AnonTalk BBS — Discuss anything anonymously without registration.

Topic: Tell me I'm not the only person who thinks… (US political)

Anonymous 18f3aebd058c9e512386972a822e7557 started this discussion 2 months (2008-10-09 04:51:33 UTC) ago:

That we should abolish the electoral college and elect the president via popular vote, illegalize lobbying, and jail people for attempting to pass pork inside legislative bills?

Anonymous c029aabeee4ac8b038540802fc978d9d replied with this 2 months (2008-10-09 05:01:54 UTC) ago, 10 minutes later (#67,833):

Making a law is just our failure to solve a problem effectively.

Anonymous 18f3aebd058c9e512386972a822e7557 (OP) replied with this 2 months (2008-10-09 05:02:54 UTC) ago, 1 minute later (#67,835):

@67,833

How else would you suggest we solve problems, for instance, people killing each other?

Anonymous 921cc4e419b0f10b2f2fda8ca9137ced replied with this 2 months (2008-10-09 05:05:57 UTC) ago, 3 minutes later (#67,837):

I'd personally like to see the limitation of the influence of religious groups, especially Christians. Governments in western countries seem to be stacked with Christians, and pander to them because they threaten to take their votes elsewhere.

Anonymous 07b8b1687b1d2a63e42b3097ed9862ef replied with this 2 months (2008-10-09 05:11:59 UTC) ago, 6 minutes later (#67,842):

The electoral college was created because the founder fathers didn't trust the average voter, but serves no real purpose now. You can't outlaw lobbying because that is the main way private individuals and groups can get Congress to listen to them, the problem is when a powerful entity conspires to back up lobbying with blackmail, which is what happpens when a company says they could just move to another country and jobs with them. You can't jail someone for trying to "pass pork" because that isn't even the problem, it is just the trendy thing to hate these days. The "pork" is really just a senator saying they will vote against a bill if it doesn't provide funding to a particular task.

Anonymous 07b8b1687b1d2a63e42b3097ed9862ef replied with this 2 months (2008-10-09 05:14:32 UTC) ago, 3 minutes later (#67,844):

@67,837

The government can't limit the influence of the populace and still be a democracy. The only influence Christian groups have is saying they won't vote for people they don't like, and since most of the country is Christian, it is society that is saying they won't vote for someone they don't like.

Anonymous 5cbf92dc707d61a07ad88298391c5c76 replied with this 2 months (2008-10-09 05:45:43 UTC) ago, 31 minutes later (#67,871):

I agree with OP about abolishing the Electoral College. To be a TRUE democracy, the presidential election has to be entirely citizen-based. We're all just lying to ourselves, blowing air up ours butts about how 'united' and 'free' we are, while all this corrupted bullshit is going on.

Sorry for going off topic.. I just hate the US government.

Anonymous 6d85d4845debae385b6bb2e8893f707a replied with this 2 months (2008-10-09 07:10:06 UTC) ago, 1 hour later (#67,889):

The electoral college simply gives each state the same representation in picking the President as they have in the Congress. It spreads out influence more evenly and ensures the whole country has a say. If it were just the popular vote, a few big cities would decide who would be the President of a union of 50 States.

Anonymous d751d63f9d1f825257681282aaf24e1f replied with this 2 months (2008-10-09 22:45:52 UTC) ago, 16 hours later (#68,059):

Look man, I think it's better that we've got the electoral college. We just need competent people in there, and everything else will be fine. Let's be honest, does the average American even know how to vote correctly? Most people won't take their time to do the research. True democracy isn't the greatest thing in the world because the fact of the matter is that the majority of people aren't very bright. I'd rather have the intelligent people make the decisions as opposed to the dumb people.

The only problem here is that we don't have the proper people in office. What's the point of the electoral college if the people voting are just as stupid as the constituents they represent?

Anonymous dded8c58ffaead87173f534fc7513b4a replied with this 2 months (2008-10-10 00:40:31 UTC) ago, 2 hours later (#68,105):

First off, America is a republic. We vote for people to represent us. If it was truly democratic, then every law and proposal that was brought forward, would be voted on by the people. Due to the fact that we are a republic, the only way you can make your voice heard is to vote for people that are likeminded to you.. and hope that they truly are likeminded and not just spouting bullshit during an election.

As the other anons have said, you cannot abolish the electoral college. Even though the few "big" states still make up the majority of electoral votes, it is still more fair to the country as a whole. In my personal opinion, I believe ever state should have the exact same number of electoral votes, despite their population. But I'm sure many of you have a problem with that.

But in the end, none of this really matters. Our government has grown to big, and controls to many aspects of our lives. Most of the core founding principles of this country have been almost completely trampled on. I guess in a nutshell, we are fucked. Mabye not tomarrow, but I don't believe it to be to far from the now.

Anonymous 18f3aebd058c9e512386972a822e7557 (OP) replied with this 2 months (2008-10-10 01:30:27 UTC) ago, 50 minutes later (#68,114):

To those of you who like the electoral college-don't you think there is something wrong when a canidate can lose the popular vote and still become president?

Anonymous 07b8b1687b1d2a63e42b3097ed9862ef replied with this 2 months (2008-10-10 01:51:55 UTC) ago, 21 minutes later (#68,127):

@68,114

Just being popular amongst the public does not make one fit to lead them.

Anonymous 18f3aebd058c9e512386972a822e7557 (OP) replied with this 2 months (2008-10-10 01:59:38 UTC) ago, 8 minutes later (#68,129):

@68,127

So you would prefer an oligarchy, or would you rather mandatory IQ tests to determine whether or not you can vote?

Anonymous 07b8b1687b1d2a63e42b3097ed9862ef replied with this 2 months (2008-10-10 02:08:14 UTC) ago, 9 minutes later (#68,134):

@68,129

An electoral college is fine, thank you.

Anonymous 18f3aebd058c9e512386972a822e7557 (OP) replied with this 2 months (2008-10-10 02:14:38 UTC) ago, 6 minutes later (#68,137):

@68,134

Well what is the point of even letting people vote when the electoral college decides who is the president?

Anonymous 07b8b1687b1d2a63e42b3097ed9862ef replied with this 2 months (2008-10-10 02:27:19 UTC) ago, 13 minutes later (#68,148):

@68,137

The college does not have free reign to decide as they please, they must make a due case against the will of the people they represent, a case which may in fact be challenged by the supreme court.

Anonymous 18f3aebd058c9e512386972a822e7557 (OP) replied with this 2 months (2008-10-10 02:34:38 UTC) ago, 7 minutes later (#68,151):

@68,148

If they truly represent the will of the people then it should be illegal for them to go against the peoples' will.

Either have a real vote or at least get rid of the fake one.

Anonymous 07b8b1687b1d2a63e42b3097ed9862ef replied with this 2 months (2008-10-10 02:38:37 UTC) ago, 4 minutes later (#68,154):

@68,151

Nobody in this thread say they "truly represent" the people. I don't think anyone in the thread suggest that they should truly represent the people. But do you even know how the electoral votes are chosen? The people in the college are chosen based on the "fake" vote that is the general election.

Anonymous 6d85d4845debae385b6bb2e8893f707a replied with this 2 months (2008-10-10 03:08:39 UTC) ago, 30 minutes later (#68,168):

@68,137

Before the election, the State legislature nominates slates of electors who have pledged to vote for a certain candidate. So for instance, the Texas legislature right now has already chosen a slate of 34 people pledged to vote for McCain and another slate of 34 people pledged to vote for Obama, depending on who wins the state.

After the election, the State legislature, by law, must select the slate for the candidate that won the vote in the state, and they become the electors for the Electoral College.

So as you can see, the electoral college is in practice little more than a rubber stamp of the election results by the votes of the people. Very rarely, an elector will not vote how he/she has promised to vote in the electoral college; these are called "faithless electors".

Fourty-eight states have a winner-take-all system, where the candidate who wins the election gets all of the electoral votes for that State. Two states (Nebraska and Maine), divide up their electoral votes, 1 for the winner in each congressional district and then 2 additional to the winner of the state as a whole.

Anonymous 18f3aebd058c9e512386972a822e7557 (OP) replied with this 2 months (2008-10-10 03:12:48 UTC) ago, 4 minutes later (#68,171):

@68,168

> Fourty-eight states have a winner-take-all system, where the candidate who wins the election gets all of the electoral votes for that State. Two states (Nebraska and Maine), divide up their electoral votes, 1 for the winner in each congressional district and then 2 additional to the winner of the state as a whole.

So, if somebody wins 49% of all states but Nebraska and Maine, and gets no votes at all in Nebraska or Maine, they get no electoral college votes, regardless of winning 49% of almost the whole country. You are telling me that isn't screwed up?

Anonymous 07b8b1687b1d2a63e42b3097ed9862ef replied with this 2 months (2008-10-10 03:16:18 UTC) ago, 4 minutes later (#68,173):

@68,171

I'd be willing to say it is not screwed up. In the end, 49 percent in a 2 person election still means you lose.

Anonymous 6d85d4845debae385b6bb2e8893f707a replied with this 2 months (2008-10-10 03:17:02 UTC) ago, 44 seconds later (#68,174):

@68,171

Are you saying the guy who won 51% in all those states shouldn't beat the guy who won 49%?

Anonymous 18f3aebd058c9e512386972a822e7557 (OP) replied with this 2 months (2008-10-10 03:38:27 UTC) ago, 21 minutes later (#68,186):

@68,174

I'm just trying to point out the stupidity of a winner-take-all system.

Say you won 49% of all states but Maine and Nebraska. Now pretend that if you won 100% in Maine and Nebraska, you would have have more total percentage of the vote, but, thanks to winner-take-all, you lose.

Anonymous 07b8b1687b1d2a63e42b3097ed9862ef replied with this 2 months (2008-10-10 03:46:46 UTC) ago, 8 minutes later (#68,190):

@68,186

I don't think that arguement is going to convince people that mister 49% should not lose.

Anonymous 18f3aebd058c9e512386972a822e7557 (OP) replied with this 2 months (2008-10-10 03:48:33 UTC) ago, 2 minutes later (#68,191):

@68,190

I'm not saying that somebody carrying 49% of the vote shouldn't lose. I'm saying it is stupid to disregard 49% of the people.

Anonymous 07b8b1687b1d2a63e42b3097ed9862ef replied with this 2 months (2008-10-10 03:50:52 UTC) ago, 2 minutes later (#68,193):

@68,191

But what does it mean to "lose" if you do not disregard them?

Anonymous 2dfcde47de0fb72b4783eb2b01586aa6 replied with this 2 months (2008-10-10 17:11:57 UTC) ago, 13 hours later (#68,279):

Wow, has nobody here taken a political science class before?

First of all, if you know anythiing about the U.S., you know that it was never a democracy - it is a republic.

Second, the electoral college exists so that a certain region in the country does not get the primary say in the vote. Different regioons in the U.S. have drastically different views, and single, individual votes can make this unfair.

Read a history book.

Anonymous 79ebf72bb5a006f8cf372a4ba6bdddbd replied with this 2 months (2008-10-10 17:22:07 UTC) ago, 10 minutes later (#68,285):

@68,279

I normally hate to hear people smugly say, "But it [the U.S.] is a republic, not a democray!" As if that fucking matters. The discussion is about which system would be better. It's not as though there's something in our Constitution that says, "— and oh yeah, you can change this document however you like, except that the country always has to remain a "republic" according to some vague connoted meaning of that word."

However, the cited poster has a good point. Read some history. There's a lot of things wrong with our government, and a lot of things need to be done to (try) to fix it. However, abolishing federalism is not one of the things that should be done. All this does is concentrate more power in the hands of fewer people, which is pretty much always a bad thing.

If we abolish the electoral college, we may as well abolish the concepts of the states themselves (especially since we have direct election of senators, an absolutely horrible decision that has tripled the amount of corruption in government). Why not just have a federal government, run from Washington, with no state government at all? (This is a rhetorical question, but if you think about it, the advantages of independent states start to become more apparent.)

Anonymous 2dfcde47de0fb72b4783eb2b01586aa6 replied with this 2 months (2008-10-10 21:34:49 UTC) ago, 4 hours later (#68,363):

@68,285

Yeah, but the problem is when people look up the definition of "democracy" and say "wait, that's not what we're doing!" and automatically assume we're doing something wrong.

Anonymous 948d349525ba043e66f723faacc25510 replied with this 2 months (2008-10-13 13:30:21 UTC) ago, 3 days later (#69,259):

I agree that's a good fundamental start but it is far, far more complicated than that. I personally think the US should devolve into several smaller countries that can manage their regional affairs more effectively (eg New England, Texas etc). The US is much too bulky and corruptible in its present form and a good way to keep a government closer to the citizens it represents is to literally make it closer to its citizens. The consequences for the world would be severe and cause a massive shake-up, but the consequences for maintaining the ridiculous foreign policies of the US might be worse. Popular vote is good, but small and evenly-weighed constituencies are fairer. The UK for instance has a very good and simple voting system (although I disagree with first-past-the-post, preferential is better, although rarely used). I could rant all night but I really should get some sleep. end rant

© AnonTalk.com 2008