Should our government be remodeled as a whole?

Beowulf wrote: Why do you guys think that "winning a state" would matter with out electoral colleges.
It wouldn't, if you knew that you were only going to get the percentage of electoral votes as you got popular votes you wouldn't want to "win a state" you would want to try to win everyone. I think that the electoral college was great at the time, our founding fathers were geniuses but that it is slightly outdated. this would give it a new face without abolishing it entirely. And make voting more fair, your vote is your vote it just has to go through one more step(the whole percentage thing). Personally I think this would be an effective way of working things and would eliminate the draw backs of the electoral colleges(like "winning a state").

diff states diff regional concerns all regions need equalizer in case on state had population majority electoral college is the equalizer almost like a curve on a test

First of all, people need to realize that money is power. What is proposed by beowulf is that we need to reduce the ability to monopolize one's own image above the competition, introducing the possibility that one may achieve an office through words and actions instead. Currently, politicians recieve money in exchange for the promotion of agendas and goals that otherwise would not be considered at the level of priority proposed. Instead, they would be free to think for themselves instead of being pressured into other areas of action.

Secondly, what beowulf means is that our vote is useless. It is merely an indicator of how we would like our representatives to vote for us. If we were to use only the popular vote, we would eliminate the middle man and make our votes count as they should: one vote for one vote contributing to a total. But, we operate on percentages, effectively cutting out votes that are stuck between the groupings of votes as determined by the number of representatives one has. What I mean by that is when you have 20 representatives, some votes are cut out when the state votes only on one candidate as determined by the percentage of votes the candidate recieves. If the other candidate recieves more popular votes but the other candidate wins in the electoral college, then that mechanism has failed. Please explain to me how having a middle man system that cuts out votes contributes to the operation of a republic. (A government type that allows people to dictate issues to a representative they choose for legislation, not determining who they want to lead the people and what issues are important to the people.)

Beowulf wrote: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?

Let's have a theocracy!! =D

Alright, so I was doing River Region Evening Edition today, one of the shows I work with, and one of our stories was about the Electoral College. Obviously, my interest was immediately peaked.

Apparently there is a bill that they are trying to get through to basically get rid of the Electoral College. The "Electoral College" votes would be directly based on the popular vote instead of separate people voting.

Just a sign that drastic changes are on the way, agree or disagree, like it or not, they are on the way.

Solarflare wrote:Let's have a theocracy!! =D

Please no.

Anyway, there are arguments in favour and opposed to the electoral college. The United States is a federation, and so one could argue that the constituent members of that federation ought to be able to influence the head of that federation (that the President represents the executive of the federation, not of the people individually).
I think this is great when the components of the federation are substantially different from each other, and if (say) India were to join the United States then I would be in favour of the electoral college.

As it is, though, the components of the federation are not substantially different: California is not *so* different from Texas, which is not *so* different from North Carolina, etc. Indeed, most people view themselves as Americans first, and then as residents of their state. If I ask you what country you are a citizen of, you are far more likely to say "The United States of America" versus "The State of California and the United States of America".

Hence, because the electoral college results in a distortion of the vote, and because I believe the President represents all the people rather than merely the components of the federation, I think it ought to be abolished in some manner.

Because of the distortion (that is, some states have a higher or lower percent of the electoral votes than percent of population), the votes of some people is worth more than the votes of others...Because Wyoming has .56% of the electoral vote but only .17% of the population, each resident of Wyoming essentially votes as 3.25 people in the election (or, put another way, they get 3.25 votes). A resident of California, because California has 10.22% of the electoral vote but 12.19% of the population, then votes as 0.84 people. Or, to put another way: Wyoming votes as if it has the state population of 1,652,846 people (versus 509,294 in reality), and Cali votes as if it has the state population of 30,302,179 (rather than 36,132,147, in reality).

Thus, you need almost 4 Californians to equal the vote of 1 Wyomingan (?). That seems kind of silly to me, as I think we all ought to get 1 vote per person.

Also, the wasted vote effect is staggering...A liberal in Utah has basically no reason to go out and vote, because his vote doesn't impact the national election beyond the state, because of the winner-takes-all system.

Thus, I support electoral reform.

I would like to know just how you propose to reform the electoral vote.
I belive it is vastly necissary. You said that the states are not so different from eachother, I disagree.
Explain to me how a agriculture state, such as nebraska or kansas would have the same political agenda as an industious state, such as new jersy or pennsylvania. The different circumstances, creat differend political needs, the states would have differend politicians representing ordeals ranging from polition control, and agriculteral taxsation. If the only method of electing a president was the populare vote, the election would be won from the more urban areas that support the specified politician. They might have varied agendas than the citizens of the rural areas, who's vote would be come as obselete as those who vote for Nader.

Just an afterthought, without proper represention for the bread basket states, the agricultural industry of our country (which contributes 70%) of our edible commodities would realize an economic crises. Food prices might increase dramatically, or worse farmers and ranchers could cease production in a form of stike, due to the lack of attendance paid to them by the government. A great deal of people in Agriculteral areas are already unhappy with local, and federal government groups. Take for instance the land owners in Colorado who are facing Eminant Domain (a law from the 19th century that allows government officials to cease land for 1/4th of the estimated value, and to forcefully relocate the owners withought any consent on their part) I don't know about you, but I have no intentions of getting my food from China, lead eggs...yum!

Quote:I would like to know just how you propose to reform the electoral vote.

The chief executive would be directly elected based on nation wide popular vote.

Quote:You said that the states are not so different from eachother, I disagree.

Culturally the states are all basically the same: There are no vast religious or cultural

Quote:Explain to me how a agriculture state, such as nebraska or kansas would have the same political agenda as an industious state, such as new jersy or pennsylvania.

The issues of our time transcend the bizarre agricultural-industrial dichotomy that many of those who believe in the electoral college see as the defining divide between Americans.

Quote:The different circumstances, creat differend political needs, the states would have differend politicians representing ordeals ranging from polition control, and agriculteral taxsation.

I'm sure that you are aware that there is another branch of government, dealing specifically with the creation of laws (including money laws) whereupon one half of that branch is elected based upon small congressional districts representing localities, and the other half is elected based on states

Quote:. If the only method of electing a president was the populare vote, the election would be won from the more urban areas that support the specified politician. They might have varied agendas than the citizens of the rural areas, who's vote would be come as obselete as those who vote for Nader.

And so why, exactly, should we muffle the voice of those in the urban centres (which, we should note, don't vote as a bloc) and give an EXTRA voice to those who live in rural areas? Are farmers just "more equal" than nonfarmers?

A candidate cannot even mathematically win if he gets 100% of the urban vote but 0% of the rural vote. You need to demonstrate more harms than simply a theoretical "WELL WHAT IF ALL THE CITIES GOT TOGETHER AND EVERYONE IN THEM CAST THEIR VOTE THE SAME OH GOD THE FARMERS WOULD NOT HAVE A VOICE!!!!"

But we can demonstrate the assertion to be false anyway: WITHIN the state, candidates still go to both urban and rural areas and court votes in both areas in order to win that state. There is no reason to believe they would do anything differently if the situation was different.
Hillary Clinton, for instance, campaigned in the WHOLE of New York, not just New York City, desipte New York City holding about half of New York's population.

Quote:the agricultural industry of our country (which contributes 70%)

Excuse me? The United States is not in any way based on agriculture, but rather on services and technology.

Quote:Food prices might increase dramatically, or worse farmers and ranchers could cease production in a form of stike, due to the lack of attendance paid to them by the government.

This isn't likely, considering that the way the US House and Senate are structured still favours agriculture, hence why the US continues its agricultural subsidies (even with a Democratic congress).

Quote:A great deal of people in Agriculteral areas are already unhappy with local, and federal government groups.

A great deal of people everywhere ar eunhappy with local and federal groups.

Quote:I don't know about you, but I have no intentions of getting my food from China, lead eggs...yum!

False dichotomy: It isn't the case that EITHER we give farmers a disproportionate voice (more equal than everyone else) OR we eat lead eggs from China.