skip to Main Content

Electing a US President in Plain English


Dieser Beitrag hat 87 Kommentare
  1. @ArandurKing909 : it definately changes „stuff“. For example if Gore had won the election instead of Bush it is nearly a 100% probability we would not be mired down in Iraq today.

  2. @ArandurKing909 : NO…. democracy works slower! If we had a KING, or someone like hitler….he could make a decision and put it into law immediately because he is a dictator and answers to no one. Where as our leaders answer to the people ….we have to wait for an election and go through the lengthy electoral procedures

  3. @ArandurKing909 : you are correct, you can never be 100% sure about a candidates stance. For example, Obama being young and inexperienced probably truly thought he could pull out of iraq fast. BUT….once he got in he was hit with the hard reality of what would happen there if he did pull out… civil war, mass killings etc. All you can do is vote them out in the next election

  4. @inkey2 Maybe on a national level, but with local governmence, there could be weekly votes on stuff, an would end corruption, for instance, there was an anti corruption watch dog group, that tried to get Senators to agree not to become lobbyist, and none of the senators agreed to, and they have NO corporate sponsors.

  5. @inkey2 Sure, on a national scale, but local governments could possibly have weekly votes, or maybe just taking care of problems as soon as they come up, also, it would get rid of corruption, did you know that public citizen tried to get Senators to agree not to become lobbyist when they retire? None of the senators agreed, and they have NO sponsors, so, I don’t really think having Gore president would really change much, he’s just a puppet, and I bet congress could bribe him.

  6. @ArandurKing909 The US POLITICAL SYSTEM is not perfect but lets look at the alternative forms of governments….like cuba, soviet union, china, north Korea, Mexico, etc. …….when „human nature“ is thrown into the political stew automatically no system will be perfect because the frailties of being human always come to the surface. I would say its a safe bet that the USA is in the top 10 best forms of government in the world.

  7. @inkey2 So basically, what your getting at is „There’s worse than the USA, and it can’t be perfect, so it’s okay.“ It should at least be formed in a way that best suits human nature the best it can.

  8. @danielharmonizer well said. I’m an econ student, and I often see people (especially from business majors) confusing economics and politics.
    One perfect example would be Michael Moore’s new movie. Right criticism at the wrong target.

  9. @ArandurKing909 : as Ben Franklin said…..our government is the worst in the world…….with the exception of all the others. He knew it wasn’t perfect but better than most.

  10. @inkey2 Actually, you just mentioned 1 political system. cuba, soviet union, china and NK were/are communist regimes and Mexico is a republic like America. I highly doubt you even know 10 different types of government.

    If you want to look at different systems how about looking at Saudi Arabia, Iran and the Vatican with theocracies, or Canada, Japan, UK and Sweden with constitutional monarchies, or Libya, Fiji and Niger with Military Juntas.

  11. This method has been used in Maine since 1972 and Nebraska since 1996, though since both states have adopted this modification, the statewide winners have consistently swept all of the state’s districts as well. Consequently, neither state has ever split its electoral votes.

    Although this method still fails to reach the full ideal of one-man one-vote, it has been proposed as a nationwide reform for the way in which Electoral votes are distributed.

  12. With the district method, a state divides itself into a number of districts, allocating one of its state-wide electoral votes to each district. The winner of each district is awarded that district’s electoral vote, and the winner of the state-wide vote is then awarded the state’s remaining two electoral votes.

  13. Maine and Nebraska both use an alternative method of distributing their electoral votes, called the Congressional District Method. Currently, these two states are the only two in the union that diverge from the traditional winner-take-all method of electoral vote allocation.

  14. The electoral college was invented by our founding fathers, who (rightfully) didnt trust the idiot masses with the election. They though the citizens to be uninformed and easily misled. And they are right. However, the politicians arent much better. The US is basically a nation of retards. Hell, the majority of our citizens, much less the politicians actually believe that the US is a democracy. How can we have people in power not even knowing what government we run? Shits insane.

  15. @xXxkennedysxXx you’re right it’s always called a democracy but that is not what we are…we are a republic as our founders intended…you know the pledge of allegiance? „…and to the republic…“ People need to learn what their government is actually! BleedingDiamondz is right!

  16. @lgp490
    well in germany, we had called the eastern part german democratic republic…^^ so i think im maybe not the right one to complain about you calling the usa a democracy^^ so maybe it is human nature to call all forms of government democracy…^^

  17. This goofy system of the Electoral College all started from the 18th century smaller states worried about being stomped & swallowed by bigger states.
    So our Founding Fathers slapped together the College to influence the smaller states to join in the Constitution. Personally, I think the smaller states were being dorks! I don’t see any reason to continue with the College.

    Also, the College usually corresponds with the popular count, except for two elections. One of them was 2000!

  18. @RMCrowley
    In the past there have been 3 or more candidates that won electoral votes. Consider 1968: Nixon (R) beat Humphrey (D) and Wallace (American Independent). Wallace, running on a segregationist platform, won 5 states in the deep south.
    Other elections with strong 3rd candidates were 1948, 1912, and several in the 1800s.

    Even today there are more than 2 choices: Libertarian Party, Constitution Party, Green Party, and the Socialist Party – all these were on the ballot as well in 2008.

  19. The thing I hate most about the electoral college is the fact that districts are simply chosen by legislators so that votes in districts with unequal populations only count for about .8 rather than 1 vote due to the difference.


  21. @danielharmonizer However, politics and economics are so intertwined that a nation’s economic system will likely have a major effect on its politics and vice versa. In the US for example, large businesses can have a major impact on political campaigns through their donations. Money doesn’t determine the winner but it definitely helps.

  22. @adweb30 2 reasons.
    1: forces a 2 party system

    2. Direct voting would make candidates focus only on most populous areas. An incumbant would divert all resources to California and florida, so he could get their votes. But then all the other states would be left with nothing. This forces candidates to focus on less populated areas too.

  23. why not nebraska and maine? nebraska and maine are fun. it’s not like ohio or arizona is better. bah. and what DO they do? do they do popular vote, or something else? surprise me, people.

  24. This system is truly a stroke of genius. Without it, the country would be yanked around by the left and right coasts. It allows less populated areas to have some influence in Washington for their state. Only a bully or someone hoping to capatialize on fickle popular vote would think this system is unfair. If we loose the electoral college, the country would quickly become unrecognizable and harsh! It’s all about balance!

  25. @PsychoticSnake Because Nebraska and Maine award electors according to the proportion of the votes each candidate gets, instead of winner takes all. Thats how all the states should do it.

  26. @gideonwolder26 and what exactly is so great about a 2 party system? and why aren’t nebraska and maine allowed to vote the president? and because the electors are basically the number of districts in a state that means that the most populated areas still have the most significance.

  27. @gkglasgow np haha. Truthfully, i don’t properly understand the merits of a 2 party system. 1 aspect is that it provides a more clear picture of what the American people want. If there is a 40% majority between 3 parties, that means that 60% of the people DIDNT vote for the winning party. With this system, you get it so the majority of the overall population votes for the winning party. That’s just my take, this debate has gone on forever, and will likely go on forever.

  28. if a candidate wins your states electors then that would imply that the majority of the states population wants that certain candidate, so why not just count the populations vote instead of a electoral vote…please tell me if that makes sense, or am i just totally wrong …

  29. „We need a way to account for the population of each state.“ and that’s why it was so much easier to just count the number of votes, especially since it’s possible to become president with less actual votes than another candidate in the current situation as 90% in a state or 51% in a state is equal…

Kommentare sind geschlossen.

Back To Top