• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Should the current U.S. Voting system change?

Should the current U.S. Voting system change?

  • Yes

    Votes: 6 85.7%
  • No

    Votes: 1 14.3%
  • Partially

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    7

NoMoreDems-Reps

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2006
Messages
1,415
Reaction score
248
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Remember
In 1992
Clinton got ~42% of the poeples Vote --> 70% Electroial Vote
Bush Sr got ~39% of the peoples Vote --> 30% Electroial Vote
Ross P. got ~18% of the peoples Vote --> 0% Electroial Vote

In 2000
Al Gore got more votes (The Peoples Votes) but lost!

In 2004
Dems went to court to keep Nader off the ballot!

We are suppose to have Representation!
But if you don't vote REPUBLICAN or DEMOCRAT
you will have no Representation!

Easy solution:

1) Eliminate the Electoral College. (Make your vote count)
(or at least tske out the "Winner Take All" rule)
2) Have Immediate Runoff Elections. (Make it accurate.)
3) Vote any non-Dem/Rep party. (Let them know we will make
change! Shape up or ship out!)

This way every vote counts, and every politician
will be judged by the "PEOPLE" Directly!!!!
 

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
34,954
Reaction score
16,568
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
NoMoreDems-Reps said:
Remember
In 1992
Clinton got ~42% of the poeples Vote --> 70% Electroial Vote
Bush Sr got ~39% of the peoples Vote --> 30% Electroial Vote
Ross P. got ~18% of the peoples Vote --> 0% Electroial Vote

In 2000
Al Gore got more votes (The Peoples Votes) but lost!

In 2004
Dems went to court to keep Nader off the ballot!

We are suppose to have Representation!
But if you don't vote REPUBLICAN or DEMOCRAT
you will have no Representation!

Easy solution:

1) Eliminate the Electoral College. (Make your vote count)
(or at least tske out the "Winner Take All" rule)
2) Have Immediate Runoff Elections. (Make it accurate.)
3) Vote any non-Dem/Rep party. (Let them know we will make
change! Shape up or ship out!)

This way every vote counts, and every politician
will be judged by the "PEOPLE" Directly!!!!


So your are fine with just a handful of states voting?**** everyone else in the country?
 

JOHNYJ

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 9, 2005
Messages
567
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Electoral votes should be praportional within a state.No more winner takes all.
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
NoMoreDems-Reps said:
Remember
In 1992
Clinton got ~42% of the poeples Vote --> 70% Electroial Vote
Bush Sr got ~39% of the peoples Vote --> 30% Electroial Vote
Ross P. got ~18% of the peoples Vote --> 0% Electroial Vote

In 2000
Al Gore got more votes (The Peoples Votes) but lost!

In 2004
Dems went to court to keep Nader off the ballot!

We are suppose to have Representation!
But if you don't vote REPUBLICAN or DEMOCRAT
you will have no Representation!

Easy solution:

1) Eliminate the Electoral College. (Make your vote count)
(or at least tske out the "Winner Take All" rule)
2) Have Immediate Runoff Elections. (Make it accurate.)
3) Vote any non-Dem/Rep party. (Let them know we will make
change! Shape up or ship out!)

This way every vote counts, and every politician
will be judged by the "PEOPLE" Directly!!!!

"Peoples" don't elect the President or Vice-President, the states do, by design. read the Constitution. Whatever tally of the popular vote you want to post it is all a specious arguement because "the peoples" don't vote in the manner of a national tally. IE the popular vote tally tells you nothing unless there is a clear mandate and that only occours when there is a wide margin, but even then not a true measure. There are very real reasons why the founding fathers designed it that way. Didn't you learn that in school?

In fact the we need to get back to the original system for choosing Senators where the state legislatures selected them. By design the House represents the "peoples" and the Senate represents the "States". It was changed only for the benifit of the politicians who then could recieve favors from voters in exchange for their votes.
 

MAURER8

New member
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Location
shreveport la.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Originally Posted by NoMoreDems-Reps
Remember
In 1992
Clinton got ~42% of the poeples Vote --> 70% Electroial Vote
Bush Sr got ~39% of the peoples Vote --> 30% Electroial Vote
Ross P. got ~18% of the peoples Vote --> 0% Electroial Vote

In 2000
Al Gore got more votes (The Peoples Votes) but lost!

In 2004
Dems went to court to keep Nader off the ballot!

We are suppose to have Representation!
But if you don't vote REPUBLICAN or DEMOCRAT
you will have no Representation!

Easy solution:

1) Eliminate the Electoral College. (Make your vote count)
(or at least tske out the "Winner Take All" rule)
2) Have Immediate Runoff Elections. (Make it accurate.)
3) Vote any non-Dem/Rep party. (Let them know we will make
change! Shape up or ship out!)

This way every vote counts, and every politician
will be judged by the "PEOPLE" Directly!!!!

No! Living in Louisiana I can tell you I would love to elect statewide offices and U.S. senators with an electoral college type system. This state is dominated by politicians form the New Orleans area. Most politicians who run for state wide offices can win or be very close in every parish(county) of the state, have more votes sometimes as much as 40,000 votes and still lose the election not because of one parish but cetain districts in that parish. If this state went to an electoral college system for statewide officals this state would change overnight and take the power out of a very corrupt New Orleans.

We also have an open primary system, which puts all politicians on the ballot regardless of party for that office at the same time. The top two go to a runoff unless the top vote getter gets 50% + 1. It dosen't work either and a perfect example is an exmember of the kkk and a future resident of the federal prison system running for governor.
 

alphamale

Banned
Joined
Oct 9, 2005
Messages
1,120
Reaction score
0
Location
Southern California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The electoral college system wasn't a mistake - it was designed to reflect the fact that the U.S. is a federal republic, although statists have always tried to chip away at the "federal". If the electoral college were done away with, than the election would devolve around the vote of 15 or so states and everyone else might as well stay home on election day. People in New Jersey and New York would decide what happens in Montana and Colorado.
 

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Is this suppose to be a poll?:confused:
 

NoMoreDems-Reps

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2006
Messages
1,415
Reaction score
248
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Sorry I didn' know how to insert the Polling function.

For those who say just a few states will count your wrong.
1) "Americans" live in all states!
2) Most Americans want a good government.
3) Small states don't vote only for one Party.
4) And it really isn't fair for small populations to have more political pull!

The Electoral College was great in the 1800's but now it's a tool that
the REP&DEM use to have a monopoly on the US Government!
You don't see that? Or what the implications of having a group of
known corrupt people having that kind of unconditional control over
the most powerful country in the world?

But if you are against ending the E.C. do you still think it's a good idea
to end the "Winner Take All" Rule? And have "Instant run off election"
 
Last edited:

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
NoMoreDems-Reps said:
For those who say just a few states will count your wrong.

Nope the Northeast and the West Coast population centers will elect the Executive offices. This has been shown over and over.

1) "Americans" live in all states!

And we are a union of STATES not people, the STATES elect the President and VP.

2) Most Americans want a good government.

Specious arguement, do you think those of us who believe the founding fathers got it right want bad government?


3) Small states don't vote only for one Party.

But as a state they decide whom their state will cast it's electorial votes for.

4) And it really isn't fair for small populations to have more political pull!

It's smaller states and they have more pull just as they do in the Senate.

The Electoral College was great in the 1800's

What was great about it then but not now?

but now it's a tool that the REP&DEM use to have a monopoly on the US Government!

Actually it's forced them to be more concerned with a broader voting base.

You don't see that? Or what the implications of having a group of
known corrupt people having that kind of unconditional control over
the most powerful country in the world?

If they are known corrupt then don't vote for them.

But if you are against ending the E.C. do you still think it's a good idea
to end the "Winner Take All" Rule? And have "Instant run off election"

No. it's fine just the way it is. What is it that you want to change so badly. The electorial college is one of the amazing mechanism the founding fathers came up with that make the United States what it is and has help us survive as such. Is it just because you think Gore really won?
 

Scarecrow Akhbar

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The really good thing about changing the winner takes all rule on the electoral college (and the states each get to decide that for themselves) is that we'd probably never see another Democrat in the White House. California, you know, it's got 53 votes in the electoral college. Last four elections (at least), all of that went to the Democrats.

Okay, maybe they'd still win elections, but that simple change would help out the country enormously in defending itself from treason within.

The real change is that the various Voting Rights Acts have to be repealed, or at least re-written to restrict voting to qualified people.

Qualified people are all of the following:

Citizens
> 30 years old
Literate - in ENGLISH
College educated
Taxpayers


Notice I didn't mention skin color, or gender, or any other such thing.

Another change would be to do away with elections completely and pick congressmen randomly via a lottery.
 

Willoughby

Active member
Joined
Feb 27, 2006
Messages
411
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
can't you just have a PR system for one of the chambers and then FPTP in presidential election!
 

Gardener

free market communist
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 5, 2005
Messages
26,657
Reaction score
15,927
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
alphamale said:
If the electoral college were done away with, than the election would devolve around the vote of 15 or so states and everyone else might as well stay home on election day.


That would be quite an improvement from the current situation where just 6 or 8 swing states determine the presidency.
 

NoMoreDems-Reps

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2006
Messages
1,415
Reaction score
248
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Stinger said:
Nope the Northeast and the West Coast population centers will elect the Executive offices. This has been shown over and over.
How has it been shown over & over?


Stinger said:
And we are a union of STATES not people, the STATES elect the President and VP.

The People are suppose to have representation! When the states don't elect
the government that the people want there is not "TRUE" representation!


Stinger said:
Specious arguement, do you think those of us who believe the founding fathers got it right want bad government?
They did a great job for their time, but many things have changed and there
are better ways to achieve what the forefathers where trying to achieve!

OUR FOREFATHERS WERE INDEPENDANTS
Read the Declaration of Independence!!
http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/declaration.html


Stinger said:
But as a state they decide whom their state will cast it's electoral votes for.

Again The People are suppose to have representation!


IStinger said:
t's smaller states and they have more pull just as they do in the Senate.

This too is unjust!




Stinger said:
What was great about it then but not now?

The E.C. was made when most Americans knew nothing about the
candidates that where running for the Prez. So they sent a local
statesmen to DC to see who was the best person for the job.
Now the American people know more about the Prez candidates than
they do about their neighbors!




Stinger said:
Actually it's forced them to be more concerned with a broader voting base.

Maybe , but with the system the way it is now the DEMS&REPS don't have
to worry about doing a good job! Because they are the only ones who can
win with the current system! Lack of competition makes it easy for
DEMS&REPS to be corrupt and arrogant.





Stinger said:
If they are known corrupt then don't vote for them.

If you don't vote for them they still will get E.C. Votes! ? ! ?


Stinger said:
No. it's fine just the way it is. What is it that you want to change so badly. The electoral college is one of the amazing mechanism the founding fathers came up with that make the United States what it is and has help us survive as such. Is it just because you think Gore really won?
It's not fine! How can you support a system that is unjust?

I would like to end all systems that allow corruption and unfairness.
The E.C. was good, but 200+yrs later there are now better methods!
Do you still use 200 yr old "Modern transportation", pluming, or medicines?

Gore did have more votes but with our current system the person with
fewer votes won the election! If you can't see the injustice in that then you
missed the whole point of being an American!
 
Last edited:

MAURER8

New member
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Location
shreveport la.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I disagree with you on that most Americans do not have a clue about thier leaders. They only pay any atention to it at election time and then they still do not get all the information they need to make an INFORMED DECISION. Most people don't even know who thier congressman is.
 
Last edited:
L

Liberal Because I Care

We need to do away with the electoral college. We are now capable of counting popular vote quickly and the popular vote should determine the winner.
 

The Mark

Sporadic insanity normal.
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
26,641
Reaction score
6,727
Location
Pennsylvania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
This is an interesting subject.

Personally, I find it hard to agree with any of the changes that have been put forward by various people in this poll.

The idea of removing the EC and making the election a popular vote has its merits, but if you think about it, the states with a higher population would have more say in how the country was run than the states with a lower population.

This seems unfair, because even if everyone in a state (as an example, lets say Alaska) voted against a candidate who promoted certain issues which they were opposed too, if everyone in a state with a higher population voted FOR said candidate, he/she/it would be elected anyway.

Also, say people in 31 states voted against a candidate, and people in 29 states voted for. If all the higher population states voted FOR the candidate (this is just an example, I doubt that everyone in a state would vote for the same thing), he/she/it would be elected, even though a larger percentage of the US (in terms of area at least) voted against.

This may seem fine and be justified because a larger percentage of the people voted for said candidate, but if you think about it, that would mean that candidates would concentrate their election campaigns on the larger population areas and places with lower populations would get little to no attention. And said candidates would tailor their budgets and plans for the country to concentrate monies and such on the higher population areas, which would mean that the lower population areas would get very little.

In this way it would seem that getting rid of the EC and switching to a popular vote is unfair.

I was under the impression (mistaken or otherwise) that the EC was at least partially in place to make sure that each state got equal representation.

And in response to a comment I read earlier on this poll:

Gardener said:
That would be quite an improvement from the current situation where just 6 or 8 swing states determine the presidency.

This is incorrect.

The states which are not swing states have voted and the majority of their population says either yes or no to a candidate. Therefore they DO have a say in the matter--they have already decided who they want in office--but is just that the media concentrates on the swing states because they are more divided on who to vote for, and thus are the wild cards in the election.

However, it would also seem that having some states be more or less already decided (because a larger percentage of their population votes one way or the other most of the time) could bring about (and maybe already has) the same problems listed above.
 
Last edited:

alphamale

Banned
Joined
Oct 9, 2005
Messages
1,120
Reaction score
0
Location
Southern California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Gardener said:
That would be quite an improvement from the current situation where just 6 or 8 swing states determine the presidency.

No, 6 or 8 swing states only determine the presidency in a close election. Without the electoral college, 5 or 10 states would determine the outcome in all presidential elections.
 

alphamale

Banned
Joined
Oct 9, 2005
Messages
1,120
Reaction score
0
Location
Southern California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Liberal Because I Care said:
We need to do away with the electoral college. We are now capable of counting popular vote quickly and the popular vote should determine the winner.

Nonsense - the electoral system is precisely exactly the correct solution for a federal republic.
 

alphamale

Banned
Joined
Oct 9, 2005
Messages
1,120
Reaction score
0
Location
Southern California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
One other comment: when Clinton won the election with a whopping 40% of the vote, libs were completely quiet about "electoral college reform". Then after Al Gore lost in spite of winning the popular vote, the libs suddenly became born-again electoral college reformers! :mrgreen:
 

Korimyr the Rat

Baby Eating Monster
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
19,550
Reaction score
15,755
Location
Cheyenne, WY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I won't support any proportional representation system, because I vote for candidates, not parties. Specifically, I would also want to vote for a candidate to represent me and my community-- not for who gets to choose who represents me.

I want Condorcet vote counting for every office, and I want Congressional districts to be drawn by an impartial board. Anything beyond that would be less reforming elections and more reforming the government as a whole.
 
Top Bottom