NationStates Jolt Archive

The title ought to be self-explanatory.

Where's the poll?
And the answer is no.

Where's the poll?
And the answer is no.Look again.

I would say we do not.

No. It would be easier to do it by direct election. Also clear up any ambiguity about who really won.

Look again.

Ahh! Black magic!

No, direct democracy is better. The Electoral College is pretty pointless now.

Democracy should be restricted and replaced by oligarchy of people who underastand as opposed to allowing everyone to vote when few people understand any of the issues.

The reason the Electoral College was established was to give smaller states equal representation in the election. This means that there are a few "swing" states that tend to decide the election. It is only these few states that the aspiring presidents bother to visit. If there were no electoral college, there would then be only a few "swing" states whose population would be enough to grab the election. Only these few states would the presidents-to-be bother visiting.
In my opinion, it doesn't really matter how you break up the college, in any case most states will be ignored and their votes "won't count." The only reason I choose to get rid of (or modify) the college is so that people will stop complaining that someone "stole" the election.

Democracy should be restricted and replaced by oligarchy of people who underastand as opposed to allowing everyone to vote when few people understand any of the issues.

If I move down south, can I be in the oligarchy?

Democracy should be restricted and replaced by oligarchy of people who underastand as opposed to allowing everyone to vote when few people understand any of the issues.An oligarchy of the informed? Who understands the issues can be a matter of opinion. A party leader can create a system such that anyone who disagrees with his views will fail the understanding test. This system is just as corrupt as a totalitarian police state.

Although, on a different note, that's why we have the voting age raised to 18—so that the "informed" can vote.

Maybe my next poll will be about whether democracy should be compulsory…

Yes - states' rights issue

this way the vote of every state counts... as opposed to only the votes in chicago, new york, LA, etc.

An oligarchy of the informed? Who understands the issues can be a matter of opinion. A party leader can create a system such that anyone who disagrees with his views will fail the understanding test. This system is just as corrupt as a totalitarian police state.

Although, on a different note, that's why we have the voting age raised to 18—so that the "informed" can vote.

Maybe my next poll will be about whether democracy should be compulsory…

democracy should not be compulsory -- part of freedom is NOT HAVING TO VOTE if you don't want to. Making people vote would be a constraint on people's lives and a hindrance to freedom.

now... that said, if you don't vote then you can't bitch about the results.

An oligarchy of the informed? Who understands the issues can be a matter of opinion. A party leader can create a system such that anyone who disagrees with his views will fail the understanding test. This system is just as corrupt as a totalitarian police state.

Although, on a different note, that's why we have the voting age raised to 18—so that the "informed" can vote.

Maybe my next poll will be about whether democracy should be compulsory…


However, there are some of us who are under 18, and "informed."

However, there are some of us who are under 18, and "informed."True…me for example. :)

democracy should not be compulsory -- part of freedom is NOT HAVING TO VOTE if you don't want to. Making people vote would be a constraint on people's lives and a hindrance to freedom.

now... that said, if you don't vote then you can't bitch about the results.

Except that freedom of speech guarantees the right to bitch about whatever you want to.

No, because the electoral college has no real benefit. The votes are awarded "winner take all", so even if the candidate won by a small margin (49.8 to 49.7 for example), they would still get all of the electoral vote. This enables a candidate to win the presidency without carrying a majority of the popular vote if they can win the big states by a small margin and then forget about the smaller ones.

Except that freedom of speech guarantees the right to bitch about whatever you want to.

of course with freedom comes responsibility, and if you are unresponsible with your freedoms, they could be taken away.

Of course there should be an Electoral College. In fact, every country should have one. Assistance to such College would be mandatory for all citizens and they would have courses like:

Filling in a ballot: Is it really too hard to mark the one you want?
Issues comprehension: Why reading newspapers is important.
Advanced issues comprehension: News not related to celebrities.
Political spectrum: Why real life is more than just left or right.

etc.

No. Get rid of it.

I don't like the electoral college and (as an American) would like to see it abolished, but I voted "other" because the option for "no" specified a direct democracy, a system which, as implemented in ancient Athens, would be at best a nightmare of governance for a nation of 300 million. We should get to vote for the office of President directly, imo.

I propose we not get rid of the electoral systems, but institute some reforms to the electoral college in order to make it more responsive to population. For example, as it is, rural states get an inordinate amount of sway and yet they hold, in real terms, a much smaller level of actual value in terms of their economic output and the size of their populations.

Because of their smaller sizes but unbalanced electoral power due to their swing-vote status, they receive a much bigger proportionate share of tax dollars. The state of California, on the other hand, receives only a small fraction of federal funds for the sheer amount of tax revenue the state provides the federal government. I partially tie this inadequate funding distribution to incumbent attempts to gain favour from swing states.

This poses a problem on such things as education and homeland defence funding. Restructuring the electoral college would help in removing certain inequalities of federal resources as well.

A multi-tiered electoral college system that gives smaller states due representation but recognises the larger states is in order. I can't get into the details of how it would be set up, since I'm no expert on political institutions.

Democracy should be restricted and replaced by oligarchy of people who underastand as opposed to allowing everyone to vote when few people understand any of the issues.And we will set the minimum standard for understanding just slightly above yours. How's that?

Of course there should be an Electoral College. In fact, every country should have one. Assistance to such College would be mandatory for all citizens and they would have courses like:

Filling in a ballot: Is it really too hard to mark the one you want?
Issues comprehension: Why reading newspapers is important.
Advanced issues comprehension: News not related to celebrities.
Political spectrum: Why real life is more than just left or right.

etc.Well --- all right, but only if there's a system to apply for tuition assistance...;)

From what I understand, the Electoral College has been pretty good about representing their electorate, which sort of surprises me. I don't really like the EC system though since it's very open for corruption, and it fosters a sense of frustration among voters which may part of the reason for a low turnout [that and the fact that most presidents lately have had fairly generic forign and domestic policies].

Its wierd how often this comes up in politics; every election we start asking ourselves if we should do away with it, then the discussion sort of peters out a few weeks later without anything really being done about it.

Incidentally, I would really like it if we had a "none of the above" option on the presidential ballot. I think a lot of times people have vastly different opinions on certain candidates by the time the election really rolls around. This also leads to people not voting, from where I stand. If $HARDLINE_REPUBLICAN decides he thinks his candidate is a crook but can't bring himself to vote for the other guy, he abstains altogether. This happens a lot. By voting "none of the above" we'd get to throw out the garbage candidates and draw up some new ones.

The only problem with this arises really when you think about what would happen if "none of the above" won every election. Given the current trend in politicians, I can't see why this wouldn't be a distinct possibility.

At the very minimum, perhaps the Electors should be elected.

I don't care. I'm not from the USA. It is their business. Now if only they would learn to take this attitude with the politics of other countries.

If it were up to me I'd probably get rid of the electoral college, but I'm pretty ambivalent either way. What I really think America needs is radical election reform. We should create a multi-party proportional representative democracy similar to what most free countries across the globe currently have. I particularly like the Israeli system where a party needs to receive a mere threshold of 2% of the total vote in the national election to receive representation in the Knesset (Israel's parliamentary body). Whenever I hear about the various factions of the Republican and Democratic parties I am convinced it's time to scrap the two-party duopoly we currently have and let the factions create their own political party. As far as I am concerned, Iraq has more democracy than America, they actually get to choose from hundreds of candidates for prime minister and not just the two viable candidates we're stuck with.

I think the electoral college needs to go

To those who say that the candidates would ignore the little states, I say, that goes on with the EC. They only go for the states where they can get the most electoral votes.

Plus, a blue state wont just have its blue votes count. All the reds, greens and yellows in there could have their votes count as well.

The original idea behinf the electoral college was sound but there is no need for it anymore. Back when it was started the parties were organized more on a state to state basis. The Parties could have more then one candidate running for president at the same time. In different states. In big states like NY a candidate could campaign just there & get a majority vote. However then it became who NY wanted for president vs the larger cross section of the US. To get more of a cross section they institued the college & then candidates had to travel all over the US to gain enough support to win an election. This was a sound decission at the time..................................
However, Now that we have mass media a candidate can reach the whole of the US & gain a cross section of the vote.
Just another one of those silly laws like dismantling your car is you spook a horse & it won't go by you. (Law still in Iowa Books but never enforced).
As soon as the dawn of the telegraph/or possibly the radio the electorial college became obsolete.

Also I think we should have not one President but around 5. With 5 year terms and each year we elect a single one. Each President would have a specific expertise like education, health, foreign policy, economics, and so on. During the debates we could hear more indepth discussions on policies with regard to their field(s) of expertise and we can put more faith in their decisions on single issues. This way no one person gets to make any final decision. Plus it would probably be a mix of Dems and Reps. I think it would be good because the more people there are the harder it is to conspire as well (provied they aren't all Freemasons). I think the majority of the country is really moderate.

Also I think we should have not one President but around 5. With 5 year terms and each year we elect a single one. Each President would have a specific expertise like education, health, foreign policy, economics, and so on. During the debates we could hear more indepth discussions on policies with regard to their field(s) of expertise and we can put more faith in their decisions on single issues. This way no one person gets to make any final decision. Plus it would probably be a mix of Dems and Reps. I think it would be good because the more people there are the harder it is to conspire as well. I think the majority of the country is really moderate.
I think that fall under too many cooks spoil the soup.
We can't get much accomplished now as it is in government.
5 presidents would end up killing each other.

I don't knwo if the American EC should be replaced by direct democracy, but there's something wrong where one guy gets a plurality of votes, yet the other guy gets the presidency.

However, there are some of us who are under 18, and "informed."
But you're in a tiny minority.

Of course there should be an Electoral College. In fact, every country should have one.
No, there's no case for an electoral college anywhere except in absolutely massive countries like the USA.

I think that fall under too many cooks spoil the soup.
We can't get much accomplished now as it is in government.
5 presidents would end up killing each other.


I don't know - a lot of people I propose this idea too thinks it's a good one. How would a group of 5 specialized learned individuals stop things from gettign done? I would be happy if there wasn't a single mindset at the very top making the final decision. If there are a few of them, they can debate on why they want it this way or that which would help them all make better decisions because they can get input from experts on the field and know that this experts opinions are something the majority of the country supports. Truely I can see this helping to shape the US in a very good way. ANd it would be a democracy up the the very highest level.

In this computer age where each vote can be tallied and added up pretty quickly I see no reason why we couldn't do away with the EC. Each person would get one vote and it would weigh the same as everybody else's vote, it wouldn't matter whether you were in Hawaii or Maine or anywhere in between. With the EC the Electors are not even obligated to vote for the candidate that won the majority vote in their district, it doesn't happen often, but it has happened in the past. I think the EC has served its purpose and needs to be retired.

I don't know - a lot of people I propose this idea too thinks it's a good one. How would a group of 5 specialized learned individuals stop things from gettign done? I would be happy if there wasn't a single mindset at the very top making the final decision. If there are a few of them, they can debate on why they want it this way or that which would help them all make better decisions because they can get input from experts on the field and know that this experts opinions are something the majority of the country supports. Truely I can see this helping to shape the US in a very good way. ANd it would be a democracy up the the very highest level.

A. Who picks who these qualified learned indivudals are? I know many "uneducated people," who could go toe to toe with experts who have spent years working in that field. You would have to build an organzation around who decides wh runs. Government grows.

B. Will each of these 5 presidents have a cabinet. (a group of learned experts who help the president make decissions.) If so the Gov grows more differing opnions are formed more arguing less gets done.

C. Congress & the Senate. Do these bodies remain? if so in what form. How does the congress deal with 5 executives plus 5 vice executives & their cabinets. More Interns? Gov grows again. More opnions enter the picture.
Or
Desolve the Senate & Congress & remove any form of state representation? Bad idea. Whats good in Washington may never work in Iowa California or Colorado.

D. Learned & highly educated people don't alway have common sense. Many do. However the logical choice is not alway the right one in matters of government. Many highly qualified people also lack the ability to lead & don't have the personal Charisma to gain the support of the international community. Again some do.

E. The goverment you are suggesting is called a Technocracy. It takes all types of people to be a truly representative government. Restricting it to the Learned is dangerous & could lead to a even larger misuse of power them we already have today. There would be a backlash to restrict learning to the wealthy so they cornered the government positions. We would become a land of the wealthy learned & the uneducated poor.

A. Who picks who these qualified learned indivudals are? I know many "uneducated people," who could go toe to toe with experts who have spent years working in that field. You would have to build an organzation around who decides wh runs. Government grows.

The way we pick them should be the same. The people interested in the spot compete for it and we the public make the final decision. Govt. doesn't grow here.

B. Will each of these 5 presidents have a cabinet. (a group of learned experts who help the president make decissions.) If so the Gov grows more differing opnions are formed more arguing less gets done.

No they will all have the same cabinet which they will all pick together. Only the people they can agree on putting in that cabinet will make the cut. Gov.t doesnt grow here either. Well maybe by 4 people.

C. Congress & the Senate. Do these bodies remain? if so in what form. How does the congress deal with 5 executives plus 5 vice executives & their cabinets. More Interns? Gov grows again. More opnions enter the picture.
Or
Desolve the Senate & Congress & remove any form of state representation? Bad idea. Whats good in Washington may never work in Iowa California or Colorado.

Dont get rid of them. I never suggested that. I just don't like the final say on anything to be left up to one person with one ideology and limited knowledge in many areas.

D. Learned & highly educated people don't alway have common sense. Many do. However the logical choice is not alway the right one in matters of government. Many highly qualified people also lack the ability to lead & don't have the personal Charisma to gain the support of the international community. Again some do.

Those who the people do not see as being good leaders won't get picked, I'm sure. If they lack charisma I'm sure they wont make it to the final round.

E. The goverment you are suggesting is called a Technocracy. It takes all types of people to be a truly representative government. Restricting it to the Learned is dangerous & could lead to a even larger misuse of power them we already have today. There would be a backlash to restrict learning to the wealthy so they cornered the government positions. We would become a land of the wealthy learned & the uneducated poor.

What you are saying here as being a possible outcome is already a reality. The poor are already receiving crappy education. I have gone to public schools in rich areas as well as poor areas and the difference it TREMENDOUS! I felt really priveledged when I was goign to a public school n a rich area. THe facilites, the teachers, the cirriculum, everything was 100 times better than the public schools in poor areas which I have attended. It was like goign to a private school almost. Anyone I know that has also experienced teh difference has also found this to be true. WHen a schools funding is based on the land value surrounding it, disasterous schooling is the result.

the electoral served its purpose back when it was created. but now it is outdated and needs to be gotten rid of. the largest problem is that even when a state vots majority for one canidate, the electoral college can still vote for the other candidate. and also like other people said, the one who wins and gets the ec votes, may have only won by a very small percentage. i think that voting should be something you have to pass a test to be able to do. i don't exactly know how the test would work, but i think people need to be informed and educated before they make a choice that could change the country. they should need to be able to show that they understand the issues and explain why they are voting the way they are voting. nothing pisses me off more that people telling me they support a candidate just because their parents/friends/significant other do and they don't have time to do the research. and trust me i hear this a lot. i'm 14 and i am one of those who are under 18 and informed. i live in a very well to do suburb of milwaukee, wi, so mostly everyone thinks they are conservative because their parents are. i'm personally liberal and absolutely detest living in such a small place. i'm also an atheist and living in the "bible belt" does not suit me well at all. almost anyone at school who had actually done any research was liberal--that means very few. and yeah we were laughed at when bush won, but wi was democratic. but overall i think the electoral college has served its purpose, but now we need to move on. i'm not certain if a direct democracy is the right way to go, but who knows?

quite frankly it's open to abuse and corruption, and as such i think that the american political system should be looking for a way to change that

Is it just me or is everyone getting constant error messages and no thread specified messages today?

On topic, a direct elections would be quicker and essentially yield the same results with only a few exceptions. I mean, why the hell not?

I propose we not get rid of the electoral systems, but institute some reforms to the electoral college in order to make it more responsive to population. For example, as it is, rural states get an inordinate amount of sway and yet they hold, in real terms, a much smaller level of actual value in terms of their economic output and the size of their populations.

Democracy does not give(well, SHOULD not) give value to economic might. And as far as rural states getting an Inordinate amount of sway... Do you really begrudge ND or MT with their 3 votes each against California's 55? I mean the should have some say no? I mean how much less say than 3 out of 537 (maybe missing 1 or 2) is too much power to give a state? Yes its slightly more than a pure population representation, but come on!!..INORDINATE..thats a stretch.


Because of their smaller sizes but unbalanced electoral power due to their swing-vote status, they receive a much bigger proportionate share of tax dollars. The state of California, on the other hand, receives only a small fraction of federal funds for the sheer amount of tax revenue the state provides the federal government. I partially tie this inadequate funding distribution to incumbent attempts to gain favour from swing states.

They are only "swing states" because so many other are so firmly entrenched in their party views. If NY or CA wasnt a Democratic "LOCK" maybe presidential canditates(Republican and Democrat) would spend more time there. And as far as power sharing... Being president only gives you so much power. Try getting a bill through the house that doesnt give something to NY or CA or any state with many house members. Exactly how far do you think its going to get?

The magic of the system is all the checks and balances woven into it. Bills cant get through without the support of the house and senate. Senate, 2 votes per state but the house votes is based on population. The populous states get their representation there. The president cannot get elected without getting enough electoral votes, votes he(or a potential candidate) wont get if he allows legistlation that harms the less populous states. However, he cant get a bill through...all he can do is veto(as in the framers have forced him to look after his own political career as he looks after the minority). He is forced to look after the minority interests. while the senate isnt so obligated and the house looks after the majority interests. And to balance all this we have the courts. And as a last resort we have the citizens.

What a great system. The majority cannot browbeat the minority and the minority cannot hold the majority hostage.

Side issue: would you really want a recount in every county in every state when elections are close? Both the Dems and Republicans will call for recounts wherever they think they can pick up votes vs only in the 1-3 contested states.


This poses a problem on such things as education and homeland defence funding. Restructuring the electoral college would help in removing certain inequalities of federal resources as well.


How do you figure?


A multi-tiered electoral college system that gives smaller states due representation but recognises the larger states is in order. I can't get into the details of how it would be set up, since I'm no expert on political institutions.


This is what we have now. You cant give smaller states less than 3 votes in 530+ and still call it "representation"

No, there's no case for an electoral college anywhere except in absolutely massive countries like the USA.
The US wasn't that massive when they adopted the electoral college. And I wasn't talking about that kind of college.

From what I understand, the Electoral College has been pretty good about representing their electorate, which sort of surprises me. I don't really like the EC system though since it's very open for corruption, and it fosters a sense of frustration among voters which may part of the reason for a low turnout [that and the fact that most presidents lately have had fairly generic forign and domestic policies].

Its wierd how often this comes up in politics; every election we start asking ourselves if we should do away with it, then the discussion sort of peters out a few weeks later without anything really being done about it.

Incidentally, I would really like it if we had a "none of the above" option on the presidential ballot. I think a lot of times people have vastly different opinions on certain candidates by the time the election really rolls around. This also leads to people not voting, from where I stand. If $HARDLINE_REPUBLICAN decides he thinks his candidate is a crook but can't bring himself to vote for the other guy, he abstains altogether. This happens a lot. By voting "none of the above" we'd get to throw out the garbage candidates and draw up some new ones.

The only problem with this arises really when you think about what would happen if "none of the above" won every election. Given the current trend in politicians, I can't see why this wouldn't be a distinct possibility.


I would love it if we could cast multiple votes. Its been a while since my game theory classes, so I forget the name and details of that type of election. But it works something like we rank our votes. Meaning, I ideally caste my votes for X canditate, but if he isnt going to be in the running then my votes devolve to Y canditate.

That way Badnarick(cant spell or pronounce his name) votes could cast their votes for him and at worst their votes would go to their 2nd or third choice. Same goes for Nader voters who would have preffered Gore over Bush. Or Perot voters wh would have preffered Bush over Clinton ect ect.

The reason the Electoral College was established was to give smaller states equal representation in the election. This means that there are a few "swing" states that tend to decide the election. It is only these few states that the aspiring presidents bother to visit. If there were no electoral college, there would then be only a few "swing" states whose population would be enough to grab the election. Only these few states would the presidents-to-be bother visiting.
In my opinion, it doesn't really matter how you break up the college, in any case most states will be ignored and their votes "won't count." The only reason I choose to get rid of (or modify) the college is so that people will stop complaining that someone "stole" the election.

Swing states are not the "enlightened" genious states you make them out to be :headbang: , the reason they are swing stares is because the people living in those states are too stupid to actually research a candidate and usually choose to vote at random (Florida). Also the current system ignores voters who live in states that their paticular parties are unpopular in, for example: in WashingtonDC, a conservative voter's vote is pretty much irrelevant since roughly 70-90% of the population of that district are liberals, thus earning democtrats the electoral votes from that district.

IF we elimiate the electoral college we should also eliminate the Senate - It isn't fair that California gets the same number of Senators as Delaware even though Californians could fit the entire population of Delaware in their spare bedrooms and still have room for Montana too. Small states don't deserve equal representation at all.

(sarcasm font on)

currently there is no point in voting for a third party candidate, due to the electoral college. This is sad because the United States is one of the only democracies in the world that is represented by only two different sets of ideas. People do not vote for the candidate that is most representative of their beliefs and ideals, they instead vote for "the lesser of two evils" because they belive only democrats and republicans can ever be elected to an office beyond a local level.
This is because no third party candidate has had any hope of having enough popular support to win the majorety of votes in a state (and thus its electoral votes) in the past several decades, people see this and do not vote for third party candidates because they belive that doiing so is a "waste of a vote".
If the Electoral system was abolished and elections were decided based on percentages alone, then people would be more inclined to vote for their ideal candidate because every vote would matter in a direct democratic election, no matter for whom the vote is cast.

I don't care. I'm not from the USA. It is their business. Now if only they would learn to take this attitude with the politics of other countries.If you're not from the USA, why did you even bother to post? [Note to other pollsters: this poll designed primarily for U.S. citizens. However, people from other countries can express their opinions if they want to…]

No, though smaller states would be beaten by the larger ones WITH the electoral college the same is done with minor parties.

The electoral system serves no purpose anymore. We should replace it with something better—either direct democracy or allow the electors to vote for whomever they like, as opposed to whoever their state votes for. It would prevent debacles like the 2000 election.

currently there is no point in voting for a third party candidate, due to the electoral college. This is sad because the United States is one of the only democracies in the world that is represented by only two different sets of ideas. People do not vote for the candidate that is most representative of their beliefs and ideals, they instead vote for "the lesser of two evils" because they belive only democrats and republicans can ever be elected to an office beyond a local level.
This is because no third party candidate has had any hope of having enough popular support to win the majorety of votes in a state (and thus its electoral votes) in the past several decades, people see this and do not vote for third party candidates because they belive that doiing so is a "waste of a vote".
If the Electoral system was abolished and elections were decided based on percentages alone, then people would be more inclined to vote for their ideal candidate because every vote would matter in a direct democratic election, no matter for whom the vote is cast.

I'm a libertarian, but I have to play Devil's Advocate for a second here: a multi-party system effectively strips the ability of the government to accurately portray the needs and desires of the majority of the citizenry. When you have 3 or more parties, it's highly unlikely that any one of them will hold the actual majority of the vote. If they do, their percentage is likely to be far, far above that of the nearest contender, which essentially ends up making it a one party system.

That said, I'd still love it if third parties had more viability, since they do tend to have more varied positions on things: Republicans and Democrats do not, as they're more or less the same anymore.

Electoral College. I would say NO! Besides, how does one get a degree from the college? *smirk*

I think that we should keep the electoral college system, but get rid of the "winner-take-all" part. Split it in proportion to the vote in the state.