Why would a popular vote make the president dependent on Congress?Quote:
Originally Posted by Galileo
I think the Electoral College solidifies a two party system which at base, I don't like and I feel has failed us in several elections.
Printable View
Why would a popular vote make the president dependent on Congress?Quote:
Originally Posted by Galileo
I think the Electoral College solidifies a two party system which at base, I don't like and I feel has failed us in several elections.
It doesn't. I was just explaining why the Founders created it. They didn;t was a "prime minister".Quote:
Originally Posted by Blake
The Electoral College does benefit the two party system. But I think retaining state control over presidential elections is more important.Quote:
I think the Electoral College solidifies a two party system which at base, I don't like and I feel has failed us in several elections.
I support the 2/3 rule. I think the Electoral College should require a 2/3 vote for election, just like the College of Cardinals selects the Popes. If no candidate gets 2/3, then a compromise candidate must be found when the election is thrown to the House, which could be a third party or independent candidate.
Nope, they need to have a local office in their district and tele-commute from there. Keep em out of Washington and away from K-Street.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drachen
I understand why they needed an electoral college back in the day. I don't think we need it any more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Galileo
Why?Quote:
The Electoral College does benefit the two party system. But I think retaining state control over presidential elections is more important.
I dunno, Blake. Remember all those Red State, Blue State maps?Quote:
Originally Posted by Blake
That kinda looked like a case for continuance of the EC to me.
This idea has my seal of approval.Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
Ah, I see you've replaced pussy licker in favor of a new insult. Very creative change you've made.Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
If you think we should have a more decentralized republic rather than a centralized democracy, then the Electoral College is preferable. As I stated earlier, in a situation of turmoil, the Electoral College works better. For example, presidential elections were held during the Civil War and the War of 1812, and went pretty smooth thanks to the Electoral College.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blake
Why?[/QUOTE]
Because a third party candidate that got 10%, or even 20% of the vote, usually gets 0% in the Electoral College. For example, Ross Perot got 19% of the popular votes, but 0 votes in the Electoral College.
The whole "term limits and 5000 representatives" is a perfect way to ensure that nothing ever gets done in government... which is probably why WC likes them. :lol
It's also easier to buy off 5k representatives than have any sort of ethical and fiscal oversight in place to keep them honest. Pass on this idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
Using an implied formula by James Madison, the ideal size of the House for our current population would be about 1700 to 1800. That translates to a House district size of below 200,000 per district.Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
Why should I Chump?Quote:
Originally Posted by Blake
I have explained the financial drain on the Social services in the past. Most the reasons deal with that, and the ones who practice identity theft to secure jobs. I'm not going to spend time elaborating.
Illegal is bad...
Repeat that 500 times, or write it on the chalkboard 500 time...
It was practical to limit them back in the day. Today with modern communications, we could rightfully expect them top stay at their home office. No more DC offices, DC lobbying, etc. Some or all can meet during traditional certain events, but they can conduct all their day to day business right at home.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drachen
The electoral college was made so each region has a voice. If we did popular vote only, candidates would only focus on the largest cities. This would effectively disenfranchise smaller communities from the process.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blake
Things can still get done. Just harder for an individual to influence a large amount of the vote. Representatives would be closer to their constituents. harder for special interests to buy x% of a vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
I think it would become more reflective of the will of the people, rather than the elitists.
If we went to the 3 per 100,000, we would have over 3,000 representatives after this census.Quote:
Originally Posted by Galileo
I would say that there are pros and cons. You and I both know, the bigger an organization gets, the harder it is to coordinate functions etc etc. If there were 1800 or so House Members, it would be hard to coordinate functions. You could probably have 4 or 5 people still working on a bill, but maybe there's 10 groups of 4 or 5 working on different versions of the same bill. There would have to be self-imposed levels of leadership I'm thinking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
I do think that it would be harder to buy off more people without it being noticeable, and it would also draw a greater distinction between the House and Senate.
I don't think you'd need term limits though if you magnified the House of Reps that much. I'm ok with some long-term Congressman, as they most likely know how to craft a bill (for a personal example, it's just like how people who've been at a base longer know the network better than new people, even if those new people know more about networking in general).
because you are the one that claimed there are several reasons, dumbfuck.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
of course you're not.Quote:
I have explained the financial drain on the Social services in the past. Most the reasons deal with that, and the ones who practice identity theft to secure jobs. I'm not going to spend time elaborating.
par for the course with you.
Everything illegal is bad?Quote:
Illegal is bad...
Repeat that 500 times, or write it on the chalkboard 500 time...
:lol x 500
As I stated earlier, it's outdated imo, and you pretty much confirmed it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Galileo
Of course, even in the 1876 election, the electoral college system was a sloppy mess.
that doesn't really explain why you think retaining state control over presidential elections is more important.Quote:
Because a third party candidate that got 10%, or even 20% of the vote, usually gets 0% in the Electoral College. For example, Ross Perot got 19% of the popular votes, but 0 votes in the Electoral College.
so smaller communities don't have access to cable TV or the internets?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
I wasn't aware.
I think 10,000 congressional representatives would be a Very Bad Idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
10,000 elections every two years?
Who would pay for their travel? Health care? Salaries? Staff salaries?
Name your local city council off the top of your head. Now figure that you move a mile or two away, and change representatives.
It would have some advantages, but I don't think the cost/benefit would be there.
Damn, Wild Cobra is arguing for a massive expansion of the federal government.
Nah, congressional districts would just send their representatives to Washington with drastically less money to vanish into a cloud of politicians that is orders of magnitude larger than the present one our journalists and watchdog agencies can scarcely cover already.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
What could go wrong?