jester1182 Posted October 23, 2004 Report Share Posted October 23, 2004 no my names not patrick. id say its about time you got rid of that signature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt1122 Posted October 23, 2004 Report Share Posted October 23, 2004 no my names not patrick. id say its about time you got rid of that signature.←but it's priceless!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jester1182 Posted October 24, 2004 Report Share Posted October 24, 2004 -ly ironic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deltablade Posted October 25, 2004 Report Share Posted October 25, 2004 In a survey conducted by National Geographic in 2002, about 11% of 18-24 year old American citizens couldn't find the United States on a map. Almost one third of American young people estimated the population of the U.S. at 1-2 billion.These aren't kids either. These are people who can and do vote. Although only 3000 were surveyed, I think having the electoral college is a good idea nevertheless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsat Posted October 25, 2004 Report Share Posted October 25, 2004 Personally I think our current voting system is Horrible, including the electoral college.To me the best way to elect anybody is to cast a vote for whomever you can live with as your representative.So, in a race with 3 candidates (JFK, GWB, RN) you can vote 3 times, 2 times or 1 time. If you only want GWB then you only vote once. If you could live with John Kerry or Ralph Nader then vote twice, once for each person. You cannot vote more than once for the same person. That way it is possible for a 3rd party candidate to win. All candidates have to visit everyone because they are actually working towards a Yes vote and not a Null Vote. But that would completely screw all of these percentages up now wouldn't it. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DougK Posted October 25, 2004 Report Share Posted October 25, 2004 hahaaha ya that sounds like a horribly bad idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deltablade Posted October 26, 2004 Report Share Posted October 26, 2004 I agree. Thats a pretty complicated and ridiculous system of voting. You're supposed to vote for the candidate you think would best represent you, not two candidates you could live with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsat Posted October 26, 2004 Report Share Posted October 26, 2004 I agree. Thats a pretty complicated and ridiculous system of voting. You're supposed to vote for the candidate you think would best represent you, not two candidates you could live withHonestly, does anybody truely want to vote for Either of these nice guy's? I would be willing to bet alot of people out there would love to vote for their true first choice as President but don't because they know that by doing so they lessen the chance of Winning a person they can live with as President.Our current system is absolutely horrid. At what point in our lives do we normally only have two choices? If you went to McDonalds and could only choose between a hamburger with ketchup or a hamburger with mustard, do you think they would be in business very long? When you buy a car there is more than Ford and Chevy.Think of the debates, there were only two sides represented. There are certainly more opinions and ways to handle the tough decisions.By being able to cast a vote for multiple people for President you will return a more valid sense of the peoples choices.With that type of voting system a person like Perot or Nader will have a good chance of winning and will force the current parties to actually do something good for people or face being beaten by an independant choice.BTW which one of the current candidates best represents you now?The Crack smoking Alchoholic Dumbass orthe good Senator from Massachussetts?Neither one represents me or my beliefs and their values certainly don't show in their actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deltablade Posted October 26, 2004 Report Share Posted October 26, 2004 The family man who wants to keep our country safe is the candidate that best represents me. I'm not saying I support the two party system completely(actually, I don't really like it at all). I think its a shame that you pretty much have to be rich to run for president these days. Thats why there can be no real "People's President". I wish others could have chance of winning but there is too much allegience to the Democratic and Republican parties and not enough education-based voting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DougK Posted October 27, 2004 Report Share Posted October 27, 2004 andrew, ever heard the phrase reductio da absurdum (or something like that) Come on now. I may not like either choice, but I sure as hell wouldn't want *BOTH* in office. Can you say bringing the goverment (slow enough as it is which is a whole 'nother topic) to a halt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsat Posted October 27, 2004 Report Share Posted October 27, 2004 (edited) but I sure as hell wouldn't want *BOTH* in officeThere would not be TWO presidents. The person with the most Votes wins. No electoral College.Example with 3 Candidates and 5 People voting.-----Kerry----Bush----Nader1.-----I-------------------I2.-----I 3.---------------I---------I4.---------------I5.-------------------------ITotals:Kerry: 2Bush: 2Nader: 3Winner NaderSee How it works. Very simple. This system would make it possible for a 3rd party to actually have a chance. They would not require alot of money only a solid platform. Since people would not be afraid of wasting their only vote on a candidate they feel can not win, they would be able to vote for each person they feel is qualified.Don't like it if you want, but it is more fair than the current system. Edited October 27, 2004 by wattsat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DougK Posted October 28, 2004 Report Share Posted October 28, 2004 Andrew your ignoring ALOT of things.IF you do a proportional system you have to acknowledge this:Who else beside Nader would run? How about someone from the KKK? Nation Of Islam? Extreme Christian fundementalists ect.Im SURe theres enough possible votes for ANY of those people to get into office. All it would take is one to start a chain reaction (ie being elected gives them some legtimacy, a platform from which to preach their views ect) leading to more and more. Not only that, this would also fragment the government beyond belief.If you think Im wrong, prove it. Im SURE theres enough (for example) KKK members in an area to easily elect someone to the house if not the senate.Gotta think of all sides bud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsat Posted October 28, 2004 Report Share Posted October 28, 2004 Who else beside Nader would run? How about someone from the KKK? Nation Of Islam? Extreme Christian fundementalists ect.There would still be regulations on who would actually be allowed on the ballot. As it stands now Nader only qualifies in 34 States. So, even with the system I propose it would be extrordinally difficult for him to win.This system would give a better view of the actual issues people care about. Right now we are stuck with one side or the other and no way express my approval of both sides views.I am a Gun Lover. Feel it should be everybodys right to own and carry firearms. That is a typical conservative view.I am a Pro Choice person. It is not my body so why should I tell you what you can do with it. I don't want to pay for your decision but I will not restrict you from that. That is a very Liberal point of view.So, from my standpoint I would really like to vote for somebody that shares my views but I cannot do that and have any hope of them actually being elected.I really don't think it would be possible for any Extremist to win even with what I propose. And if they do it means that there was a strong shift in the fundimental beliefs of our country and there is something greater to worry about than our electrion strategy.Im SURE theres enough (for example) KKK members in an area to easily elect someone to the house if not the senate.What is to prevent that from happening now? What about David Duke? He was a Klansman he was elected to Political Office in his state but was not able to go any further.http://www.adl.org/special_reports/duke_ow.../duke_intro.aspWhat I propose is called Approval Voting More info can be found Herehttp://bcn.boulder.co.us/government/approv...te/altvote.htmlLook at item #6I am not alone in favoring this type of electoral system. It is practicle, It Makes sense, and assures a winning candidate that the overall majority will approve of. Which tells me it will never work because the majority sides will suddenly find themselves losing to a minority candidate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsat Posted October 28, 2004 Report Share Posted October 28, 2004 Think of this, if this system was in place for the Democratic primaries, do you think that Kerry would still be the Dem's choice.I'd be willing to bet that Howard Dean or Wesley Clark would have won. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DougK Posted October 28, 2004 Report Share Posted October 28, 2004 All you would have andrew is the fragmentation of the parties. Look at europe, the system you propose is what goes on over there.I KNOW theres enough support in numerous states to easily get people elected under your system that would be absolutely detrimental to this nation.Remeber, 1930's Germany worked under the same system too.... look who they elected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.jpg.ff15e5ad1dcbf3d7b80e09c86d8da5d4.thumb.jpg.465fb159f5dbe2a47eee3586d48c8b8c.jpg)
Recommended Posts