Friendly reminder: The U.S. is a REPRESENTATIVE Democracy, NOT a direct democracy

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: Aazadan

The issue with the US voting system is that it is fundamentally flawed.

Fundamentally flawed in what way? I don't necessarily disagree as should be evident from my previous posts about who is allowed to vote but I suspect your answer to the question is going to have to do with the Electoral College instead, which I would disagree with. I very much support the Electoral College, it's one of the most important features of our government.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
It's true, the founders thought that most people simply didn't have the time or ability to understand all the complexities of government.

And yet despite this, today everyone's a expert and has a doctorate in political science.

Gotta love how everyone's an expert these days.

To be fair, every single one of us posting in this thread alongside 2 billion people on the planet (the number of smart phone users) and virtually every resident of the United States (or other developed country) has some internet access and with it the ability to read the collective knowledge of all of human history.

The average 6th grader has read more books today than the typical adult land owner did in the founders entire lifetime. Jefferson was one of if not the most well read individual of his time yet we every single person in the US has access to his library and more. A large portion of people have even read it.

Realistically we can't all be experts on every subject, but it's not unreasonable to expect some people to have the basic knowledge of most. But I guess my point is, the average citizen today has much more book knowledge than even the most well read citizens of Jefferson's time. Problem is... that still doesn't seem to be good enough, and it's downed out by all the other citizens who don't absorb new information.

a reply to: Aazadan

Problem is... that still doesn't seem to be good enough, and it's downed out by all the other citizens who don't absorb new information.

I would propose that the internet does not actually aid the cause.
It is not so much access to information that has ever been the problem. Overly simplified, the problem is twofold.
1) Putting forth the effort to obtain information. Yes, the internet a a great facilitator to that. But not required.
2) Applying critical thinking to that information. The internet does not facilitate that.

a reply to: Aazadan

For me, the biggest problem with the Electoral College system is that they have a winner takes all mentality. By far, IMO, a proportional systems or even the congressional district method is more in line with the actual general popular vote.

The fact that 49% of the people vote for candidate B, but candidate A gets 100% of the electoral vote is bogus IMO.

Make it simple and proportion it to the popular vote or per district in all 50 states. As it is now only two state use the congressional district method.

Fix this mess

a reply to: kalisdad

Make it simple and proportion it to the popular vote or per district in all 50 states.

That is done in some states.
Others prefer not.

The Constitution leaves it open.

a reply to: kalisdad

I agree with that part, the EC should be proportional alongside a rule change that whoever gets the most votes wins rather than whoever gets to 270 wins.

a reply to: Aazadan

No, the electoral college is an issue, a big issue, but not what I'm talking about. However, on the subject of the Electoral College, watch this anyway. It's quite interesting.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: kalisdad
he

Make it simple and proportion it to the popular vote or per district in all 50 states.

That is done in some states.
Others prefer not.

The Constitution leaves it open.

Its done in two states, Nebraska and Maine, for a total of 9 of the 538 electoral votes.

Not good enough

ETA source

Most states have a “winner-take-all” system that awards all electors to the winning presidential candidate. However, Maine and Nebraska each have a variation of “proportional representation.”

www.archives.gov...

a reply to: kalisdad

Not good enough

Maybe not.
Want a Constitutional amendment to change it? Probably won't get far because the states seem to like they way they are doing it.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: kalisdad

I agree with that part, the EC should be proportional alongside a rule change that whoever gets the most votes wins rather than whoever gets to 270 wins.

With only 538 electoral votes, and our current two party system, unless both parties get 269 EC votes, there will always be a 270+ winner

However once we take into consideration 3rd(4th, 5th, etc) parties, then yes, whomever gets the majority of votes should be the winner

a reply to: kalisdad

However once we take into consideration 3rd(4th, 5th, etc) parties, then yes, whomever gets the majority of votes should be the winner

The majority of votes does.

Unless you are talking about popular votes that is, which means you think that the most populous states should determine the President. I don't.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: kalisdad

Not good enough

Maybe not.
Want a Constitutional amendment to change it? Probably won't get far because the states seem to like they way they are doing it.

You don't need to change the Constitution. We need to demand from the other 48 states that we proportion it using congressional district just like Maine and Nebraska do.
That is the fairest method IMO and would assure that the general popular vote is taken into consideration as best as it could.


This way, the urban centers couldn't out vote the rural to achieve a winner takes all result

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: kalisdad

However once we take into consideration 3rd(4th, 5th, etc) parties, then yes, whomever gets the majority of votes should be the winner

The majority of votes does.

Unless you are talking about popular votes that is, which means you think that the most populous states should determine the President. I don't.

Thats irrelevant. Each state is given a certain amount of electoral votes based on their congressional representatives.

but if all the people of NYC vote for candidate A, and the rest of NY state votes for candidate B, then the entire state shouldn't be given to candidate A. It should be proportional to the congressional district represented by the people that live in each of those areas

a reply to: kalisdad
Your opinion is noted.
You are in favor of a Constitutional amendment to that effect. However as pointed out, since state ratification of an amendment is required that is not likely to happen.

a reply to: onequestion
We are living in a republic.

a reply to: Phage

Phage, you know that this isn't a federal constitution issue.

the states themselves set the rules for winner takes all vs congressional district method. We the people need to demand, individually, from our home states that we switch over to a national method similar to the system used by Nebraska and Maine


No constitutional amendment, no ratification by 3/4 of the states. The states themselves just need to change the rules that they exclusively use to determine the electoral votes.

The problem is the two party system not wanting to allow alternatives that will bring about their demise.

Hence we can go back a dozen of my posts and come to the conclusion that we no longer live in a representative republic.

a reply to: kalisdad

Phage, you know that this isn't a federal constitution issue.

In order for what you suggest to be required would require a Constitutional amendment.

The problem is the two party system not wanting to allow alternatives that will bring about their demise.

What alternatives? I am a registered Libertarian. Is that not a third party?

Hence we can go back a dozen of my posts and come to the conclusion that we no longer live in a representative republic.

Yeah, I can see how some of us Libertarians would feel that way. That does not make it a fact. The problem is not representation as such, the problem is that there are not enough Libertarians to matter at a national level. That it is a somewhat odd position as regarded from a vast majority of voters would not seem to be a problem with the system.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: kalisdad

Phage, you know that this isn't a federal constitution issue.

In order for what you suggest to be required would require a Constitutional amendment.

How is it that two states have a totally different method if its a federal constitution issue?

The constitution only determines how many votes each state gets, not how each state votes, hence the difference in Nebraska and Maine vs the rest of the country

We don't need to change how many votes each state gets, we need to change how the states determine their votes, and that is not a federal issue

a reply to: kalisdad

How is it that two states have a totally different method if its a federal constitution issue?

It isn't. That's the point. The only way that what you suggest could be required is if there were a Constitutional amendment to that effect.

We don't need to change how many votes each state gets, we need to change how the states determine their votes, and that is not a federal issue

Correct. And in order to mandate otherwise, a Constitutional amendment would be required. The thing is, you seem to be advocating for new laws. Or do I misinterpret?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: kalisdad

The problem is the two party system not wanting to allow alternatives that will bring about their demise.

What alternatives? I am a registered Libertarian. Is that not a third party?

Commission on Presidential Debates

The organization, which is a nonprofit corporation controlled by the Democratic and Republican parties, has run each of the presidential debates held since 1988

There will never be any alternative parties partaking in the national presidential debates as long as it is controlled by the DNC and RNC.

Last time we saw any national debates with a third party was in 1992 with Ross Perot, and that was a nightmare for RNC/DNC. They will never allow it unless we can somehow change the electoral rules per state