Foxfyre wrote:The defense of the electoral college is seen in the red and blue map following the 2000 election. The vast majority of states, counties, cities, acres or however you wish to measure it voted Bush. The lion's share of Gore's votes came from large, heavily populated metropolitan areas that were struggling financially and that voted largely Democrat as 'the party that cares about them'.
I was unaware that democracy was supposed to be based on majority of land, I was under the impression that it was about the majority of people.
Quote:If we scrap the electoral college and go with a majority vote, where do you think the politicans will focus ALL their money and efforts to sway, coerce, bribe, buy, import, manufacture, and/or convince voters?
An easy counter-argument is that with the current system you can "sway, coerce, bribe, buy, import, manufacture, and/or convince" more easily. Just concentrate on the people whose votes count more than the others due to the silly system.
Quote: They won't care about those of us out here in fly over country at all. All they have to do is control a few key areas, and all the rest can be controlled.
Sounds good to me. A lot better than the backwater folks getting a vote that is worth more than others.
One man, one vote.
Quote:And once in office, I would guess that's where most of the government goodies will be directed as well to ensure loyalty. I wouldn't count on all the rest of us receiving a whole lot of concern. The big cities would be well represented. The rest of us barely at all.
This right before the world ends right?
The apocalyptic proclamations are silly. I bet it wouldn't change much.
Quote:I can't think of no better system to encourage far more corruption in the electoral process than what we already have.
If this is true (it isn't) you lack imagination. ;-)
I can think of a bunch.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace