Started by #188992 at 29,Aug,20 11:43
 | Specifically, the Electoral College. I'd be interested to see the counter-arguments but I find this article pretty compelling:
only registered users can see external links |
Similar topics: 1.Rain stops Trump 2.NOT TRUMP............NOT EVER TRUMP 3.Democrats refuse to vote on relief money unless $35 million goes to Kennedy center 4.Woman who worked for Joe Biden in 1993 accused him of aggrevated sexual assault 5.More Crap
Answer: No...
I am however, intrigued as to why an individual NOT from this country (the U.S.), would start such a thread. Could this be deemed as an example OR form of "foriegn interference"? SPECIFICALLY in regards to the "Presidential Election", that the lame brains mutter on a daily basis?
Are you considering moving to and pledging YOUR allegiance to the United States? Are you TRULY in search of a better understanding of the "Electoral College" for academic reasons? Or, Is your opinion set in stone and your only purpose is to further fan flames of division? We certainly could use more of that. 👍
At least you got ONE bitter, whiny, cunt from America to agree with you, good job!
A fine upstanding and MOST educated one no less. 😯
The article, YOU posted, outlines that it hasn't happened very often through our history. So, why the big fuss, now? 🤔
That whole "SUPER MAJORITY" thing is such a pain in the ass, isn't it!
🇺🇸 TRUMP 2020 🇺🇲
When this one is over, we can then push for...
🇺🇲 TRUMP 2024 🇺🇸
I can hardly wait!
--------------------------------------- added after 3 minutes
Speaking of... Which would YOU personally prefer, Don jr. Or Ivanka?
only registered users can see external links
Plus, I am NOT offering my services from outside of the country!! lol
As if an oik like me would even be asked!!!
I'd still "be interested to see the counter-arguments" but, as of now, neither you nor that other tower of intellect (phart) have come up with anything.
As you have said: the Popular Vote method would have given you the same President in all but 5 of all the Elections there have been. So why resist what seems a fair change to something drawn up in the 18th Century because the powers that be "distrusted the passions of the people"?
It hasn't resulted in an even coverage of campaigning - candidates NOW just concentrate on the swing States. So NOW, those swing States have more influence on the outcome than other States.
In my naivety I thought that Ronald Reagan HAD got a landslide victory, turns out that was all "smoke and mirrors".
If the US people could see that the "winner" only got, for instance, 52% of the Popular Vote perhaps they would encourage their Leaders to take a more consensual tone in leading your Nation?
Who agrees with me is, as you fucking know, outside of my control so that's a pretty childish point to make.
I'm not saying change it NOW. This close to an Election would make that look decidedly "fishy". Just maybe, have a grown-up discussion about the merits (and demerits) of reform.
5 minutes of your time "wasted"? I read YOUR drivel!!
There is only one major reform I see that is truly needed, and that is switching to a preferential/tiered ballot, where you may vote for up to, let's say three candidates, ranking them as to your order of preference (where if your top choice fails to garner enough votes, your second choice is counted instead, and then third if second also isn't a contender), thus allowing third parties and independents an actual viability, and breaking up the dual-sided monopoly of party politics.
Political parties have a shelf-life of roughly two generations/50 years, before they need replacing. The Dems and Reps are Civil War-era parties, while there aren't many 19th Century issues still needing addressing here in the 21st Century. That is why neither modern day party has much in common with their 19th Century counterparts -- the parties change to maintain their power over the system, rather than the voters cycling in new ideas from time to time on their own. Both parties are 100 years overdue for being replaced (and their replacements' replacements' replacements should be the ones in power today).
As you said yourself, doing away with the EC wouldn't change the system in any noticeable way, and to require such huge changes to the Constitution in order to remove it would be a complete waste of time, for so little return.
You may, firstly, need to explain to me why doing away with the EC "would result in a number of those states getting ignored completely". By your own admission, it seems like you're being ignored already! A WEEK to hear about a third of a State's corn crop being destroyed?? So .. if they don't care about you now, why are you defending the EC for giving you "coverage"?
Your proposed reform is interesting and I may well read that again when it's NOT approaching midnight in the UK! I think that's STV you're talking about (Single Transferable Vote). Breaking up the 2 party system (which the EC system was designed to PRESERVE) is an admirable notion.
Although I said that (it would only have changed 5 historic results) I find it enlightening that YOU have made suggestions that might radically alter how people cast their votes.
If you're right (that parties have a 2gen/50year lifespan) might electoral reform actually ENABLE the transition to the new paradigm?
AND it's already been used in the US. Interesting!
....Lots of things that politicos thought would be 'nice little earners' 30 or 40 years back have turned out to be nightmares waiting to happen......now there has to be some reckonings.
A final thought for you....It's only another 7 years until Spanish becomes the main language (by numbers) of the USA.
Good morning
Now read your drivel back to yourself and see if you can see where you fucked up.
3 out of 10 (being kind to you)!
At the moment, if you're a Republican in California you may as well flush your ballot down the lav - right?
Ditto for a Democrat in Texas - right?
A Popular Vote system would give equal weight to an individual's vote REGARDLESS of where they live.
NB. I've picked Red and Blue States that have been consistent for the last 4 Elections.
Try another explanation for me.
PS. did you even bother to read the link?
No cattle were harmed in the posting of my comments.
Fucking hell! You didn't manage to spell "briefly" right either.
Plus you're telling me that you didn't read it in "close detail"? Firstly, why am I not surprised and, secondly, why don't you do yourself a favour and read EVERY link I provide you with in close detail so you don't make yourself look like a semi-literate chimp? Just a thought! As Kojak used to say: "Who luvs ya baby"!