Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 46 to 52 of 52
  1. #46
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Republic of Texas
    Posts
    19,405
    Quote Originally Posted by Grimjack View Post
    It also might also give us actual rival parties to the big 2 .
    Some say that the 'winner take all' method of allocating electors serves to diminish the value of minor parties and make establishment of a true third contender more difficult to achieve.

  2. #47
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Irvine CA
    Posts
    11,156
    Quote Originally Posted by DonMan View Post
    Pretty much the only guarantee under that scenario is election day would have to be a holiday to allow everyone the opportunity to vote. Many elections would wind up being decided by people who not only know nothing about the candidates; they would rather not be voting at all. It would probably add considerable monetary influence to the process, as people who are being forced to vote seem like natural candidates to have their vote purchased.
    I believe the elections in Australia are over a several week period. Not trying to cram them in to one day. Our elections are also already over long extended periods if you include early/absentee voting. We should be doing everything possible to avoid those massive lines on election day, but there is also partisan politics at work there too.
    "What's so funny about peace , love and understanding?" - Elvis Costello

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    30,906
    Quote Originally Posted by KickSave View Post
    Our turnout has stayed steadily within 5 points of about 57% since the 40s. What the candidates say or talk about historically has little bearing on creating significant turnout. Mandating voting may not give us better candidates or campaigns, but it would ensure than we get the candidate that represents the largest portion of the country.
    Which was my point. You aren't fixing the problem by simply forcing everyone to vote. And it still doesn't do the latter because people aren't voting because there is nothing representative for them to vote for.

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    30,906
    Quote Originally Posted by Augustus View Post
    I don't think so. The advantage the electoral college gives to small states is a minimum number of electors regardless of population. We could preserve that if it's deemed important, although I'm not so sure it is. As it currently works though, it contributes to voter apathy and thus undermined the democratic process. It discourages turnout and puts undue focus on swing states. I think one of the reasons why many other nations have greater voter participation than the US is that those other countries don't disenfranchise voters by throwing out the popular vote and replace it with something goofy like an 'electoral college'.
    Forget the popular vote. We are a union of states. Every state gets equal votes. That would shake things up.

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Irvine CA
    Posts
    11,156
    Quote Originally Posted by eaglesnut View Post
    Which was my point. You aren't fixing the problem by simply forcing everyone to vote. And it still doesn't do the latter because people aren't voting because there is nothing representative for them to vote for.
    No, you changed the problem and asked for a solution to something (quality of campaign/candidate) different than the topic, which was election turnout.

    There's an old saying in politics that the people most qualified for the job, would never want the job, and its very true. Politics has always attracted power hungry, slightly corrupt people in large measures. If we want better candidates and campaigns, there are ways to go about that. I believe some European countries ban negative campaigning - you cannot criticize your opponent, you can only discuss your own merits. Again, it would get the Libertarians among us up in arms, but it would make campaigns stop being the epic $hit show that they are today. Get corporate money out of campaigns, make them equal time, public funded, positive messages only. Let the media go back to focusing on merits, instead of mudslinging.
    "What's so funny about peace , love and understanding?" - Elvis Costello

  6. #51
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Surfing on a ripple of evil.
    Posts
    18,442
    Quote Originally Posted by Augustus View Post
    Some say that the 'winner take all' method of allocating electors serves to diminish the value of minor parties and make establishment of a true third contender more difficult to achieve.
    If those who don't vote for either party now are forced to cast a ballot, why do you think they would vote for either party's candidates now ?
    As smart as the internet

    We're all Bozo's on this bus.~FST

  7. #52
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Surfing on a ripple of evil.
    Posts
    18,442
    Quote Originally Posted by eaglesnut View Post
    Forget the popular vote. We are a union of states. Every state gets equal votes. That would shake things up.
    Yeah cause some state with a few hundred thousand citizens should have the same say as a state with 30+ million.
    As smart as the internet

    We're all Bozo's on this bus.~FST

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  






Fantasy Football Rankings


Part of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties.