Haven’t we had enough? A person’s vote in CA should have equal weight as another person’s vote in New York. Plain and simple, tally them all up and the most votes win. Obviously, you can’t have different ending poll hours, etc, but really the time has come right? Everyone votes, the polls close with no early results coming in at all and the counting happens and THEN the results are revealed to the public at once.
Electoral system is dumb. Suppose to be one person one vote.
Wow, I AGREE with you @hanera!!! OMG, let’s limit miracles to one per 24 hours for Christ’s sakes!!!
Why do people have such a misguided view of US history? Not everyone could vote. The country wasn’t inclusive. Only land owners could vote. Since there wasn’t an income tax, states collected taxes from land owners and paid the federal government. That meant only tax payers would vote. That was by design. When you start letting people that don’t contribute money decide to take money from others and spend massive amounts of money, you get what we have now. Record debt
Graph above shows the effect of Reagonimics/Republicanomics/Bushanomics on Debt/Gdp ratio. Notice Reagan & Bush (both Jr & Senior) were BAD for debt. We also know which party’s economic policies led to the mortgage meltdown -> financial depression & hence responsible for blowing up of debt due to QE recently.
Scary part is now we have a guy at the wheel, who has the attention span & critical reasoning facility of a 6 year old kid & he will steer the economy . To lead a country one needs to have the ability to ask the right questions to the experts & get into the details & nuances of any serious argument, which he seriously lacks!
Are we seriously saying we want to go back to only allowing landowners to vote? Sign me up. I have a few properties. I am worth several votes I figure.
That’s why I am praying real hard for a strong Cabinet!!!
How about you get as many votes as you pay in taxes…Would discourage tax cheating and would increase voter participation
Sure. And CA will run the country.
Go back further. Pre 1932, we rarely had deficits except during war. In 1928, our debt was $17.6M which is $256M in today’s dollars. We often ran a surplus. The country was mostly run by republican congress before then. Since 1932 democrats have run congress most of the time, and it’s been more and more debt. It’s no surprise that when we greatly expanded voter rights government spending took off. Politicians have more people to please to get the votes required for election.
Remember, republicans had congress and forced Clinton to compromise. We did tax cuts and welfare reform. Surprise! The debt situation got better.
I’m not saying we go back to only land owners vote, but people are woefully naive about the founding of the country. The US wasn’t about everyone gets a vote. The US was about those paying the bills get a vote.
How does this relate to the electoral system and one person one vote? Just to let you, I don’t believe in one person one vote system.
The US was never designed to be one person one vote. People pretend that it was.
Which year are you talking about?
The electoral college system is unlikely to end in the near term now that the GOP has benefited twice from the split votes in modern elections. The dems need a candidate who can carry the small states (eg. a Bernie)
Marcus is referring to the 1776 era, and he’s correct. The interesting thing is that there are some parallels between Andrew Jackson and Trump, and Jackson was famous for letting the common man be able to vote for president.
Yes. Checkout the history of voting rights. Not even all men could vote at first. Really, only a small percentage could vote.
You’re right, @user1, this article mentions the unlikelihood of this being scrapped any time soon. This “hybrid” methodology sounds interesting enough and has some garnered some state support.
It is sad to see the extreme protesting and the trashing of our cities when the system and the process has spoken. All those hidden registered voters who decided to pass on this one literally, passed on the country frankly. Those missing votes in those really tightly fought states could have very well made a difference. No excuses.
Why didn’t the protesters vote? More than likely they were Bernie fans and didn’t even bother to bote for Hillary. …
I get it, you might want to protest once, but what is the point NOW? Donald Trump is our next President. Let him have a crack at it and as some have said when he proposes something that you find inappropriate then that would be the time and place to really voice out. Do we all really know what he is going to do? No. I sense and hope that a lot that he initially mentioned he would do would be watered down considerably or down right dropped once he actually is advised of the cost (say for literally building a Great Wall of US). I can’t help to think that even for him, he is grasping the enormity of the task and responsibility at hand. Running US Corporation is no joke and is not a breeze.
Why protest at all? You just elected the guy. Unless your goal is a coup, forget it. Unless you live in Oakland and your goal is looting.