As we all know, politicians can be really great people, but some if not most are in the pockets of large corperations and the people with the most money. (Not saying democrats or republicans but all parties) So I propose a few things about what we need to do.
First, there needs to be no electoral college. A common miss conception is that the electoral college votes on what the state voted for. There are some cases where the electoral college votes whatever it wants, and not for its state, but worse than that, presidents can win by electoral votes, but get absolutely dominated in the public polls. So I think that this is one area to change.
Second, I think that parties should not be funded by individuals or corperations. There needs to be some sort of buffer or cap to what all a person or corperation can give a politician for his cause and for his "campaining"
What do you think should change and do you agree with these changes?
i agree with you second so the candidate won't owe anyone their presidency but the first i don't know about. your evidence doesn't justify such a radical change in policy
Look at it this way, when you go to vote, you want your vote to count. But if a president gets the majority vote, such as when Al Gore ran Against
President Bush.
Gore: 50,999,897 Bush: 50,456,002
President Hayes: 4,033,768 Samual Tilden: 4,285,992
I believe there was another instance, but thats all I can remember for now. So there is my evidence as to why that should change. Correct me if I'm wrong, but popular vote should be what we base our presidency off of.
You raise a valid point, but I strongly disagree. The electoral collge is founded for the protection of the states and their say in their government. Take into account that New York for instance has a higher population than Montana, Wyoming, North and South Dakota, and Rhode Island combined. If these were the only states in the nation, should the people of New York decide the government for the entire nation. The electoral college allows states to have say based on the majority of the vote in each state. If a stat holds a majority not over 50% but a simple majority than the electoral votes go to the candidate. If we went by population than many states owuld be ruled out. Personally a heavily populated state should not have absolute power over the government and the founders new this, which is why we have the electoral college. I do not believe in your second point either. That is breaking our rights by telling us we can not support our candidate. If i were a multi-billionaire, and wanted to give a candidate a large sum, that should not be illegal because I support the beliefs of the candidate.
I have to agree with getting rid of the electoral college. Well, atleast part of it. I believe the "point system" it has should remain to keep the equality among the states and so that the more populated states count for more. However, I do not agree with the voting system of the electoral college. When it was created, yes it was needed because citizens could not be well informed about candidates. However, with the developments in technology, especially the media, candidates are now able to get their voice out to the entire country and inform the people of his or her views. This is why I believe that the electoral college is now obsolete.
brewerjo wrote:Take into account that New York for instance has a higher population than Montana, Wyoming, North and South Dakota, and Rhode Island combined. If these were the only states in the nation, should the people of New York decide the government for the entire nation.
This is exactly what I am talking about. You are thinking of the house and the senate. I believe in states having equal representation there, but when it comes to an election, 1 vote is 1 vote. We need to take down states boarders in elections and vote as a nation. The people now choose who is president. If you go to the polls and vote as a citizen, your state should have nothing to do with the out come of YOUR vote. If more people vote for a presidential candidate, then that candidate should win, period.
I had a friend wo came up with a compromise to what both Beowulf and brewerjo are talking about. She siad to keep the electroal college and each state gets the same number of votes electorally as it does now, but that each canidate gets the same percentage of electoral votes as the get popular votes. This could sometimes come up with really wierd numbers, like .25% of 7 for example in Oregon, but it allows for a popular vote while still having some semblance of an electoral college. So now each persons vote counts but we still have an elctoral college to keep with fairness between the states.
About a cap on donations for politians it seems unfair for corporations and rich people to make uch huge donations but that is the way politics works unfortunately. You can't stop them because it would be a violation of states rights. So in the instance I agree with brewerjo.
Thank you for agreeing with me over states rights. I still believe the founders were on to something with the electoral college so I am still in for keeping the college until our nation falls.
The electoral college was an incredible idea for it's day and worked very well before the day's of media. Not only were the founding fathers onto something, but they got it right for their time.
But it is still great for our time to make sure the nation is not a nation divided.
Then explain to me why every persons vote cant count for one vote and the popular vote winner wins? Yeah, we are still alive and our country is running, but look at communist china, so are they. I'm not comparing us to communists but mearly stating that change is not a bad thing. I think it would be BETTER for our country to leave the electoral out of voting and the majority vote should win. Now we have the media to educate individuals, we dont need states to count for more or less. If we dont have an electoral college, then the size of your state doesnt matter. Why do you guys think that "winning a state" would matter with out electoral colleges.
bubblez wrote: I had a friend wo came up with a compromise to what both Beowulf and brewerjo are talking about. She siad to keep the electroal college and each state gets the same number of votes electorally as it does now, but that each canidate gets the same percentage of electoral votes as the get popular votes. This could sometimes come up with really wierd numbers, like .25% of 7 for example in Oregon, but it allows for a popular vote while still having some semblance of an electoral college. So now each persons vote counts but we still have an elctoral college to keep with fairness between the states.
Pages