Donald Trump For President

[Yardjass]

Originally Posted by Corbic

Bill Clinton?

Bill was elected with only 43% of America supporting him.

We work off electoral votes, not raw populist numbers - thank God.

Of the only thing that mattered was populist votes then you've basically acknowledged the only thing that matters is the big cities - fuck the rest of America.

Exactly, Bill is another example. And, no, the only thing that matters is each person getting the same vote as everyone else. As much as I can't stand the masses of idiots out there and would like the votes of those more intelligent to count for more, that isn't how democracy works. I'm not saying fuck the rest of the country either. Many things are better handled on the state level, or even locality level. This way, if highly populace areas want to be pussies and ban 2 liter sodas, guns, fatty snacks, etc, we aren't all stuck with it. However, in terms of picking a president, we now have the technology to count every person's vote in this country and name a winner. To not do so, and use a delegate system is nothing short of criminal, and against everything this country is supposed to stand for.

[Corbic]

Originally Posted by Yardjass

To not do so, and use a delegate system is nothing short of criminal, and against everything this country is supposed to stand for.

What?!

The electoral college is part of the founding principle of our democracy (which is actually a republic btw). A populist tyranny is the very last thing we want.

Just like you are talking about states, that's how the electoral college works. Winner takes the whole state. State comes with a set number of votes related to its overall size.

So if every state votes 51/49 but one state votes 95/5, it doesn't screw the country into forever being at the mercy of said state. A populist vote would mean that the 95/5 state is the only once that matters and is in control of all 49 other states destinies.

Also, there is nothing in wrong with going against what people want. There are enough fucking dumbasses out there that would vote for $30 minimum wage, free housing and free cable internet if given the chance.

Luckily, some of the people in charge are smart enough to realize that is financial impossible and irresponsible.

As far as technology, who gives a shit. Should we also let the nation vote on the guilt of high profile criminal cases? We certainly have the technology for that. What a spectacle it would be. OJ Simpson, Text Guilty or Not Guilty to #OJCASE27! Casey Anthony, George Zimmerman etc.

[Yardjass]

Originally Posted by Corbic

What?!

The electoral college is part of the founding principle of our democracy (which is actually a republic btw). A populist tyranny is the very last thing we want.

The electoral college is a relic left over from a time when news traveled on horseback and took weeks or even months to spread nationwide. We had delegates because we had no other choice. If you dug the founding fathers up and explained to them that the press transmits instantly and every citizen's vote is a keystroke away, but we're still going to keep the old system, they'd laugh in your face. Not to say delegates don't have a place. Everyone in this country doesn't have the time to educate themselves on every little thing and vote but there are certainly some very high profile issues, such as a presidential election, where we should have a vote/referendum.

Just like you are talking about states, that's how the electoral college works. Winner takes the whole state. State comes with a set number of votes related to its overall size.

So if every state votes 51/49 but one state votes 95/5, it doesn't screw the country into forever being at the mercy of said state. A populist vote would mean that the 95/5 state is the only once that matters and is in control of all 49 other states destinies.

These sort of "alliances" are dynamic. The other 49 would quickly get sick of that and set aside some of their differences in order to put a stop to it. Plus, political lines in this country are split roughly 50/50 with the independents and moderates picking what happens via which way they swing. Not much would change here, except a candidate would actually get to win when the majority of the people voted for them.

Also, there is nothing in wrong with going against what people want. There are enough fucking dumbasses out there that would vote for $30 minimum wage, free housing and free cable internet if given the chance.

Luckily, some of the people in charge are smart enough to realize that is financial impossible and irresponsible.

I have a hard time with this one because I think you're right that it would cause problems. Ultimately though, there's only so many people making. When there's too many taking and there is no incentive to be a maker, they either go elsewhere or stop working as well. Also, the increased minimum wage would level itself back out. $30/hr would be the new poverty and people who used to make that wouldn't provide their service for less than $120. There's still no such thing as a free lunch just because some fucking idiot thinks they can vote themself one.

As far as technology, who gives a shit. Should we also let the nation vote on the guilt of high profile criminal cases? We certainly have the technology for that. What a spectacle it would be. OJ Simpson, Text Guilty or Not Guilty to #OJCASE27! Casey Anthony, George Zimmerman etc.

No. People have their own jobs to do and not enough time to have a valid opinion on issues that trivial. They don't sit in the room during the trial and listen to all the evidence. They would only be voting based on media sensationalism and heresay. A jury of our peers is not the same level as choosing a president, and there's no reason to waste everyone's time with that.

I guess what I'm saying is some parts of the transition may be rough but it would ultimately be okay.

[Corbic]

Originally Posted by Yardjass

If you dug the founding fathers up and explained to them that the press transmits instantly and every citizen's vote is a keystroke away, but we're still going to keep the old system, they'd laugh in your face.

If we dug the founding fathers up they would be freaking out over the fact we are letting women and coloreds vote. They would be besides themselves regarding welfare, taxes and the idea that we would even entertain abortion or gay marriage.

They where likely far more conservative than anything we can compare too today. Remember only land owning, God fearing white men could originally vote?

Also, history bro.

The Electoral College is a process, not a place. The founding fathers established it in the Constitution as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-regi...ege/about.html

In other Democracies Congress/Parliament or the ruling party select the Leader.

You vote for the party, they do the rest.