posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 06:23 AM
Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
I just saw this. I think both made good points and i strongly disagree on some points with each of them. If was funny, and entertaining. well worth
downloading and keeping.
Bill is for the electoral college system and john is for a personal vote system where each persons vote counts. Bills reasoning is that the larger
states with more population will carry the election.
This is the stupidest thing I heard Bill say. John should have taken Bill to the cleaners on this point but John was silent. Bill doesn't understand
that it doesn't matter if there are more people in certain states or not because the states themselves dont vote. The people as a whole would be
voting. It matters not that more people happen to be in some states. The choice doesn't benefit the states more than other states no matter who
For those who haven't seen it, look up The Rumble 2012 from your favorite torrent site.
Once upon a time it mattered a lot, but in today's world it doesn't. Back before the Civil War, we were independent states and the elections very
much favored one state over another on various levels as far as what was legal and wasn't (slavery for example, not a great one, but the quickest and
easiest). When we became a Nation as opposed to a conglomeration of states, it didn't matter as much.
Now, in today's world, with the diversity we have and the communication level we have, individual votes would make much more sense and it's now
"less equal" instead of "more equal" for individual states to have the power they do. Perhaps...
I guess at some point in the future, it may matter again, but in our own lifetimes, it has proven to be a hinderance. Bush lost the popular vote but
ended up with the presidency due to the lopsided system. That was a MAJOR problem. It wasn't something that happened often. At the previous
occurances, I don't know if the best candidate got the office or not, but it certainly wasn't the case this past time.
I can see other reasons that it would be usefull though, just like 200+ years ago, more and more of the population are less "intelligent" due to
either a lack of education or a poor excuse for one or even the blatant choice to be "stupid". As that population grows, we're not going to want
"the ignorant masses" making decisions about what we do and the elected representatives of their states, with certain requirements concerning their
ability and education, can make better, more productive (and humane) decisions than the masses at large.
It's a constant tug of war I suppose. If the population is educated and intelligent, the popular vote method is the best, but that's not always the
case and the scales are starting to tip the other way. If there was only a way to address the corruption and the "dumbing down" of the elected
officials, we'd have a good safeguard, but at the moment, a lot of the elected officials are just as dumb as the people who elect them