McCain?

[Alex_P]

Yes, but the Mass media can still be biased.
Fox News for example.
If there are competent people who make informed decisions in the Electoral college, then the system does work.

Even then, the electoral college ridiculously privileges a few states -- the states that have the right demographic mix to make them "battlegrounds."

And it's not even about those states. It's about the fears and misconceptions of a handful of indecisive folks who mostly vote based on social conservatism and empty promises of tax cuts.

-- Alex

 

[TheKnifeJuggler]

You know I walked away from here feeling a little angry so I'll say this: A lack of will to participate in a "topic" in a videogame community over politics where half the members are seeing things from one side of fence isn't a valid argument.

Never was, never has been.
Thank you.

So a 50/50 split is unfair?

And...

"The Escapist Portal > The Escapist Forums > Off-topic Discussion"

FTW.

Doesn't change the fact that any educated argument cannot be brought to a community such as this. Message boards aren't even valid pieces to argue over...

*waits for the default hypocritical rant*

Message boards are so valid places to argue over.
As I see from the way you are talking, you seem to be a far right winger.
In a place like the internet, you simply don't have a lot of people who agree with you.

 

[OuroborosChoked]

Yes, but even without the Political parties choosing electoral college members, your still putting your countries faith in people you've never met before.
And now, there are a whole lot more of them.

I'd rather have it be in the hands of ALL of the people than the chosen few.

It's easier to bribe fewer people, for one thing...

 

[TheKnifeJuggler]

Even then, the electoral college ridiculously privileges a few states -- the states that have the right demographic mix to make them "battlegrounds."

And it's not even about those states. It's about the fears and misconceptions of a handful of indecisive folks who mostly vote based on social conservatism and empty promises of tax cuts.

-- Alex

Yes, but again, can't the same be said without the electoral college?

 

[TheKnifeJuggler]

Yes, but even without the Political parties choosing electoral college members, your still putting your countries faith in people you've never met before.
And now, there are a whole lot more of them.

I'd rather have it be in the hands of ALL of the people than the chosen few.

It's easier to bribe fewer people, for one thing...

Yes, but it's also easier to lie to a whole lot of people at once.

 

[Rankao]

Your electoral college system really does suck ass

It's actually a good thing it keeps some states from having too much say in elections. An example(of no EC system) would be Il. Chicago controls that states agenda because it is the premire population center. So the electoral college system allows lesser states and population centers a bigger say in running the country. Without the EC the northeast would have the biggest control of elections leaving the south and midwest with very little imput into elections.

Erm, surely the number of people is what should determine the election, not the states. If there really are fewer people in those states, surely its fair that they have a lesser say?

I've been saying for the longest time, there are less black people so they defiantly shouldn't have as important say (Sarcasm)

 

[hefajstos2]

Your not alone.

 

[OuroborosChoked]

Yes, but even without the Political parties choosing electoral college members, your still putting your countries faith in people you've never met before.
And now, there are a whole lot more of them.

I'd rather have it be in the hands of ALL of the people than the chosen few.

It's easier to bribe fewer people, for one thing...

Yes, but it's also easier to lie to a whole lot of people at once.

That's a cop out. We'll be lied to either way. We're being lied to now. Lies won't change.

 

[Alex_P]

Even then, the electoral college ridiculously privileges a few states -- the states that have the right demographic mix to make them "battlegrounds."

And it's not even about those states. It's about the fears and misconceptions of a handful of indecisive folks who mostly vote based on social conservatism and empty promises of tax cuts.

-- Alex

Yes, but again, can't the same be said without the electoral college?

But then the "battleground" population actually represents some kind of middle ground of the whole population's opinion rather than the middle ground of some random states' opinions. Kind of an improvement, no?

-- Alex

 

[TheKnifeJuggler]

Yes, but even without the Political parties choosing electoral college members, your still putting your countries faith in people you've never met before.
And now, there are a whole lot more of them.

I'd rather have it be in the hands of ALL of the people than the chosen few.

It's easier to bribe fewer people, for one thing...

Yes, but it's also easier to lie to a whole lot of people at once.

That's a cop out. We'll be lied to either way. We're being lied to now. Lies won't change.

Yes, but there are those who are lied to and those who check the facts.
If it's impossible to check the lies, then the only way to see they are lies is to wait for the people to get into office.
Thing is, America has a three house system, with the power balanced between the three houses so that none of them can act out on their own, and they try as best they can to act as one government, so no one person has all the power.

 

[TheKnifeJuggler]

Even then, the electoral college ridiculously privileges a few states -- the states that have the right demographic mix to make them "battlegrounds."

And it's not even about those states. It's about the fears and misconceptions of a handful of indecisive folks who mostly vote based on social conservatism and empty promises of tax cuts.

-- Alex

Yes, but again, can't the same be said without the electoral college?

But then the "battleground" population actually represents some kind of middle ground of the whole population's opinion rather than the middle ground of some random states' opinions. Kind of an improvement, no?

-- Alex

Well, you see the only way a political system like this can work is if the public is educated on who their candidates are.
Problem is, there are those who don't make informed decisions, and it's up to the people to choose someone who is either well known or narrow minded.

Problem is, the people who are narrow minded often vote for those who are narrow minded...

 

[TheKnifeJuggler]

The entire system is dependent on people who can make well informed decisions and can put people who support their opinions in power.

If one group has more people, then they win.
It doesn't necessarily make them right though.

 

[OuroborosChoked]

Yes, but there are those who are lied to and those who check the facts.
If it's impossible to check the lies, then the only way to see they are lies is to wait for the people to get into office.
Thing is, America has a three house system, with the power balanced between the three houses so that none of them can act out on their own, and they try as best they can to act as one government, so no one person has all the power.

Whoa whoa whoa... I think you're tapdancing away from the point, here.

How would it suddenly become impossible to check facts if the electoral college was replaced by one person, one vote? That doesn't follow.

And what does the three-house thing have to do with anything? I thought we were talking about presidential elections... which, by the way, are the ONLY form of elections that use the electoral college. If it was such a good system, why is it only used in one type of election?

 

[Alex_P]

No, electors just don't work, period. It took all of two elections for them to devolve into party hacks.

-- Alex

 

[OuroborosChoked]

The entire system is dependent on people who can make well informed decisions and can put people who support their opinions in power.

If one group has more people, then they win.
It doesn't necessarily make them right though.

So the best-informed people being in positions of power... that's a bad thing? Who would've thought that being ill-informed was a good thing?

 

[TheKnifeJuggler]

Yes, but there are those who are lied to and those who check the facts.
If it's impossible to check the lies, then the only way to see they are lies is to wait for the people to get into office.
Thing is, America has a three house system, with the power balanced between the three houses so that none of them can act out on their own, and they try as best they can to act as one government, so no one person has all the power.

Whoa whoa whoa... I think you're tapdancing away from the point, here.

How would it suddenly become impossible to check facts if the electoral college was replaced by one person, one vote? That doesn't follow.

And what does the three-house thing have to do with anything? I thought we were talking about presidential elections... which, by the way, are the ONLY form of elections that use the electoral college. If it was such a good system, why is it only used in one type of election?

Whoops. Tangent.
The three house thing makes it so that the president can not act on their own with complete rule, i.e. like a Dictator.
This makes it so if the people are disagreeing with them, they can protest and try and have thing's changed. (doesn't mean they'll be heard sadly.)

As for why the electoral college is used only for presidential elections, it was mainly less of a hassle to count electoral votes as opposed to an entire population's worth of votes back in the day where things like 'The Cotton Gin' were considered innovative. It's not used in other votes because the people would have chosen a representative of their state who would agree with them and vote on their behalf.

No, electors just don't work, period. It took all of two elections for them to devolve into party hacks.

-- Alex

George Washington was quoted as saying that electoral parties would be the downfall of the nation.
I agree with him.

 

[TheKnifeJuggler]

The entire system is dependent on people who can make well informed decisions and can put people who support their opinions in power.

If one group has more people, then they win.
It doesn't necessarily make them right though.

So the best-informed people being in positions of power... that's a bad thing? Who would've thought that being ill-informed was a good thing?

Ah. Sorry. I'm not thinking strait right now.

It's required that the people inform themselves on the issues for this system to work, but it doesn't mean that they fully inform themselves. I said 'It doesn't always make them right' because if the majority is uninformed and vote on a whim, then they are not necessarily making the right decision.

 

[jdguy]

What terrifies me as an American is the lack of knowledge people actually have on the issues. So many people side with McCain not knowing that he votes 90% of the time with Bush (its a fact look it up). People think Obama is inexperenced yet he has voted against most of the troubling issues plaguing my country (not all just most). Also with Palin's stance on women's rights (She wanted women to pay for their own rape kits), there is nothing positive coming from John McCain's camp.

Now that is just the facts of the two canidates. It really is America in general that is suffering. As a nation we have shifted so far to the right that even moderates (like myself) are seen as crazy liberals. Most of our citizens think CNN is left wing propoganda, thinks FoX doesn't have outright lies in its reporting, and worst of all thinks evolution hasn't been vetted scientifically.

American's are not evil just either ignorant or stupid (meaning willful ignorance). Most of the anti-Obama stuff is compleatly false or brought on by Racism and ignorance.

But I'm just a political science and American history double major... not like I know what I'm talking about.

 

[OuroborosChoked]

Ah. Sorry. I'm not thinking strait right now.

It's required that the people inform themselves on the issues for this system to work, but it doesn't mean that they fully inform themselves. I said 'It doesn't always make them right' because if the majority is uninformed and vote on a whim, then they are not necessarily making the right decision.

Ah, the reason I didn't acknowledge that... who decides what the "right" choice is?

 

[TheKnifeJuggler]

Ah. Sorry. I'm not thinking strait right now.

It's required that the people inform themselves on the issues for this system to work, but it doesn't mean that they fully inform themselves. I said 'It doesn't always make them right' because if the majority is uninformed and vote on a whim, then they are not necessarily making the right decision.

Ah, the reason I didn't acknowledge that... who decides what the "right" choice is?

I don't know. Whoever looks back from the future and either calls it as a bad decision or a good one.