@Fountofwisdom,
Quote:You make some fair and interesting points: Can I now press you on whether the system should be speeded up: and what steps could be taken to prevent the queues and chaos: which surely no one wants:
If there is one point that you've made in previous posts with which I can quite agree it's that the American system -- from primaries to general elction -- is waaay too time consuming. This past campaign seemed to last years and years, not months. I was quite ready to eschew politics of any sort by the time it was over. The question, however, is not whether the process
should be speeded up but, rather, how in the world one goes about doing that.
First of all, the selection of candidates is largely a party process. As there is no provision made for even the existence of political parties in the US Constitution, there is no viable way to regulate this by law. Congress may pass legislation regarding such matters as private donations to political parties but, beyond that, it can do nothing in the way of telling the parties how their candidate is to be selected and presented to the general public. Hence, the primary system becomes somewhat tedious. I generally don't vote in primaries at all as I am unwilling to register as being a supporter of any particular party.
Secondly, the rules governing how a general election is to be run are a matter for each state to decide. The day of voting is mandated by Federal law, but precisely how each state conducts that election is a local matter. The divergence from state to state is great. In some places computerized voting machines are in use, others have paper ballots which you mark with a ball-point pen just like people did 100 and more years ago. As a result, some places have long lines, others none. Does this lead to some chicanery? Undoubtedly, from time to time and place to place. George W. Bush's team was quite openly accused of rigging the vote in certain localities (Florida and Ohio specifically) but in the absence of evidence which would hold up in a court of law, such accusations become meaningless.
Quote:Seeing as your argument is that mostly the system produces the same result as one person one vote then, surely that would be the better system: being cheaper,simpler and easier.
It might be a better system. I have never been a supporter of the Electoral College method. However, since this method is mandated by the Constitution, it would require a constitutional amendment to bring about a change. At present, at least, there is no prospect of such an amendment being successfully implemented. The major reason for this is that states with a relatively small population would not wish to risk being overwhelmed by voters in states with large urban populations. (If you read Okie's posts you will see this sentiment expressed quite clearly.) As it takes a two-thirds vote by both Houses to bring about a constitutional change, I think you can see where the idea is not exactly tenable.
