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.
1.) No more electoral college. Popular vote only.
2.) Pre-set limits on how much presidential candidates can raise and spend on their campaign.
3.) Get rid of Pacs, Super Pacs and make proxy organizations' support of a candidate count against that candidate's maximum.
4.) Automatic runoff if no candidate gets a majority of the vote. This means third party candidates are no longer the scapegoat for who wins or who loses the election.
5.) An unbiased highly visible fact-checking organization.
Do away with the electoral system. None of us can turn out on election day and there would still be a winner.
I understand why it was formed for the days before television and national media. It just has outlived its usefulness. Let the people decide.
not do away with the electoral system, but in fact give 1 electoral vote per county in the USA, limit the amount of counties according to how many the states had when they entered into the union.
take away all donations from any entity that is not a voter, no donations from any foreign person, countries or businesses.
limit all news media to tell the truth on both sides of a story, not tell one side and say nothing about the other side.
no reporting on who won anything until all the votes are counted in that state.
Go back to the way it was originally established where elected state legislators would elect U.S. Senators. Think of it, you want term limits? What better way to establish term limits but every time a state legislature would change the the U.S. Senator would change as well. Well, at least if his six year term happened to expire at the time.
I know, I know, democracy and all that claptrap but what better way to get special interests out of politics.
A democracy is nothing more than four wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner and the original framers of the Constitution knew exactly what dangers to liberty a democracy presented.
.
Next I would demand photo ID and proof of American citizenship.
A basic literacy test would be instituted. Who thinks it's a good idea to have someone with an IQ OF 65 living in an group home vote for President? Of course, the winners of the last election thinks it's a great idea.
Do away with the electoral system. None of us can turn out on election day and there would still be a winner.
I understand why it was formed for the days before television and national media. It just has outlived its usefulness. Let the people decide.
You are terribly uninformed. It has nothing whatsoever to do with media, and it will never "outlive it's usefulness." Go back to school, and learn Civics. There was and still is a reason for the Electoral College.
We are a Republic. We are NOT a democracy. Democracy = mob rule. If we got rid of the Electoral College, we could more easily have a President chosen by the uninformed masses, a.k.a., the "ignorant masses."
Television and national media didn't do us much good in '08, and nothing changed this year. Much of the media is controlled by Democrats, and all we get from the Legacy Media is soft news. They refused to report on one of the most important stories of September, the Benghazi attack (now being called "Benghazi gate," because of it's implications for the President and the State Department). If this story, and others, had been fairly reported, Obama never would have won.
Thanks to Fox News, and one CBS reporter (her name slips me), much was uncoverd about the events of Sept 11, 2012. It isn't pretty for the President. Four Americans were allowed to die, when they could have been rescued. No attempt was ordered, and no attempt made.
So much for "national media." It didn't do it's job, but (even to this day, for some) is still repeating the administrations cover up about a video!
The people do decide. I just wish they weren't so ignorant. Most even today do not have a clue who Barack Obama is. They voted for him on the basis of; he's black, he's 'cool', he has perfectly creased trousers (how ridiculous!), he gives some a "thrill up the leg" (Chris Matthews), he gives away free stuff, and a variety of other reasons, none of which have anything to do with the makings of a good President. Oh yeah, and one other reason, for one day of doing his job (visiting with Khris Khisty Kreme — that man probably just ruined his career), he looked 'Presidential,' which has to be one of the dumbest reasons ever to vote for someone! That's a term that ought to be outlawed in political speech. It means NOTHING!
And while most of the leftists believe the banks were at fault for making "predator loans," Barack Obama was on the street as a community organizer for ACORN, seeing to it that the banks were making those "bad loans." That was his experience!
Never, ever should we abandon the electoral system. Our founders were much smarter than the average person today.
What we should do, is have mandatory voter ID laws. There is no reason why a photo ID should not be required.
We should also end "early voting." This serves no purpose but to facillitate fraud. In one area in Florida (still counting) they have more ballots than voters! Are we supprised? THANK YOU DEMOCRATS!
Last edited by nononsenseguy; 11-11-2012 at 01:42 PM..
Elimination of the Electoral College is unrealistic, but that doesn't mean its a bad idea. What would it look like to see Republicans campaign in California and New York and to see Democrats campaign in Texas, Utah and across the South? They'd actually care about all of America because there is no corner of America where they would not stand to win some votes.
The elimination of the Electoral College would require a Constitutional Amendment. That means 2/3 of the states have to go for it. More than 1/3 of the states stand to lose power and importance if the vote for POTUS ditches the Electoral College and is 100% popular vote. About half of the states in this country would actually stand to lose power and influence and nobody wants to vote to decrease their power and influence. The Amendment will never pass.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,389,283 times
Reputation: 40736
[quote=godofthunder9010;26907157]Elimination of the Electoral College is unrealistic, but that doesn't mean its a bad idea. What would it look like to see Republicans campaign in California and New York and to see Democrats campaign in Texas, Utah and across the South? They'd actually care about all of America because there is no corner of America where they would not stand to win some votes.
The elimination of the Electoral College would require a Constitutional Amendment. That means 2/3 of the states have to go for it. More than 1/3 of the states stand to lose power and importance if the vote for POTUS ditches the Electoral College and is 100% popular vote. About half of the states in this country would actually stand to lose power and influence and nobody wants to vote to decrease their power and influence. [b]The Amendment will never pass.[//b][quote]
100% of the voters for one candidate can now see their man/woman win the popular vote and lose the election. Don't you think that fact might have some influence?
Electoral system,require all candidates to only get election funds from the general public fund, set primaries up for 5 months on a rotating system to ensure you get the best candidate, and stop allowing 2 of the most insignificant states in the country to have the first 2 primaires all the time.
Until we have a citezenry that is better educated than the founders on government and law, we shouldn't tamper with what they created. The results have already been disaterous in some cases. Senators were appointed by the states they represented for a reason; to represent the State's interests. We have given that up.
The founders were learned men, familiar with the writings of people like John Locke, and many others. Plus, they had experienced first hand the rule of a tyrant, the King of England. What they established was the most nearly perfect system of government (a government established by the people) ever to be devised. It was a government that had no authority other than that established by the Constitution, with limited power over the people. The Federal Governmnet does not even have any direct power over the States.
I think we need some serious re-education in this country. People are clueless as to our founding, the founders, and the roots of our system of government.
No, nope, nothing. I loved watching the Koch Brothers squandering their money on willard, and absolutely loved the rove meltdown too. The whole RW campaign was well, "priceless".
Unfortunately, you're right on this. I think I've had enough of Rove's "wisdom." I was fearful of this outcome in the begining, long before Romney was selected. I got hopeful toward the end when Romney really seemed to be hitting his stride, and make no mistake, I agree with Romney and Paul Ryan on what we need to restore prosperity. But it was too little too late.
The fact still remains that Barack Obama doesn't really know what to do. If he did, he would have already done it.
Or is it that Dinesh D'Souza is right? Can a man otherwise be as stupid as Barack Obama appears to be?
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.
ABSOLUTELY! 
Can a man otherwise be as stupid as Barack Obama appears to be?
