Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Pensacola Discussion Forum » General Discussion » Is it time to get rid of the Electoral College?

Is it time to get rid of the Electoral College?

+8
Nekochan
ZVUGKTUBM
TEOTWAWKI
knothead
Hospital Bob
Joanimaroni
Floridatexan
boards of FL
12 posters

Go to page : 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Is it time to get rid of the Electoral College?

Is it time to get rid of the Electoral College? I_vote_lcap69%Is it time to get rid of the Electoral College? I_vote_rcap 69% [ 11 ]
Is it time to get rid of the Electoral College? I_vote_lcap31%Is it time to get rid of the Electoral College? I_vote_rcap 31% [ 5 ]
Total Votes : 16


Go down  Message [Page 1 of 4]

boards of FL

boards of FL

Is it time to get rid of the Electoral College?


_________________
I approve this message.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan


I don't have a problem with the electoral college. I do have a problem with the amount of money that has been pumped into elections. We need campaign finance reform.

Joanimaroni

Joanimaroni

Floridatexan wrote:
I don't have a problem with the electoral college.  I do have a problem with the amount of money that has been pumped into elections.  We need campaign finance reform.

2 billion for a campaign is ridiculous.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Eliminate the electoral college
Term limits on congress
campaign finance limits
limits on lobbying
no congressmen can become lobbyists after leaving congress
limit the term of the presidential election campaign
all wars and occupations must be declared by congress
1 President per family (no spouses, children or siblings)
balanced budget
ban steve doocy (and doocy junior) and mika brezenski (sic) from doing political commentary on television.
all laws which apply to the citizenry will apply to congress/president

those are off the top of my head. give me some time and I'll come up with plenty more

knothead

knothead

Money talks and BS walks . . . . it is ridiculous and we absolutely need campaign finance reform but to change the electoral college system would require further analysis so to Boards, I 'm not sure so I did not vote.

TEOTWAWKI

TEOTWAWKI

You should have run for office Bob. If that dilbert Sansing can build and run a car empire you have done even greater things.

knothead

knothead

Money talks and BS walks . . . . it is ridiculous and we absolutely need campaign finance reform but to change the electoral college system would require further analysis so to Boards, I 'm not sure so I did not vote.

Guest


Guest

I am pretty sick of cali having 55

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

Chrissy wrote:I am pretty sick of cali having 55
California's demographics equals those of about 12+ states on the east coast of the U.S.

Perhaps they should demand to have about 10 more Senators. Rhode Island is smaller than the county I grew up in; why should they get two Senators?

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Nekochan

Nekochan

They get two senators so that each state will be equally represented in the US Senate.   But you already knew that! 

I'm with knot.  I'm just not sure.

bizguy



Nekochan wrote:They get two senators so that each state will be equally represented in the US Senate.   But you already knew that! 

I'm with knot.  I'm just not sure.
Not since the 17th amendment was passed. The senators don't represent their respective states interests as the founding fathers intended. Instead they are elected by popular vote and represent the people similar to members of the lower chamber.

Nekochan

Nekochan

Do you think we'd have better representation for each state if senators were appointed by the state legislature?  I don't.

bizguy



Nekochan wrote:Do you think we'd have better representation for each state if senators were appointed by the state legislature?  I don't.
Of course we would. The states have no representation in Washington now. However, the feds continue to levy unfunded mandates on the states. Kind of reminds me of taxation without representation.

Nekochan

Nekochan

bizguy wrote:
Nekochan wrote:Do you think we'd have better representation for each state if senators were appointed by the state legislature?  I don't.
Of course we would.  The states have no representation in Washington now.  However, the feds continue to levy unfunded mandates on the states.  Kind of reminds me of taxation without representation.
You mean that the state legislature/state government have no representation in Washington.

Guest


Guest

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:
Chrissy wrote:I am pretty sick of cali having 55
California's demographics equals those of about 12+ states on the east coast of the U.S.

Perhaps they should demand to have about 10 more Senators. Rhode Island is smaller than the county I grew up in; why should they get two Senators?
Theres something in cali that makes people retarded.

maybe each state should get just 3 representatives with 3 votes no matter how big they are?

bizguy



Nekochan wrote:
bizguy wrote:
Nekochan wrote:Do you think we'd have better representation for each state if senators were appointed by the state legislature?  I don't.
Of course we would.  The states have no representation in Washington now.  However, the feds continue to levy unfunded mandates on the states.  Kind of reminds me of taxation without representation.
You mean that the state legislature/state government have no representation in Washington.
I'm guessing that is a question and the answer is yes.

bizguy



For those that voted yes what system of electing the President/Vice President would you replace the electoral college with?

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

bizguy wrote:For those that voted yes what system of electing the President/Vice President would you replace the electoral college with?
Well firstly,  after becoming somewhat familiar with the basic arguments pro and con as outlined here...

http://uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/INFORMATION/electcollege_procon.php

...  I think I prefer the popular vote determing the winner of the presidential election (with the Veep still being chosen by the presidential candidate).

But yay or nay on the electoral college is of least significance to me.

If you ask me how I would reform the whole process in a significant way,   I can give you a few ideas on that but of course it would never be accepted.

1.  Anyone who meets the elegibility requirements for president could
participate in a signature drive (registered voters) which would be conducted for a definite period of time (6 months,  whatever).

2.  Each candidate in the signature drive would be permitted to receive contributions of a specified limit ($200 for example) from any individual.  But no more than that from any given individual.
No corporate donations,  no PACs,  no soft money,  no nothing else would be permitted.

3.  Each candidate in the signature drive is free to align him/herself to a political party.  But contributions made to a political party would also be limited to a specific amount (another $200 for example) from a given individual.  Again no corporate, PAC,  soft,  or anything else.

4.  At the date of conclusion of the signature drive,  the six candidates with the most signatures would be entered onto the general election ballot.

5.  The general election campaign would commence and would be limited to a given period of time (another six months for example).

Rules 2 and 3 would also apply to the general election campaign.

6.  During the general election campaign,  the broadcast (radio and tv) and print media and the news outlets originating on cable television throughout the country would be required to afford an equal allotment of time to each of the six candidates.  This would take the form of interviews,  question and answer sessions,  debates, etc.
Each candidate would be free to pick and choose which media outlets (local and/or national) he/she wishes to participate in as time permits.

7.  The general election would be held on a date following the conclusion date for the election campaign.
Registered voters (regardless of which party affiliation) would vote on election day.  And the candidate with the highest vote count would win the election.

That's off the top of my head and obviously it would need refinement but that's basically how I would do it.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

I already see one obvious fly in that ointment.
Obviously,  with a process like that,  a candidate would concentrate most of his campaign in the densely populated states and regions which would give him the most votes for his effort.  Which would result in the less populated states/regions being effectively shut out from the process.

Not a problem.

We would simply make these adjustments.   We would extend the campaign to a longer period (hell now the dysfunctional thing last two years so anything would be an improvement).  And we would work out a requirement for each candidate to divide his time spent campaigning across the whole country in a proportional way.

AND,  instead of letting the candidate pick and choose his media appearances,  we would also have a requirement that he has to appear on media in each state and when he does that will be carried by media outlets located over the whole state.

Problem solved.

Sal

Sal

Term limits are the blunt tool of idiots.

FDR coulda had fifty terms in an ideal world.

Limiting exceptional people defies logic.

Nekochan

Nekochan

bizguy wrote:
Nekochan wrote:
bizguy wrote:
Nekochan wrote:Do you think we'd have better representation for each state if senators were appointed by the state legislature?  I don't.
Of course we would.  The states have no representation in Washington now.  However, the feds continue to levy unfunded mandates on the states.  Kind of reminds me of taxation without representation.
You mean that the state legislature/state government have no representation in Washington.
I'm guessing that is a question and the answer is yes.
Yes, it was half way a question but I understood what you were getting at.  

I take it that you think that the 17th amendment greatly eroded states' rights?  If so, I get what you're saying on that.  But shouldn't the state represent what its citizens want?

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Sal wrote:Term limits are the blunt tool of idiots.

FDR coulda had fifty terms in an ideal world.

Limiting exceptional people defies logic.
Only problem is who defines what is the "exceptional" person and what defines an "ideal" world?
You say it's FDR but others would say it's Reagan.
You want FDR for fifty terms and they want Reagan for fifty terms.


lol

Sal

Sal

And, that's where the votes come in

Democracy, bitch.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Sal wrote:And, that's where the votes come in

Democracy, bitch.
And they did just that. They kept Strom Thurmond for 47 years and Robert Byrd for 51 years.
Not to mention Ted Stevens for 40 years until he built the bridge to nowhere and then used government employees on government time to remodel his house.

lol

Sal

Sal

Bob wrote:
Sal wrote:And, that's where the votes come in

Democracy, bitch.
And they did just that.  They kept Strom Thurmond for 47 years and Robert Byrd for 51 years.
Not to mention Ted Stevens for 40 years until he built the bridge to nowhere and then used government employees on government time to remodel his house.

lol
democracy .., what a fucked up system.

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 4]

Go to page : 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Pensacola Discussion Forum » General Discussion » Is it time to get rid of the Electoral College?

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum