| Author |
Death to the Electoral College!
|
|
| pseudocyber 2002-12-20, 11:10 am |
| This was pointed out by Mr. Linux Guy: quote:
BTW, the one who got the most votes in the last presidential election lost.
This is absolutely true. Because of the electoral college.
Here is my key thought: Let's eliminate the electoral college and Congress while we're at it!
We do not live in a true democracy. We live in a democratic replublic. This means, we vote for representatives who vote for us.
The reason this was set up is that it was kind of hard to communicate, over 200 years ago. It took a long time to get the ballots back to wherever the Capital was - Philadelphia, New York, DC. They had to go by horseback. So, a direct democracy, while good on paper, simply wasn't feasible. Hence, the republic.
Fast forward 200+ years ... we now have sattelite communication, world wide TV "almost" instantly (still have a lag when they're talking to a CNN correspondent in the Mid-East and they do the "head bob" until all the audio comes i"n), and the internet.
Here's my idea: Let's elect "representatives" that will vote the way we vote back home NO MATTER WHAT. So, when there's an issue up in Congress - the vote is held back home and that's the way the Representative votes. Back home, most people could vote over the internet - sure there would need to be safeguards to ensure against fraud - but it could be done. The representative's office could have the responsibility of making sure the voters know about the issues and that there is material available to the voters to do further research if they want to, before they decide on an issue.
For those without internet, they could vote over the phone. Or they could stop by a local office downtown. Or they could mail in a ballot.
There could be a cut off - say 1 hr. before the vote on "the hill". Then the Rep talks to the home office, and votes the way they did back home.
This would eliminate all possibility of political corruption - as the representative would no longer be able to be influenced, since he/she's not the decision maker on the vote.
When 2/3 of the representatives are doing this they could go about changing the Constitution to eliminate the congress and instead, establish a "technocracy" which would take over the local office functions.. Then all americans could vote directly to DC. There could be debate on the 'net or on TV. The technocracy could formulate law - some staff for an issue, other staff on the other side of the issue, and the American public could decide directly.
You could vote for everything or nothing or just what you really cared about.
We have the technology ... | |
| Mr. Linux Guy 2002-12-20, 11:19 am |
| Actually it makes sense. I never liked the idea of the electoral college -- even when I learned about it in school, it never seemed fair to me.
One thing to worry about though if we rely more on technology is that it might make it easier for fraud to take place. Security would have to be really good and open enough so that anyone could see how it works to avoid hijacking votes. | |
| pseudocyber 2002-12-20, 12:45 pm |
| quote:
Security would have to be really good and open enough so that anyone could see how it works to avoid hijacking votes.
Yeah, the "sticky wicket" is validating identity yet ensuring privacy. Right now, you have to prove your identity at the polling place, and then you walk into the booth and make a private vote.
I think it could be done over the net with something like RSA SecureID token and encryption.
But you are absolutely right.
However, I think with the new electronic polling booths, we're a step closer. | |
| Mr. Linux Guy 2002-12-20, 12:58 pm |
| Would be something to think about. But we would have to make sure that everyone had access to a computer and we'd also need to get someone in Congress willing to introduce the idea. That would be a major hurdle I am betting. Not sure how familiar most older congressdudes are with computers. | |
| ruscorp 2002-12-20, 1:03 pm |
| People to kill/hurt/injury*.
1.) Mayor Bloomberg
2.) electoral college
3.) MTA board members
4.) Sean Penn
5.) Osama bin Laden
3.) Saddam ('nuf said)
6.) Jimmy Carter
7.) That idiot judge in FLA that let those 2 kids that killed their dad off with a slap on the wrist.
*In no particular order | |
| Mr. Linux Guy 2002-12-20, 1:05 pm |
| How exactly did Sean Penn get on the hitlist? | |
| ruscorp 2002-12-20, 1:17 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Linux Guy
How exactly did Sean Penn get on the hitlist?
He's a Saddam sympathizer. | |
|
|
| ChrisDfer 2002-12-20, 1:23 pm |
| You got to be kidding me about the death of the Electoral College. We can't have common people make those types of descisions. People are to stupid we need wealthy career politians to do that. Common folk having a say; hah what a joke. | |
| pseudocyber 2002-12-20, 1:24 pm |
| quote:
Would be something to think about. But we would have to make sure that everyone had access to a computer and we'd also need to get someone in Congress willing to introduce the idea.
I don't think it would take anyone in Congress willing to introduce it.
I think it would take a grass roots effort to elect a "proxy" (instead of a Representativë) who would be absolutely bound to vote the way the home office/district/state votes.
I realize that not everyone has a computer or internet - I would speculate that MOST don't. What I envision, however, is that the BEST way to do it would be over the net. As a backup, or for those that don't have computers or internet or know how to use it, is 20th Century technology - newspapers for keeping people up to date. Telephone voting. In person voting. Or maybe special voting booths set up around the district or state.
It would take a concientious effort by voters. They wouldn't have anyone voting for them.
But, I think this kind of system would bring the feeling of power back into the hands of the voters and make them feel like "their vote counts" and voter apathy would decrease. | |
| Mr. Linux Guy 2002-12-20, 1:39 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by pseudocyber
It would take a concientious effort by voters. They wouldn't have anyone voting for them.
But, I think this kind of system would bring the feeling of power back into the hands of the voters and make them feel like "their vote counts" and voter apathy would decrease.
I think that would be the major selling point for this kind of idea. Most people now seem to feel pretty much that their votes don't count and just vote because it is their duty. Anything that kicks apathy down a notch would be useful. | |
| Mr. Linux Guy 2002-12-20, 1:40 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by ChrisDfer
You got to be kidding me about the death of the Electoral College. We can't have common people make those types of descisions. People are to stupid we need wealthy career politians to do that. Common folk having a say; hah what a joke.
Yeah. Democracy. Scary, huh? | |
| ruscorp 2002-12-20, 1:51 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Linux Guy
Yeah. Democracy. Scary, huh?
Yea, Castro agrees. | |
| Mr. Linux Guy 2002-12-20, 1:54 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by ruscorp
Yea, Castro agrees.
Is that fellow ever going to die? | |
| pseudocyber 2002-12-20, 1:54 pm |
| Actually, democracy can be pretty scary.
Hitler was voted into leadership! By one vote! Supposedly. | |
| ccieToBe 2002-12-20, 1:55 pm |
| I agree that the electorial college should be gotten rid of (just not in the middle of an election).
The idea of a true democracy kind of scares me though. I can't think of a polite way to say this, so I'll just put it blunty - most people aren't too bright. Ignorance is curable - stupidity isn't.
I also think it's impractical to have a majority of the population analyze every piece of legislation that's about to pass. | |
| ruscorp 2002-12-20, 1:57 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by pseudocyber
Actually, democracy can be pretty scary.
Hitler was voted into leadership! By one vote! Supposedly.
Correct, however Hitler had the overwhelming support of the German people. He did not just win by one vote. | |
| Mr. Linux Guy 2002-12-20, 1:59 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by ruscorp
Correct, however Hitler had the overwhelming support of the German people. He did not just win by one vote.
A few checks and balances might have saved a lot of grief, yes? | |
| ruscorp 2002-12-20, 2:03 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Linux Guy
A few checks and balances might have saved a lot of grief, yes?
Not really, the League of Nations knew what was up and didn’t do a damn thing about it. | |
| Mr. Linux Guy 2002-12-20, 2:05 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by ccieToBe
I agree that the electorial college should be gotten rid of (just not in the middle of an election).
The idea of a true democracy kind of scares me though. I can't think of a polite way to say this, so I'll just put it blunty - most people aren't too bright. Ignorance is curable - stupidity isn't.
I also think it's impractical to have a majority of the population analyze every piece of legislation that's about to pass.
Yeah, I hear you. But to do otherwise would be to take their right of voting away. We can't really start deciding who is smart enough to vote, although it does bother me lots of times when you hear silly rhetoric and a lot of not-very-bright people buying it all just because it somehow appeals to them. Although I can't say that I see of a sensible way around this.
No, every piece of legislation shouldn't have to be analysed, but the main ones should. Things that affect us. Like the war thread we were talking of earlier. This can affect out future, yet we really don't have a direct say in it. Rather than depending on others to represent us and us just having to have faith since we can't do anythiung else anyway is not good policy. It's rather naive in fact. I remember some time ago, Clinton signing some bill . . . I think it was Megan's Law or something . . . to notify people in the vicinity when a convicted molester moves into the neighborhood. There were some people opposing this in congress. If people had a direct vote in something that obviously concerns them so directly, we probably wouldn't have to put up with such foolishness. | |
| Mr. Linux Guy 2002-12-20, 2:06 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by ruscorp
Not really, the League of Nations knew what was up and didn’t do a damn thing about it.
I meant internally, kind of like the U.S. has. | |
| ruscorp 2002-12-20, 2:12 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Linux Guy
I meant internally, kind of like the U.S. has.
Of course, however Germany was in major disarray at the time. | |
| Mr. Linux Guy 2002-12-20, 2:19 pm |
| Yes, I realise that. Hitler played on their emotions and the effects of the first world war on Germany. Governments need to be stopped from becoming so one-sidedly powerful, otherwise they can do anything and get away with it. | |
| ruscorp 2002-12-20, 2:23 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Linux Guy
Yes, I realise that. Hitler played on their emotions and the effects of the first world war on Germany. Governments need to be stopped from becoming so one-sidedly powerful, otherwise they can do anything and get away with it.
Agreed. | |
| pseudocyber 2002-12-20, 3:57 pm |
| Ruscorp, I was referring to Hitler being voted as head of ___ Political Party before the Nazi party came to power.
I could be wrong ... | |
| pseudocyber 2002-12-20, 4:02 pm |
| This is something I've been thinking about recently ...
Ok, Starship Troopers - you either hated it or loved it. However, the book was very cool and interesting.
One of the key points in the book is that people became "Citizens" after they had served their country.
What if we had the same kind of system? Give someone the right to vote after they serve the country? Not saying everyone would have to be in the Military - although that's one way to serve. Maybe they could go into the Foreign service, or some kind of social service - similar to the Peace Corp. So, when people come out of High School, or at the age of 19, they do 2 years of service. When they're 21, they've earned the reward of being able to participate in the governing of their country? | |
|
| There is a reason that this wouldn't work. Those companies that influence the politicians would be able to influence the masses as well. People as an individual *can* be intelligent but as a mass are not. This nation is easily duped into thinking a certain way and latch on to a particular opinion very easily. If you think that the correct marketing couldn't do the trick look at my hero Bill Gates. He has the greatest marketers ever. | |
| ccieToBe 2002-12-20, 5:27 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Linux Guy
Yeah, I hear you. But to do otherwise would be to take their right of voting away. We can't really start deciding who is smart enough to vote, although it does bother me lots of times when you hear silly rhetoric and a lot of not-very-bright people buying it all just because it somehow appeals to them. Although I can't say that I see of a sensible way around this.
I think some sort of test would have to be developed. This would be highly controversial though, regardless of how accurate it is.
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Linux Guy
No, every piece of legislation shouldn't have to be analysed, but the main ones should. Things that affect us. Like the war thread we were talking of earlier. This can affect out future, yet we really don't have a direct say in it. Rather than depending on others to represent us and us just having to have faith since we can't do anythiung else anyway is not good policy. It's rather naive in fact. I remember some time ago, Clinton signing some bill . . . I think it was Megan's Law or something . . . to notify people in the vicinity when a convicted molester moves into the neighborhood. There were some people opposing this in congress. If people had a direct vote in something that obviously concerns them so directly, we probably wouldn't have to put up with such foolishness.
Sounds good to me. I guess a list of issues that the public votes on would be created? If this were done on a case by case basis it would be a nightmare. | |
|
| There is always a way to cheat, hack, and decieve. | |
| Mr. Linux Guy 2002-12-21, 6:29 am |
| quote:
Originally posted by ccaya
There is a reason that this wouldn't work. Those companies that influence the politicians would be able to influence the masses as well. People as an individual *can* be intelligent but as a mass are not. This nation is easily duped into thinking a certain way and latch on to a particular opinion very easily. If you think that the correct marketing couldn't do the trick look at my hero Bill Gates. He has the greatest marketers ever.
Yeah, I have to agree with that. Propaganda is wonderful, ain't it?  | |
| HOOLIGAN 2002-12-21, 6:14 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by pseudocyber Ok, Starship Troopers - you either hated it or loved it. However, the book was very cool and interesting.
Great book, avg film.
Interesting Idea about citizenship.
Dont think it would work though.
Though it wouldnt be a bad idea to encourage the youth to do military/peace core type service | |
| Turbodog 2002-12-21, 10:38 pm |
| Remember the famous map published in USA Today right after the 2000 election. Anyone not knowing the outcome before seeing the map would have sworn Bush won by the greatest of landslides in history. Just about the entire map was nothing but a whole sea of red. Bush won all of America’s heartland, plus some; Gore got only metropolitan areas, maybe 3% of the total area of the country, and that may be stretching it. It was just astounding to see. That map makes it so clear how disproportionably, and unfortunately, weighted in favor of large metropolitan areas the Electoral college is. I’m for keeping the Electoral College, but it must be made fairer. It must be reconstituted to reflect a fairer share for America’s heartland. No candidate representing such a small diminutive fraction of the country should ever come so close to winning, especially when that candidate can't even come close to winning his own home state. | |
| Mr. Linux Guy 2002-12-22, 5:18 am |
| quote:
Originally posted by Turbodog
I’m for keeping the Electoral College, but it must be made fairer. It must be reconstituted to reflect a fairer share for America’s heartland.
That might be an idea. But do youhave any idea how this could be done. I can't see a minority of voters electing our leaders. That just doesn't seem right. I'll admit that in the last election, the opposition didn't look too promising, but this doesn't seem in keeping with the attritudes about democracy and fair representation. | |
| ruscorp 2002-12-22, 12:39 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by HOOLIGAN
Great book, avg film.
Interesting Idea about citizenship.
Dont think it would work though.
Though it wouldnt be a bad idea to encourage the youth to do military/peace core type service
I agree. I wanted to see more of Denise Richards <fill in the blank> though. | |
| mindmesh 2002-12-22, 2:23 pm |
| quote:
It was just astounding to see. That map makes it so clear how disproportionably, and unfortunately, weighted in favor of large metropolitan areas the Electoral college is. I’m for keeping the Electoral College, but it must be made fairer.
Isn't the Electorial college based on population. So that more populated area's get more Representative in the electorial college? Can't very well have the reps determined by the physical size of the state, then Alaska would have the more votes the Texas, CA, and NY but not have anywhere near the amount of people.
quote:
People as an individual *can* be intelligent but as a mass are not. This nation is easily duped into thinking a certain way and latch on to a particular opinion very easily.
As far as people not being too bright I agree but they are still voting for the reps that tend to follow their beliefs. Also, most of the not so bright that everyone is talking about probably will not vote anyway. People due tend to latch on to ideas that are appealing to them, that is what voting for something is all about, you agree with it then you vote for it.
quote:
I realize that not everyone has a computer or internet - I would speculate that MOST don't. What I envision, however, is that the BEST way to do it would be over the net. As a backup, or for those that don't have computers or internet or know how to use it, is 20th Century technology
I like the idea maybe we can vote @ MAC machines that have retina scanners if we don't have a PC that is capable of the encryption and have the smart card reader with a home retnia scan.
In theory it's a good idea but in order to push this thru you would have to break 200 years of traditions and many corprate and political sponsors. Won't be as easy to pay off 1,000,000 people as it is to pay 2 senators and 3 Representatives | |
| HOOLIGAN 2002-12-22, 2:32 pm |
| people usualy vote for who their parents vote for.
I think we should do away with campaign finance first. Not very democratic I think, its almost like we live in an Oligarchy. | |
| ccaya 2002-12-23, 12:15 am |
| Starship Troopers was a great movie. Loved it, loved it, loved it. |
|
|
|