|
explain to me (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| tribu |
Most radicals dont want to change the electoral system to a popular vote ;)
They want to alter it so that the number of electoral votes each canidate receives is proportional to the amount of total votes they got in the state (If candidate X gets 46% of the popular vote, he gets 46% of the electoral vote. If Candidate Z gets 1.9048% of the vote, he gets 1.9048% of the states electoral votes.) Doing this increases the variable of third party candidates. |
|
|
| Mike_B |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
Yea I'm glad he did.
If anything this will stop those radicals who want to change the voting system to a popular system just so foreigners and idiots can follow because it will be "simple".
The electorial system in America is genius, it produces almost always good results. Keep it that way. |
that's a load pf crap. The electoral system in the states sucks. it produces tons of errors, and doesn't represent the country as a hole. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by tribu
Most radicals dont want to change the electoral system to a popular vote ;)
They want to alter it so that the number of electoral votes each canidate receives is proportional to the amount of total votes they got in the state (If candidate X gets 46% of the popular vote, he gets 46% of the electoral vote. If Candidate Z gets 1.9048% of the vote, he gets 1.9048% of the states electoral votes.) Doing this increases the variable of third party candidates. |
As the system is setup some states can chose to do this is they want.
It is just telling that some states are not. Colorado had a proposition for just such a system, it was voted down with a very good sized majority. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by Mike_B
that's a load pf crap. The electoral system in the states sucks. it produces tons of errors, and doesn't represent the country as a hole. |
It does repersent the country as a whole thats the point.
It repersent the whole land - including the hick infested territories you like to call the "Red states".
The fact that some states are incompetent in counting votes is of no merit - a national election system would similarly be as incompetent. At least local errors are localized and are easy to take care of. |
|
|
| Mike_B |
| quote: | Originally posted by tribu
Most radicals dont want to change the electoral system to a popular vote ;)
They want to alter it so that the number of electoral votes each canidate receives is proportional to the amount of total votes they got in the state (If candidate X gets 46% of the popular vote, he gets 46% of the electoral vote. If Candidate Z gets 1.9048% of the vote, he gets 1.9048% of the states electoral votes.) Doing this increases the variable of third party candidates. |
now that makes more sence. |
|
|
| tribu |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
As the system is setup some states can chose to do this is they want.
It is just telling that some states are not. Colorado had a proposition for just such a system, it was voted down with a very good sized majority. |
Thats because opponents portrayed it as "eliminating the electoral system." Proportional representation is not elimination of the electoral college. It is simply tweaking it to allow for more fair representation in the ultimate vote count.
| quote: | Originally posted by Mike_B
now that makes more sence. |
Maybe you shouldve voted for Nader ;) |
|
|
| 0mii |
| but Nader nor the Green party or the republican or the Democrat party make any sense for that matter :P look at Kerr. |
|
|
| trancaholic |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
That's kind of an apples to oranges comparison. If you're talking about total votes cast, Bush won by some 4 million popular votes--and he won the majority of the popular vote--something that even Bill Clinton could never do. |
I have to agree with you that the victory of the Bush campaign is pretty big. Furthermore, the reports on seats in congress seem to indicate a further tilt in the direction of the republicans by the US voters. Add to that the fact that the Bush administration has pulled the republican party far to the right, and I think that it is fair to talk about a shift in attitude of the US.
| quote: | Originally posted by imokruok
Man, this must really suck for you guys.
|
It's a sad day indeed. However, as a European I see it as a wake-up call for Europe: In the last four years we have drifted away from the US, having seen values such as unconditional loyalty and patriotism on the rise in the US, while other values such as reason and cooperation have dwindled away. I see it not only in the actions of the Bush administration but also in the posts of right wingers in this forum, US citizens I speak to in relation to work, and in debates I watch on tv. The election last night has shown that this development appears to continue, and that the disaster election in 2000 was not a singleton.
When I hear or read the opinions of right wingers on this board, or see them argue on tv, I feel that I am facing a different kind of species. One which is far removed from my experiences, and which I cannot communicate very well with. I see something I would call madness. Such people cannot be reasoned with, and I think that it is futile to try to do so. I think as Europeans we should be consequent and lessen our dealings with the US and focus on developing more tires with saner parts of the world. A nice first step on that road, would be to let Turkey into the EU. And then let the US sail its own course. |
|
|
| Renegade |
^^^ I would say that you are exactly right in that assessment trancaholic. I tried to explore the mentality of Bush supporters in this thread that I posted a while ago (fortunately it received a much more enthusiastic response on a different board that I frequent ;)):
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...threadid=218210
I know it's bad to generalise, but there is genuinely something peculiar about that portion of Americans who voted red in 2004. Perhaps the rest of the world should grant them their wish and leave them the hell alone? |
|
|
| Romain |
i don't understand either...
only "reasons" i've heard are:
*he prays one hour every morning, and his decisions are inspired by that
*he's religious, that makes him a lot more honnest
*he talks with simple words
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
we share your pain "non-ignorant-americans"... |
|
|
| Mike_B |
| quote: | Originally posted by tribu
Thats because opponents portrayed it as "eliminating the electoral system." Proportional representation is not elimination of the electoral college. It is simply tweaking it to allow for more fair representation in the ultimate vote count.
Maybe you shouldve voted for Nader ;) |
im canadian. i can't vote ;). But in our election i did vote for a 3rd party and although in my conscription(riding county what ever) that party didn't win. Canada does have a very different system then the state and we have 4 major Party's in parliment(congress) So its give us alot more choise, and represent the regions alot better then that US system does |
|
|
| Shakka |
| It strikes me that as long as you refer to the majority of Americans as ignorant, you risk alienating that majority, which certainly won't help you out in future elections. Way to reach out. |
|
|
|
|
