fair voting rights where each state counts for a certain ammount of "points" if you will. This way no state could have total domination over the voting system and all states have a fair say in the matter.

So open your eyes snowflake and let it sting.

Anyway, on a lighter note: If Kerry beats Bush in a dream he better wake up and appologise... peace out!

Funky-Munky
10-28-2004, 10:41 PM
ya bush is goin down

Mota Boy
10-29-2004, 11:57 AM
...allow me to shed some light on the situation.

Mota Boy says that the electoral system was a process of election that was instituted by the Founding Fathers to supress the lower class and the common man. You gotta laugh at this bull shit THIS IS AMERICA BUDDY!
The electoral system was, in actuality, an ingenious invention put into place by the founding fathers to establish the comptete opposite of what Motor Mouth is depicting.

Was was I thinking? Of COURSE there couldn't be any sort of elitism going on in early American history. My mistake. America, from the start, was the freest, most egalitarian nation in the history of forever. We wouldn't have anything undemocratic in this country like, say, elite-controlled elections or, I dunno, slavery. Of course not! I mean, duh, THIS IS AMERICA BUDDY!

Normally I'd be angry at your aggressive tone, but I can't be, because your naïveté is just so darn cute, like a puppy pissing in my shoes. You remind me of how I was at thirteen, assuming that I hadn't studied any sort of American history up until that point.

You'll kindly note that it wasn't until the 1820s, quite a few years after America's founding, that the average citizen chose the electors, rather than the state legislators. I suggest that you read up on your own country's history sometime, it's quite interesting and will keep you from embarrassing yourself further in the future. The more you know...

charlesadude
10-30-2004, 02:24 PM
Wow this is a tasty burger. Although it may be true that more than fifty years ago our veiws about the Founding Fathers was that they were all powerhungry corporate buisiness owners. HOWEVER, it seems as though I am not the one who is uneducated. The reasons that we had these negative assumptions about the Founding Fathers was because their meetings were sealed a.k.a (no written record). However, recent studies of the documents that we DO have such as personal correspondence has recently uncovered that this was not the case with the Founding Fathers at all. They were EXTREMELY moderate. They were perfectly rounded political minds that we have yet to have as presidential candidates sense well, Thomas Jefferson.

Furthermore I would like to use Thomas Jefferson to round off and add some facts to my argument. If you know anything about this man you would know that he was upper class and very well to do. If you knew anythign more, you would know that he was a COMPLETE traitor to the upper class. He screwed them all! Just look at the Embargo Act or at the statements made from people at the time... if you study this you will find that they call him a farmer, not an aristocrat.

Ouch Burned... Peace out!

Mota Boy
10-30-2004, 02:40 PM
You can write about Jefferson all you want, but you seem to have forgotten that this is about the Electoral College. See? It's right up there in the topic line. No, not there... to the left. Yeah, the part that says "Electoral College".

Now, the Constitution, in its inception, did not have direct election of the President - this was handled through the now-anachronistic Electoral College. Or the Senate. Only white, land-owning males could vote for members of the House. Do I really have to say more?

And if I were you, I'd cling to my characterization of you as "uneducated", because the other option is that you're just an imbecile.

charlesadude
10-30-2004, 03:43 PM
[QUOTE=Mota Boy]The American political system was never intended to be a democracy. The founding fathers were a group of brilliant intellectuals terrified of the common man. They may have set up the most progressive government the world had yet seen, but they intended to keep tight control over it to prevent it from going astray. Over the years, democratic ideas have slowly eroded the elitist system the fathers put in place.

Actually I beleive that someone said something like this... Maybe YOU shouldn't introduce irrelevent points if you don't want them to be debated.

"Oh you just got burned man burned."

Little_Miss_1565
10-30-2004, 03:47 PM
Charles, let it go. Mota pwned you hard, and your constant claimings of "ooh, buuuurn" do nothing more than highlight how pwned you really are.

Any halfwit who's spent a second studying constitutional law knows that Mota's right.

charlesadude
10-30-2004, 04:10 PM
Once agian I fail to undersand how librals can go off introducing total lies and little cuts to the electoral system. But when I call him on it you want me to shut up? And when I introduce perfectly valid and well known FACTS to support my arguments (Thomas Jefferson). I am hushed??? Which history courses have you guys taken and IN WHAT COUNTRY? 'Cause your bagging of the electoral college system sounds like it's coming from some place that's just jealous of our system.

wheelchairman
10-30-2004, 04:12 PM
Well both Mota and 1565 are registered voters. However I don't think anyone living under Parliamentarism is particularly envious of the electoral college. What with having more than 2 similar parties and all.

charlesadude
10-30-2004, 09:31 PM
There is a reason that we only have two parties. It is because unlike most nations we are not in confusion. I have read previous posts written by you and it is obvious that you want more parties that are more left than the democrats. You don't think that it's right to have two parties so similar. Dude wake up!!!

The reason that we have only two prevelent parties isn't becuase we are supressing anybody. It's because these parties are correct! Most Americans are united in thier responses to things. Just look at the reactions of Americans to the 9-11 bobmings. There isn't a single American that doesn't want Bin Laden dead. So basically Americans AGREE on most issues. There is a united sense of American patriotism that all Americans share. What the two parties do perfectly is balance each other out! The middle ground is what everybody really wants!!! SO by having these two more extreme parties we acheive a near perfectly balanced government. Granted, it's not the PERFECT government in every sense of the word. But it's the best feesable one.

Oh, and don't give me that stuff about how other nations are better than us. Come on man you know your nation doesn't count. (I was mostly joking about that).

"Democracy is the wet stone that sharpens government."

wheelchairman
10-31-2004, 04:00 AM
You honestly believe that all Americans agree on everything? Ah you really should travel to Oregon or Washington, and then travel to Texas. You'll find a large difference in attitudes there.

Of course Americans want a two party system, how many times have you heard people saying "well both candidates are awful, but I'll vote for the lesser of two evils." How many Americans don't even vote because they feel it won't matter with the two party system? I believe the number was 49%.

You don't know Americans. I doubt you've ever travelled through America. It's obvious the American people would like more choices. They most certainly don't agree on everything. Of course it's easy to agree on Bin Laden, but after that, when it comes to real policies, like economics, social and judicial most Americans will argue till the cows come home.

And I believe it was in the '92 elections that the Reform party won 20% of the vote. And yet not a single member got into Congress. How is that democratic? Shouldn't a democracy represent the will of the people? Why weren't the Americans united on that?

Jewel_Blue_Ibanez
10-31-2004, 09:23 AM
I think you all should do it the Canadian way. One ballot, one vote. None of whatever it is that you guys do. It sounds pretty crappy.

Not Ozymandias
10-31-2004, 10:01 AM
The Electoral system is fundamentally vile because it makes millions of votes irrelevant. For liberals in Texas and the South and conservatives in Massachusetts and California their votes mean absolutely nothing.

We have the technology to do the whole thing through popular vote, and there's no good reason not to at this point.

Little_Miss_1565
10-31-2004, 10:58 AM
Once agian I fail to undersand how librals can go off introducing total lies and little cuts to the electoral system. But when I call him on it you want me to shut up? And when I introduce perfectly valid and well known FACTS to support my arguments (Thomas Jefferson). I am hushed??? Which history courses have you guys taken and IN WHAT COUNTRY?[b] 'Cause your bagging of the electoral college system sounds like it's coming from some place that's just jealous of our system.[b]

Excuse me?

I was born in and still live in the United States, fuckmook, and as WCM said, am a registered voter. And I am studying Constitutional Law at this time with someone who regularly appears on NPR to talk about the Patriot Act. Your railing against Mota's and my questioning of the system smacks of Bush/Cheney/Ashcroftesque "if you're not with us, you're against us!" Kindly shove it. Thank you.

It is established fact, not "jealous bagging," that the Electoral College was established for the same reason that our federal system was originally designed to have an appointed, rather than directly elected, Senate. The Senate house of our beloved bicameral system was originally designed to be the more powerful house, and the House of Representatives a bit of a token. That's why House terms are 2 years, with everyone getting reelected at once, and Senate terms are 6, with only 1/3 of the Senate up for election at any given time.

The People were considered to be fickle as hell and thus unreliable, however still necessary to the goverment because they are where power and legitimacy originates. Similar Reasoning led to the the Electoral College.

As time went on, the antidemocratic nature of having state senators appointed by the legislature became glaringly apparent, and the Constitution was amended to allow for their direct election (see also 17th Amendment). What Mota (and I and several others) are questioning is that since the Senate election procedures were amended to introduce more democracy into the system (advances in technology allow the people to be much more educated on issues than they were in the early 1800s), why can't the anachronism of the Electoral College be removed as well?

Jefferson was also against the idea of judicial review. Are you in favor of an unchecked legislature?

Little_Miss_1565
10-31-2004, 11:03 AM
There is a reason that we only have two parties. It is because unlike most nations we are not in confusion. I have read previous posts written by you and it is obvious that you want more parties that are more left than the democrats. You don't think that it's right to have two parties so similar. Dude wake up!!!

The reason that we have only two prevelent parties isn't becuase we are supressing anybody. It's because these parties are correct! Most Americans are united in thier responses to things. Just look at the reactions of Americans to the 9-11 bobmings. There isn't a single American that doesn't want Bin Laden dead. So basically Americans AGREE on most issues. There is a united sense of American patriotism that all Americans share. What the two parties do perfectly is balance each other out! The middle ground is what everybody really wants!!! SO by having these two more extreme parties we acheive a near perfectly balanced government. Granted, it's not the PERFECT government in every sense of the word. But it's the best feesable one.

Oh, and don't give me that stuff about how other nations are better than us. Come on man you know your nation doesn't count. (I was mostly joking about that).

"Democracy is the wet stone that sharpens government."


Are you on glue? Seriously. All Americans want Bin Laden dead? Here's one that doesn't! I want him to stand trial and answer for his crimes, which are numerous and disgusting.

A two-party system is not in our Constitution. Neither is a one-party system, nor a three-party system! The Constitution provides for no parties, but they have arisen by necessity in the government--collective bargaining, the same reasons that labor unions are so successful.

This nation is one of the most confused in the world. Step off your jingoist soapbox for five seconds and you'd see this.

Not Ozymandias
10-31-2004, 11:30 AM
There isn't a single American that doesn't want Bin Laden dead.
I don't want him dead if capture is possible.

charlesadude
10-31-2004, 02:03 PM
wow a lot of responses to my post. I'll resspond 1 by 1 and work my way down.

charlesadude
10-31-2004, 02:40 PM
You honestly believe that all Americans agree on everything? Ah you really should travel to Oregon or Washington, and then travel to Texas. You'll find a large difference in attitudes there.

Of course Americans want a two party system, how many times have you heard people saying "well both candidates are awful, but I'll vote for the lesser of two evils." How many Americans don't even vote because they feel it won't matter with the two party system? I believe the number was 49%.

You don't know Americans. I doubt you've ever travelled through America. It's obvious the American people would like more choices. They most certainly don't agree on everything. Of course it's easy to agree on Bin Laden, but after that, when it comes to real policies, like economics, social and judicial most Americans will argue till the cows come home.

And I believe it was in the '92 elections that the Reform party won 20% of the vote. And yet not a single member got into Congress. How is that democratic? Shouldn't a democracy represent the will of the people? Why weren't the Americans united on that?

First of all I have traveled throughout the united Stantes and have been to 37 states. And if we all weren't generally united on most issues we wouldn't have librals in massachusates saying the exact same thing that many librals in california are saying (I live in Los Angeles by the way).

Ok first of all your argument is that most Americans would rather vote for a third party? Ok since all parties are libral you have about maybe half of the voting population would consider going from being a democrat to being a more libral third party but the other half (the half that is conservative) would stay where it is. Oh and if you want a governent with like 10 parties then fine. But you know what this will accomplish? Nothing. You will have 9/10 of the population disapointed. Take this for example:

In an elementary school election there are four girls running for class president and only one guy. if you know anything about elementry school elections you would know that guys vote for guys and girls vote for girls generally. Who is gonna win? Use your common sense. The girls have to agree and decide on who has the most appealing ideas toward everyone and unite to get a chance at making a change.

The basic and most well known consept of democracy is the dreatest good for the greatest number. These have an inverse relationship. In order to allow more people to agree with a government you need to become less extreme. This is how our government maintians its middle ground.

And change takes time! if those 49 % of people wanted to introduce a new prevelent party they should vote for them and seeing the gradual rise in percentage of this party more people would consider voting for it. Change takes time. Our party sysem isn't a result of confusion! it's a result of a focused general ideas.

I think over time your radical and leftist ideas wil die away. You are young and energetic. In the future you will calm down and see the light.

"Before I die there is something that I need to tell you. .... .... ...."
"what?"
"I always hated you... I always hated you the most."

wheelchairman
10-31-2004, 02:50 PM
First of all I have traveled throughout the united Stantes and have been to 37 states. And if we all weren't generally united on most issues we wouldn't have librals in massachusates saying the exact same thing that many librals in california are saying (I live in Los Angeles by the way).

"Liberals" anywhere would say the exact same thing, that's why they are deemed liberals. However there is a difference, even inside the democratic party. Tom Daschle is certainly no Joe Lieberman for instance.




Ok since all parties are libral you have about maybe half of the voting population would consider going from being a democrat to being a more libral third party but the other half

mmmmpolitical ignorance.


(the half that is conservative) would stay where it is.

Incorrect, many of the conservatives would gladly vote for the Liberatarian party. And a great many more would probably prefer to vote for some more religious party, like the filangists. Kinda ironic.

Also your example is irrelevant, kindergarten democracies don't relate. If a multi-party system doesn't work, why does it seem to work in every single other western country? So then according to you, why not just switch to a one-party system that has the interests of the people at heart?


This is how our government maintians its middle ground.
Incorrect. Our government is nowhere near the middle ground. According to the standards of every other country in the western world, we are the extreme right.

So democracy, according to you, is to ignore the representational rights of the people, have an election of questionable legitimacy which will disenfranchise large parts of the population and offer no real choice in parties anyways? I pass. I've seen better democracies.

Our party system is the result of corporations increasing their stranglehold on the policymakers over the past decades.



I think over time your radical and leftist ideas wil die away. You are young and energetic. In the future you will calm down and see the light.

Thank you Ayatollah Charley, anymore sound words of advice?

charlesadude
10-31-2004, 06:13 PM
Oh my god. This is America and we do have the best political system. Either you are just playing the devil's advocate or you are just really brainwashed. Either way you could bitch about anything couldn't you?

Little_Miss_1565
10-31-2004, 09:07 PM
Oh my god. This is America and we do have the best political system. Either you are just playing the devil's advocate or you are just really brainwashed. Either way you could bitch about anything couldn't you?

We may have the "best" political system, but that doesn't mean it's perfect. Unless you're a total jingoist, which it seems that you are.

greencows12
10-31-2004, 09:10 PM
Anarchy! :)

wheelchairman
10-31-2004, 11:32 PM
Oh my god. This is America and we do have the best political system. Either you are just playing the devil's advocate or you are just really brainwashed. Either way you could bitch about anything couldn't you?

Then it should stand the test of my criticisms. Rebutt or admit that you are not worthy to defend your crumbling system.

charlesadude
10-31-2004, 11:53 PM
We may have the "best" political system, but that doesn't mean it's perfect. Unless you're a total jingoist, which it seems that you are.

yes exactly. and no im not lol

Little_Miss_1565
11-01-2004, 08:14 AM
yes exactly. and no im not lol

OK, fine, how about fanatic? You jump up the ass of anyone that points out flaws in our country's system of government, because our government is "the best," and anyone who disagrees, you dismiss as basically unpatriotic.

wheelchairman
11-01-2004, 09:34 AM
No, you have to give him credit that he's not called anyone unpatriotic. His only comeback though, appears to be that we're all backasswards liberals.

Mota Boy
11-01-2004, 09:52 AM
I just think his brain is missing the ability to process new information. If any fact conflicts with his pre-established view of the world, it's immediately discarded. He doesn't even bother refuting shit, just looping his brain to play the patriotic line he's been fed. I find it remarkably ironic that the one person in this thread lacking critical thinking skills is calling everyone else "brainwashed"... but I guess that's just one of the insults that he learned to spout back in the day.

I find it generally useless to argue with people that don't base their arguments on facts or logic, which is why I stopped wasting my time on him a while back.

Desperado
10-24-2008, 04:25 PM
bump

I've never understoof the electoral college, and no matter how many times I look it up, it still never clicks with me. The members of the electoral college for depending on a certain number of people in their state. So why are states treated as one thing? I mean, can't California have like 57 electoral votes for Democrat, but there must be some Republican electoral votes, correct? Why is it only in states and not purely in electoral votes?

The shadow
10-25-2008, 05:32 PM
I'd like to point out that this is not only an internal issue for the union, it is also an international issue. This system does not help at all your image overseas. I mean, an entirely democratic system could light a lot of hope in you in the hearts of the third world.

You could be the leaders of the world and, instead, you look more like clowns.

Mota Boy
10-26-2008, 11:01 AM
Please, oh enlightened one, explain how an "entirely democratic system" would work, and point to the nation on Earth that has most closely come to achieve such a system.

sKratch
10-26-2008, 12:13 PM
lawl@90% of this thread

Moose
10-26-2008, 05:19 PM
I'd like to point out that this is not only an internal issue for the union, it is also an international issue. This system does not help at all your image overseas. I mean, an entirely democratic system could light a lot of hope in you in the hearts of the third world.

You could be the leaders of the world and, instead, you look more like clowns.



...people really hate us, ay?...


...wonder what perfect country this guy is from...

The shadow
10-26-2008, 06:23 PM
Don't take it as an insult, I'm not attacking your system nor your country. I actually get into a lot of arguments here while trying to defend you. I do consider the US to be a really good democracy, I would even like to be an american someday and I do think that your system, although flawed, still works. I was stating the point of view that a lot of people have on this issue around here.

By an "entirely democratic system" I didn't mean a perfect democracy. If you see some of my previous posts on this issue, you'll see that i've never been a believer of such a system. I meant a system that includes universal suffrage in the electoral process of the president. I know, it wasn't the best choice of words, but, believe it or not, outside the US, a country that does not take the popular vote into account to elect its highest magistrate is not considered to be a full democracy. That's why I said that people around here see you more as clowns or hypocrites.

I apologize if I was not respectful, and I'm not defending my post for approval.

Moose
10-26-2008, 06:54 PM
apology accepted.


...i think part of the point of the electoral college is too limit the stupid from electing someone unqualified (that doesn't mean it actually works)...and 2, because this is the United States of America and it allows the states to be involved in the voting process...i suppose.

also...a popular vote is a lot easier of a system to create fraud in...there is already a lot of fraud in battleground states, so you can focus limiting that in those areas, but when it is nationwide fraud, instead of just 4 to 8 states, that may prove to be very difficult to control.

Jesus
10-27-2008, 03:44 PM
So who was using "charlesadude" as a troll account?

Apathy
10-27-2008, 04:49 PM
So the intro to Mota's Essay is almost word for word an essay that I wrote earlier this year for my AP U.S. History class. The first five sentences are uncannily similar.

After that they differ, because my main beef with the Electoral College is that the winner take all system basically destroys the possibility of third-party involvement in government.