The White House Responds to the American People Again. This time, they are telling us why they can't - Polidicks

[URL]https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/grant-voters-ability-vote-president-united-states-dissolving-electoral-college/GZQtFSPV[/URL] [QUOTE]Why the Electoral College is Important [I] By Tonya Robinson, Special Assistant to the President for Justice and Regulatory Policy [/I] Thank you for taking the time to participate in the "We the People" petition process. We launched this online tool as a way of hearing directly from you, and are pleased to see that it has been effective in soliciting your feedback. We understand your interest in the petition [URL="http://links.whitehouse.gov/track?type=click&enid=ZWFzPTEmbWFpbGluZ2lkPTIwMTIwNjAxLjc5ODUxNTEmbWVzc2FnZWlkPU1EQi1QUkQtQlVMLTIwMTIwNjAxLjc5ODUxNTEmZGF0YWJhc2VpZD0xMDAxJnNlcmlhbD0xNjg4OTA4NyZlbWFpbGlkPXZhbGtlcnljYWluQGdtYWlsLmNvbSZ1c2VyaWQ9dmFsa2VyeWNhaW5AZ21haWwuY29tJmZsPSZleHRyYT1NdWx0aXZhcmlhdGVJZD0mJiY=&&&100&&&https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/grant-voters-ability-vote-president-united-states-dissolving-electoral-college/GZQtFSPV"]to support granting citizens the ability to vote for the President directly by dissolving the Electoral College[/URL], and appreciate the opportunity to share the Administration's views on this issue. While supporters of the popular vote argue that the Electoral College gives a disproportionate amount of influence to smaller states, reforming this system also raises difficult questions. For example, others have argued that a national popular vote would create a similar problem, granting the largest cities and states a disproportionate amount of influence and drowning out the voices of voters in less populous states. In any event, the President cannot address this issue alone. As you may be aware, Article II of the United States Constitution, as amended, sets out the number of "electors" that each state is entitled to have, which is equal to the total number of that state’s Senators and Representatives in Congress. Article II further allows each state’s legislature to determine the means of choosing its electors. While the future of the Electoral Colleges is certainly a legitimate topic for public debate, the President does not have the power to change this Article of the Constitution. A constitutional amendment, which requires a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress (or a Convention under Article V of the Constitution) and ratification in three-fourths of all fifty states, would be required. [/QUOTE] Source is at the top, relevant topic of conversation is below my opinion. Also, listening and coming up with bullshit answers does not quantify caring. If you cared, you would do something about it. [URL]https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/response/were-listening-seriously[/URL]

These thinly-veiled condescending bullshit answers make me fucking rage. Every. Fucking. Time.

One thing I hate about this country is the way we spout bullshit about how much freedom we have and how we the people control the government, yet I continue to feel like we have nearly no control over how stupid the government is being. This shitty website has no purpose whatsoever if we're just going to get answers like this rather than them actually following the requests of the petitions.

The petition was stupid in the first place, what kind of answer did anyone expect them to give? Direct democracy is an absolutely stupid idea. The electoral college system exists so that small states get a fair say in the elections. If we had direct democracy then presidential candidates would only give a shit about winning over big cities with high populations. The only reason people are complaining about the electoral college is because Bush got elected and they're still mad about it. I guarantee that if Bush turned out to be a good president, this petition would not exist.

things become scary when your government is influenced by mega-corporations for purpose of gaining capital

[QUOTE=Florence;36163462]These thinly-veiled condescending bullshit answers make me fucking rage. Every. Fucking. Time.[/QUOTE] Read the article, all they're saying is that the president doesn't have the power to single-handedly amend the constitution, and he shouldn't. The whole point of our government system is that no one man has that kind of borderline absolute power.

There are people in this country that want direct democracy? Wow that's pretty dumb.

Anyone surprised?

I don't really see anything wrong with this answer. I mean, while he hasn't been acting on petitions, that isn't the President's job nor does the President have the power to create legislation. If you want to see action, petition your local representative. It really irks me when people complain all the time that they don't have a say when they can call the person who is their congressman/woman at any time

[QUOTE=Noble;36163597]The petition was stupid in the first place, what kind of answer did anyone expect them to give? Direct democracy is an absolutely stupid idea. The electoral college system exists so that small states get a fair say in the elections. If we had direct democracy then presidential candidates would only give a shit about winning over big cities with high populations. The only reason people are complaining about the electoral college is because Bush got elected and they're still mad about it. I guarantee that if Bush turned out to be a good president, this petition would not exist.[/QUOTE] I can't say that I agree that direct democracy is a good system. It isn't. However, there are alternatives to both systems that would work very very well, and with a minimal margin for error. The alternative vote, for example would be great, if we could somehow get a third party in the running. (The alternative vote is also known as STV voting or "single transferable vote.") It is a system that works pretty well (correct me if I am wrong) for the people of the UK. Also, we could use cumulative voting, in which a person gets more than one vote per person. Say they like both candidates a little, but one more than the other. They give two votes to the first person and give a second to the other, thereby giving more power to the person they like more and less power to the other person. No system is going to work perfectly because nothing is perfect. It isn't going to be some Utopian thing, it will be a reality. There will be fuckups, but if we try to fix the problems when they arise, rather than letting them continue unchecked we should be presented with an outcome that is satisfactory. Not perfect, but satisfactory.

[QUOTE=Noble;36163597]The petition was stupid in the first place, what kind of answer did anyone expect them to give? Direct democracy is an absolutely stupid idea. The electoral college system exists so that small states get a fair say in the elections. [B][I]If we had direct democracy then presidential candidates would only give a shit about winning over big cities with high populations.[/I][/B] The only reason people are complaining about the electoral college is because Bush got elected and they're still mad about it. I guarantee that if Bush turned out to be a good president, this petition would not exist.[/QUOTE] No. Just, no. You are so wrong it's wronger than wrong. And allow me to explain it to you. The five largest cities in the United States? New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, and Philadelphia. They have a combined population of around 17-18 million people. [I]Out of a country of 310 million plus.[/I] The majority of the population lives in big cities? Hardly. In a direct democracy, presidential candidates will have to campaign like mad all over the place to get recognized, rather than the few swing states that seem to matter so much. Not just in big cities.

Damn son!

[QUOTE=valkery;36163724]I can't say that I agree that direct democracy is a good system. It isn't. However, there are alternatives to both systems that would work very very well, and with a minimal margin for error. The alternative vote, for example would be great, if we could somehow get a third party in the running. (The alternative vote is also known as STV voting or "single transferable vote.") It is a system that works pretty well (correct me if I am wrong) for the people of the UK. Also, we could use cumulative voting, in which a person gets more than one vote per person. Say they like both candidates a little, but one more than the other. They give two votes to the first person and give a second to the other, thereby giving more power to the person they like more and less power to the other person. No system is going to work perfectly because nothing is perfect. It isn't going to be some Utopian thing, it will be a reality. There will be fuckups, but if we try to fix the problems when they arise, rather than letting them continue unchecked we should be presented with an outcome that is satisfactory. Not perfect, but satisfactory.[/QUOTE] STV might work, cumulative would fail though because everyone would just vote for their own candidate 3 times. It could work if they get multiple votes, but are not allowed to stack votes on the same guy.

Holy shit all of the posts in this thread so far are bad. I'm questioning whether the posters actually thought before typing. Florence, how is this veiled or condescending in any way? Please explain this. And how is it bullshit? What answer would you want out of them? "Thank you for your question. In response, the President will ignore the Constitution and take dictatorial powers, rewriting it at his leisure." Rellow, what does this have to do with the people's freedom or ability to control the government? We control the government by choosing who will be in it. There is a reason why we do not vote on individual issues popularly. Direct democracies are horrible and result in a tyranny of the majoirty 100% of the time. To the second part of your post, see above. Noble, he petition was not stupid or a bad idea. It was a legitimate question and it was given a serious and honest answer. And why are you calling the direct election of the president a direct democracy? It could be called a direct election I guess, but not a direct democracy. The fact that we are talking about an election invalidates the phrase. And no, Bush getting elected is not the only reason why people dislike the electoral college. They dislike it because it is outdated and unnecessary in today's day and age and because it is harmful to democracy. And Ownederd, I don't know what this post has to do with the thread or what you were thinking when you posted it. It is completely irrelevant. Sorry for being an asshole, but come on people! Think before you post! [editline]1st June 2012[/editline] Why is everyone using the term "direct democracy" to describe the direct election of the president? It has nothing to do with direct democracy, and, as I explained, the term itself flies in the face of even having a president.

[QUOTE=Florence;36163462]These thinly-veiled condescending bullshit answers make me fucking rage. Every. Fucking. Time.[/QUOTE] Too bad it is the truth. White house can't do anything. It's up to congress.

They have a point. Obama shouldn't waste time trying to do the impossible & get to work on other things. Constitutional amendments don't just happen like that

"While the future of the Electoral Colleges is certainly a legitimate topic for public debate, the President does not have the power to change this Article of the Constitution. A constitutional amendment, which requires a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress (or a Convention under Article V of the Constitution) and ratification in three-fourths of all fifty states, would be required." Some of you should read that part. It doesn't matter if "We the People" was effective or not, the president can't just snap their fingers and get rid of the electoral college. This is one of the few answers I actually agree with and understand. If we want to change it, we need to continually petition congress and the house, since the electoral college is something wired into our constitution.

Cue the C.G.P. Grey video! [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k[/media]

[QUOTE=Florence;36163462]These thinly-veiled condescending bullshit answers make me fucking rage. Every. Fucking. Time.[/QUOTE] Here, I'll fix it for you. [quote]While supporters of the popular vote argue that the Electoral College gives a disproportionate amount of influence to smaller states, reforming this system is [b]FUCKING IMPOSSIBLE[/b] IN TODAY'S POLITICAL CLIMATE. DO YOU PEOPLE EVEN KNOW HOW THE SYSTEM WORKS, JESUS GODDAMN.[/quote]

it seems anything that gets a major signing on that site always gets rejected. Always. At the same time, they can't do most of the stuff. But it's nice at least.

[QUOTE=Madman_Andre;36163736]No. Just, no. You are so wrong it's wronger than wrong. And allow me to explain it to you. The five largest cities in the United States? New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, and Philadelphia. They have a combined population of around 17-18 million people. [I]Out of a country of 310 million plus.[/I] The majority of the population lives in big cities? Hardly. In a direct democracy, presidential candidates will have to campaign like mad all over the place to get recognized, rather than the few swing states that seem to matter so much. Not just in big cities.[/QUOTE] They'd want to campaign in the largest states and in urban, heavily populated areas. The electoral college ideally makes it so that they have to gain a wide appeal across the state in order to win the state. [QUOTE=King Tiger;36163797] Noble, he petition was not stupid or a bad idea. It was a legitimate question and it was given a serious and honest answer. And why are you calling the direct election of the president a direct democracy? It could be called a direct election I guess, but not a direct democracy. The fact that we are talking about an election invalidates the phrase. And no, Bush getting elected is not the only reason why people dislike the electoral college. They dislike it because it is outdated and unnecessary in today's day and age and because it is harmful to democracy..[/QUOTE] How is the electoral college harmful to democracy? It is democracy. It also works as a check against regionalism, reduces election issues (i.e recounts done by state as opposed to nationwide), and enables small states to get equal representation in the elections.

[QUOTE=Noble;36163597]The petition was stupid in the first place, what kind of answer did anyone expect them to give? Direct democracy is an absolutely stupid idea. The electoral college system exists so that small states get a fair say in the elections. If we had direct democracy then presidential candidates would only give a shit about winning over big cities with high populations. The only reason people are complaining about the electoral college is because Bush got elected and they're still mad about it. I guarantee that if Bush turned out to be a good president, this petition would not exist.[/QUOTE] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUS9mM8Xbbw[/media] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k[/media] Someone here hasn't watched this has he?

[QUOTE=Noble;36164103]How is the electoral college harmful to democracy? It is democracy. It also works as a check against regionalism, reduces election issues (i.e recounts done by state as opposed to nationwide), and enables small states to get equal representation in the elections.[/QUOTE] It creates swing states that leave the majority of the population unrepresented and unnecessary.

[QUOTE=Noble;36164103]They'd want to campaign in the largest states and in urban, heavily populated areas. The electoral college ideally makes it so that they have to gain a wide appeal across the state in order to win the state.[/QUOTE]Except it doesn't do that at all. [editline]1st June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Noble;36164103]How is the electoral college harmful to democracy? It is democracy. It also works as a check against regionalism, reduces election issues (i.e recounts done by state as opposed to nationwide), and enables small states to get equal representation in the elections.[/QUOTE]It does nothing to stop regionalism, helps to cement the current de-facto two-party system, and actually gives the small states far greater representation than most other states. You know nothing at all about the Electoral College.

Also, what really should have been asked in the poll is for a mixed-member proportional representation.

[QUOTE=cat man;36163717]I don't really see anything wrong with this answer. I mean, while he hasn't been acting on petitions, that isn't the President's job nor does the President have the power to create legislation. If you want to see action, petition your local representative. It really irks me when people complain all the time that they don't have a say when they can call the person who is their congressman/woman at any time[/QUOTE] And the fact that some people think online petitions are a viable avenue for legislative decisions. Really?

This thread is complaining that 25,000 signatures weren't enough to reform our elective system into a more 'democratic' system. Our population is 310 million people. I feel like that is ironic somehow.

[QUOTE=Funcoot;36164502]And the fact that some people think online petitions are a viable avenue for legislative decisions. Really?[/QUOTE] Well it's from the same website that's giving us [url=https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/shut-down-all-nuclear-reactors-1-time-safety-reason-must-be-made-withstand-earthquakes-tsunamis/GSWS34Fv]this[/url].

A simple online petition isn't going to get rid of a electoral system that has been around for a couple centuries. I don't know what people were expecting from this.

Now guys, for a national election, why do state lines matter? People are voting for who becomes President, so why does there need to be an electoral college for this? I don't see why it would matter in a national election whether someones vote comes from Arkansas or Idaho.