Electoral College

[Eric]

I stumbled upon an article in favor of abolishing the Electoral College. Do you think it should be abolished?

I'm personally in favor of abolishing it, or somehow working around it, such as the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.

[rzm61]

I see no use for it.

Popular vote should be good enough.

[Eric]

Not only that, I see it as unjust. It's not just unnecessary but it is wrong.

[rzm61]

....I've always been under the impression that it was only established to keep the black man down.


http://farm1.static.flickr.com/130/352054085_c5a639db74.jpg?v=0

[Eric]

Hahaha well I don't know if that is the sole purpose of it... more to keep the rich white men in power.

[rzm61]

more to keep the rich white men in power.

....:\
I stand by my last statement.

[Eric]

Haha in retrospect that was probably not the most intelligent thing I've said. :icon_confused:

[rzm61]

Ha ha ha. It'll happen again soon enough.

[brutelord]

I say abolish it. The intended purpose is no longer needed.

[tagnostic]

I would actually propose a system
with popular vote primary, (wide open)
top 5, go to electoral college with
weighting along the lines of congress/senate
a specific # by population, and a specific
percentage worked out so that the
population got 50% and the combined
states got 50%

needs tweaking but on the fly, my thoughts

[Eric]

I would actually propose a system
with popular vote primary, (wide open)
top 5, go to electoral college with
weighting along the lines of congress/senate
a specific # by population, and a specific
percentage worked out so that the
population got 50% and the combined
states got 50%

needs tweaking but on the fly, my thoughts

That's a very good idea. What do you mean by top 5? As in top 5 candidates?

[tagnostic]

yes, the top 5 candidates for any national post
ie: Pres, VP being the main ones
states can make their own rules..

[Eric]

So, let me just make sure I understand you correctly. You start with a popular vote primary, which narrows it down to the top five candidates. When these top five are determined, they're given to the electoral college. As for the division of electors, states are given the same number of senators and representatives?

[tagnostic]

right, the popular vote gives the top 5,
then an electoral college composed of
delegates from each state such that
Population counts for 50% (national)
States count for 50%
(if you get 1 electoral vote/10000 population, what ever the total number of those electoral votes are also divided equally among the 50 states to balance it out, similar to congress(by pop) senate (by state) yet modified to give them a balance in a single final vote.....

[Eric]

right, the popular vote gives the top 5,
then an electoral college composed of
delegates from each state such that
Population counts for 50% (national)
States count for 50%
(if you get 1 electoral vote/10000 population, what ever the total number of those electoral votes are also divided equally among the 50 states to balance it out, similar to congress(by pop) senate (by state) yet modified to give them a balance in a single final vote.....

That is an excellent idea! If only there was someway to bring more attention to it. It'd also be an excellent transition into no electoral college at all, should it come to that.

[Tsar Phalanxia]

*Is content with shitty, archaic British system that is biased towards the South of England, and means a majority of the population are never satisfied*
Wait a minute, I'm not content with that at all! It's bullshit!

[winwun]

Popular vote, but enfranchisement should be changed to only allow the vote to those who have manifested a significant contribution to society.

A point system, so many points for taxes paid in the last 5 years, deductions for being on welfare, points for having served (honorably) in the military, for being a home-owner, for a degree in higher education, deductions for being a felon, etc, etc.

Preference should be given also to those who employ others, in other words, the vote should be had by those who contribute.

Preference should be given to the "givers" and not the "takers".

Party affiliation should not matter, but scrutiny should be made of democrats over the age of 50.

If you are 25 and not a democrat, you have no heart, and if you are 40 and not a republican, you have no brain.

[sudikics]

I am a strong supporter of IRV, or instant run-off voting.

Australia uses it, and it seems to work well there. Basically:

1. A general election is held.

2. Voters ranks their preferences numerically out of the candidates.

3. Everyone's first-choice candidates are looked at first. If none of the candidates reach 50%, the candidate with the least votes is removed, and the votes of everyone who voted for him goes to their second choice. This process is repeated until a candidate has over 50%.

I also like it because had the US of A used it in 2000, Gore would've won.

http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/archive/2651/26511602.jpg
(http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/archive/2651/26511601.jpg)

[rzm61]

...you have no heart


I could have told you that without giving away my party affiliation.

[Tsar Phalanxia]

I am a strong supporter of IRV, or instant run-off voting.

Australia uses it, and it seems to work well there. Basically:

1. A general election is held.

2. Voters ranks their preferences numerically out of the candidates.

3. Everyone's first-choice candidates are looked at first. If none of the candidates reach 50%, the candidate with the least votes is removed, and the votes of everyone who voted for him goes to their second choice. This process is repeated until a candidate has over 50%.

I also like it because had the US of A used it in 2000, Gore would've won.

http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/archive/2651/26511602.jpg
(http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/archive/2651/26511601.jpg)
I remember seeing that in New Scientist.

[Dr Goofy Mofo]

It should but it won't

[Eric]

I am a strong supporter of IRV, or instant run-off voting.

Australia uses it, and it seems to work well there. Basically:

1. A general election is held.

2. Voters ranks their preferences numerically out of the candidates.

3. Everyone's first-choice candidates are looked at first. If none of the candidates reach 50%, the candidate with the least votes is removed, and the votes of everyone who voted for him goes to their second choice. This process is repeated until a candidate has over 50%.

I also like it because had the US of A used it in 2000, Gore would've won.

http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/archive/2651/26511602.jpg
(http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/archive/2651/26511601.jpg)

That's a very interesting system. It's very simple, yet far more effective and accurate of the will of the people.