Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
General Political Discussion
Is the American democracy a myth?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="jayem" data-source="post: 19984105" data-attributes="member: 8344"><p>Of course. Bush got more votes nationwide, and he should have won. But the electoral college, at least in the winner-take-all format, only magnifies big state/small state inequities. A candidate can be elected president by winning bare majorities in only 20 or so populous state, even while losing by a landslide everywhere else. How does this relflect the will of the people? The "mob rule" argument is misplaced. We won't have mob rule because (by and large) we don't vote directly for <strong>legislation</strong>. But we do vote directly for <strong>legislators and officials</strong>. It works for governors and congressmen. No reason, in this day and age, why the people shouldn't vote directly for President.</p><p> </p><p>I've heard the claim that each state's electoral votes should be apportioned according to each candidate's total in that state. True, this may more accurately reflect the voter's will. But then why the need for a middleman? Isn't it much simpler just to have the candidates elected by popular vote?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="jayem, post: 19984105, member: 8344"] Of course. Bush got more votes nationwide, and he should have won. But the electoral college, at least in the winner-take-all format, only magnifies big state/small state inequities. A candidate can be elected president by winning bare majorities in only 20 or so populous state, even while losing by a landslide everywhere else. How does this relflect the will of the people? The "mob rule" argument is misplaced. We won't have mob rule because (by and large) we don't vote directly for [b]legislation[/b]. But we do vote directly for [b]legislators and officials[/b]. It works for governors and congressmen. No reason, in this day and age, why the people shouldn't vote directly for President. I've heard the claim that each state's electoral votes should be apportioned according to each candidate's total in that state. True, this may more accurately reflect the voter's will. But then why the need for a middleman? Isn't it much simpler just to have the candidates elected by popular vote? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
General Political Discussion
Is the American democracy a myth?
Top
Bottom