It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

An idea to reform the electoral college.

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2019 @ 11:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12
If you pay taxes to the IRS, you should be able to vote on how that money is spent. One man, One vote. EC spells BS.


Are you sure you wanna go that route?




posted on Jan, 29 2019 @ 11:45 AM
link   
I think that during the primaries a third party candidate should be able to challenge either the dnc or rnc in a run off to determine who should run. That way we end up with a two party election and it would give a chance for third party to take office. The problem currently is what we see with the starbucks guy.

Head to head he could likely beat out and dem or pube but under the current system he only splits the vote and thereby strengthening one side.

I think many people would love to vote in a race that featured only 2 candidates where one is an independent.



posted on Jan, 29 2019 @ 11:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Assassin82

"For instance, if they rely on federal funding for their education system, then their education system factors into their electoral weight."

No it doesn't.



posted on Jan, 29 2019 @ 11:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: toms54
a reply to: Assassin82

"For instance, if they rely on federal funding for their education system, then their education system factors into their electoral weight."

No it doesn't.


Thank you for your input.



posted on Jan, 29 2019 @ 11:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12
If you pay taxes to the IRS, you should be able to vote on how that money is spent. One man, One vote. EC spells BS.


Even within the state, the voting is usually done by districts. We have representative democracy, not mob rule.



posted on Jan, 29 2019 @ 12:09 PM
link   
a reply to: drewlander

I think it would be useful to know how many citizens there are. Food stamps should be allocated on the basis of need regardless of citizenship. Federal representation should be based upon the number of voters or citizens. When you just mix them all into one group you're looking at slaves are 3/5 of a person territory.



posted on Jan, 29 2019 @ 12:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated
Most of our voting problems would be solved if:

1) Needed verified ID to vote across the board regardless of state
2) Voters need to qualify, must pass basic civics test to show basic knowledge of our systems. If this type of test is appropriate for immigrants it is appropriate for voters of all stripes. People who can't name the three branches of government should not be voting.
3) Term limits for congress and senate. No more than three terms in Congress and 2 in senate.
4) No lobbying allowed for 10 years after serving office


Good! I'd only change number four to "No lobbying.....ever."



posted on Jan, 29 2019 @ 01:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk
I think that during the primaries a third party candidate should be able to challenge either the dnc or rnc in a run off to determine who should run. That way we end up with a two party election and it would give a chance for third party to take office. The problem currently is what we see with the starbucks guy.

Head to head he could likely beat out and dem or pube but under the current system he only splits the vote and thereby strengthening one side.

I think many people would love to vote in a race that featured only 2 candidates where one is an independent.


Beat out the pube, eh?



posted on Jan, 29 2019 @ 01:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: toms54

originally posted by: olaru12
If you pay taxes to the IRS, you should be able to vote on how that money is spent. One man, One vote. EC spells BS.


Even within the state, the voting is usually done by districts. We have representative democracy, not mob rule.


Voting is freedom of expression by individuals, that's not mob rule. One man, One vote.



posted on Jan, 29 2019 @ 01:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: toms54

originally posted by: olaru12
If you pay taxes to the IRS, you should be able to vote on how that money is spent. One man, One vote. EC spells BS.


Even within the state, the voting is usually done by districts. We have representative democracy, not mob rule.


Voting is freedom of expression by individuals, that's not mob rule. One man, One vote.



So when the majority vote for slavery, segregation, prohibiting gay marriage, out lawing abortions, and any other crazy thing that the bulk of society supported at one time, we won't be hearing Olaru flapping your gums about your rights being taken away by the majority?



posted on Jan, 29 2019 @ 01:57 PM
link   
I need everyone to take a giant objective step back. Try very hard to put your political leanings to the side, so that you have no actual say in this game. Imagine, for the sake of argument, that the US isn't where you live and you've just been hired to help make the federal voting system of this country (that you've never heard of) more efficient. Then what would you do? You're no longer a Republican or Democrat in this scenario. What is the best solution AS A WHOLE?

Doesn't our current setup, and all proposed setups, just seem so freakin' complicated? There has to be a simpler way to do this.

I would argue that the way it's currently set up is not the ideal setup, as many voices (on both sides) aren't heard.
I don't think many (if any) of the ideas in the OP would be ideal either, mainly because they all change yearly.

-Voter fraud, etc? Enforce the laws already on the table and that will be avoided almost entirely. You should need some form of identification to vote. IDs should be free for the entire population and every single town needs a place to get an ID so elderly/impoverished folks don't have to travel for hours just to get an ID. Problem solved. Not relevant to how states rank.
-Crime? Totally irrelevant to federal voting, as that is an entirely state (or even city) issue.
-Voter happiness? States with a majority of voters leaning one way are going to be ranked the happiest, when they'd be the states that need the most evening out.
-GDP? Changes every year, and you'd never beat the tech states. yes they have some debt, but the also bring in a ridiculous amount of money.
-Immigration standards/illegal immigration? Texas would be at the bottom of the barrel then, as would AZ and New Mexico. The only truly left leaning state that would affect is Cali, the rest of the border states tend to be Conservative (although NM is changing). Farming states in middle america that hire thousands of immigrants for fall harvests wouldn't favor too well in that metric either. If this were part of the policy, Conservative states would fare far worse, which wouldn't be fair.

The simplest solution is: One man, one vote. Take away all of that extraneous math (that would have to be recalculated every single year) and just make it basic addition/subtraction. How many people voted for candidate A? B? C? Whichever one got the most votes is President.
That is so incredibly simple. And if you are TRULY objective about it, you have to agree that it'd be the simplest thing to implement.
Notice I did not say it's the BEST. I said it's the simplest. If we were to do that, we'd probably never have another Republican president. The country just has so many liberal people, they'd always be in the majority, and that isn't "fair". (I'd argue that life isn't always fair and to just put up better candidates, but putting aside my biases for now)...

Our nation is way too diverse for any one voting system to work in an ideal way. Our federal government oversees almost everything. That made sense when there were maybe 15 million people. Now that our population is well over 300 million, that no longer makes sense.

My solution? The federal government should be there for nationwide safety/health, international trade agreements, and interstate infrastructure. That's it. Everything else should happen on a state/regional level. It makes no sense that the federal department of agriculture gets to dictate what Nebraska does with it's corn. (I'm oversimplifying, but I hope you get my drift). Folks in DC have no idea what is best for Alaska (most have never even been there and 99% of presidential candidates don't even visit it on the campaign trail which shows how much they care about it), so why should they have a hand in basically everything Alaska does?

I feel that if it were set up that way, then running for/being president would take on an entirely new meaning. There wouldn't be thousands of issues that voters would have to keep track of. Will the candidate keep us safe, healthy (healthcare for all would probably be a requirement in this scenario), and trade well? That's it. 3 policies. The interstate infrastructure wouldn't even be under the president's purview, as that's building roads and airports, something the president doesn't do with our present setup.

However, that's also pretty complicated. If you want simple, one man = one vote. Otherwise, it's going to cost us taxpayers TONS of money to change anything.

Our entire federal government doesn't make sense to me, and it needs to be revamped.



posted on Jan, 29 2019 @ 02:01 PM
link   
a reply to: narrator

One man, one vote doesn't work because the majority of people are stupid. As a result, you will always have far more idiots that can out vote those who are intelligent. This is why pure democracy is mob rule.

The majority is not always right and nor do they necessarily want what is best for the country as a whole.



posted on Jan, 29 2019 @ 02:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated
a reply to: narrator

One man, one vote doesn't work because the majority of people are stupid. As a result, you will always have far more idiots that can out vote those who are intelligent. This is why pure democracy is mob rule.

The majority is not always right and nor do they necessarily want what is best for the country as a whole.



Hence why I said it isn't the best. I said it's the simplest.

Our government as it is doesn't want what's best for the country, and neither does a significant portion of our population. If we all truly, objectively wanted what's best for the country (meaning put aside what you want as an individual and think about the country as a whole) , we'd already have universal healthcare and would be pulled out of pretty much every overseas conflict and military base.

I will agree that people are stupid.



posted on Jan, 29 2019 @ 02:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated
a reply to: narrator

One man, one vote doesn't work because the majority of people are stupid. As a result, you will always have far more idiots that can out vote those who are intelligent. This is why pure democracy is mob rule.

The majority is not always right and nor do they necessarily want what is best for the country as a whole.



Oh, I get it...

Your'e happy with all those intelligent business men spending our tax dollars on wars without end and imperialism.

Sounds a lot like corporate fascism to me...a far cry from a representative democracy. yeah, real intelligent...obviously you were never in the military like Pres. Bonespurs elitist.
edit on 29-1-2019 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2019 @ 02:10 PM
link   
I’m all for whichever one keeps Hillary out of office....

Problem solved...

-Chris



posted on Jan, 29 2019 @ 02:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated
3) Term limits for congress and senate. No more than three terms in Congress and 2 in senate.


Hell I would even go for no more than 5 terms each...lol



posted on Jan, 29 2019 @ 02:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Edumakated
3) Term limits for congress and senate. No more than three terms in Congress and 2 in senate.


Hell I would even go for no more than 5 terms each...lol


Really. You got people serving 20 years and don't have sh*t to show for it (beyond a fatter bank account).

I say 3 for congress since that is six years total. 2 for Senate since that is 12 years. If you can't make an impact in that amount of time in either position, you are inept and need to go.



posted on Jan, 29 2019 @ 02:17 PM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

We are not a direct democracy. Never have been.

This is why we need to start teaching civics again.



posted on Jan, 29 2019 @ 02:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

Term limits for the Supreme court and other federal judges. If they're good, we can reappoint them.



posted on Jan, 29 2019 @ 02:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: narrator


The simplest solution is: One man, one vote. Take away all of that extraneous math (that would have to be recalculated every single year) and just make it basic addition/subtraction. How many people voted for candidate A? B? C? Whichever one got the most votes is President.
That is so incredibly simple. And if you are TRULY objective about it, you have to agree that it'd be the simplest thing to implement.


I really think schools should do more civics lessons...

In a democracy it is as you say one person, one vote, but we are not a democracy. Being a republic of 50 United States we are more like the EU and what you suggest would be like taking the EU and make it just one country called Europe, and that doesn't sound to be a good idea anyone would want. When you think about it, Every election is state level except for the President. Every state votes their reps in the one person one vote model, so at the state level it is a democracy.

In the US, each state is EQUAL and so they EACH gets 2 senators in that equality. The house is based on population and is restrictive in numbers because if we had 1000 reps then the power of the senate vote would be meaningless. We need to remember the equality of the states and not suggest that CA is better than 10 other states combined because of population. States are equal... I can't say this enough...

Since EVERY election is accomplished at the state level and we have just the one at the federal level for President the one person one vote just doesn't make sense since CA could gain too much power over the other equal states.

Just like the America the people of Europe might vote in their respective country but the President of the European Commission is elected by the Parliament and not the popular vote, otherwise a few countries could gain absolute control of 28 countries.


edit on 29-1-2019 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join