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

Observation: reforms like this should take place during boom times who cares about reforming this when everything sucks? [editline]1st June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=muffinmastah;36164961]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.[/QUOTE] It was cool in 1788 but...

[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] Wouldn't that essentially make it only possible for rich people to run

[QUOTE=Clementine;36165178]Wouldn't that essentially make it only possible for rich people to run[/QUOTE] As if presidential elections aren't already exclusive to the wealthy. He's saying that the focus of the campaign would switch. If everyone would apply equally for national votes, there wouldn't be the mad scramble for Ohio and Florida anymore and it's guaranteed that the one who gets the most support is elected.

If anything this site should be useful in educating people who think the President can change the constitution by himself. [editline]2nd June 2012[/editline] The Electoral College has it's faults, but you have your expectations too high if you think an online petition will change that.

[QUOTE=Clementine;36165178]Wouldn't that essentially make it only possible for rich people to run[/QUOTE] They would depend more on backing from political parties. Which could be good, or quite probably bad.

Why don't we stop doing it by state and instead give every single person the exact same amount of say in the election?

[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] The three party system in the UK is shit, the Liberal Democrats will never get any power again after this year so all that happens is people vote labour in one election then next election decide that the conservatives are a better choice, then they just reverse that over and over and over.

[QUOTE=person11;36163850]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[/QUOTE] uhh, work on it? if he gives it a go and attempts to push it through, even if he fails i will respect him ENORMOUSLY for simply having TRIED to listen to what people are saying, and for having made the attempt to change things. wasn't his whole motto "change we can believe in" yet somehow that doesn't count if the change seems too tough?

[QUOTE=Rellow;36163492]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.[/QUOTE] What was asked would require a constitutional amendment. An internet petition is not the constitutionally prescribed method for amending the constitution.

Without the Electoral College candidates won't care about small states with little populations? .... How is that not good?

[QUOTE=Keegs;36170841]Without the Electoral College candidates won't care about small states with little populations? .... How is that not good?[/QUOTE] I would like to count for something and I would like my vote to matter as much as someone in a large state.

[QUOTE=asteroidrules;36163670]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.[/QUOTE] The President can still at least [B]support the goal of the article.[/B] There is nothing stopping him from suggesting Congress to make an amendment such as that. [editline]2nd June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36170942]I would like to count for something and I would like my vote to matter as much as someone in a large state.[/QUOTE] Mathematically speaking, it makes your vote count MORE than someone in a large state.

I think the electoral college is fine, what we really need is a way to guarantee that representatives vote for who the people in their district wanted, at the moment I think the Representatives can chose whoever they want.

I'll start raging over these White House responses once they bullshit their reasons why they can't afford a penny for NASA.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36170942]I would like to count for something and I would like my vote to matter as much as someone in a large state.[/QUOTE] If you live in Wyoming you have more voting power than anyone else in the union.

[QUOTE=Articsledder;36172862]I think the electoral college is fine, what we really need is a way to guarantee that representatives vote for who the people in their district wanted, at the moment I think the Representatives can chose whoever they want.[/QUOTE] They can, but it's only happened like twice in history.

[QUOTE=Keegs;36170841]Without the Electoral College candidates won't care about small states with little populations? .... How is that not good?[/QUOTE] ...because everyone's interests should matter in a democracy?

[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;36173838]They can, but it's only happened like twice in history.[/QUOTE] If it happens at all it's a major problem.

My vote counts for about an eighth of a vote of someone somewhere else. I don't feel very free

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36170942]I would like to count for something and I would like my vote to matter as much as someone in a large state.[/QUOTE] your vote DOES matter how are you not getting this what makes you think that somehow your vote "counts less" because you're in a small state?

the corporatocratic plutarchy prevails

I think at this point we could make direct voting per bill in the same way states vote on initiatives.