I would agree except that we pay them for life. That part needs to go away as well.Term limits needs to be # 1 on everyone's list...
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I would agree except that we pay them for life. That part needs to go away as well.Term limits needs to be # 1 on everyone's list...
No, the electoral college goes against the will of the majority. End of story. It’s a national election and countless votes are not counted by this antiquated system. It’s a fvcking joke.What was the difference in popular vote between Clinton and Trump? What was the difference in California? That is why the electoral college is important.
No, the electoral college goes against the will of the majority. End of story. It’s a national election and countless votes are not counted by this antiquated system. It’s a fvcking joke.
we have states for more localized governance that make sense for that region. The president and federal government represent us all. There’s no goddamn reason to still have the electoral college. None. Funny how it’s typically cons that defend it, hmmm, I wonder why?Then why even have states? Just make everything national. Why do we need 50 different flavors?
There is further explanation of that plan in the link I provided in post #16 above if you're interested. A couple of other alternatives as well.I think the first part of this paragraph is an interesting idea. The last sentence doesn't make sense. You want the state to be decided similar to the Electoral college instead of the popular vote?
we have states for more localized governance that make sense for that region. The president and federal government represent us all. There’s no goddamn reason to still have the electoral college. None. Funny how it’s typically cons that defend it, hmmm, I wonder why?
Please, expand on all of the “very good reasons” I’d love to hear themThere are a lot of very good reasons for the electoral college. It's just coincidence that the dems have ended up on the losing side recently.
Good thing you weren’t a founding father.
Recently, as in the last 30 years?There are a lot of very good reasons for the electoral college. It's just coincidence that the dems have ended up on the losing side recently.
There are a lot of very good reasons for the electoral college. It's just coincidence that the dems have ended up on the losing side recently.
Let’s say a person is an EMT making $15 an hour. Works a bunch of overtime and pulls down 60k a year. However, has a couple of kids and pays little federal income taxes. Now let’s say that another person inherited a bunch of money from aunt Cecilia and pays large amounts of capital gains taxes. Who contributes more to society?Not shocking that those that aren't positive contributors to society think they should have equal voice to those of us that are.
Don’t try to engage golfing in any kind of logical debate. Dude’s a nut.Let’s say a person is an EMT making $15 an hour. Works a bunch of overtime and pulls down 60k a year. However, has a couple of kids and pays little federal income taxes. Now let’s say that another person inherited a bunch of money from aunt Cecilia and pays large amounts of capital gains taxes. Who contributes more to society?
The electoral college was founded because of slavery. The "small state" issue is solved by the United States Senate. It was founded for the sole purpose of granting some electoral weight to states with slaves. That’s all. The only reason that Republicans support it is it’s the only way the can win the White House.There are a lot of very good reasons for the electoral college. It's just coincidence that the dems have ended up on the losing side recently.
This is a bizarre argument. Besides aligning with your politics, how does it make sense that a minority of people who happen to not live in more densely populated areas should dictate policy to the majority? The vote of every person in a federal election should be equal, regardless of where they live.The dirt argument you try to make doesn’t hold water. Depending on where people live in the US, they are different cultures from those in other areas. Just because a very large population chooses to reside along the east and west cost does not mean they should be able to dictate how those in the “fly over” country should have to live. You get that with the house, but the senate is set up so that each state has an equal say.
Exactly.This is a bizarre argument. Besides aligning with your politics, how does it make sense that a minority of people who happen to not live in more densely populated areas should dictate policy to the majority? The vote of every person in a federal election should be equal, regardless of where they live.
Term limits needs to be # 1 on everyone's list...
Fact check all campaign commercials and don't allow any that aren't factual on TV/radio.
Those two statements go together quite well. First one sounds perfect for the Ministry of Truth.I don't feel like putting too much thought in now.
Can you think of reasons that small states only agree to unions with large states under voting arrangements that recognize the importance and value of sovereignty?The idea that dirt is more important in deciding elections than people is something I simply cannot grasp. The notion that your vote should hold more power if you live in a small state than if you live in a large state baffles me.
What if you care about diversity? Mere majoritarianism as an overriding political concept baffles me.It is impossible to support such an anti- democratic, unfair, and outdated idea unless it happens to benefit you. And then only if you care nothing about fairness and equity, it rather only care about yourself.
Unconstitutionality is a red herring. To anyone with a brain, some of the suggestions would require amending the constitution. The question isn't whether they are constitutional, it's whether they are good for democracy.This thread has more anti-democratic ideas than ones that would increase democracy. Plus a lot that are unconstitutional. SMH.
This is the 21st century.Can you think of reasons that small states only agree to unions with large states under voting arrangements that recognize the importance and value of sovereignty?
Requiring people to vote is the antithesis of democracy, if one believes that political freedom is an essential component of democratic governance. Nonvoting can also an expression of free speech.Unconstitutionality is a red herring. To anyone with a brain, some of the suggestions would require amending the constitution. The question isn't whether they are constitutional, it's whether they are good for democracy.
As for your claim that some suggestions are anti-democratic, maybe you're right. Why don't you point them out so we can discuss them.
Personally, I'm not a fan of term limits, but a lot of people like that idea - which is why I included it on my original list.
What else?
Nonsense. You might argue it's a violation of freedom. But it promotes democracy.Requiring people to vote is the antithesis of democracy
Again, freedom, not democracy.Nonvoting can also an expression of free speech.
A forced vote is a non-vote.Nonsense. You might argue it's a violation of freedom. But it promotes democracy.
Words, you know.
Definitely on board with 2 and 3.1) an amendment to the constitution requiring every state, every ten years, to put forth a ballot initiative asking if the citizens want a constitutional convention. (This would ensure we could always address governments systemic failures over time)
2) a total ban on gerrymandering.
3) ranked choice voting in national primaries. No more Iowa caucus decides for the rest of us.
That's either word salad, or willful misunderstanding.A forced vote is a non-vote.
Nota is not equal to a refusal to vote as a form of protest. Good luck getting rid of the first amendment.Again, freedom, not democracy.
If voting is mandatory there should always be a "none of the above" option or something like that.
What we are talking about is cost vs benefit. If you believe that democracy is very important, then the trivial cost of having to cast a ballot every couple of years is an easy tradeoff to justify.
By the way, if you have a NOTA option and NOTA wins, that opens up even more pro-democracy possibilities. I mean if you can't even beat NOTA, you have no business being in office, do you.
Or reality.That's either word salad, or willful misunderstanding.
Definitely on board with 2 and 3.
In principle I like #1, too, but the problem is who gets to control the constitutional convention?
Right now the Right is pushing for a constitutional convention. In big part because they are pretty sure they can control it.
Of course they may not need one if their SCOTUS keeps slicing away the parts that corporations and religions don't like.
Why did the EU include such a ‘vile compromise’ as to ascribe equal representation among members with vastly different populations?This is the 21st century.
That vile compromise made sense back at the founding. It doesn't now.
Australia requires it.Requiring people to vote is the antithesis of democracy, if one believes that political freedom is an essential component of democratic governance. Nonvoting can also an expression of free speech.