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.
Anyone here think that the electoral process is unfair or otherwise messed up?
I personally don't like the idea of having the candidate who receives the majority of votes in a state winning all of the electoral college votes from that state. Seems to me the other (potentially) 49% of the population should be represented too. It would increase exposure (and therefore impact) of less popular candidates because they'd have a visible impact on elections, and the will of the people would be better represented. People would pay more attention to the Ron Pauls and Dennis Kuciniches, instead of feeling like the only "useful" vote was for the dem or repub nominee.
I'm also a bit shaky about the overrepresentation of smaller population states. Federalism is good for a lot of things but it doesn't really make sense to me for a RI voter to be more important than a CA voter.
I know that not very many people will agree with me about this, but I think we should just leave it up to a group of superdelegates to elect the president. The 50 governors, 100 senators, and 435 house reps could be the superdelegates.
There are too many stupid voters who have no clue about any of the issues and it is causing us to elect terrible leadership. I'd rather just leave it up to a group of people that actually understand the issues.
I know that not very many people will agree with me about this, but I think we should just leave it up to a group of superdelegates to elect the president. The 50 governors, 100 senators, and 435 house reps could be the superdelegates.
There are too many stupid voters who have no clue about any of the issues and it is causing us to elect terrible leadership. I'd rather just leave it up to a group of people that actually understand the issues.
Have you seen some of the idiots (not people I disagree with - but, truly stupid people) that get elected to the House of Reps...You really want to give them that much power?
Have you seen some of the idiots (not people I disagree with - but, truly stupid people) that get elected to the House of Reps...You really want to give them that much power?
Yeah but remember, it's the same people choosing the Governors, Reps, and Senators who are choosing the President.
Have you seen some of the idiots (not people I disagree with - but, truly stupid people) that get elected to the House of Reps...You really want to give them that much power?
Thats true in some cases, but you can also say the same thing about the majority of people in the general public that show up to vote. How many Obama supporters can actually give you an intelligent answer for why they are voting for him? They don't care about things like national security, foriegn relations, military, energy plans, or years of political experience. They just want a young guy that can preach about "change."
I would rather let the president get elected by a group of people who actually understand all of the issues.
Sure, we could do that - divide the electoral votes based on popular vote. You have a perfect example of what an absolute MESS that would create - the democrat primary process.
Sure, we could do that - divide the electoral votes based on popular vote. You have a perfect example of what an absolute MESS that would create - the democrat primary process.
I know... all that fair competition is terrible for our country.
I know... all that fair competition is terrible for our country.
Fair, huh?
You do realize that the VOTERS are not the ones that elected Obama, don't you?
It was the party insiders and heavyweights who put him over the top. Just get out your calculator and take away all those SD's - Obama does not have enough delegates to earn the nomination.
You do realize that the VOTERS are not the ones that elected Obama, don't you?
It was the party insiders and heavyweights who put him over the top. Just get out your calculator and take away all those SD's - Obama does not have enough delegates to earn the nomination.
That's fair to you?
More so than ignoring up to 49% of the population, yeah.
I didn't say the dem primaries were flawless, either. The most "fair" thing I can think of is either straight popular vote or a not-winner-takes-all electoral college that weights votes to the smaller states.
Oh, I see. The "smaller" states - those with less population than the coasts, who just happen to be "mostly" RED states. I get it now. You'd like THOSE states to have LESS of an influence in the election and basically let the big states like NY,CA decide the election.
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.
