Nader
- Thread starter digitalwanderer
- Start date
why can i not see this post.MfA said:
seems to be on page 4 of 3.
later,
epic
Gubbi:
Please explain how the US electoral college system differs at a functional level from the first-past-the-post winner-take-all single member Parliament districts in the UK? Or in many other EU nations? Are these "unrepresentitive" of democracy? Is the EU Commission representitive of "democracy?" How are those ~20 elected?
Please explain how the US electoral college system differs at a functional level from the first-past-the-post winner-take-all single member Parliament districts in the UK? Or in many other EU nations? Are these "unrepresentitive" of democracy? Is the EU Commission representitive of "democracy?" How are those ~20 elected?
Silent_One
Newcomer
The mind boggles at how you dismiss everything said regarding the potential of "domination of one populous region over the others or through the domination of large metropolitan areas over the rural ones". In the case you gave, yes it is worce. After all, if we had direct elections as you suggest a canditate would only go to the populas states in the northeast region, the west coast, and Florida and Texas. Less populas States like New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine, Nebraska, North and South Dakota, New Mexico, ect... would be ignored, since they won't matter. They won't amount to much in direct votes. But with the electoral system the less populas States have clout. They now matter. Or are you to tell me (or them) that their votes don't matter, because they have no clout? That it's O.K. that the winner did not come to your State and listen to your regional problems,since he got 51% of the vote. Don't worry Nabraska, New York City knows what's good for them is good for you too? God, you sound General Motors - "Whats good for General Motors is whats good for the country"
Joe DeFuria
Legend
MfA said:
Tell that to the libs.
Silent_One said:
Pay attention
The idea that some redneck pig f*cker's vote carries more weight than mine is completely unacceptable to me.
Cheers
Gubbi
Your system of a pure democracy for electing the president. Where whoever gets more votes wins is exactly what your trying to avoid. in a whoever gets the most votes, politicians would concentrate on getting votes in major urban areas and leave the rest of the country untouched. So in effect youve made your vote count more than some redneck pig f*cker. Let me make it easier for you to understand. You take a limit amount of money and try to maximize the number of votes you can get. In this case your not going to throw your money/time where there are few votes to get. See you have just marginalized rural areas.Gubbi said:
later,
epic
Joe DeFuria
Legend
pax said:
The President, as the executor, is a combination of the Senate's "equal vote per state" and the House's "proportional to population" vote.
It is exactly a comprimise between the two.
What's wrong with that? It find it rather amusing that we accept a comprimise between "complete 1 state one vote" scheme and direct democracy, and you won't accept anything other than pure, direct democracy?
Well seeing as democracy in most large countries is severely limited already I dont see the necessity to add more layers. Heck we only vote every 4 -5 years... Im not so sure the system other than the senate can really guarantee against regionalization. I dont see it in practice is the thing.
Hopefully we'll have our own elected senate up north. I do think the US system is more democratic than the canadian one for now. Heck I think many canadians would love to choose their party yet vote for someone else as leader. We have more reforms to do up here than you guys do down there. Not much needs to be changed in the US other than maybe run off elections for pres.
Hopefully we'll have our own elected senate up north. I do think the US system is more democratic than the canadian one for now. Heck I think many canadians would love to choose their party yet vote for someone else as leader. We have more reforms to do up here than you guys do down there. Not much needs to be changed in the US other than maybe run off elections for pres.
Im not so sure how much i like this idea. I always thought that having more than two party really screws up a country. Having to resort to coalitions to run the country also is stupid. Again IMO.pax said:
later,
epic
edit wrong number
Silent_One
Newcomer
*Sigh*. You still don't get it. Some redneck pig f*cker's vote DON'T carry more weight than your vote. All the Electoral system does is force the candidates to seek votes in less populous states since there are not enough electoral votes in just the populous States to get elected. So if I live in a less populous State now my vote will be recognised as important as yours. Not more important, but just as important.
Epic says it quite well....
epicstruggle said:Im not so sure how much i like this idea. I always thought that having more than two party really screws up a country. Having to resort to coalitions to run the country also is stupid. Again IMO.pax said:
later,
epic
edit wrong number
I dont see how a run off election for president would necessitate a coalition. It would force some moderation in the political discourse of the last 2 candidates in the second round tho.
I didnt say that having a run off election would lead to a coalition. Read the sentence properly, i added that I _"also"_ think having coalitions is really stupid. Maybe I should have said "in addition".pax said:epicstruggle said:Im not so sure how much i like this idea. I always thought that having more than two party really screws up a country. Having to resort to coalitions to run the country also is stupid. Again IMO.pax said:
later,
epic
edit wrong number
I dont see how a run off election for president would necessitate a coalition. It would force some moderation in the political discourse of the last 2 candidates in the second round tho.
later,
epic
Similar threads
