BCR
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2010
- Messages
- 598
- Reaction score
- 178
- Location
- Heart of Dixie
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Left
I know there are reasons for it and reasons against it but I can't help but ask why bother voting in a presidential election if I am in Alabama? My vote truly is worthless since I'm a Democrat and we all know how the majority in Bama will vote.
So for that reason I feel like I'm against it, your thoughts?
There's no reason not to go with the national popular vote. Give the election a three week window. Everyone votes by computer.
Those who don't own one vote in their current polling location, with the same ID requirements. They already swipe the magnetic strip on my Driver's License to ID me.
The winner is 50% plus one or more.
It is way past time for having truly one person, one vote and it is possible thru e-vote now.
The only way to make each vote count, is to get rid of the electoral college, and make the popular vote the deciding factor in the election.
I'm not a fan of it, and I think it should be gotten rid of. It gives people living in low-population states more of a voice in the elections, and that's not fair. It's also a major factor in keeping us tied to a two-party system.
I like it-this country was never intended to be a pure democracy and I like that . I also would get rid of the 17th amendment as well to restore some of the balance between the states and the very growing and greedy federal government
It wouldn't restore balance between the states. It would just give more power to the greedy state governments. There'd also be crises of representation when the state legislatures would block and deadlock appointments to Senators. Popular election of Senators didn't happen because the federal government pushed it or the citizens of states wanted to give more power to the federal government - popular election of Senators passed because state legislatures became inept due to partisan politics. This would be worse rather than better if the 17th were repealed.
the current system makes senators the whores of special interests.
the current system makes senators the whores of special interests.
most conservatives understand the value of the electoral college. having politicians pandering to the most populated states is not good IMHOAnd whatever way the votes are cast, it is only thru the full and fair counting of the popular vote and the abolishment of the Electorial College that insure the elected are responsive to only the electorate. Our representatives are supposed to allow the rule of the people solely, not the rule of the almighty campaign contribution.
Take a picture, because you'll rarely find me agreeing with rightists, but the rightists are correct in advocating popular vote only.
Regards from Rosie
And repealing the 17th will lead to a system that makes Senators the whores of special interests. Only the people will have even less of a chance to kick them out since they have the state legislature as a buffer.
I like the fact that the congress was supposed to be directly elected and the senate by the state. I tend to believe the founders had more wisdom than those who wanted to change the nature of the balance between federal and state power.
Well, you're wrong. The Constitution was amended because partisans in the sate legislature was ****ing up the balance between the federal and state power by using filibusters in the state senates to prevent candidates from being appointed to the Senate. Because of this, the Senate was passing bills without some states being represented.
State governments are often no better than the federal government. In fact, they're often worse because they get less scrutiny by the press. We need more functions for direct democracy in the federal government, not less. Less power to the people will lead only to more corruption, not less, as the people will have fewer recourses to get rid of it.
I am wrong-LOL your opinion does not trump my opinion. and the reason for that does not overcome the reason for the original system
try again.
we need less direct democracy. right now we have way too much representation without taxation. people with no skin in the game have way too much say.
My opinion is not opinion. Everything I said was fact. There was a reason why the 17th Amendment was passed. It was because the way it was being done before then was causing ineffectual governing. The people got tired of it and they made changes to the Constitution to address it. It now works better - Senators get elected despite the partisan obstructionism of state legislatures. Now you can ignore that or dismiss that if you want, but the point still stands.
And whatever way the votes are cast, it is only thru the full and fair counting of the popular vote and the abolishment of the Electorial College that insure the elected are responsive to only the electorate. Our representatives are supposed to allow the rule of the people solely, not the rule of the almighty campaign contribution.
Take a picture, because you'll rarely find me agreeing with rightists, but the rightists are correct in advocating popular vote only.
Regards from Rosie
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?