Go Back   Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat
GL4x4 Live! GL4x4 Casino

Politics, Government, or Religion Chat Bring your flamesuit!







Search
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old November 9th, 2012, 12:23 PM   #21
GreaseMonkey
Senior Member
 
GreaseMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-04-05
Location: Washington, MI
Posts: 17,873
iTrader: (22)
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlooMule View Post
Electoral college was originally created to speed up the process of electing a president, and the members are not required to follow the popular vote. This was because the founding fathers wanted to prevent a largely uneducated public from electing an uneducated president.

edit- damn, bono beat me to it.
Yea, well now that the majority of the US is stupid and uneducated, the system is working wonders.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by kerryann View Post
I am not a lesbian but if I was I would do her.
GreaseMonkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 9th, 2012, 12:39 PM   #22
JohnnyJ
Low Range Drifter
 
JohnnyJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-09-05
Location: Hartland, MI
Posts: 5,927
iTrader: (37)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mschaffer66 View Post
I saw the other day it was around a billion PER SIDE.
I'm not surprised at all. Once again, there's no way to insure that the elected will act in the people's best interest when this kind of money is being thrown around.
__________________
Neither Skinny Nor Pretty DEAK Racing 4517 Ultra 4 Mod Class Rig
Barn sale! Check out what's left!
Surviving Project Car Hell - We have all been there
JohnnyJ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old November 9th, 2012, 12:42 PM   #23
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,298
iTrader: (9)
I agree with the need for reform. I don't not know just exactly what needs to be done or how.
brewmenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 9th, 2012, 05:22 PM   #24
kickstand
sHaMoNe!
 
kickstand's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-20-06
Location: fenton
Posts: 30,111
iTrader: (46)
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyJ View Post
I'm definitely down with spending limits. Why do you need to spend $50 million by the winner to win a job that pays $174,000 a year like what happened to fill Dead Kennedy's seat in MA? I have no idea how much was spent to win the Presidency, but I wouldn't be suprised if a billion was dropped between both sides.
President makes 400k
Quote:
Originally Posted by mschaffer66 View Post
I saw the other day it was around a billion PER SIDE.
http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance/
kickstand is online now   Reply With Quote
Old November 9th, 2012, 09:02 PM   #25
WSU JK
Senior Member
 
WSU JK's Avatar
 
Join Date: 04-25-08
Location: Lowering the Per-Capita Income of Bloomfield Hills since 2009!
Posts: 2,481
iTrader: (4)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SS View Post
x3

Presidential elections are no longer decided by the country but by a few states due to the current all or nothing way the majority of the country uses for the electoral college.

If it went by district it would be a hell of a lot more representative of the true will of the people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mschaffer66 View Post
Would this really be much different than going by popular vote? How are districts laid out? Geographically or population based? Would more heavily populated districts have more "votes", and lighter districts less?
Personally I am in favor of getting rid of the electoral college altogether. It basically disenfranchises huge chunks of voters in conservative and liberal states alike. Just like most of the folks in Michigan, outside of a small chunk of Detroit and the close in suburbs voted for Romney and got nothing for it, the opposite happened for voters in places like Oklahoma City, St. Louis, Kansas City, Phoenix, etc.

Since I don't see the legislatures taking up an amendment to get rid of the electoral college anytime soon, I think if more states were to spread their votes around like Maine and Nebraska do, that would be a step in the right direction.

For those unfamiliar with those systems, Maine and Nebraska each give two of their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote in that state and divide up the rest of their electoral votes to the presidential candidate who got the most votes in each individual congressional district.

FYI, if all 50 states, plus the District of Columbia, had that system in place this time around, Romney would have won with 288 electoral votes to Obama's 249 votes (there is still one undecided congressional race in Louisiana but it would not effect the presidential outcome at this point).

Since the size of the congressional districts are determined mainly by their population, this would be a step in the right direction toward getting a popular vote system. The average population in the congressional districts (as of 2011, I wasn't paying attention and pulled that data instead of 2010 which is what I should have used since that is what was used to redraw the districts) was 714,660. The least populous district is Michigan's 13th Congressional District with 506,036 and the most populous is Nevada's 3rd with 1,060,651 residents.

Last edited by WSU JK; November 9th, 2012 at 09:17 PM.
WSU JK is online now   Reply With Quote
Old November 10th, 2012, 10:30 PM   #26
toolmantim
Go lil yellow Roobicon...
 
toolmantim's Avatar
 
Join Date: 01-22-06
Location: Toledo Ohio
Posts: 1,958
iTrader: (5)
The current system is fine.

Ohio decides presidents.

Who knows why??? ....we are moderates, centrists, that call like we see it and are not blinded by party lines. We have no problem swaying one way or another but issues are more important than party affiliation.

__________________
I'm compensating for my manhood.

Northwest Ohio Crawlers
toolmantim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 10th, 2012, 10:57 PM   #27
DuffMan
Your Message Here
 
DuffMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: The Ile of Grosse
Posts: 5,831
iTrader: (11)
As stated, the electoral college was a solution to the problem of technology that existed 100s of years ago. The problem has been solved, so the EC needs to go. It disenfranchises voters and results in non-representative elections. We elect members of the house and senate by popular vote, why not president?

Apportioning out delegates is a half-measure; the EC is outmoded.

We would still remain a republic; elected officials would still develop and pass legislation instead of everything going to a public vote. We would just ensure tht the executive branch is selected by the electorate directly. It wouldn't have affected either or Obie's elections, the Bush 2000 election would've gone to Gore based on the popular vote instead of the EC vote.

I really don't want more legislation, but reducing the $ spent on elections would reduce the fundraising, influence of lobbyists, and allow alternate parties a fairer chance.

I would extend campaign finance reform to congressional and senate elections: a fixed cost ceiling and requirements that all of the modest funding must come from within the district/state in question.

We also need to take steps to entire the sanctity of primary elections; that idiot from MO who made the comments about rape and "selective pregnancy" was only a candidate because crossed over and voted for the biggest idiot among the four candidates to ensure their candidate had a better path to victory.
__________________
This is the Pub. Leave common sense at the door.
DuffMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 11th, 2012, 07:59 AM   #28
RyeBread
Catch the wave
 
RyeBread's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-08-05
Location: Fenton
Posts: 7,936
iTrader: (2)
Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
I agree with the need for reform. I don't not know just exactly what needs to be done or how.
I personally think each individual state's electoral vote should be split.

much like how the congress has two houses, the house supposedly for population, and the senate has seats per state.

instead of the state's electoral votes all being based on state popular vote, which gives the majority to population centers (look at this past election's county-based vote) there would be a splitting of the state's electoral votes in part based on each county, or perhaps region, district, or what have you - having some contribution.

the overall state's electoral vote need not change, but the more rural areas are overwhelmed by dense populations voter 'contribution'

(did I adequately dance around the fact that in a divided state like Michigan, that 1/2 million black voters in Detroit was more than enough to gift all of our electoral votes?)

or look at Illinois, basically a republican state if you cut Chicago off from it.
RyeBread is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 11th, 2012, 08:01 AM   #29
RyeBread
Catch the wave
 
RyeBread's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-08-05
Location: Fenton
Posts: 7,936
iTrader: (2)
Quote:
Originally Posted by toolmantim View Post
The current system is fine.

Ohio decides presidents.

Who knows why??? ....we are moderates, centrists, that call like we see it and are not blinded by party lines. We have no problem swaying one way or another but issues are more important than party affiliation.

even your state is stupidly divided. vast swathes of the state are predominately red, and a couple of areas along the great lakes, and scattered other areas of dense population swung for the ghetto with their vote.
RyeBread is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 11th, 2012, 08:08 AM   #30
Elvis13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 05-15-11
Location: Addison Township, MI
Posts: 1,172
iTrader: (7)
Quote:
Originally Posted by RyeBread View Post
I personally think each individual state's electoral vote should be split.

much like how the congress has two houses, the house supposedly for population, and the senate has seats per state.

instead of the state's electoral votes all being based on state popular vote, which gives the majority to population centers (look at this past election's county-based vote) there would be a splitting of the state's electoral votes in part based on each county, or perhaps region, district, or what have you - having some contribution.

the overall state's electoral vote need not change, but the more rural areas are overwhelmed by dense populations voter 'contribution'

(did I adequately dance around the fact that in a divided state like Michigan, that 1/2 million black voters in Detroit was more than enough to gift all of our electoral votes?)

or look at Illinois, basically a republican state if you cut Chicago off from it.
Sounds like a decent idea. If I split it, half would go to overall population vote, the other half would go to majority area (McCain won something like 80%+ of America).

or

each person can cast the # of votes equal to the # of hours they worked that year. Military service counts as double.
Elvis13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 11th, 2012, 08:17 AM   #31
aber61
Senior Member
 
aber61's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-22-08
Location: Commerce Twp. Michigan
Posts: 5,985
iTrader: (3)
Something bigger is at play here.....click the title heading

aber61 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 11th, 2012, 01:59 PM   #32
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,298
iTrader: (9)
I personally don't see the big problem with just going with the popular vote, with a runoff election if no one gets a majority.
brewmenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:59 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright 2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2005 - 2012 Cracker Enterprises - Powered by Linux
vB Ad Management by =RedTyger=
Page generated in 0.16959 seconds with 37 queries