BF2S Forums Popular vote or electoral college?

Superior Mind wrote:

It always seemed bizarre that there was basically no hope for a third party being elected.

"bizarre"? you know, bizarre in politics usually means one thing: you are being manipulated. it's always by design. you are told you have a choice, but in reality those so called "parties" you have are but different sides of the same coin.

you do? why so many topics about democracy, elections and all that stuff then if "most of you" know that it doesn't work?

Last edited by Shahter (2012-09-17 06:47:57)

Population density map of the US

The midwest shouldn't be given 2 senators for every state considering how empty they are. You need 60 votes to get anything passed in the Senate. These empty areas shouldn't be allowed to hold up a legislation that is wanted by a majority of people from the not empty part of the U.S.

Yeah but you can effectively stop anything from getting into law by locking up the more important Senate.

Do you understand how the government works? Here you go in case you don't

Last edited by Macbeth (2013-01-23 08:45:35)

Err filibusters don't require anyone holding the floor. You only have to anonymously file some paperwork to stage a filibuster and require 60 votes instead of 51. You get your political knowledge from movies don't you?

A simple majority = 51

Last edited by Macbeth (2013-01-23 08:52:55)

So it is agreed then. You don't know how filibusters work.

Macbeth wrote:

The midwest shouldn't be given 2 senators for every state considering how empty they are.

Ummm isn't that the whole point of why the senate only has 2 seats per state?

I'm just not a fan of a senator who is responsible for 250,000 people stopping a bill in the Senate that was started by a Senator with 11,000,000 voters and supported by Senators with 190,000,000 people under them.

Empty areas like the Midwest shouldn't have enough political clout to dictate how the rest of the country works. A 100,000 potato farmers shouldn't count for 2/100 of the congress.

Last edited by Macbeth (2013-01-23 09:06:26)

Because an idea becomes better when the person represents more people? Please. Quit crying and move to California if you want to live under single party rule.

Macbeth wrote:

I'm just not a fan of a senator who is responsible for 250,000 people stopping a bill in the Senate that was started by a Senator with 11,000,000 voters and supported by Senators with 190,000,000 people under them.

Empty areas like the Midwest shouldn't have enough political clout to dictate how the rest of the country works. A 100,000 potato farmers shouldn't count for 2/100 of the congress.

yeah all those farmers and people from the midwest are the REAL ones with political clout making deals behind closed doors.

No, I support it because it's effective. We have two houses. One is a democratic representation of the population, the other is a republican representation system. It's a check against the Tyranny of the Majority. I'm not a fan of democracy in general, as it's too easily to rile up a mob and lead them down a bad path with effective propaganda. Under your system, a charismatic leader could propose and push through legislation that would say, force farmers to halve their food prices, or only grow organic food, or prevent oil drilling etc. The way the senate is set up allows those states that would otherwise stand a very good chance of getting steamrolled, to have an equal voice in negotiations. Democracy sucks, but I think that the system we have set up now where we have two houses with different setups is just about the best compromise that man has adopted as a system of government.

About the only tweak to our government I really want is a change in how the electoral college votes are distributed. I dislike winner-take-all because it disenfranchises so many voters. Obama would've still won if college votes were distributed in proportion to vote percentages, but the margin would've been much less and would've been more reflective of how the population feels. Those 30% or so of voters in New York that cast their vote for Romney shouldn't have their voices ignored.

midwest? empty?

Last edited by RTHKI (2013-01-23 11:05:08)

Jay wrote:

No, I support it because it's effective. We have two houses. One is a democratic representation of the population, the other is a republican representation system. It's a check against the Tyranny of the Majority. I'm not a fan of democracy in general, as it's too easily to rile up a mob and lead them down a bad path with effective propaganda. Under your system, a charismatic leader could propose and push through legislation that would say, force farmers to halve their food prices, or only grow organic food, or prevent oil drilling etc. The way the senate is set up allows those states that would otherwise stand a very good chance of getting steamrolled, to have an equal voice in negotiations. Democracy sucks, but I think that the system we have set up now where we have two houses with different setups is just about the best compromise that man has adopted as a system of government.

About the only tweak to our government I really want is a change in how the electoral college votes are distributed. I dislike winner-take-all because it disenfranchises so many voters. Obama would've still won if college votes were distributed in proportion to vote percentages, but the margin would've been much less and would've been more reflective of how the population feels. Those 30% or so of voters in New York that cast their vote for Romney shouldn't have their voices ignored.

You would rather see gerrymandered representation because it's a nice balance against democracy? Because that's the only reason the House is Republican right now.

But then you want the opposite for the Senate because it's not fair Democrats had so many electoral votes?

You're a bit inconsistent and it seems to come down to whether the vote placed democrats or republicans into power...