Is the electoral voting system stupid or good?

[d-quik]

I personally think it should just be the amount of popular votes instead.

[baddabang]

well states are suppost to base there decision on popular votes, but since that dosent actaully happen then yes it should be based on pop votes. then you could go in depth and say that whoever looses the election should be vice president

[deffenbaugh03]

i really don't understand what its good for so i think popular vote would be alot better.

[sutton4481]

Your thread is kinda biased against the electoral system...first of all, how does the electoral system make some peoples vote count more than others? The electoral system was made so that when it was known a candidate had won a state, they wouldn't have to finish counting all the votes and could instead just give the candidate all their votes. Having said that, the electoral system is outdated and with modern technology we should be able to have a system that uses the popular vote.

[jcp123]

I haven't made it a study, so I really can't say for sure. But I can't see the value of it from here...

[my porsche]

i was confused and clicked yes

i vote neither cuz im not quite sure what it is

[my porsche]

wait, i thought i clicked yes, im the only one of the bottom, so whatever that is, its no, so yeah i guess

[Rockefella]

Crap, I misunderstood the question and hit no..!! I meant to say yes, any way to fix this.. mods? ;)

[PsychoChimp22]

The system was ment to manage the people, now its controling the people... its retarded and needs to go away....

[henk4]

It is not only the popular vote system that may help but also the sytem of registered voters. At least in Holland anybody over 18 has the right to vote, and does not need to specially register. It is also unclear to me how you can be registered as a democrat, a republican or an independent. Once you are registered like that, why should you vote then?

Anyway, organise your public service system in such a way that everybody over 18 is registered and known with the authorities and the only thing parties have to do is make voters come out to the poll.

[QuattroMan]

wait, i thought i clicked yes, im the only one of the bottom, so whatever that is, its no, so yeah i guess


you did fine MP its is whets in you that counts, you answer questioner that was in you good job don't feel intimated just because every one voted deferent then you... ;)

[Esperante]

Yes and no.


Yes, because it is a bit too complicated.

No, because if there wasn't one, then the East and West Coasts would control the election.

[jcp123]

The registration is simply to vote in the primaries for the party with which you're registered. After that, it has no effect on how you vote.

[henk4]

The registration is simply to vote in the primaries for the party with which you're registered. After that, it has no effect on how you vote.


We have a system of party members who select candidates. Voting is private and i would never wanted to registered as a voter for a certain party. Party members also finance the party and the campaigns. I was flabbergasted to learn that private persons/business has contributed more than 270 mln US$ to the GWB campaign and now he is asking 40 mln more for the inauguration party.

[taz_rocks_miami]

We talked about this during the election threads, so it's kinda of a repost. I prefer the popular vote system becuase of it's simplicity and straight forwardness.

[Rockefella]

No, because if there wasn't one, then the East and West Coasts would control the election.
If thats what the public opinion is, then why not let it be. All the money/power/intelligence is based on both coasts anyway. (Minus the great-lakes region)

[henk4]

We talked about this during the election threads, so it's kinda of a repost. I prefer the popular vote system becuase of it's simplicity and straight forwardness.

yes and if you had had it, the Twin Towers would still be standing tall :D

[d-quik]

We talked about this during the election threads, so it's kinda of a repost. I prefer the popular vote system becuase of it's simplicity and straight forwardness.So, say we talk about the toyota avenis in one thread, and a thread created talking about the avenis is automatically a repost? Hell no.

[Rockefella]

yes and if you had had it, the Twin Towers would still be standing tall :D
The scary thing about that statement is that you're probably right henk.. :o
BTW, my mom brought my cousin from Poland to see the WTC 6 days before they went down and my aunt quit her job in the WTC a year or so before they were attacked. She worked on the 30th-something floor I think.

[Esperante]

yes and if you had had it, the Twin Towers would still be standing tall :D
I honestly hope your joking........

And Rock....only the East and West Coasts matter? What about all of our industry, agriculture etc? I'd say that controls a HUGE part of the US economics....

[taz_rocks_miami]

yes and if you had had it, the Twin Towers would still be standing tall :D

So you're saying that if Al Gore had been president 9/11 wouldn't have happened? If that's what you're saying henk, are you possitive?


So, say we talk about the toyota avenis in one thread, and a thread created talking about the avenis is automatically a repost? Hell no.

We talked about this issue extensively before the election hence the "kinda", don't make it more than it is. I didn't.

[Rockefella]

I honestly hope your joking........

And Rock....only the East and West Coasts matter? What about all of our industry, agriculture etc? I'd say that controls a HUGE part of the US economics....
Damn, I was hoping no one would notice that post :o Well, I don't think too highly of farming so I'm biased. Especially since I live on the East coast 15 mins away from NYC.

[henk4]

So you're saying that if Al Gore had been president 9/11 wouldn't have happened? If that's what you're saying henk, are you possitive?



Yes. I think the likelihood that the USA would have been attacked would have been much smaller if Al Gore had been chosen. (he had the majority of the popular vote).

[taz_rocks_miami]

Yes. I think the likelihood that the USA would have been attacked would have been much smaller if Al Gore had been chosen. (he had the majority of the popular vote).

Yeah, I remember he won the popular vote, that's why I favor that system:) Remember that Bin Laden was targeted by Bill Clinton also and that BL targeted the US since the first Gulf war because as BL says: "The US invaded Saudi Arabia." One of Islam's holiest places. He targeted us ever since then. I doubt our choice of president would have influenced him to attack or not.

[henk4]

Yeah, I remember he won the popular vote, that's why I favor that system:) Remember that Bin Laden was targeted by Bill Clinton also and that BL targeted the US since the first Gulf war because as BL says: "The US invaded Saudi Arabia." One of Islam's holiest places. He targeted us ever since then. I doubt our choice of president would have influenced him to attack or not.

Under Clinton we had the Cole incident and the attacks in Africa. Taking things to the USA is big step forward, and while Gore was a relatively colourless/boring guy, GWB is certainly more a love/hate guy of the type which you really would like to punch in the face when you don't like him.

[Blue Supra]

yeh a boring president would be better then one who actively makes enemies....

[taz_rocks_miami]

Under Clinton we had the Cole incident and the attacks in Africa. Taking things to the USA is big step forward, and while Gore was a relatively colourless/boring guy, GWB is certainly more a love/hate guy of the type which you really would like to punch in the face when you don't like him.

I don't think 9/11 was about "hating Bush". It was an attack on the "Great Devil" as BL and other fundamentalist like to call the US.

What may have halted the attack? The inteligence services, if they had shared information and done their jobs correctly, maybe the attack wouldn't have happened or happened on a much smaller scale.

[henk4]

I don't think 9/11 was about "hating Bush". It was an attack on the "Great Devil" as BL and other fundamentalist like to call the US.

What may have halted the attack? The inteligence services, if they had shared information and done their jobs correctly, maybe the attack wouldn't have happened or happened on a much smaller scale.

That would certainly have helped, and yes there was this previous attack on the WTC in the eighties (IIRC). Nevertheless if soembody has an image of the US as the Great Devil, than it is ultimately better personified in GWB than in AG.

[taz_rocks_miami]

That would certainly have helped, and yes there was this previous attack on the WTC in the eighties (IIRC). Nevertheless if soembody has an image of the US as the Great Devil, than it is ultimately better personified in GWB than in AG.

GWB doesn't help our image I agree. But BL would have attacked even if I was president...and I'm such a nice guy!!!:)

That gives me an idea!!!!!! TAZ FOR PRESIDENT!!!!

[henk4]

GWB doesn't help our image I agree. But BL would have attacked even if I was president...and I'm such a nice guy!!!:)

That gives me an idea!!!!!! TAZ FOR PRESIDENT!!!!
I just read that the 16 US- intelligence services will come under one directorate, so they will find you out :D

[crisis]

That would certainly have helped, and yes there was this previous attack on the WTC in the eighties (IIRC). Nevertheless if soembody has an image of the US as the Great Devil, than it is ultimately better personified in GWB than in AG.
Bin Laden would have attacked the US if Mickey Mouse was president. He has been at if for years and the attack on the WTC only happened when it did because that is how long it took. What Bin Laden may not have realised is how violent the reaction and how deterimental to Mulsims his acts would have been . He may not have expected it to have worked so well either.

[taz_rocks_miami]

I just read that the 16 US- intelligence services will come under one directorate, so they will find you out :D

Not to worry, everyone knows Taz ;)

[taz_rocks_miami]

Bin Laden would have attacked the US if Mickey Mouse was president.

If Mickey Mouse was president I would have blown something up!! :p ;)


He has been at if for years and the attack on the WTC only happened when it did because that is how long it took. What Bin Laden may not have realised is how violent the reaction and how deterimental to Mulsims his acts would have been . He may not have expected it to have worked so well either.

I think BL was counting on the US reaction and doesn't care if his actions are deterimental to Mulsims. He wants to generate hate from the US towards Muslims so we'll attack, discriminate and alianate them. That way Muslims will hate us back and it'll be easier to recruit for Al Queda.

[henk4]

Bin Laden would have attacked the US if Mickey Mouse was president. .

he did because MM is president, (this was too tempting to be let alone :D )

[Matra et Alpine]

If Mickey Mouse was president I would have blown something up!! :p ;)
Minnie ???

:eek:

[crisis]

I think BL was counting on the US reaction and doesn't care if his actions are deterimental to Mulsims. He wants to generate hate from the US towards Muslims so we'll attack, discriminate and alianate them. That way Muslims will hate us back and it'll be easier to recruit for Al Queda.
And he has ensured that his band of miserable men will have to conduct their psycopathic business in Arab and Asian Muslim countries (Spain accepted) and find it almost impossible to get at Westerners (all us guys who have given him such a bad time?) on their own soil.

[Esperante]

TAZ FOR PRESIDENT!!!!
Run away run away!

[SPHFerrari]

wow this thread has certainly changed directions!

first of all, baddabang, we did have a system for a while where the runner up was VP but then we ran into the sit. where the winner was one party and the second place the other and so they hated each other and it created problems. then we switched to this system of choosing the VP.

In a way i think that the electoral college is not the best. with modern technology, as somebody said, it would be easier to just od a popular vote.


The electoral system was made so that when it was known a candidate had won a state, they wouldn't have to finish counting all the votes and could instead just give the candidate all their votes
thats just stupid and illinformed. they did NOT choose the electoral college system for a logistical reason like that. it was chosen because the founding fathers wanted to protect the nation, to a certain degree, from the people making the wrong decision. the voters are supposed to be, generally, better educated and more experienced than the average american. and what do you do when the state vote comes down to a few hundred votes or less? at that point youre gonna have to count all of them anyway.

however, with the electoral college system, it is possible that the president win an election and lose the popular vote, in 2 different ways (the obvious way and the rogue voter). i dont think this is the best bay. this is how bush won the election in 2000, and however fair and by the rules it was, and i am a bush supporter, it doesnt make sense to me why it shouldnt be a direct democracy.

henk4, as disappointing as it is, in this day it costs that much to run an election. commercial time, travel, and staff, among other things, cost a bundle and unless you are super rich (Theresa Heinz-Kerry anyone?:D) than it is very hard to finance it on your own. and, as many said, it is not bush's fault 9/11 happened. BL is not just a bush hater, hes an america hater.

o well. ive stated my opinion, now you guys can get back to discussing whether or not bush caused 9/11

[henk4]

henk4, as disappointing as it is, in this day it costs that much to run an election. commercial time, travel, and staff, among other things, cost a bundle and unless you are super rich (Theresa Heinz-Kerry anyone?:D) than it is very hard to finance it on your own.

I'll try to explain you our system in Holland which may contain elements that you despise, but prevents that only the super rich can participate in elections. There is of cause one big difference with the US, we don't vote for our head of State, because we are a monarchy, but we vote for political parties that have built a coalition government, based on a parlementiary majority in the house of representatives. Normally the biggest party provides the prime minister, who also mostly is the party leader during the elections, which adds to the personal element in the voting campaign.

Everybody is free to register a political party and to participate in elections. You need to have a certain number of signatures in every of our election districts te be allowed to participate on a country wide basis.

Political parties are being subsidized by the government to make sure that everybody has at least initially equal opportunities. Political parties have members who pay contribitution and during election time members may be approached to donate a little bit more. Only party members/individuals can donate to parties, donations by companies etc are illegal.
During election times the party's organisations will get an additional subsidy to cover costs, and the goevernment will make boradcasting time available for all parties that have obtained the right to participate in the voting. Every party gets the same amount of time. Parties are not known to buy time in the official commercial blocks on our TV in between programmes.

These sorts of procedures keep "big money" out of the equation, but it requires those heretic government subsidies, a price I am willing to pay unconditionally if it would prevent the a change to a system where money is the decisive factor.

[henk4]

unless you are super rich (Theresa Heinz-Kerry anyone?:D) than it is very hard to finance it on your own

Although GWB left a trail of bankrupt oil companies i don't think that the Bush family can be counted as "poor" :)

[SPHFerrari]

the system in Holland sounds interesting, but im not sure if it would really work in the US. i would not say money is a decisive factor here, but it is important in being able to advertise and what not and get your word and opinion out to the general public.

you very right henk, the Bush's are by no means poor. they are, of course, very rich, but still not to the point where you can fund your own campaign. Heinz-Kerry, i beleive, is worth about 3 billion dollars, quite a bit more thatn george bush, who made the majority of his fortune from the texas rangers. but it seems more and more these days that you can run for presidency as long as you have a long and wealthy family history.

[taz_rocks_miami]

Run away run away!

Taz runs away with the election!!! Biggest landslide ever!!! Everyone is soooo happy!!!

[crisis]

Taz runs away with the election!!! Biggest landslide ever!!! Everyone is soooo happy!!!
With justice and tacos for all.

[Niko_Fx]

With justice and tacos for all.

Sounds good to me! As long as they're not from Taco Bell

[Esperante]

Sounds good to me! As long as they're not from Taco Bell
As long as they're free

[Rockefella]

As long as they're free
and they come w/ a smile

[crisis]

Sounds good to me! As long as they're not from Taco Bell
Nah! Tazs Tacos. Thats his business aint it?