If the Electoral College were abolished (it's unneeded in this easy access era), I would definitely start voting with a sense of purpose. I guess that means I do vote now, but I know that my vote and the millions of others may have no bearing on the results. I'm all for what I think the point of your thread is, "Abolish The Electoral College". Let me know if I am incorrect.

Yes. The electoral college, the premise behind such and the means of determining any "ties" within are Crap. A vote cast Should be a vote counted... plain and simple... and may the best candidate win.

Popular vote all the way. I see the current system as but yet another means by which to guide the helm... if/when need be.



[edit: to add]
born '64 - have never registered - why? ... same nickel no matter which side.

[edit on 24-9-2008 by 12m8keall2c]

popular vote=vote of the people

the people have a voice in who they want as president

abolish the electoral college, they all get bought out and have no right to vote/speak for the general public

that is why i have never voted and refuse to vote, even when people ask and argue that i should

Popular vote would mean that the average person's vote would not count. The Electoral College idea was brilliant. It means that a handful of large US cities could not decide an election result that would affect every state in the USA. The needs of people in Kansas will be different from the needs of people living in California or New York. Therefore each state is broken down by population and each state in the USA matters. Otherwise only a couple of the largest states would decide every election. A political figure would only have to campaign in about 5 US states - the rest would be meaningless.

A popular vote isn't going to make more citizens vote. Lazy is Lazy. There will always be some excuse for why a citizen does not vote.



[edit on 25-9-2008 by zerotime]

Originally posted by zerotime
Popular vote would mean that the average person's vote would not count. The Electoral College idea was brilliant. It means that a handful of large US cities could not decide an election result that would affect every state in the USA. The needs of people in Kansas will be different from the needs of people living in California or New York. Therefore each state is broken down by population and each state in the USA matters. Otherwise only a couple of the largest states would decide every election. A political figure would only have to campaign in about 5 US states - the rest would be meaningless.

A popular vote isn't going to make more citizens vote. Lazy is Lazy. There will always be some excuse for why a citizen does not vote.

[edit on 25-9-2008 by zerotime]

If that were the reason the Electoral College were created, yes it would be brilliant. However that is not why it was created. It was created so Delegates could get a census vote and then travel to D.C. to cast votes as their district voted and the President was elected based on what the people wanted. In this day of easy access to information and fast travel, there is no need for the EC. People are well informed now and don't need someone else to vote for them.

Personally, I don't think we should even be a Republic. The vote shouldn't go to an individual. It should go to a party, and the representative of that party should be nothing more than the administrator of the executive branch of government. No more celebrity appeal. No more voters casting their ballots on the premise of which candidate "relates to me the most". Every four years we vote in another Monarch, the only difference being a feigned sense of humility on his behalf and a set period of time before he is voluntarily deposed.

The less chance an idiot like John Kerry or Al Gore get in office simply because they were more popular, the better. I would refuse to vote ever again if a popular vote system were implemented.

[edit on 25-9-2008 by cognoscente]

I registered to vote, like 1 time. I was running for Mayor of my local city and the current mayor at that time was as crooked as they get. I had overwhelming support from most of the big shots here, but found out they they just wanted to use me as a pawn for thier benefit...so I quicky dropped out of the race regardless of how much money they were wanting to invest in my campaign (total $136,000). I never went back and re-registered to vote again.

While I do not know the aspects of everyone elses community, I was under the impression that local public officials were supposed to use thier power to benefit the communities, but here this is not so. Through threats, blackmail, violence, the rest of the officials are going to get who they want in office, and what they want them to do. With non-local voting, IMO this is just all done on a much larger scale.

So with my experience with other public officials I would have to say NO to voting again or the thought thereof.

Originally posted by Taledus
I registered to vote, like 1 time. I was running for Mayor of my local city and the current mayor at that time was as crooked as they get. I had overwhelming support from most of the big shots here, but found out they they just wanted to use me as a pawn for thier benefit...so I quicky dropped out of the race regardless of how much money they were wanting to invest in my campaign (total $136,000). I never went back and re-registered to vote again.

While I do not know the aspects of everyone elses community, I was under the impression that local public officials were supposed to use thier power to benefit the communities, but here this is not so. Through threats, blackmail, violence, the rest of the officials are going to get who they want in office, and what they want them to do. With non-local voting, IMO this is just all done on a much larger scale.

So with my experience with other public officials I would have to say NO to voting again or the thought thereof.

I'd think the elections would be cleaner the larger the scale of the vote and the higher the position of the office. The more people that the winner of an election is accountable to, the larger the penalty (possibly career ending) for corruption. Doesn't it make sense that a mayor of a small city can get away with more than the President, who represents the entire country? I'm sure more people are interested in regional politics than local politics. The problem is that there aren't enough dedicated individuals to keep their local politicians in check, and I think that is where most of the corruption takes place.

[edit on 26-9-2008 by cognoscente]

Originally posted by cognoscente

I'd think the elections would be cleaner the larger the scale of the vote and the higher the position of the office. The more people that the winner of an election is accountable to, the larger the penalty (possibly career ending) for corruption. Doesn't it make sense that a mayor of a small city can get away with more than the President, who represents the entire country? I'm sure more people are interested in regional politics than local politics. The problem is that there aren't enough dedicated individuals to keep their local politicians in check, and I think that is where most of the corruption takes place.

[edit on 26-9-2008 by cognoscente]

I agree, somewhat. The corruption in my local government centered around the crooked Mayor taking kickbacks. With my campaign, I stated "change" more than I would have liked. When people would ask how I planned a change, I suggested that anyone who made an attempt to offer me a kickback would be publicly tarred and feathered on the court house square, people just laughed it off until they saw my proposal. But this was not my key selling point and I do feel that I would have done a way better job with all I had to offer, at half the regular price...that's right, I was only going to run a term as Mayor for half of what the current ones get. The extra money would have went fto help with a youth center because there is nothing for our youth here to do after school.

However, as a president would be closely monitored by numerous groups just to make sure he/she doesn't step over any lines, I feel there is still corruption in higher government...just no one is able to have access to the information needed to show how much of a scrupulous dictatorship we are being governed by. Bush was able to fill his pockets with the war in Iraq...not much different that the previous Mayor we had here. But in truth, the Mayor doesn't have the power to send soldiers to thier deaths.

I read the request for this thread not to be a debate, and if this post is taken that way, feel free to delete it.

The current reason why i don't vote is because each candidate trotted out there represents very CLOSE to two sides of the same coin. Every four years the PTB trot out two shills who give hope and provide promises of change. Each one is controlled by his poltical "Handlers" known as advisors, i.e Henry Kissinger, Z Bryzenski, Baker.

what coin is that? the Majority party i.e the Wall street/Establishment party


want to see who is on that party. A very good idea (but not 100% full proof) would be to see who voted YES to the 700 bailout.

Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich do not belong to the wallstreet/establishment party. There are a hundred or so other congressman who seem to be patriots as well (minority) . Watching the coverage the MSM gave these two candidates was PAINFUL to those that "get it". The MSM channels that act as mouthpieces for that party include Fox news, CNN, and CNBC especially. Remember congressional dems and rebuplicans make up this majority party.

The gov't of this country is a J O K E as we finally caught up to the rest of the world , as the international financiers/bankers gained leverage over the political gov't here as well. Gee. they only tried three times to get a central bank (that would stick) and that could indebt the gov't and print endless amount of money to pay them off. Americans are currently beneficiary's of a world economy that is U.S centralized. Based on a monopoly of Petro dollar flows and petro dollar recycling which matches consumption/service sector driven ecnonomy with that of the majority of the rest of the world being exporters. The "pleasure this sytem (has/used) to give our citizens provided too much happiness for most to want to realize that the education we get on finance is manipulated Milton Friedman economic propoganda, as well didn't bring enough "pain" to will people into "waking up" and realize the depth of betrayl and MSM propoganda and lies spued by gov't. In fairness to earlier generations (the availability of unbiased information) w/o the internet allowed them to played like violins even when they mustered up enough anger, it would be deflected from the "bad guys". In fairness to most sheeple in the 1990-2005 time frame, Why should they "wake up" , there life was pretty good. Now as the economy sputters people for the first time in a while will have the pain /anger and thus the will to point the finger, as well as access to figure out who to point the finger at. For the U.S The Joke is up when we lose the petro dollar and OPEC shifts to a basket of currency's (or the world stops lending to us) who knows when the elite will jump ship as parasitic hosts on the U.S.A, they left britan over a century ago, and it appears the next shift will be to a more global feudal system (with govt's being even more puppet -figure heads) with financial and intelligence agency's yielding the real power. BTW i don't think these "elites are evil" just selfish and greedy and they manipulate because they CAN. Also there doesn't seem to be a perfect socio-economic way to run a country either, especially under fractional reserve lending from a central bank. The debt overhang eventually catches up and stalls a country's economy (sooner or later) usually depending on world politics or the level of financial corruption (and a lack of long term fiscal planning (in favor of 2 year time frames to get re-elected) , the difference is when this happens, some country's set up the laws to benefit the debtors and others the creditors, and this makes the transition period less or more Painful (respectively) for the average joe.

why should i vote, were RP or DK to actually get in , they would be killed if they tried to actually do something (like kennedy and lincoln) while JM and B.O are both establisment party puppets controlled by there advisors/handlers

This seems difficult for many to willingly accept, almost like they can't or dont want to (put in the effort) to balance the optomistic (glass half empty) type of beliefs that are good for a happy life with a dose or realism (especially regarding the "external world")

[edit on 30-9-2008 by cpdaman]

One word why I won't vote.

"Diebold"

even if they ditched the electoral college jazz i think i would still hold back. its the same reason i dont vote for American Idol or any other horrific television show.

it could not begin to matter, because we will never be given the choice to vote for someone who might question the system. you have to fit a pretty tight mold to even begin to try to run for office. local and regional elections are quite the different story though.

Originally posted by zerotime
Popular vote would mean that the average person's vote would not count.
[edit on 25-9-2008 by zerotime]

i guess i don't have a full understanding of the meaning of "popular vote".

EVERY SINGLE VOTE SHOULD COUNT. period. as the OP mentioned not to rant about the electoral college, as it is antiquated and built for rural communities that could not get to the voting stations years ago.

each vote should count as 1. each individual in their respective communities and states should have 1 vote that counts. that would be the true fair way to have an honest election.

rigged machines is a whole other level of disgust.

(i do not vote as i do not believe in this system as it currently is)

Originally posted by zooplancton

Originally posted by zerotime
Popular vote would mean that the average person's vote would not count.
[edit on 25-9-2008 by zerotime]

i guess i don't have a full understanding of the meaning of "popular vote".

EVERY SINGLE VOTE SHOULD COUNT. period. as the OP mentioned not to rant about the electoral college, as it is antiquated and built for rural communities that could not get to the voting stations years ago.

each vote should count as 1. each individual in their respective communities and states should have 1 vote that counts. that would be the true fair way to have an honest election.

rigged machines is a whole other level of disgust.

(i do not vote as i do not believe in this system as it currently is)

Then again, if you've read our Constitution you will understand that we are by no means a Democracy. As a Republic, we utilize the foundation of representative democracy to ensure that our freedoms and liberties aren't usurped by whatever popular force comes to be. The system we have now is essentially a check and balance. The Constitution checks the people, the people check the Government, ergo, we have balance.

Does it matter if your vote actually counts? Not really. It shouldn't. And you shouldn't be angry. I know how disgruntled everyone can get. How that the leaders of this nation can not be farther from where you currently stand politically. Politics often becomes tied up on a two party front and everyone in-between feels neglected. It sucks. But then again, you might just find that your political stance could be no where further from those of your own Founding Fathers. Is it time perhaps to reevaluate your place in society? Have you been fooled all this time?

"There must be a positive Passion for the public good, the public Interest, Honour, Power, and Glory, established in the Minds of the People, or there can be no Republican Government, nor any real Liberty. And this public Passion must be Superior to all private Passions. Men must be ready, they must pride themselves, and be happy to sacrifice their private Pleasures, Passions, and Interests, nay their private Friendships and dearest connections, when they Stand in Competition with the Rights of society." (John Adams)

Ok, I get where you all stand. So now, let's say, you've been given the right to vote for any President you like. 1 vote = 1 vote, no matter where you're from. There is only one count, and the winner gets into office. Does the winner deserve to be in office just because a majority, even a very clear majority, believes he should be? What if the people don't know what it is they're voting for, or who exactly they're voting in? If this Presidential candidate doesn't pass all the little tests and quizzes that our current system imposes, then how do we know who we're really voting in anyway? The Electoral College is not obsolete, in fact, it's taken on an even more significant meaning.

We have to agree that sometimes we have to let go of personal interests so that the entire country can actually work. But here's probably the best question to clear this whole thing up.

Is a personal interest at all synonymous with a personal liberty? Now take a moment to decide where your personal interests impinge on the liberties of others. Can we really trust the collective public to qualify which of our interests are more important than those of our neighbors? Personally, I don't think so. So why let that collective public decide who should be running the country?

[edit on 3-10-2008 by cognoscente]

hey cog', i'm not sure this thread is supposed to stat a debate, but rather just personal views on the election process. i'd be more than willing to try to better explain my perspective on it all in a new thread or U2U. -- thank yo very kindly for your informative post too. i learned a lot.

You're right. This isn't the right thread to post something like that. But I just couldn't stop myself. Sometimes I go on a writing frenzy. I tried to put a bit of my own perspective into it, but what I wrote kind of defeated the purpose of this whole thread. I'll try my best to tame myself. Then again, not many people are posting, so it's almost self gratifying to write all that.

[edit on 4-10-2008 by cognoscente]