The next President
- Thread starter steveny
- Start date
There should be another poll choice - other candidate.
No matter whether Kerry or Bush wins today, America loses...
No matter whether Kerry or Bush wins today, America loses...
Well, the Washington Redskins lost so............. 
I decided to waive my right to vote today. I just do not feel as though I knew the candidates or the issues well enough to vote for any of them. Also, I have never liked the fact that the American people do not directly elect the president - it really makes it seem like the vote doesn't count when it's treated as only a suggestion.
AutoEuphoria said:
That's your choice, but there's a lot of information on the web that lists what the candidates stand for.
I might be a minority here, but I think the electoral college is an important part to presidential elections. The reasoning is that it makes all the states important, not just the most populous. If it weren't for the electoral college, the presidents would probably skip over the least populous states, as they would have no where near the voting power of others, like California, New York, Texas, and Florida. Read up again on how the electoral college works and the reasoning it was put there- so that the few communities (or now, states) with high power and high populations wouldn't be the only ones represented in the government.
what about him?White94 said:
As it stands now, the number of Electoral college (EC) members for a given state is based on population. Therefore, the EC doesn't alter the population weighting. It is not like the senate where each state has an equal voice no matter the population.Patdeisa said:
Personaly, I believe the original intent of the founding fathers has outlived its time and the EC should be abolished.
That's not exactly correct.MarkB said:
The number of legislators in the House of Representatives for a given state is proportional to population. The number of Senators is a fixed number, two per state.
The number of votes in the Electoral College is the sum of the number of House members and the number of Senators. This slightly overrepresents the least populous states (compared with basing the number strictly on population) and underrepresents those with the most people.
This was established during the writing of the Constitution as a compromise between basing the number of electoral votes totally on population, as in the House (thus favoring the biggest states) and having a fixed number per state, as in the Senate (thus giving an advantage to the smallest states).
Eric5273 said:
I did see a "socialist-party" candidate on the WI ballot. Let me guess......
Electoral votes are NOT always voted the same way in each state either.
See here---> http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/electoral_college/questions.html
Maine and Nebraska can split the votes, and Colorado is also trying for a new way to cast the votes. All other states give all votes to the popular winner within that state.
Last edited:
Osiris_x11
Gold Member, Moderator: Marketplace
election costs to Taxpayers...
hmmm... I've effortlessy been searching for what the costs of running an election Nationwide are to the tax-payer. I don't mean what each candidate/party has raised. I am more keen on what comes from our pockets involuntarily (ie. Govt. "match funds" to contributions accumulated, costs of the 10,000 lawyers patrolling voting booths at precincts, cost of security, cost of ballots, ex. computerized/'chads'/mechanical/paper & pencil, poll-workers, costs of voter registration, overall infrastructure, counting the votes, etc.)
I've read in various publications the figure of $3.9-4.0 billion will be the cost for Americans, according to new projections released by campaign finance monitors. Is this monetary figure that I've been seeking?
All in all, what does it cost the government (at our expense) to run an US election? (but, of-course the Congressional, Senatorial, local elections, and reforendums piggyback every four years when we elect a new Chief Executive... therefore I'm particularly concerned w/ the Presidential Election as it'll incorporate all the aforementioned)
hmmm... I've effortlessy been searching for what the costs of running an election Nationwide are to the tax-payer. I don't mean what each candidate/party has raised. I am more keen on what comes from our pockets involuntarily (ie. Govt. "match funds" to contributions accumulated, costs of the 10,000 lawyers patrolling voting booths at precincts, cost of security, cost of ballots, ex. computerized/'chads'/mechanical/paper & pencil, poll-workers, costs of voter registration, overall infrastructure, counting the votes, etc.)
I've read in various publications the figure of $3.9-4.0 billion will be the cost for Americans, according to new projections released by campaign finance monitors. Is this monetary figure that I've been seeking?
All in all, what does it cost the government (at our expense) to run an US election? (but, of-course the Congressional, Senatorial, local elections, and reforendums piggyback every four years when we elect a new Chief Executive... therefore I'm particularly concerned w/ the Presidential Election as it'll incorporate all the aforementioned)
How about all of the police OT when a candidate comes through town? Her in WI (being a hot spot), have seen them come through dozens of times. Twice each yesterday alone!!!
Ick gad, spare me the "Ewwww, I'm not going to vote, b/c both candidates are so bad, ewwwww." Pathetic bunch of pansy sissy little girl Nancy boys. Grow up.
Nobody agrees 100% with either candidate but it's your right, duty, and privilege to figure out who more closely aligns with your values and views on how the country should be run. Don't hide behind the apathetic wussy shield of ignorant ambivilence.
Not only is there the Presidential election, but there are Senatorial, various state questions, state congresses, judges, etc to vote on. All these have a direct effect on your welfare as a citizen.
Man, it's people like this that should be on the front lines of wars, conflicts, soup kitchens, old folks homes, and any other place where you actually have to give a whit about what's happening around you. Sissy cowards.
Nobody agrees 100% with either candidate but it's your right, duty, and privilege to figure out who more closely aligns with your values and views on how the country should be run. Don't hide behind the apathetic wussy shield of ignorant ambivilence.
Not only is there the Presidential election, but there are Senatorial, various state questions, state congresses, judges, etc to vote on. All these have a direct effect on your welfare as a citizen.
Man, it's people like this that should be on the front lines of wars, conflicts, soup kitchens, old folks homes, and any other place where you actually have to give a whit about what's happening around you. Sissy cowards.
Thanks for the enlightenment Ken. I was not aware of the additional wrinkle. However, I still think the EC should be abolished. We may need to balance between population and the states for lawmaking but; I don't see the need for that type of balance for the purpose of elections.nsxtasy said:
nsxtasy said:
The US have a very similar form of government to the one we have had here in Switzerland for the last 700 years, but here we still give to same power to all the states (=kantons), indipendently to the population.
To pass a vote has to get the absolute majority of the population and the majority in the majority of the states. Regardeless of the size of these states.
Example, 70% of the population say "yes" to something but this 70% is co,mposed by the majority of only 12 of the 25 states that compose our federation (this is possible since some state is very small, with even less thank 100k persons), the result will be negative.
Is this a flame??
Please, save your rhetoric
No one here is saying they're not going to vote, just that this poll doesn't allow for a third option.
Next time you try to lecture someone, please, please get the facts straight.
No wonder I dislike political types so much!!!
Please, save your rhetoric
No one here is saying they're not going to vote, just that this poll doesn't allow for a third option.
Next time you try to lecture someone, please, please get the facts straight.
No wonder I dislike political types so much!!!
Ponyboy said:
You are wrong. "Not going to vote" is exactly what AutoEuphoria wrote:NsXMas said:
AutoEuphoria said:
Please, please, you should take your own advice.NsXMas said:Next time you try to lecture someone, please, please get the facts straight...
Ponyboy said:
Well, I would like you to help me. I'll tell you what are my most important issues and you tell me who is more closely alligned to them:
1) I want a candidate who supports exiting all foreign wars and removing our troops from Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq, Phillipines, Columbia, Georgia, and any other countries where they are currently involved in civil wars.
2) I want a candidate who will cut the bloated military budget and allocate the money towards education, health care, and rebuilding the inner cities.
3) I want a candidate who supports cutting all foreign military aid to countries that have dictatorships or are in violation of any UN Security Council resolutions.
4) I want a candidate who supports dumping the Patriot Act.
5) I want a candidate who will stop all research and development of nuclear weapons -- I think we need to lead the world by example. We cannot effectivly fight nuclear proliferation with this "do as I say, not as I do" attitude.
6) I want a candidate who supports moving the income tax code back to what it was in the 1940s through 1970s.
7) I support a candidate who will pull out of all these free trade agreements and will only enter into free trade agreements with countries that have proper labor laws and a reasonable minimum wage.
8) I want a candidate who supports elminating the Federal Reserve and instead start printing US Treasury Notes as was done in the 1960s under President Kennedy.
And there are plenty of other things, but those are the major ones. Who should I vote for?
Sorry, seeing the words "Pathetic bunch of pansy sissy little girl Nancy boys" and "Sissy cowards" blurred my vision, as I hadn't read through all the posts.Ojas said:You are wrong. "Not going to vote" is exactly what AutoEuphoria wrote:
Please, please, you should take your own advice.
It's funny how politics brings out the best in everyone, isn't it?
MarkB said:
I agree. But the "intent" of the founding fathers was that they did not trust the public to choose the president. We forget that we do not live in a democracy, but in a republic.
Originally most states chose the electors to be sent to the EC independent from what the people of that state wanted. In fact, for the first 50 years or so of this country's existance, only land-owning white men were allowed to vote at all, and still their votes were sometimes ignored if the leadership of a state disagreed with their choice.
Either way, this system is no longer needed.
- Joined
- 14 April 2002
- Messages
- 2,273
Eric5273 said:
Sounds like you should vote and write your own name in for president.
Seriously - people that still have time - make the call and vote. Stand up and be counted. Nobody is going to run exactly on "your" platform and there are many more advantages then disadvantages to having a predominantly 2 party system in a national race.
I have traveled to many countries and our political process is still the envy of the educated people around the world.
I think the EC is still a good idea. If any of you disagree, then that's your opinion, and I can respect and understand that- I was just giving my opinion. Even though I live in the most populous state, I think there's a lot of people here who don't necessarily have the best ideas, but they have money so they get heard. I'm glad that the EC helps eliminate some of the voting power that California has, as I think there are many others with better ideas.nsxtasy said:
But hey, we're a democratic republic, so I gotta go with the majority... Although, I would like to impose a 1/100% income tax that's fed directly into my savings account. Is there anybody who'd back me up?
