GAU-8

Bloody Peasants.

We'd be better off with an Autonomous Collective:

YouTube - Monty Python- The Annoying Peasant

__________________
When a prang seems inevitable, endeavor to strike the softest, cheapest object in the vicinity, as slowly as possible. --WW II RAF Instructor Pilot

crooks

I agree, well put forth.

__________________
'To unite the whole people of Ireland, to abolish the memory of all past dissensions, and to substitute the common name of Irishman in place of the denominations of Protestant, Catholic and Dissenter - these were my means.' - Wolfe Tone

crooks

The clue is in the name - 'major population centres' do rule your country.

dalem

The EC weighting system ensures that the dense blocs mentioned above can be offset by the thinner blocs, however. Get rid of the EC and you guarantee that only 5 or 6 states will ever be considered by candidates.

-dale

crooks

As a viable place to campaign?

The nature of the US's political divide means that it'd be more or less the same as always - Conservatives would still draw large support from rural areas nationwide (even in 'Blue States'), The South, The Midwest and Alaska.
Liberals would still dominate the West Coast, North East, Hawaii and Many Urban areas within 'Red States' - If you introduced popular vote the often very large minority who's votes are thrown out the window would get a direct say, instead of being an afterstat (and hey, Bush'd STILL be President ).

A direct vote would be much more democratic.

dalem

1) It would be a huge mistake to change a long-standing system based on the political landscape of today.

2) It's always whiney liberals that scream for elimination of the EC - I don't recall any similar arguments from the right during the Clinton years. Liberals in this country feel they deserve power and any system not skewed towards providing it to them is inherently flawed.

3) This country is not a democracy - we're a representative republic.

-dale

crooks

But they already DO vote on these issues!

The only thing I have a problem with is that they vote in manner in which a large portion of the votes do not count in the end, just because a majority (however thin) voted for the other option.

The 'mob' IS the nation, and is made up of thinking, responsible adults, in your case a diverse, vast base of 300 million - who should be given a full say in the way the nation they live in is run....because of the human nature to disagree, the motion that carries the most support is the one to be implimented - that's true democracy, and it's sad you (and to a lesser degree I) don't have it.


Now that's just silly - is that what yanks think direct or popular democracy is like?

first of all, you don't propose a bill - but let's say you had a problem with a bill that was going to be rushed through Parliament that raised taxes by 5% for no good reason - wouldn't you like to be able to get 100,000 signatures (for example) and be able to hold a nationwide vote on it?

It's a SUPERB way to keep a government in check.

[I]The Founding Fathers knew that two main threats existed to our Constitutional Republic. The first, tyranny, comes from the top down. The second, mob rule, comes from the bottom up. A democracy can lead to both. A republic safeguards against such results, as does the Electoral College. [/i][/quote]

Ah the beloved founding fathers!

Republics exist all around the world, some good, some bad, most somewhat in between - what makes the US model superior to the (for example) French or Irish models (two countries which were both inspired by the American Revolution).

Or indeed any western country?

I feel that my own country (and indeed all countries) should look not to the US but to Switzerland for inspiration, direct democracy has proven to be excellent (and completely stable) there.

crooks

Fair point, and certainly puts it back into the realm of 'unfeesability'.

I just prefer a system that devolves democracy as much as possible, a political slant doesn't come into it.

And how the hell would asking everyone their individual opinion make it more likely Liberals would be in power?

More's the pity.

dalem

It doesn't. That's not my point. My point is that the EC system is only uniquely criticized by liberals when liberals don't get the presidency. They like it just fine when they have the White House.

It's worked out pretty well for us for a couple hundred years.

-dale

Bluesman

Keep that sniffy superiority act to yourself, please. We tend to resent that sort of implication you're making, and when your democratic processes suit you as well as ours suit us, perhaps you'll understand why we take it personally when such as YOU get snooty about the greatest and most successful political system yet devised by Man.

Come on back and take all the cheap shots you'd like AFTER the cumulative age of all free states' constitutions in Europe combined equal OURS.

Dink.

__________________
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."
- George Orwell

Ironduke

Shifting to popular vote wouldn't mean blue states would be overly dominant. For example, in California, the election results were 54% for Kerry and 45% for Bush. The results were something like 54-44 in 2000.

__________________
The Buck Stops Here

Gun Grape

EC. Why fiddle with what works well?

Actually its happened 2 other times. 1876 and 1888

marklv

Yes, but it isn't exactly fair. When Bush beat Gore, Gore actually had more votes nationally.

And I don't understand the difference between a democracy and a 'representative republic'. If the government is composed of elected representatives from the people, then you are a democracy - what else can you be? A representative republic could simply mean that congressmen are elected by a restricted group of people, e.g. property owners over 25 years of age. This isn't the case in the USA.

Ironduke

1824 (Adams), 1876 (Hayes), 1888 (Harrison), 2000.

omon

what is the difference, if there is nobody to vote for.

this election is worrying me, i have no clue what is our givernment will be like in 2009, and i,m afraid to even guess,
interesting times we live in.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" B. Franklin