It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Wolferacerfan
While admittedly the EC makes no sense in its current format, it could prove very useful if used as a representative college to educate the elected representatives on the candidates issues and beliefs. Then those representatives could make an informed vote with the best information and opinions available.
The one man one vote slogan makes a great statement but on the scale of national politics it allows the man with the best PR to win rather than the best man. Perhaps what Johannmon is suggesting is actually a good way to elect the best leader rather than the tallest person on the ticket as so often happened.
This is not only cowardice, it is pure laziness.
Originally posted by Johannmon
Let me add this statement to this post. It takes far greater courage to recognize one's ignorance and lack of information and understanding than it does to proclaim your own intelligence belittle others for not rising to your level.
here are actually quite a few groups seeking to get rid of the 17th amendment
There is one,
Here is a great article on it
here is a whole yahoo group devoted to that cause
and as far as Congressmen go, Zell Miller (D-GA) who is a conservative is the main one to say so.
Here's an article about his comments made
One man, one vote would be easily implemented. And the concept is simple and easily understood by average voter. It is the same concept that is used for all other elections except president. I see no reason to have a unique election process for the presidency.
Your EC concept is convulted and abstract, thus would not be easily understood by the average voter. Any political idea I support must meet the rule of "kiss" or it does not merit my consideration. IMHO your idea fails the "kiss" test. The more you explain the more complex your idea becomes to the extent that you are outsmarting yourself.
Originally posted by Wolferacerfan
I have to agree with Johannmon that the smartest amoung us know better what they do not know and so more fully understand what they do.
Originally posted by df1
Is Tony Blair a superior head of state?
Is Berlusconi a superior head of state?
Is Schroeder a superior head of state?
I for one am not impressed.
Originally posted by Aero
Well ladies and gentlemen the electoral college is not a hard concept to understand and also helps keep the states on a level playing field. Aside from the third grade understanding that the EC is to decide when the people are too stupid to know any better which is basically tripe, the EC is so that all states have a legitimate say in the presidential election. I live in NYC and we have about 8 million people here. Are there 8 million people living in rhode island? So naturally the presidential hopefuls would cater more to the needs of the bigger more populated areas neglecting the smaller states. The popular vote is a wonderful idea but in all reality it would not work. I suggest that instead we use our current EC system but instead of the all or nothing system we have now i say we use a proportional representation system. This system would give an equal proportion of delegates votes from each state to the number of votes they got in that state. Therefor my republican vote in NY wouldnt be a waste. This way instead of John Kerry getting 32 votes in the EC from NY perhaps hed get 29... with this type of system our individual votes would mean more in electing the president with still trying to keep a fair playing field among the states. Any and all comments are welcome.