Ok I'll start out by saying that I am impressed by the fact that this nation elected a black man to the highest office in the land and arguably the most powerful position in the world.  Although I did not want either of the two main candidates to win, I am impressed by the defeat racism took last night.  Hopefully we are seeing the end to a terrible legacy of this nation.

Now on to what was wrong with our "election" - I am not going to go into detail of how our system is flawed from the ground up, just going to point out the things that happened on November 4th 2008 that need to change.

They didn't ask me for my license at the polling place.
News coverage should start after the polls are closed in all 50 states.
How in the hell can you call a state with 0% of the vote in?
If you sat and watched the election "coverage" last night, ask yourself this one question, "Who really controlls the national elections in this country, you or the media?"
Electoral votes need to be distributed in each state like they are in Nebraska - they at least have that part of it right.  That's what electoral votes are for and how they should be used.


As I said before I did not vote for either of the two major candidates, my guy didn't stand a chance.  But there needs to be some major changes in our "electoral" process if we ever expect to have some real "change" in this country.

With that I'll leave you this for your listening pleasure.
START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

What's wrong with our voting system is the electoral college.

Charlie

Charlie wrote on Nov 5^th, 2008 at 11:50am:

What's wrong with our voting system is the electoral college. Charlie

Yeah go ahead and get rid of that, then when L.A. County and New York City all vote for the same guy the rest of us can sit at home.   ::)

Agostino Leyre wrote on Nov 5^th, 2008 at 12:02pm:

Charlie wrote on Nov 5th, 2008 at 11:50am: What's wrong with our voting system is the electoral college. Charlie Yeah go ahead and get rid of that, then when L.A. County and New York City all vote for the same guy the rest of us can sit at home.   ::)

So those 2 places have 58 million voters???

Winning those 2 places already almost assures you of 86 electoral votes.....  so, those 2 places pretty much control a larger portion of the electoral college than the popular vote.  Ridding the electoral college would actually make those 2 places a SMALLER political power.

The electoral college allows underdogs the ability to target a smaller section of states to win election.  It is horribly sad that a candidate could win election and lose the popular vote.  

FramCire wrote on Nov 5^th, 2008 at 12:17pm:

Agostino Leyre wrote on Nov 5th, 2008 at 12:02pm: Charlie wrote on Nov 5th, 2008 at 11:50am: What's wrong with our voting system is the electoral college. Charlie Yeah go ahead and get rid of that, then when L.A. County and New York City all vote for the same guy the rest of us can sit at home.   ::) So those 2 places have 58 million voters??? Winning those 2 places already almost assures you of 86 electoral votes.....  so, those 2 places pretty much control a larger portion of the electoral college than the popular vote.  Ridding the electoral college would actually make those 2 places a SMALLER political power. The electoral college allows underdogs the ability to target a smaller section of states to win election.  It is horribly sad that a candidate could win election and lose the popular vote.

Again, see how Nebraska distributes their electoral votes.

The electoral college exists because its original intent was to make elections less representative of the people. The rest of the world does very well without it.

Charlie

Im not really sure how this electoral crap works, but I would like to see one vote counted as just that and let the chips fall where they may.

I may be missing something here (probably am) but if 100 people vote and 51 one of them vote one way....thats the out come.

Makes sense to me Jonny. Can't beat that.

Charlie

Guys, first off I hate the electoral college as well. The intention behind it is to give the less populated areas some election participation. If it goes back to straight (sorry chuck) popular vote, the only place the candidates will campagin (and theroetically listen to the consituants) is New York, Chicago, Houston, Seattle and L.A. Don't live in one of those places, too bad, so sad, no one cares about your problems.

What needs to happen is a weighted voting system. Something like you need to rank all the people running (or a certain % of them). That would force the "died in the wool" lefties and righties to not blindly striaght (sorry again chuckles) vote a party, and some other parties might have a chance.

At least we wouldn't repeat the horribleness of Bush not winning the popular vote but still winning the election. MORE people should want the elected leader, not less.

In a weighted system people would have more choices than "they guy who is running against the guy you hate" and we would see a trend toward more moderation.

Seems like I've heard the argument for getting rid of the Electoral College after every election I remember.  Never gets beyond the talking stage.

Getting rid of the Electoral College wouldn't be easy.  It would require a repeal of Article II, section 1 of the Constitution, and the 12th Amendment.

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

Thusfar, no one seems to want to go there.  Could be for self-serving political reasons (on both sides), or it could be simple reluctance to mess around with things.  

Remember--we've only ever repealed one amendment to the Constitution (Prohibition).  

As screwy as the EC is, I personally am less than enthusiastic about politicos getting the idea that they can diddle around with the constitution--say, the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, or the Second Amendment.

Guess I'll just cuss the Electoral College, and let sleeping dogs lie.

Best,

George  

superhawk2300 wrote on Nov 5^th, 2008 at 10:13pm:

If it goes back to straight (sorry chuck) popular vote, ... ... ... ... That would force the "died in the wool" lefties and righties to not blindly striaght (sorry again chuckles) vote a party, and some other parties might have a chance.

And here I thought you were my friend!!  But NO ... You had to use THAT word !!!  Not only THAT, you use it TWICE !!!

Alright ... I'm ok ... Go ahead, pick on the gay guy ... (sniff, sniff)  ... I can take it ...

;)  ;D   :P

Chuck

He who has the most money wins.   [smiley=ohjez.gif] [smiley=ohjez.gif]

the bb

Agostino Leyre wrote on Nov 5^th, 2008 at 12:02pm:

Charlie wrote on Nov 5th, 2008 at 11:50am: What's wrong with our voting system is the electoral college. Charlie Yeah go ahead and get rid of that, then when L.A. County and New York City all vote for the same guy the rest of us can sit at home.   ::)

I dont understand the electoral college stuff either.  Take your example, and say LA and NY cast 20Million votes for the same person.  CA and NY would then give 55+31 electoral votes to that candidate.  How does the electoral college prevent "LA and NY" from deciding the election?

The EC helps balance out the population dispairty. That doesn't mean everything is equal. Sure your really tiny states still are worth less EC votes than your big ones, but L.A. can't give all of Cali's EC votes to a candidate - they need to win the whole state at least.

Without the EC the only battleground "areas" would be those huge popualtion centers / cities. At least with the EC some other states get some attention as "battleground states", so it does actaully spread the attention around like it is supposed to.

It still is flawed and I still don't like it.

Wouldn't it be more fair if each state held a Presidential election, and then whoever won for that state, would get 1 vote toward the national vote?

did that make any sense whatsoever? lol

Pretty cool idea mel. If one is happy with the 2 party system I cannot think of a reason why that would not work.

The problem is for me, that dosn't fix the problem of only the 2 major party candidates getting a chance at getting any of those votes.

I liken it to the Simpson episode where the 2 aliens take over Dole and Clinton and when they are discovered they are like "well you have to vote for one of us" and some simpson charater says "hey we could vote for a 3rd party" and the alien guy is like "and throw away your vote - ha ha!" [cuts to Ross Perot who is fuming mad].

In the end an enslaved homer says "don;t blame me - I voted for Kang" (the other alien who would have enslaved them).

That should be aired every election.

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

Should hav done this sooner..........Doh!

Anyways, the whole episode is hilarious if you'v never seen it.

The election thing I referenced is at 7 minutes in - just fast forward.

Enjoy. It made me laugh - then cry.

superhawk2300 wrote on Nov 6^th, 2008 at 8:53am:

Pretty cool idea mel. If one is happy with the 2 party system I cannot think of a reason why that would not work. The problem is for me, that dosn't fix the problem of only the 2 major party candidates getting a chance at getting any of those votes. I liken it to the Simpson episode where the 2 aliens take over Dole and Clinton and when they are discovered they are like "well you have to vote for one of us" and some simpson charater says "hey we could vote for a 3rd party" and the alien guy is like "and throw away your vote - ha ha!" [cuts to Ross Perot who is fuming mad]. In the end an enslaved homer says "don;t blame me - I voted for Kang" (the other alien who would have enslaved them). That should be aired every election.

You didn't need to elaborate so much SH, geez, lol.

Well then obviously the only way our process would work correctly, is to abolish "parties" completely and have the people run on their own good, or bad, names.  

lol - I am just so burnt out on it. MAybe that is part of the political plan as well. Just beat the consituants into just being glad the election is over.

Your idea is a good one though mel. That is why they will never do it!  ;)