The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    PLEASE READ: To register, turn off your VPN (iPhone users- disable iCloud); you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

The Electoral College

I find it humorous how the Electoral College originally favored Republicans, but now even this is favoring Democrats now. I think if this country voted by popular vote, it would be a No Contest.
 
Everyone's vote counts the same as it is -- that's not a problem.

The electoral college doesn't favor a two-party system; the states' practice of awarding all votes to a 'winner' even if that candidate got only 41% of the vote does that.

But the biggest problem is that the whole set-up favors people who can talk pretty, charm people, memorize quick quips to respond to bizarre questions, and not someone who is any good at making real decisions.

So a campaign is little more than a popularity contest -- and that's what has to be fixed.


So let's add to the age requirement. Service on the federal level seems important, so let's add that a candidate for president must have spent at least five years in Congress. Executive experience is certainly important, so let's require a term as a governor. To add a touch of flexibility, allow four years of Cabinet experience or military service at the level of colonel (or equivalent) or above to substitute as executive experience. Now, we definitely want someone who's not just a professional politician, so let's require at least five years in the private sector.

Then it won't matter so much whether we all vote directly or whether each state nominates one and we draw from a hat.
 
bankside said:
The difference is that a government elected here with a minority is held accountable by the rest of Parliament who hold the power of the majority, in the aggregate.
Click to expand...

I was actually referring to the possibility of getting a majority government without getting the majority of votes across the country.

Which can easily happen here.
 
Kulindahr said:
That's only true if no one in your state has a vote worth anything, and that would be true only if your state had no electoral votes.
Click to expand...

Huh? We have electoral votes. But they will go 100% for Romney, which means that my vote for Obama will mean nothing when it comes to the national outcome which is determined solely by electoral votes.
 
hotatlboi said:
Huh? We have electoral votes. But they will go 100% for Romney, which means that my vote for Obama will mean nothing when it comes to the national outcome which is determined solely by electoral votes.
Click to expand...

Right. Your vote counts the same as everyone else's: in determining the candidate your state's electoral votes go to.
 
hotatlboi said:
It means nothing at the national level for purposes of choosing the president.
Click to expand...

You're not understanding what he's saying.

You have not EVER had the right or ability to vote for president. Period.

Your vote ONLY determines how your state's electors vote. You don't choose the president; you choose how the electors will choose the president.
 
Not for total popular vote. It doesn't solve the main problems. Need changes in the electoral system.

Electoral votes should be awarded in direct proportion to the popular vote on a state-by-state basis.

  • Eliminate the power of the big states to control the election.
  • Candidates would have campaign in all 50 states to reach all of the people.
  • Candidates would need a majority of the popular vote in a majority of states to earn their electoral votes.
  • Everyone's vote would count, not just the one vote that makes the total greater than the other candidate. The candidate you voted for would have an electoral college vote.
  • Automatically compensate for voting irregularities. Florida 2000, only one electoral vote would have been contested instead of the whole state.
  • The election would finally be fair truly representing the will of the people.

Example: In Missouri 2008 awarding electors by popular vote - Obama 5 electors, McCain 6 electors.
 
cityboy-stl said:
Not for total popular vote. It doesn't solve the main problems. Need changes in the electoral system.

Electoral votes should be awarded in direct proportion to the popular vote on a state-by-state basis.

  • Candidates would have campaign in all 50 states to reach all of the people.
Click to expand...

LOL no, they wouldn't -- they wouldn't bother with the dozen smallest states at all. They might have to pay attention to a few more states than now, but hardly all of them.
 
Alright, maybe not Guam. But they would need a lot electoral more votes in a lot more states to earn their 270 across nation.

Why does everyone dismiss this idea so quickly?
 
cityboy-stl said:
Alright, maybe not Guam. But they would need a lot electoral more votes in a lot more states to earn their 270 across nation.

Why does everyone dismiss this idea so quickly?
Click to expand...

I don't exactly dismiss it but I don't like it because it just maintains the whole business of using a process to get a president that requires totally different skills than doing the job. The approach is almost guaranteed to produce incompetent presidents. That's a point at which democracy has to take second place to getting decent government, government capable of and interested in upholding liberty. I see the "campaigning all the time" system we have as antithetical to liberty, because it gives us people who are good at talking a lot and fighting to win, but not good at discussion or compromise or even creativity, in fact people who are good at taking direction from handlers who tell them what to do not according to what is good for liberty or the country but what will keep approval ratings up.
 
JB3 said:
You're not understanding what he's saying.

You have not EVER had the right or ability to vote for president. Period.

Your vote ONLY determines how your state's electors vote. You don't choose the president; you choose how the electors will choose the president.
Click to expand...

I never claimed I did. I said I would prefer a system where everyone's vote counted, i.e. everyone DID have the ability to vote for President. That's why I support the national popular vote.
 
Kulindahr said:
I don't exactly dismiss it but I don't like it because it just maintains the whole business of using a process to get a president that requires totally different skills than doing the job. The approach is almost guaranteed to produce incompetent presidents. That's a point at which democracy has to take second place to getting decent government, government capable of and interested in upholding liberty. I see the "campaigning all the time" system we have as antithetical to liberty, because it gives us people who are good at talking a lot and fighting to win, but not good at discussion or compromise or even creativity, in fact people who are good at taking direction from handlers who tell them what to do not according to what is good for liberty or the country but what will keep approval ratings up.
Click to expand...
I agree, and Obama and Clinton are perfect examples go guys who are superb candidates. Once elected they continued to campaign because that is what they do best. No, tit-for-tat won't work here. GEBush was not that good a campaigner.
 
Kulindahr said:
I don't exactly dismiss it but I don't like it because it just maintains the whole business of using a process to get a president that requires totally different skills than doing the job. The approach is almost guaranteed to produce incompetent presidents. That's a point at which democracy has to take second place to getting decent government, government capable of and interested in upholding liberty. I see the "campaigning all the time" system we have as antithetical to liberty, because it gives us people who are good at talking a lot and fighting to win, but not good at discussion or compromise or even creativity, in fact people who are good at taking direction from handlers who tell them what to do not according to what is good for liberty or the country but what will keep approval ratings up.
Click to expand...

Ok, well I see your point about campaigning. But I'm not sure it's relevant exactly to the Electoral College or to changing the way the votes are tabulated. Campaigning methods by the candidate and how the peoples votes are counted seem to be two separate issues. I was talking about making sure everyone's vote is effective and counted fairly. You seem to be talking about getting better candidates to vote for...which I don't disagree with...but isn't the same thing.
 
hotatlboi said:
I never claimed I did. I said I would prefer a system where everyone's vote counted, i.e. everyone DID have the ability to vote for President. That's why I support the national popular vote.
Click to expand...

Any system with voting for the chief executive by the people is an invitation to bread and circuses, besides of getting little useful done. For that matter, the current crop of bozos in the House of Representatives is an argument that they shouldn't be voted for by the people, either -- but since it's "the people's house", let that be.
 
Kulindahr said:
Any system with voting for the chief executive by the people is an invitation to bread and circuses, besides of getting little useful done. For that matter, the current crop of bozos in the House of Representatives is an argument that they shouldn't be voted for by the people, either -- but since it's "the people's house", let that be.
Click to expand...

Disagree completely. It would simply mean that the people's will would be better reflected in the election results, like for example GWB would never have been president.
 
hotatlboi said:
Disagree completely. It would simply mean that the people's will would be better reflected in the election results, like for example GWB would never have been president.
Click to expand...

But it wouldn't get us away from the perpetual election syndrome.

Actually some research was done on methods for getting a thoughtful, sensible, educated leader. The best system found was where the people elect representatives, who in turn elect from among their numbers representatives to a higher body, who in turn do the same, and that highest body elects one of its own to be the head guy. What happened was that at each level the hotheads and fringe types got weeded out. I have no idea how we could implement that, but it would give us a chief executive not beholden to kissing babies and such.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top