Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Election Reform Now!  
User currently offlineTbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7013 posts, RR: 26
Posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 1671 times:

Ok, it is of my opinion that it is time for some serious election reform in this country. I don't believe we have had a truly and fully free election in a while. There is enough corruption and piss poor election legislation that we are suffering on both sides. I even believe that this should be THE most important thing our country is looking at because as long as we don't have free elections, our citizens suffer and so does our government.

Here's what I feel needs to be done.

***

1. Voting must have a paper trail. There should be no such thing as an electric voting machine without a paper trail. Without a paper trail, there is no way to investigate corruption or voter fraud.

2. Seriously limit campaign contributions from individuals, PACs, and corporations. The hand that they have in our government is sickening, and I feel its gotten to a point where its dictating our legislation.

3. Eliminate the electoral college. The presidential election is a national election, not a state or local one. The electoral college causes politicians to focus only on certain states and basically makes states that are solid red or blue states throw away states. If you are a voter in the minority in that state, your vote is wasted. The winner should be simply whoever has the highest popular vote.

4. Eliminate the caucus system. Along with getting rid of the electoral college, getting rid of this will simplify the election and take the pressure off politicans to win certain states for their party's nomination. Once again, I feel this system causes the majority of states to be ignored, and that is a travesty.

5. Introduce instant runoff voting (IRV). Instnat runoff voting allows voters to rank their choices of candidates. If no candidate emerges with a majority, the lowest vote-getter is dropped, and the second choices of his or her voters are assigned to the appropriate candidates. This continues until there's a majority winner. IRV not only eliminates the need for seperate runoff elections (which are also suspect to corruption), but forces candidates to endorse others so they can get their second-choice votes. I feel this will help put a kink in the two party system which is strangling our government.

6. Make any sort of voter fraud or voter corruption a serious felony with jail time a minimum. No probation, but instant jail time. This is our voter rights, the very foundation of our democracy, and when they are tampered with that is very serious.

***

Its about time that we demand free and fair elections. The people of the United States literally own our government and country. Our tax dollars pay for everything that our country does. Sadly I see it slipping away to the politicians and corporations and leaving the hands of the people. The government is by us and for us, not for the politicians. Its time we got our rights as citizens.


NO URLS in signature
83 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineTexan From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 4280 posts, RR: 52
Reply 1, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 1671 times:

AMEN!

One problem I have is this:

Quoting Tbar220 (Thread starter):
3. Eliminate the electoral college. The presidential election is a national election, not a state or local one. The electoral college causes politicians to focus only on certain states and basically makes states that are solid red or blue states throw away states. If you are a voter in the minority in that state, your vote is wasted. The winner should be simply whoever has the highest popular vote.

I agree it would be best to do this, but it is hard to change this particular rule because it would require a Constitutional Amendment to do away with it.

How about amending it to where the winner receives a percentage of the electoral college votes based on the percentage of the popular vote per state? Colorado put this on the ballot in 2004. All states should, and we should fight to pass it.

Texan



"I have always imagined that Paradise will be a kind of library."
User currently offlineTbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7013 posts, RR: 26
Reply 2, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 1665 times:

Quoting Texan (Reply 1):
How about amending it to where the winner receives a percentage of the electoral college votes based on the percentage of the popular vote per state?

Its a decent idea, but why not just simplify it by eliminating the system alltogether? Sure it would be tough with it being a constitutional amendment and all, but amendments have been passed before.



NO URLS in signature
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39907 posts, RR: 75
Reply 3, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 1655 times:

Tbar220:
I am with you 100% on this!
Also, election day should be a holiday and polls should be open for 24 hours.
Polls should open at 12:00 AM (midnight) eastern time, 9:00 PM Pacific time, 6:00 PM Alaska & Hawaii.
Then on the polls should be open for 24 hours.
That way the polls open & close the exact second around the entire country. No more projections or announcments of election results from the east to influence the outcome in the west.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineBigPhilNYC From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 4077 posts, RR: 54
Reply 4, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 1651 times:

Quoting Tbar220 (Thread starter):
3. Eliminate the electoral college.

"....because it didn't work in my favor last time around."

Ha.

Quoting Tbar220 (Thread starter):
If no candidate emerges with a majority...

Maybe I'm missing somethign, but how would the winner not have the majority?

Why are we trying to fix something that isn't broken? Because Bush one and you didn't liek him? Get a grip.



Phil Derner Jr.
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39907 posts, RR: 75
Reply 5, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 1647 times:

BigPhilNYC:
Hey, hows it going man?
Had a great time last weekend.

Anyhow, what Tbar220 means is that if no candidate wins with 50% or more of the vote, the two top vote getters go in to a runoff. The New York mayors race and most other mayoral races are like that.

In 2000, Gore won 48.8% of the vote
Bush won 48.6% of the vote. The remaining 4% went to Nader, Buchanon and other minor candidates.

In a runoff, Gore & Bush would have had to compete without the other candidates on the ticket. One of the two would have to get more than 50% in a two way race.
If that law were in place in 2000, Gore would have won 51 or 52% of the popular vote.
Bush in 2000, Clinton, Nixon in 1968 and Harry Truman won in pluralities.



Goodnight folks.
More argueing tomorrow.  Smile



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineBigPhilNYC From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 4077 posts, RR: 54
Reply 6, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 1645 times:

Why require more than 50%? It's a lead thing. Who do more of the people want?

Again, this is a liberal demand because the last election didn't go their way. Votes that went to other candidates could have gone to defeat Bush....so therefore the process must be rejected and blame placed anywhere that it can.....anywhere except to the possibility that Kerry sucked ass.



Phil Derner Jr.
User currently offlineSRQCrosscheck From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 211 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 1642 times:

Quoting BigPhilNYC (Reply 6):
Again, this is a liberal demand because the last election didn't go their way. Votes that went to other candidates could have gone to defeat Bush....so therefore the process must be rejected and blame placed anywhere that it can.....anywhere except to the possibility that Kerry sucked ass.

oh please, people from large solid blue or red states whose votes don't really count (Massachusetts, New York, Texas) have wanted to reconsider the the electoral college since before 2000.


User currently offlineBigPhilNYC From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 4077 posts, RR: 54
Reply 8, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 1641 times:

Massachusetts' votes shouldn't count anyway. They're a bunch of fuckin idiots. (kidding)

The electoral college is theidea of what the United States is all about. Fifty states...almost acitng as separate countries themselves, joined together.

That is why each one should be worth the votes that they are allowed in the electoral college. So each state can fare the same as the others regardless of size. It levels the playing field where it is needed.

If there are fifty people, should one person's vote count more over someone else's becuase he is bigger or smarter or richer? No. Same here.



Phil Derner Jr.
User currently offlineLOT767-300ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 1637 times:

Quoting BigPhilNYC (Reply 4):
Maybe I'm missing somethign, but how would the winner not have the majority?

Why are we trying to fix something that isn't broken? Because Bush one and you didn't liek him? Get a grip.

Someone should make it evident that he also won the popular vote too in 2004. So even if the electoral college wasnt there hed still be here.

Quoting BigPhilNYC (Reply 6):
Again, this is a liberal demand because the last election didn't go their way. Votes that went to other candidates could have gone to defeat Bush....so therefore the process must be rejected and blame placed anywhere that it can.....anywhere except to the possibility that Kerry sucked ass.

This is ALMOST as funny as liberals crying about Florida in 2000. The funny part is that they made the the freaking voting system and wanted those machines in Dade Co. and everywhere else but of course, it didnt favor them so the Republicans must have cheated...hehehe yea cheated on the democrats own freaking system.


User currently offlineTbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7013 posts, RR: 26
Reply 10, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 1626 times:

Superfly,

I'm going to add yours to the list.

7. Election day is a national holiday, and polls are open 24 hours a day.

p.s. Can I call you Leisure Suit Larry?

Phil,

For once in your freakin life, try not to make this a liberal/conservative issues. If you remain completely blind to all the corruption in elections and all the whittling away of our voter rights, I feel sorry for you. There's more out there than simple democrats and republicans, there's political parties eating away at our rights. There's politicans in the hands of the major U.S. corporations. There's entire blocs of votes that simply do not count or have any influence. What kind of democracy is it if our vote doesn't mean anything? Not one that I'm proud of.
What about the fact that if you're not in the two major parties, your voice and opinion means shit? Why are we just tossing all those votes out (they basically mean nothing)?

Of course, you have to turn this into a red/blue, liberal/conservative whine fest. Why don't you try and give something productive to the discussion.

Since you did try and discuss my point about the electoral college, lets start there.

Quoting BigPhilNYC (Reply 8):

If there are fifty people, should one person's vote count more over someone else's becuase he is bigger or smarter or richer? No. Same here.

Your argument bascially proves my point. With the electoral college, certain votes count for more than others. Can you agree to that? Why do you think that the presidential candidates only catered to so many people during the election? Because certain votes are simply worth more. Votes from Ohio, Wisconsin, Florida, etc. are worth more than votes from Texas, California, New York, and the deep South.

Your question makes no sense to me. Why would eliminating the electoral college and moving to a system where one vote equals one vote, make a smarter/richer person's vote equal more?

Your quote is empty rhetoric to me.



NO URLS in signature
User currently offlineTbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7013 posts, RR: 26
Reply 11, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 1623 times:

Phil,

I'm going to take it another step. You didn't give me a decent argument. So...

Are you against making election day a national holiday?
Are you against making it law that there be a paper voting trail?
Are you against lowering campaign contributions?
Are you against eliminating the caucas system?
Are you against instant runoff voting?
Are you against making voter fraud a seirious felony?

I understand that it seems you're against eliminating the electoral college. Fine, but why don't you give me discussion and debate on those other points rather than just paint me as another "whiny liberal".



NO URLS in signature
User currently offlineB757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 23
Reply 12, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 1620 times:

Quoting Tbar220 (Thread starter):
2. Seriously limit campaign contributions from individuals, PACs, and corporations. The hand that they have in our government is sickening, and I feel its gotten to a point where its dictating our legislation.

Sure, take away the people's right to give money to candidates of their choice. Typical Democrat way of thinking. Of course nothing about people like George Soros and all of his groups that attack Republicans.

Quoting Tbar220 (Thread starter):
3. Eliminate the electoral college. The presidential election is a national election, not a state or local one. The electoral college causes politicians to focus only on certain states and basically makes states that are solid red or blue states throw away states. If you are a voter in the minority in that state, your vote is wasted. The winner should be simply whoever has the highest popular vote.

Don't count on it. No state except for ones like New York, California, and such would ever vote for this. Getting the required 3/4 of the states to ratify such an amendment will never happen. Without the electoral college, all it would take is for a candidate to win a few large cities and thus the election. (Of course this is why liberals want the electoral college gone, it would ensure they'd nearly win every election.) Had John Kerry not won cities like L.A., N.Y.C., Chicago, Detroit, Philly, and a few others with 60%-90% of the vote, he wouldn't have come with 15% of the so called "popular vote".

The electoral college helps to negate (mostly Democrat) voter fraud which is will known in cities like Chicago, Philly, and Milwaukee.



"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
User currently offlineLogan22L From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 1615 times:

Quoting BigPhilNYC (Reply 8):
Massachusetts' votes shouldn't count anyway. They're a bunch of fuckin idiots.

See, I told you you were a dick.  Wink

Quoting BigPhilNYC (Reply 4):
Why are we trying to fix something that isn't broken?

That's incredibly disturbing. If you see corruption and think of lemondrops, waterlilies, and teddy bears, I'd suggest a trip to Mirrodie's office.


User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39907 posts, RR: 75
Reply 14, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 1613 times:

....and B757300 gives another reason why he is one of my favorite comedians!
Give us more. Your silly post are cracking me up!  Silly  rotfl 



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineLeanOfPeak From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 509 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 1611 times:

The very condition of ignoring the interests of particular states is what the electoral college is all about.

As it stands, California has 55 electoral votes. Negating the 2 for the Senate and making its representation solely proportional to population would result in 53 electoral votes, which, if countered by the votes of the least populous states, would require winning:

AK: 1
MT: 1
WY: 1
SD: 1
ND: 1
VT: 1
DE: 1
DC: 1
ME: 2
NH: 2
RI: 2
ID: 2
HI: 2
NV: 3
UT: 3
NM: 3
NE: 3
WV: 3
KS: 4
AR: 4
MS: 4
Plus two of OR, OK, IA, CT: 5

When it would take a sweep of the least-populous 46% of states to negate California, do you think for a minute the interests of any of the states on that list would be on the minds of the politicians in the least?

Any proposal to eliminate the electoral college amounts to gerrymandering.


User currently offlineSoyuzavia From Australia, joined Jun 2005, 594 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 1603 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Superfly (Reply 5):
Anyhow, what Tbar220 means is that if no candidate wins with 50% or more of the vote, the two top vote getters go in to a runoff. The New York mayors race and most other mayoral races are like that.

You realise that by doing that instead of the election process costing say $100 million, it would cost double that?

If you wanted to go with a 50.1% majority needed to win office, wouldn't it be much easier to simply ban anyone who is not a Republican or Democrat? The US is already a two party state in practice, so why not make it official?

[Edited 2005-08-12 18:02:25]

User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 1598 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 3):
Also, election day should be a holiday and polls should be open for 24 hours.

 yes 

Quoting Superfly (Reply 3):
Polls should open at 12:00 AM (midnight) eastern time, 9:00 PM Pacific time, 6:00 PM Alaska & Hawaii.

Only 4 Hour difference between Alaska and East Coast time, why the 6 hour difference in your times 'Fly?

Want the polls to open and close all at the same time, open the East Coast at 0400 East Coast Time and 0800 Alaska/Hawaii Time.

I think voting ought to be mandatory . . . don't care who you vote for, just get off your asses and vote. Furthermore, as lnog as it isn't mandatory, if you don't vote, don't bitch (please refer to MD-90s usual left field out of the ball park posts).

Quoting Tbar220 (Thread starter):
Voting must have a paper trail. There should be no such thing as an electric voting machine without a paper trail. Without a paper trail, there is no way to investigate corruption or voter fraud.

Good call . . .

Time to be rid of the punch card ballot, the fill in the circle ballot, and all other antiquated forms of polling . . . computerized, with a paper trail for the voter . . . only way to go . . .

I would however, like to see the PAPER RECEIPT for the polling place disabled until the polls close . . . nothing can be printed, except the receipt for the voter, and test pages, until AFTER the polls close . . . it will reduce the "projection"  redflag  by the media and everyone else.


User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39907 posts, RR: 75
Reply 18, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 1592 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 17):
Only 4 Hour difference between Alaska and East Coast time, why the 6 hour difference in your times 'Fly?

Are you in Juneu?
Isn't the rest of the state is in a different time zone?
Hawaii is 3 hours behind us here in the Pacific time zone.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 17):
Time to be rid of the punch card ballot, the fill in the circle ballot, and all other antiquated forms of polling . . . computerized, with a paper trail for the voter . . . only way to go . . .

Agreed!
Our great senator Barbara Boxer made this proposal to the Senate. CHeny & Frist wasn't having it. Bastards!


Nevada has a 'none of the above' option on there ballots.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 1591 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 18):
Isn't the rest of the state is in a different time zone?



Quoting Superfly (Reply 18):
Hawaii is 3 hours behind us here in the Pacific time zone.

Many years back the whole state (save the most remote Aleutian Islands; Attu, Kiska, etc) were placed under Alaska time . . . we used to have 3-4 time zones here, not any longer.

Hawaii is on the same time as a) The Aleutians in the winter, b) Alaska in the summer. It's either 1 or 2 hours different than the Pacific Coast . . . not three, unless they dragged the Islands closer to the Date Line  wink 


User currently offlineEaglekeeper101 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 272 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 1580 times:

Greetings to all...

I would be perfectly happy with civil, polite election adverts that stuck with issues...especially ones that discussed what candidates were FOR as opposed to what they are AGAINST. I am not interested in hearing a candidate tell me how much BETTER they would be than somebody else. I defy 95% of our current crop of "professional" politicians (as though being a politician was ever supposed to be a profession in the first place - term limits are waaaay overdue, IMHO) to run an entire campaign without smearing opposing candidates. Perhaps this isn't the type of technical idea sought in this thread, but I am entitled to dream, methinks.

Lets see...equal prime-time network advertising time for any other political party that has managed to place a candidate on all 50 state ballots would be nice. Hard to accomplish for many grass-root parties, but it might be a serious incentive for parties like the Libertarians and etc. to step up election operations. I know that this could make for some contentious elections and even more crazy Congressional sessions (Knesset coalitions come to mind), but if there is one thing that I have seen in my time here on our spinning blue orb, it is that there are far too many points of view out there to be represented by only 2 major political parties. Therefore, better dissemination of other platforms to the masses could be a good first step to changing this. Knowledge is power, after all.

Finally, electing politicans with some expertise in the civilian world (and I don't mean just lawyers) might be a good thing. Placing them on committees where their expertise might best be put to use might be even better. This, however, is one election reform that is solely on us, the electorate. It's our fault that the current batch are there in the first place...after all, "garbage in, garbage out..."

Tbar makes good points about donation reform.

Be well  Smile



"The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens." - Bahá'u'lláh
User currently offlineB744F From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks ago) and read 1571 times:

Quoting Texan (Reply 1):
I agree it would be best to do this, but it is hard to change this particular rule because it would require a Constitutional Amendment to do away with it.

You don't have to change the Constitution around, the electoral college can be decided by each state based on their own choices. So they can instead give the same points based on percentage points that the cadidates won. For example, if Bush won 60% of the New York vote and Gore 40%, Bush would get 60% of the electoral college points, and Gore 40%. This will get rid of the winner take all system that has ruined our politcs from day one.

Also redistricting needs to be outlawed as well


User currently offlineFDXMECH From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3251 posts, RR: 34
Reply 22, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1565 times:

Quoting Tbar220 (Thread starter):
4. Eliminate the caucus system. Along with getting rid of the electoral college, getting rid of this will simplify the election and take the pressure off politicans to win certain states for their party's nomination. Once again, I feel this system causes the majority of states to be ignored, and that is a travesty.

5. Introduce instant runoff voting (IRV). Instnat runoff voting allows voters to rank their choices of candidates. If no candidate emerges with a majority, the lowest vote-getter is dropped, and the second choices of his or her voters are assigned to the appropriate candidates. This continues until there's a majority winner. IRV not only eliminates the need for seperate runoff elections (which are also suspect to corruption), but forces candidates to endorse others so they can get their second-choice votes. I feel this will help put a kink in the two party system which is strangling our government.

I was thinking about this recently and I think eliminating the Primary System altogether and returning to the parties actually nominating the ticket at the convention (smoky back room) is the way to go, no kidding. I think the respective party would nominate a much more viable candidate.
If we retain the Primary system I propose the entire nation hold its Primary the same day. Much of the nation is eliminated from the process as the candidate usually has a numerical lock on the nomination before many states even hold their primary.

I think the electoral college system is a good time tested saystem which prevents a few metropolitan areas from controlling the elections.



You're only as good as your last departure.
User currently offlineSearpqx From Netherlands, joined Jun 2000, 4344 posts, RR: 10
Reply 23, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1557 times:

Quoting FDXMECH (Reply 22):
I think the electoral college system is a good time tested saystem which prevents a few metropolitan areas from controlling the elections.

I agree - despite the occasional instances where the electoral college winner isn't the popular vote winner, totally eliminating the electoral college skewes the weight of voting to the heavily populated states and specifically cities.

Something needs to be done to break the two party grip. As a start I'd recommend that procedures for putting a third party/independent candidate on the ballot for presidential elections be simplified and standardized, so that a candidate has to qualify once, vs. the current 50 times.

Limit the time allowed to campaign - filings are 180 days from the election, and no one is allowed to campaign prior to filing. Nominating conventions are no later than 90 days prior to the election. Compress the whole process and you reduce the amount of money needed to run.

Oh and ANC, hate to contradict you but. . .

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 19):
It's either 1 or 2 hours different than the Pacific Coast . . . not three, unless they dragged the Islands closer to the Date Line

I don't know about any dragging, but we are 3 hours (summer) and 2 hours (winter) earlier than Pacific Time. Currently it's 5:11PM here (Maui), 7:11PM in Anchorage and 8:11PM on the West Coast.



"The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity"
User currently offlineTbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7013 posts, RR: 26
Reply 24, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1556 times:

Quoting B757300 (Reply 12):
Sure, take away the people's right to give money to candidates of their choice. Typical Democrat way of thinking. Of course nothing about people like George Soros and all of his groups that attack Republicans.

I know you're not going to come back, since you post and run with your tail between your legs. But... do you care to tell me ANYWHERE in my post where I made it a democrat/republican issue? Anywhere? You can't.

Quoting Soyuzavia (Reply 16):
If you wanted to go with a 50.1% majority needed to win office, wouldn't it be much easier to simply ban anyone who is not a Republican or Democrat? The US is already a two party state in practice, so why not make it official?

Are you serious??

Quoting FDXMECH (Reply 22):
I think the electoral college system is a good time tested saystem which prevents a few metropolitan areas from controlling the elections.

I hear the argument that the electoral college prevents metropolitan areas from controlling elections, and I just don't buy it. What is your logic behind it?

Just as many people live outside metropolitan areas than live in them. Also, Metropolitan areas don't lean towards one party or another (hard to believe). Certain cities do, but a statement like "Big cities go democrat/republican" doesn't really work.

My biggest problem with the electoral college is the amount of votes that simply go to waste. I live in a state that is pretty heavy Democrat (Illinois). I voted for Kerry in the last election, but my vote really didn't have any influence on the national level, and the presidential election is a national election. Same is true for a Republican voter in Texas for example, votes should have an equal influence everywhere. My vote should be worth the same as a vote from somebody from a "swing state".

There's another problem I have, since it concentrates so much on the states rather than the individuals, certain states get way too much attention compared to others. Ohio, Florida, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and others have clearly gotten nearly all the election attention in 2000 and 2004. I didn't see a single election advertisement on the national level for the 2004 election. If the electoral college was eliminated, the candidates would have to focus their attention on a national level and take it to the entire population! They would have to focus their issues to cater to everybody in the country, rather than just a select few in a select few states. I just don't think its fair. I don't think its a democracy if each person doesn't get an equal vote.

I'll continue this discussion tomorrow. I admire the people who are keeping this a non-partisan issue (which it is) and discussing this civilly.



NO URLS in signature
25 SRQCrosscheck : Did you take a bong hit before you wrote this? John Kerry wouldn't have won last time around if there were no electoral college. I also just don't un
26 GuitrThree : So what you are saying is that you think it is better for the voting public to rely on slanted ads from both sides saying the great things each did.
27 Post contains images SRQCrosscheck : There's always been voter fraud in the United States, and more than just during 1960 in Chicago. Before the 1830s, there were no secret ballots. With
28 Post contains links and images Soyuzavia : Am I serious about what? The US being a two-party state? It can't be that because you already said as much yourself. So you must mean about banning a
29 GuitrThree : Are you sure? I don't agree. Don't you think a close "swing" state would be watched more closely? I guess what I'm saying is that a state that is far
30 Tbar220 : GuitrThree, First off, stop assuming stuff. I never said anything in my posts about Republicans/Democrats, etc. etc. If you want to turn this into a d
31 Post contains images ANCFlyer : Yeah - my bad - I was calculating time from ANC, not West Coast Of course I agree, being free also mean freedom of choice to not cast a ballot. But I
32 Post contains links Moose1226 : Beyond the simple problem with the fact that anyone voting in a non-swing state doesn't realy make a difference, the problem that SRQ mentioned above
33 Post contains images Halls120 : Good luck coming up with a system for doing so that is both effective and will withstand First Amendment scrutiny. If the electoral college were elim
34 Halls120 : Elimination of the EC will mean that candidates will spend most of their time and money in the states that have the largest populations. Small states
35 B744F : Wouldn't that be a shame? No more voter welfare for those smaller states. Maybe we can get rid of the 2 representatives per state no matter the popul
36 GuitrThree : Ok, I'll address your ideas on election reform. They suck. Their stupid. They reak of a crybaby who can't understand why his candidate lost when he "
37 Superfly : GuitrThree: Are you serious with these comments? In 1994, Senator Kennedy was re-elected with 58%. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) won 74% of the popular vote des
38 Dvk : This is the first reform that should be made. It would force the candidates to consider more states, rather than focusing all their efforts only in s
39 Cfalk : The paper system is also susceptable to erroneous handling and "creative counting techniques", as evidenced by Florida 2000 - neither system is tampe
40 GuitrThree : Superfly, are YOU serious with these comments? Are you saying that these are examples of Fraud???? Senator Kennedy only having 58%?? Yea, soon he's g
41 Logan22L : Ah, GT, a chance to argy bargy...Ted will be a senator from MA until he decides not to be. And because we want him, not through any fraud.
42 Bushpilot : I agree to a point but I think before eliminating it all together we try out the suggestion below raised by texan to split electoral votes based on t
43 Bhmbaglock : Paper trails can also be forged. This has been tried - people are too creative for this to work. Beyond this, it's a bad idea. MoveOn nauseates me bu
44 GuitrThree : yea... your state keeps electing someone who was drunk one night and left some women for dead after wrecking his car..... That even beats WV voting i
45 Tbar220 : The EC might on paper make a candidate run in all fifty states, but elections focus on swing states. Candidates simply completely ignore states that
46 GuitrThree : Yea... typical of you leftist... I wrote paragraphs about your points.. you just happened to forget that??? You responded to others, which, if you re
47 Bhmbaglock : I have it on good authority that he has been drunk more than one night! However, he is a light-weight by MA standards when compared to Tip in his pri
48 Dvk : I don't drink Kool-Aid. What I said has been reported and documented extensively.
49 Tbar220 : GuitrThree, Until you drop the liberal, leftist mumbo jumbo, then I will have honest debate with you. While you base your arguments and assume that my
50 Post contains images Superfly : I was going to respond to GuitrThree's rants until I read that Logan! I forgot what I was going to say!
51 Yyz717 : The US does not need electoral reform. The US arguably has more democratic checks and balances than just about any other nation. What the US needs is
52 B744F : You can't have a 3rd party with the system setup the way it is now, that's why you need reform
53 Post contains images Superfly : Incorrect. We have a 1 party ruled government. The Republicans control the White House, Senate, House, Supreme Court, Media, most Governorships, most
54 FDXMECH : A viable third party would have to be a natural process such as Teddy Roosevelt's Bull Moose Party or what Ross Perot almost did in 92. But I don't t
55 Yyz717 : There is nothing stopping a break-away faction of Dems or GOP's forming a new third party and then running candidates as elections come up. The decad
56 Bhmbaglock : Very true. Why? 1. Illegal immigration does need work. 2. Yes we support Israel as we should. However, we also support the Palestinians although obvi
57 FDXMECH : There are actually many parties in the US. No law barring only Dem or Repub from the White House. The proof of the pudding isn't the amount of partie
58 B744F : Yes there is plenty stopping a 3rd party from gaining any type of support, the winner take all election system makes sure of it. And the campaign fin
59 Tbar220 : Yea, I have to disagree. With all the money in the two major parties, why would any politicians want to break away? Considering that loyalty seems to
60 FDXMECH : The only thing with history, though, were some of the best Presidents were picked by the party machine (smoky back room) prior to the Primary system.
61 B744F : Give me a break, Edwards was a better candidate than Kerry, who turned to Clinton-conservatism during the election and lost, just like Gore
62 Yyz717 : Simple, because TRUE politicians elected to serve the will of their electors SHOULD leave the 2 established parties if the parties don't support the
63 ANCFlyer : Any sort of reform must start with politicians getting back to the basics - doing the will of the people, not the will of their career progression pla
64 Tbar220 : And how many true politicians are left? Politicians who are serving their constituents rather than their pockets. How many politicians will take acti
65 GuitrThree : Well, if you actually read my comments about your points, you will find them very non-biased. Nothing about left/right there? Now is there? Nope... H
66 Post contains images Soyuzavia : There is no real push in this country to move words computerised voting, although it will happen sooner or later. Having said that, we have a 100% pe
67 FDXMECH : That's a contradiction. A recount is performed because an election is being contested. Unless of course it is mandated by election laws if the vote c
68 B744F : So we should be gracious losers instead of trying to find eletion fraud Your whole post is a contradiction, a banana republic has no need to count an
69 DL021 : Wow....the infestation of grasshoppers seems to be spreading throughout the crops..... Maybe cropdusting will help.
70 Superfly : Partisanship usual usually stops at our borders. If you take a closer look at the brilliant members of Congress such as Nadler, McDermott, Barbara Le
71 B744F : I am enjoying this, you are doing nothing but just showing people do not have a response to my comments. Keep it up buddy
72 GuitrThree : Ummmm, Proof please???? Maybe you should go check with old Tbar.. I'm sure he has heard something on Air Enron, I mean, Air America that he can lend
73 B744F : It's well documented I never said this was the case in 04, but there is a story that just came out about fraud in the GOP during that election year,
74 DL021 : More insects? Someone should really do something about that. Isn't it bad for the plants? It almost seems like they are trying to communicate, in some
75 GuitrThree : Ummmmm, ok, well, then, provide the documentation. Please... I'd like to read it... Oh wait, is that crickets I hear?? Maybe grasshoppers... I don't
76 Aerobalance : I hear crickets, OMG, I hear CRICKETS!!!!!!! Election Reform - a waste of taxpayers money, or will you pay for it B744F?
77 FDXMECH : If your only reasoning for losing an election is fraud, you're proving my point.
78 ANCFlyer : Source? Ahh, wait stupid question, B744F doesn't use sources, he invents shit as he goes along . . . . Must be the Chirping of the Crickets I hear co
79 Superfly : I happen to know two of them.
80 Cfalk : I'm still confused how a receipt will help. In case of a recall, do you call on all voters to show up AGAIN and turn in their reciepts? How much frau
81 Tbar220 : Ok, in reply 26 you based your whole "discussion" on the fact that I was just a whiny liberal and complaining that John Kerry Lost. In reply 36, you
82 FDXMECH : I'm no expert but a reciept would be some sort of tangible evidence of whom you voted. This would boost confidence in a system just aching to cause c
83 GuitrThree : Tbar, you can't have a discussion because your entire argument is based on the fact that you didn't like the way the 2000 and 2004 elections went. Lo
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Election Reform Now! posted Fri Aug 12 2005 06:42:21 by Tbar220
More Political Election Reform posted Sat Sep 17 2005 23:48:13 by Tbar220
Schwarzenegger Calls For Prez. Election Reform posted Mon Feb 23 2004 09:30:44 by L-188
Now Playing: The World's Worst Burglar! posted Fri Nov 17 2006 09:58:56 by MrChips
We've Seen The Boxcars, Now There's A Locomotive posted Mon Nov 13 2006 23:10:35 by Magyarorszag
Photoshop Gurus: Now Here's A Challenge posted Sun Nov 12 2006 02:43:13 by Matt D
Syria:"suicide" Victim Brother Now Also "suicided" posted Fri Nov 10 2006 12:15:20 by Kay
An Centrist/left View On The Election posted Thu Nov 9 2006 01:11:31 by Bushpilot
I Was Wrong.....The Flamegate Is Now Open On Me posted Wed Nov 8 2006 21:41:15 by Speedbird747BA
How Do Election Results Affect Your Local Issues? posted Wed Nov 8 2006 19:47:21 by Tom in NO