Split Electoral College Votes or ...?

[PUNK rock]

Considering how much effort is put into presidential campaigns, I wouldn't call it a fluke. No system is perfect and the almighty founding fathers deemed the electorial college to be the best system. And when you look at how far America has progressed since the 1700s, I'd be willing to say they made a pretty good system for choosing presidents.

[za gophar]

hey i did not mention gore or bush. i dont think its the best system but i am not that annoyed by it. it could have helped gore just as much, but it didnt.. oh well.

[Sleepy Weasel]

Za Gophar explained it just fine, but what people have failed to mention is how many times the winner of the popular vote failed to win the election. The last time it happened was in 2000 and before that it hadn't happened since 1888. That's twice in the 50+ elections we've had. So unless you're really picky about things, it's not that big of a deal.

That's retarded. It should happen 0 times, because there is no purpose for the electoral college. It's like saying "I'm going to stab myself with this pen once ever 50 years but it's cool because it doesn't happen that often" Or you could you know... not fucking stab yourself with a pen every 50 years.

No system is perfect and the almighty founding fathers deemed the electorial college to be the best system. And when you look at how far America has progressed since the 1700s, I'd be willing to say they made a pretty good system for choosing presidents.

That's even more retarded. It was the best system... in the 1700s. Back when we had like 13 states and we all walked around like this


Guess what 300 years later we can support a popular vote system. The electoral college was implemented 300 years ago because information was far less accessable. You couldn't see the debates unless you were physically there. They were worried people wouldn't know the candidates and would all just vote for their local representatives for president, thus giving no one candidate a majority. So they setup a group of the intellectual elite to vote for the people so the people didn't fuck it up. It's completely anachronistic. Plus it all but ensures a two party system, which is another big fuckup.

[bloodzombie]

I agree about the electoral college, but I still walk around like this

[Fit of Rage]

Please tell me precisely how having an electoral college is more democratic than going with the popular vote? If democracy is about electing the candidate who the most people want, why not use the candidate with the greatest popular vote- since it's supposed to include all the active voters in that election. Cut out the middleman.

[PUNK rock]

That's retarded. It should happen 0 times, because there is no purpose for the electoral college. It's like saying "I'm going to stab myself with this pen once ever 50 years but it's cool because it doesn't happen that often" Or you could you know... not fucking stab yourself with a pen every 50 years.



That's even more retarded. It was the best system... in the 1700s. Back when we had like 13 states and we all walked around like this


Guess what 300 years later we can support a popular vote system. The electoral college was implemented 300 years ago because information was far less accessable. You couldn't see the debates unless you were physically there. They were worried people wouldn't know the candidates and would all just vote for their local representatives for president, thus giving no one candidate a majority. So they setup a group of the intellectual elite to vote for the people so the people didn't fuck it up. It's completely anachronistic. Plus it all but ensures a two party system, which is another big fuckup.

It's not every 50 years if it has happened twice (1888 and 2000). If you really care that much, get elected to Congress and support a bill eliminating the Electorial College. If the system fucked up more often, maybe I'd care. It's not say say that the popular is perfect as Florida was so nice to demonstrate. I'm sure there's even a way to fuck up electronic voting booths.

PS Sleepy: If you decide to run for Congress, don't forget to have a criminal record

[PaulOakenfold]

go JOHN LOCKE!

[DoTheFandango]

We aren't a democracy, we are a Republic/Democracy

[Fit of Rage]

We aren't a democracy, we are a Republic/Democracy

Then let's fucking fix it so it's closer to a true democracy.

Christ.

[Saturn V]

We aren't a democracy, we are a Republic/Democracy

I thought we were a Constitutional Republic?

Then let's fucking fix it so it's closer to a true democracy.

No, let's not. Pure democracy would be worse. Our Founding Fathers knew this, that's why they avoided it. If I'm not mistaken, under a democracy the government would have unlimited power (dictatorship-like).

[DoTheFandango]

I thought we were a Constitutional Republic?

Thats the name of it.

[PUNK rock]

Then let's fucking fix it so it's closer to a true democracy.

Christ.

I'd give you $5 if you could tell me what nation (of more than 10,000 people) has ever had a true democracy or even something close to it.

[Fit of Rage]

No, let's not. Pure democracy would be worse. Our Founding Fathers knew this, that's why they avoided it. If I'm not mistaken, under a democracy the government would have unlimited power (dictatorship-like).

You are mistaken. A pure democracy would be everyone holds an equal share in deciding how the nation is run. Every single bill in congress would be voted upon by every voting U.S. citizen. Of course this isn't feasible, what I'm saying is by removing the electoral college, the popular vote (every single person in the nation who votes) puts in their say and the election for leaders (the partial republic) is conducted without a middleman.

[Squeezer]

Matters!

[Reclusion]

I'd give you $5 if you could tell me what nation (of more than 10,000 people) has ever had a true democracy or even something close to it.

France had one, right before a totally unrelated & bloody revolution.

Now, do you use PayPal?