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.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,389,283 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nowaysis
Cheer up though. I don't think either Romney or Obama really have a clue. Both made outlandish promises. Politicians are useless in my country too, but would not get away with promising to create 3 million jobs out of nothing or promising to fix a deficit the size of Jupiter by spending more money.
*still scratching head*
The one thing I envy about a number of other countries is their politicians aren't hellbent on playing World Cop. I believe America would be in a better position today if we'd avoided that silly practice.
Pre WW II Germany was also Post WW I Germany and had many problems caused by factors other than direct democracy.
WHY should there remain the possibility of one state controllong the election of the president of all the states?
... and my piont is post WW1 Germany set the stage for hitler to be voted in by the public with no check. That can happen anywhere you have direct democracy. shoot. it can happen right here but it is harder here.
but keep reading. room for improvement yes. but lets not get rid of the system that has served for 200 plus years.
I think the electoral college system is odd too. Why not just have a national poll, first past th post? Why should some states get more electoral college votes than others?
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,389,283 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferd
how about a compromise?
apportion the EC votes to the districts themselves. each state gets 1 EC vote for each house seat and 2 votes (one each for each senator).
so break the voting down the same way. put every congressional district into play, plus the state popular vote gives 2 EC votes.
then every candidate has to go into every single state to fight for the votes.
I can agree to something along these lines. maybe not exactly this but something closer to this but I cannot agree to mob-rule-direct-democracy.
I see no need, I've never seen a compelling argument against one man, one vote. The vast majority of voters today still never see a candidate face-to-face so what's the difference if they see a debate on TV when they're 20 miles away or 2,000 miles away?
I think the electoral college system is odd too. Why not just have a national poll, first past th post? Why should some states get more electoral college votes than others?
...for the same reasons England doesnt do it that way.... There is a lot to like about your system. but i like our two houses so...
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.
