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.

 

A Question for all Candidates

page: 1
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 01:02 PM
link   
What about the electoral college?

Do we keep it, improve upon it, or do away with it entirely?




posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 01:50 PM
link   
This is something that isone of my own camaign issues actually.


It is in my opinion that the electoral college only henders the democratic
process, and is far to open to corruption.

I believe in abolishing it and bringing direct democracy to the eclection
of the office of the president.



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 01:58 PM
link   
Thanks for the answer. I'm not a one-issue type but the whole electoral college scheme seems a bit antiquated.

I'd be interested in hearing from its defenders, though, should there be any.



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 03:52 PM
link   
Time to create a real democracy.

Thank you for this question to all candidates: befoiled.

The question:


What about the electoral college?

Do we keep it, improve upon it, or do away with it entirely?


Is something I am glad has been raised. But I have partially addressed it in an existing thread of mine and thus I will copy the text here:



My answer for the Government is simple. There’s a system developed like that in Switzerland. Where the Government is heavily decentralized. Each area (State, Canton, County, etc) is its own administrative division allowed to manage each State individually. This can be linked to the idea of devolution that is now happening in the United Kingdom but on a much larger level. Thus people who live in the local area deal with issues directly affecting the local area. There’s no good argument for people claiming that a person who lives 400 miles away, never visits the area, has no children in the Schools, does not use the hospitals, etc, should have the right to decide for those people. It is for them to decide, as should be many other factors. Due to this, I also suggest an idea based around the principles of Direct Democracy that allows people to vote (twice a year) on issues that directly affect them.

The Government will also be re-shaped, with a more important emphasis on local authorities (who be default have to be filled with people inside the area), and two tiers in the National Assembly. Take for example the United Kingdom, each County would have its own Government but with more power and the National Government (Parliament) would have two elected houses (House of Lords and House of Commons) but the administrative zones for each would slightly differ and over-lap. Thus nobody from either house will represent all the same constituents (voters). This helps to eliminate the idea of a party system where by certain areas are strongholds for certain groups. But also what the Government deals with will also change.

The Government is not a moral authority, long gone are the days where Religious groups can dictate what is right or wrong. Moral legislation will be placed upon the people to decide, through a system of initiative (through the use of the internet) and National Referendum and Recall at the two annual votes. The initiative system will allow for the set-up of a Government wide scheme where by each voter (of legal age) will be able to obtain a secure password and username in which they can place their name for something. If this receives a high enough percentage (say 1% of the population) than it is placed on the next referendum. Then the referendum uses the idea of the Super Majority not Single Majority. By which I mean, as well as a positive percentage of people having to pass the vote in favour to become law so do a positive percentage of local areas (State, Canton, County). These votes would also be placed on a single Bank Holiday, Six-Months apart from one another (June and Decemember for example) to make it easier on people to be able to vote. There will also be three choices; In favour of, against or abstaining from voting on each individual issue. Thus issues people do not feel directly involve them in any way they do not have to vote on and are not forced to decide what they feel on that issue.

One of these votes will also be linked to the election each year. So for example, the voting breakdown would be this:
  • Year 1: Local Election (County) and Referendum in June. December Referendum.
  • Year 2: Regional Election (Such as State) and Referendum in June (With Presidential election). December Referendum.
  • Year 3: National Election A (Such as Senate) and Referendum in June. December Referendum.
  • Year 4: National Election B (Such as House of Representatives) and Referendum in June. December Referendum.
. What would be placed on each Referendum would be given in advance of two months, so for the June Referendum it would be given in April to each Household and for the December Referendum it’d be given in October. This allows people adequate time to research anything that they feel they desire to vote on.

Now although this might look like a lot of voting, it is strictly only 2 days a year both of which would be a National Holiday. It would not take more than an hour out of the 24hrs of that day to conduct your vote and thus you’d be left with a day off. Also with the modern age and the ability to use computers the speed by which voting could be conducted and counted would drastically increase. Furthermore, people feel very disillusioned with the political process. They no longer get to vote on what matters to them as an individual but rather what a political party decides to deal with. If a Referendum has no issues you agree with you can easily abstain from voting by using the form. (Although at present I am not suggesting the idea of forced voting but the idea is one I do think about.)

Thus Government and the Socialist System should be completely separated. Government should simply be a case of for the people and by the people. As the saying goes; All Power to the People. The time where people are ruled needs to come to an end for the betterment of us all.


I believe that power should rest in the hands of you. Not me.



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by befoiled
What about the electoral college?


Not all of your know about the electoral college. Can we have some info posted for us non Americans?



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom ERP

Originally posted by befoiled
What about the electoral college?


Not all of your know about the electoral college. Can we have some info posted for us non Americans?


Here: en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 04:04 PM
link   
I like Mother Jones' explaination better.


The Indefensible Electoral College

[edit on 26-2-2007 by befoiled]



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 04:22 PM
link   
WE KEEP IT!

I am the candidate for states rights. It is the right of the state to elect the President, that is how it always has been. Each state is garenteed at least 2 represenetives, that is the SENATE. The people vote for the Senator, then the state sends them to Washington to represent their people.

Congress is based on population, the more people that reside in a state the more votes, this is a very very verrrrryyyy important part of our system that CANNOT be tampered with. The people elect who they think will serve best in Congress. The point? Thats your representation. THE PEOPLE do NOT vote directly for the President, he is NOT the representative of the PEOPLe.. he is the representative to the STATES and the legislature is the voice of the people, hence the checks and balances. This system creates the balance that keeps the government moving, never making any one man to powerful. If a state decides that they think the winning candidate is corrupt, illintent or means them harm they can concede their electoral votes, making sure the President cannot become President after elections if he does not intend to serve the states. It is a very important right for the states, this is a REPUBLIC and not a DIRECT DEMOCRACY.

Thank you.

Vote for me!



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 04:33 PM
link   
I have also made a promise for devolution to the States rather than giving more power to the federal government. As for the electoral college, many feel the power should go directly to the popular vote but that would require a constitution change. I have stated that ANY constitution change would be put to a public vote.



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
It is a very important right for the states, this is a REPUBLIC and not a DIRECT DEMOCRACY.


You evidently do not know that much of your own Nation.

I would advice you to read this:

Direct Democracy in the United States
Referrals by the legislature to the people of "proposed constitutional amendments" (constitutionally used in 49 states, excepting only Delaware — Initiative & Referendum Institute, 2004).
Referrals by the legislature to the people of "proposed statute laws" (constitutionally used in all 50 states — Initiative & Referendum Institute, 2004).


Sorry but Direct Democracy has existed in the New England Colonies since the 1630s. IT still exists today and it is something the founders of your Nation agreed with it has just been hidden from many Americans.



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 04:45 PM
link   
Well well, if you want to call me out in ignorance of my own nation go ahead, though you have just embarassed your self.

The United States FEDERAL eclection system is NOT a direct democracy. Never has, never will be. In small towns, there is direct democracy, and only in a small town, where every issue is voted on by the people. REFERALS as stated on your Wiki site are also voted by the people directly, HOWEVER in state legislature even you vote for a man to sit in your place to make the best decision, you have NO SAY WHAT SO EVER only he does. I think, Odium, that you need to re-attend a civics class, or at least try not to call me out on something your completely off on.
Just embarassing.


EDIT: Perhaps FlyersFan was right in non-Americans running? .. Maybe there should be a crash course, or will I have to continue putting up with English men telling me how my country opperates?


[edit on 2/26/2007 by Rockpuck]



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 04:53 PM
link   
Rockpuck, the recall can be used to remove federally elected officials. I think you'll find in 1913 a senator was removed from office. The Senate last I checked was part of the federal Government. :-)

In fact:



Recall attempts at the state level have been singularly unsuccessful. Prior to California's 2003 recall election, the only successful recall of a governor to date took place in North Dakota in 1921, when voters removed from office not only Governor Lynn J. Frazier, but also the attorney general and the commissioner of agriculture. California voters have initiated 32 gubernatorial recall attempts since 1911, but the 2003 recall of Governor Gray Davis in 2003 was the first to ever reach the ballot. In 1988, Arizona voters filed enough signatures to trigger a recall election for Governor Evan Mecham, but he was impeached by the state's House of Representatives before the date of the scheduled recall election.

Recall efforts against state legislators are slightly more common, but still unusual. Prior to Californias' 2003 recall election, the only sucessfull recall In California, where 107 recall efforts were initiated from 1911 to 1994, only four qualified for the ballot. A state senator was recalled in 1913. In 1914, one senator was recalled and another survived a recall attempt. Not until 1994 was another state recall election held, and the senator involved in that attempt - David Roberti - won 59 percent of the vote. In 1995, two Assembly members were recalled. Recall efforts against two Michigan state senators in 1983 were successful - for the first time in that state's history. An Oregon state legislator was recalled in 1988.


www.ncsl.org...

It is wise to read the links that are found in a source.


[edit on 26/2/2007 by Odium]



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 05:04 PM
link   
Last you checked, and you where wrong. The Senate and Congress may draft federal laws, that must then be screened by the executive and Judicial branches. In short, the Legislature is NOT the federal government, they are the STATE representatives, if it where FEDERAL then the executive branch would pick them. They are the only source of voice from the people, regardless of the corruption.



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
Last you checked, and you where wrong. The Senate and Congress may draft federal laws, that must then be screened by the executive and Judicial branches. In short, the Legislature is NOT the federal government, they are the STATE representatives, if it where FEDERAL then the executive branch would pick them. They are the only source of voice from the people, regardless of the corruption.


Actually Federal Government is made up of three branches. Congress is part of the Federal beanch of Government and thus the Senate is.

www.senate.gov...



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 05:26 PM
link   
The problem with not having an electoral college is that the elections would essentially be decided by metropolitan areas. I am not sure that we want that to be the way we elect our presidents.



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
The problem with not having an electoral college is that the elections would essentially be decided by metropolitan areas. I am not sure that we want that to be the way we elect our presidents.



So what, that is how democracy works.

Basically you want to limit it so that what the minority want trumps
the majority.


I personally think that some things are off limits to the democratic
process, like limiting freedom.

But in general, I believe that direct democracy is the only fair thing to do.
Oh, and with direct democracy, I don't mean having the popilcae voting
on every bill, just for electing officials, for going and stopping war(s) and
for things that will greatly effect the entire country.



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei
So what, that is how democracy works.

Basically you want to limit it so that what the minority want trumps
the majority.




Wait!! You cannot just disown a whole segment of the population!! People that live in the metropolitan areas and suburbs have completely different values than those who live in the rural areas of America. It isn't right to basically isolate rural area residents..



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 05:56 PM
link   
One person, one vote, one President.

I would suggest thats the only real way to ensure that the person the people want to be in power actually gets there.

And if that requires a constitutional amendment and the removal of the electoral college, then so be it.

I will ask again, please people, do not wreck this whole issue by dragging nationalities into the debates, otherwise you are likely to wreck the whole thing, and split the board. We can all learn from the experience, after all, education is part of politics.



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
One person, one vote, one President.

I would suggest thats the only real way to ensure that the person the people want to be in power actually gets there.

And if that requires a constitutional amendment and the removal of the electoral college, then so be it.



Again, if you did it that way, you'd be leaving out large segments of the constituency. What purpose would candidates have in campaigning in small areas if it was done the way you suggest? All they would have to do is win in cities like Houston,Los Angeles and New York ...



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Again, if you did it that way, you'd be leaving out large segments of the constituency. What purpose would candidates have in campaigning in small areas if it was done the way you suggest? All they would have to do is win in cities like Houston,Los Angeles and New York ...


With todays technology candidates don't need to stump in every little podunk town on the campaign trail. All voters who have electricity can get all the information they need on any candidate at any time.

I can't remember the last time a democratic presidential candidate came to ultra-red Utah.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join