YES Network.com

MLB NBA
MLB NBA
 
Network Forums Sport of Politics The truth defeats Lie$, voter suppression, and...
Jump Menu:
Post Reply
Page 3 of 3  •  Prev 1 2 3
The truth defeats Lie$, voter suppression, and racism
2 years ago  ::  Nov 07, 2012 - 8:50PM #21
22yankees22
Posts: 475

Nov 7, 2012 -- 7:52PM, Demonseed wrote:


Nov 7, 2012 -- 1:20PM, 61in61 wrote:


Nov 7, 2012 -- 12:21PM, prof. quiz wrote:


We were in and out in 3 minutes. No photo ID. No hassles at all. The district/line next to me was there for about 10 and this was at the busy time of 6 PM. It is a shame anyone had to wait hours to vote.


I heard part of Obama's speech last night after he won and he said those long lines are something that must be fixed.


So about 118 million people turned out to elect a Prez. 315 million residents. Some too young, some too old but not enough got off the couch. How do you fix that?




Abolish the electoral college for one thing. A lot of people in  a lot states don't vote knowing that it doesn't matter. A national ID would be nice too, so a person could vote for president even if they were not in their home state. Again, that would require abolishing the electoral system. There wouldn't be battleground states to which to pander either.





You would create a new set of problems.  If you eliminated the electoral college why would a candidate go to a smaller State?.  They would focus all of their time on California, Texas, and New York.  For that matter any (popular) Governor from those States would have an immediate advantage over any challenger.  Another danger would be the possibility of a pure regional influence on the election, (if you look at the history of mormonism and Utah, you can get an idea).  Now,if you were to rely solely on the popular vote, you probably would have an incentive for more third party candidates to run, but that would also dilute the voter pool and with enough candidates, using the popular vote system you could see a President with 20-25% of the popular vote win an election. 


We probably do need to address a way to curb the two party monopoly on the election process, but if you think Obama winning with 50% and with a 2 million vote margin makes people unhappy, imagine if a candidate won with 27% and by 300 thousand votes.


It is a complex issue, that would require us as a Nation to completely reinvent the process, which in and of itself could be just as detrimental to the outcomes if it is not thought through to a meaningful conclusion.




I was going to respond to the get rid of the elecotal college too, but don't have much more to add than this on why that sounds like a fantastic idea,but in practice just opens up all sort of other issues. 


I will however point out that in '92 there was a third party candidate and Clinton lost the popular vote by like 15million votes but won the electoral, buy a lot.  


Anyway...why the electoral college? Because it is supposed to be a check/balance between how the three branches of governement are seated.  We directly electing our representatives in congress and  judges in the supreme court are appointed.  The executive branch is indirectly elected through the electoral college which CAN but never has change their vote.  A delegate here or there has changed their vote.  But if some catystrophic thing were to happen between the general election and the Electoral vote, I am not sure what that would be, but it is supposed to be a check/balance that there is a way to change who elected to the executive office.  At least that is how I understood it from political science class. 


Demon is right though....you already feel like your vote doesn't count?  Well, in a popular vote if you live in Wyoming or Montana or any of these states with less than  a million people only half of whom are voters...you vote REALLY won't count.  The smaller states will never agree to get rid of the electoral college.   


2 years ago  ::  Nov 07, 2012 - 9:50PM #22
NW
Posts: 7,181

Well, I'm sure Bud Selig has an answer.  Maybe the big states can play the small states in an exhibition election using candidates that may not even be in the general eleaction and then the winner of that exhibition game will get some sort of advantage in the election that counts.

2 years ago  ::  Nov 08, 2012 - 12:33AM #23
22yankees22
Posts: 475

Nov 7, 2012 -- 9:50PM, NW wrote:


Well, I'm sure Bud Selig has an answer.  Maybe the big states can play the small states in an exhibition election using candidates that may not even be in the general eleaction and then the winner of that exhibition game will get some sort of advantage in the election that counts.




Ha ha. I would be okay charging companies who "off shore" any job having to pay a "luxury tax" that either pays down the deficit or pays their former emoployees unemployment.  

Page 3 of 3  •  Prev 1 2 3
Jump Menu:
 
Network Forums Sport of Politics The truth defeats Lie$, voter suppression, and...
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing

Yankees Forum