As long as we have the EC, expert political scientists will tailor campaigns to win states not votes…This leaves New York, Cali and Texas under represented…since they are pretty much guaranteed to have predictable outcomes…90m people with really no representation…add in Florida which is rarely a swing state and you have one third of the country with no voice…No need to run ads in those states…outcomes are too predictable…The worst part is the primaries. …all the candidates ignore the big states…why should Iowa and new Hampshire be king makers?
1 Like
No sheet, Hillary…
It did it’s job. It prevented the extreme in California from deciding the entire election. Her book shows she still doesn’t get it. Most of the democrats still don’t get it either. The working class has finally wised up that the democrats have become the party of the intellectual elite. They are anti workers and anti business. Since the vast majority of people work for businesses, they realize a pro business government is in their best interest. Paying more taxes to fund more elites to sit on their butts and think isn’t going to help the average worker.
1 Like
Hence why I say we go to a system of this:
- First Saturday of November - allows most or more folks ample time to get to the polls to vote.
- All ballots in first, close the polls, then count them all in secret. No chance for the West to possibly sway the election. Full disclosure and detail for data geeks available for a price (j/k).
- Assuming you do the above, why not go to a most votes in system? It is just counting up votes, right? We can put a man on the moon, this would be a cake walk if we are willing to do it right.
The reasons were outlined by the founders who framed the constitution. The US was never meant to be and never was a true democracy. At first, only tax payers could vote, because they knew the danger of letting non-tax payers vote on tax rates and spending. It’s really easy to spend other people’s money and demand they pay more.
The electoral college exists to prevent a large state like California from deciding the election. That’s exactly what the electoral college did since the margin of popular vote in CA was big enough to reverse the outcome of the popular vote in the 49 other states.
1 Like
I get all that, but evolution does happen and should right? Why not count every vote now? Each vote is worth one vote, whether in Peoria or Pittsburgh. Everyone deserves a true say. An electoral college system, may give the impression to some folks that their vote did not matter (which could be true actually). We can build a better mouse trap…
I’d argue that’s heading towards a worse mouse trap. You can already see what happens when lots of people that don’t pay income taxes vote. They want more and more government programs and spending, but they don’t think they should have to pay taxes to fund it. They think we can just take more money from the rich to fund it. That’s the exact mob mentality they were protecting against with the original voter rights. Are we over $20T in debt yet? It’s no coincidence debt has skyrocketed as we increase voter rights.
Also, the original design was for very limited federal government. Most decisions were supposed to be made at local and state levels. That’s where a vote counts even more. Instead, we’ve been on a decades long trend of federal government overreach. The end result is a very polarized country with a mountain of debt. Is that really better than letting things be decided at the local level? Imagine how much less angst there’d be about gay marriage, abortion, and every other controversial topic if they were decided at the state level.
The original design was absolutely brilliant. They foresaw many of the problems we’re having today and tried to protect us from them. We were too stupid and arrogant. We decided we were smarted and started messing with it.
I will have to disagree with you on this one. We have progressed enough in this country to do things better and to be accountable to each and every legal voter. A vote in its purest sense should mean something and be worth something. I don’t think you would argue with that, right? Well, when you take that vote and then translate it to a system where that one vote could be rendered useless (even though you think you are doing that voter a service) is actually a waste of time and resources and then introduces problems like we had with our last election. I am all for a simple but truly effective system that would test time. Nothing is gray about most votes = winner. Nothing…
1 Like
25% of people think the sun orbits the earth. 33% think Bush killed more people than Stalin. A majority of adults in Detroit are illiterate. You want them voting? There are other major things where a majority of people are misinformed. I can’t see any good of letting people that are completely divorced from facts vote. There is no accountability when people are so uniformed.
1 Like
Agree, but that is the beauty of our system, our nation. One thing I didn’t mention earlier, is the need these days to want to be transparent. 200 years ago, perhaps people were generally more honest and didn’t have a burning desire for transparency. They had to find food… How transparent would we be, in the 21st century, if we kept a black box system like the Electoral College? You want an end to end process, no? So, that one vote goes all the way to the finish line and gets counted. Fair…and square.
I know, my Fab 7x7 wants to allow teens to vote. Come on!!! That is pushing it, but again, that is what is great about our “neighborhood” right? Everyone is encouraged to participate, smart or not, yellow or green, rich or poor. That is what differentiates us from the others.
One person one vote. Any other way is open to abuse. California doesn’t think in one monolithic way. You can make the case that the current winner-takes-all system silences the voice of conservatives in CA. Their votes don’t count in the current system. Same way the liberals’ vote don’t count in Texas.
People are people, no matter where they live in our big country.
Sure, just throw gas on the fire that is the decline of the US.
If people actually knew that their votes counted in every sense of the word that to me would make this country better actually. Accountability and transparency!!!
1 Like
Do you really think the average person will try to become better informed? A lot of people don’t even have much interest in voting. Turnout was only 58%. it was only 36% the last mid-tern election in 2014. Flint had a mayor election with 10% turnout.
Would anyone run a company by hiring a bunch of qualified and unqualified people, then let them equally decide which new products and services to develop? Why should government run that way?
As long as you explain it in a way so that the person understands how it impacts him/her I do believe a person would be interested in anything. If you give him a telephone book thick voter package that would probably stop a lot of people from wanting to get informed. Sure, both sides always come up with compelling reasons too as to why it is right and why the other side is wrong. Who knows?
Flip it around. Maybe the low turnout and disinterest is reflective of how poorly run the current system is. Yes, if you knew that your vote didn’t technically count since there is an electoral college system in place, I would expect low turnout too. But, as I responded earlier I do believe turnout is also low because we don’t make it easy for folks to vote. We do it on a work day for most folks. I also believe the theory is true about people thinking their one vote won’t matter. Do I need to point to this past election again? Come on, MORE people wanted Hillary yet because of the electoral college way we got The Donald. How is that the better and truer system? I do believe most folks wanted Hillary in there but for whatever reason either they didn’t vote at all or were hoodwinked to look at issues that didn’t matter so they went with the bad hair. Come on, if we can survive these three + more years, I will bet you anything that the voting percentage will be higher.
1 Like
If that was true, then everyone would support lower taxes. We know lower tax rates create higher growth rates. We know higher growth increases wages, lower unemployment, and lower poverty. The four times we’ve cut tax rates the total tax revenue has increased and GDP growth accelerated. Yet, we have an entire party dedicated to increasing taxes on the rich in the name of fairness and helping the poor. No rational person that looks at the data could come to that conclusion, but a ton of people do anyway.
Most people read a headline and form an emotional opinion and attachment based on the headline. After that, there’s zero amount of data that’ll change their mind. That’s not a situation that lends itself to everyone voting for what they think is best. People will vote based on whatever headline they see first that appeals to their emotions.
Look at California voting to reduce or eliminate prison sentences for “non-violent” offenders. Everyone got one vote and decided what to do. How’s that working out for you? The two police officers killed by people released because of that bill would probably say it’s not working too well if they were still alive.
Look, no one ever said the system was perfect but we can take incremental baby steps to improve things. Forget about the electoral college system for a second. Why would you be opposed to tallying up all of the votes and whomever had the most votes would be declared the winner?
If anything, the current system with the electoral college failed us miserably this round!!! My god, look at how poorly he is doing. Could he turn it around? Sure, but what are the chances of that? He seems to be learning as he goes but we are soooo close to biting it big with Fat Boy wanting to shoot off more of his fireworks.
I’d be ok with that if we had more limited voting rights. Personally, I’d love to see people actually pass a test on the constitution and basics of government.
I don’t think it failed us at all. Republicans would still have the house and senate, so you’d have even worse gridlock. What would she be able to get done? Also, do you really think her agenda of increasing taxes on the rich would spur economic growth? We all know tax cuts are better for the economy than tax increases. Do you think N Korea or Russia would fear her at all?
Trump has even reached across the aisle having dinner with Pelosi and Schumer. Everyone at the meeting said they outlined an agreement on DACA and increased border security. The people that weren’t there are claiming a deal isn’t close, since they just had a huge portion of their power taken away. Do you think Hillary would reach across the aisle to work with Ryan and McConnell? People talk about her as the most qualified candidate ever. What legislation did she sponsor? What was her crowning achievement as Secretary of State? It’ll probably take you awhile to go look that up, since I’ve never met anyone that can cite it from memory.
Are you telling me all the crap up to now with his sorry cabinet picks and tweets provide you with the utmost confidence in his abilities? He is unorthodox I give you that, but man we are soooo close to Armageddon!!!
I expected the transition to be a little bumpy. It’s a huge change. People forget it took 2 years to get ACA passed. The government moves so much slower than business. Just another reason they should be in charge of as little as possible. I do wish someone would lock his twitter account.