Member of the Month

hi_vis360
November, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

The electoral college

profile picture
theabortionator
Posts: 51675 - Karma: 162,683
Are you for it or against it? Or do you simply not give two fucks either way?
Sep 5 2012 9:47PM
0 0
profile picture
987321654hgfd
Posts: 5133 - Karma: 5,447
Against it.

Honestly though I don't give two fucks because the two party system is full retard.
Sep 5 2012 9:49PM
0 0
profile picture
ThaLorax
Posts: 21083 - Karma: 8,455
.
Sep 5 2012 9:51PM
0 0
profile picture
midwestpowhunter
Posts: 2198 - Karma: 189
against it for this reason...
Sep 5 2012 9:53PM
0 0
profile picture
manutdsaol
Posts: 906 - Karma: 56
Against it. It is a useless system, the popular vote should be the only things that count. If you remember the 2000 election, the electoral college changed the outcome for Bush.
Sep 5 2012 9:53PM
0 0
profile picture
theabortionator
Posts: 51675 - Karma: 162,683
So where do you stand on the issue?
Sep 5 2012 9:57PM
0 0
profile picture
7springsprod
Posts: 2661 - Karma: 3,181
I have a feeling that if it were to be removed, something really, reallu stupid were to happen in an election. I dont like an all or nothing approach. Personally, I think they should be weighted differently by state. Depending on the ratio the popular vote of say, Texas is 70:30 and imagining that texas has 30 electoral votes, 26/27 would be rewarded to the votes with the 70 and the remaining go to the other.
Sep 5 2012 9:59PM
0 0
profile picture
cwphoto
Posts: 2332 - Karma: 780
i think its silly. it was useful 200 years ago but now we have the internet, media, and many means of getting information about the candidates
Sep 5 2012 10:05PM
0 0
profile picture
Dragonite.
Posts: 1657 - Karma: 431
Definitely against. It dosn't seem logical anymore.
Sep 5 2012 10:19PM
0 0
profile picture
TechnoPotamus
Posts: 11626 - Karma: 3,522
against it. popular vote FTW


pictures unrelated:
Click for larger image
Click for larger image

Sep 5 2012 10:25PM
0 0
profile picture
Trollolo
Posts: 793 - Karma: 16

Being a non-american, its hard for me to understand how 15 states or so get to decide your election. Why not just do a popular vote that elects the president, and if 50% isnt met or something than congress picks the president (same as how it works if no candidate reaches half electoral votes)

Sep 5 2012 10:31PM
0 0
profile picture
bakedpow
Posts: 8770 - Karma: 10,467
3 times in american history the electoral college has caused the wrong person to be elected.

im against it, electing bush jr was arguably the worst thing that happened to our country in recent history.
Sep 5 2012 10:40PM
0 0
profile picture
COCKTOMUS_PRIME
Posts: 385 - Karma: 22
Wrong sir
Sep 6 2012 1:13AM
0 0
profile picture
bakedpow
Posts: 8770 - Karma: 10,467
On which part?

bush fucking up america or the electoral college fuck ups?

cuz both are correct.
Sep 6 2012 1:28AM
0 0
profile picture
ThaLorax
Posts: 21083 - Karma: 8,455
Congress is almost never evenly divided between parties. The vote would be biased.


Not that I agree with having only two parties in government....
Sep 6 2012 2:07AM
0 0
profile picture
Kreech
Posts: 4178 - Karma: 3,024
No, I believe you are mistaken
Sep 6 2012 2:59AM
0 0
profile picture
Zimmerman
Posts: 6992 - Karma: 1,021
Against. We have technology today which would easily allow us  to count every single vote correctly.
Sep 6 2012 6:31AM
0 0
profile picture
Funnel
Posts: 7816 - Karma: 1,533
Definitely against it. It was created because the framers thought the general populace was dumb and would elect a poor leader. No more need for that, especially with 300 million plus citizens. It's not something we can ever get rid of, though, so I don't worry too much.
Sep 6 2012 12:45PM
0 0
profile picture
Errl
Posts: 2082 - Karma: 451
i'm not sure/ don't really care at this point in my life.


^but i think political parties are kind of necessary
Sep 6 2012 1:06PM
0 0
profile picture
t-rent
Posts: 3038 - Karma: 63
polliticians are greedy fucks, thriving on self gain, we only influenc them, elctoral college should be done with
Sep 6 2012 1:16PM
0 0
profile picture
theabortionator
Posts: 51675 - Karma: 162,683
Some of these responses really have nothing to do with anything but whatever.
Sep 6 2012 1:38PM
0 0
profile picture
volvotom
Posts: 2045 - Karma: 712
Every vote should count the same. Not just votes in Florida or Ohio or Colorado.
Sep 6 2012 1:54PM
0 0
profile picture
ski.cats
Posts: 577 - Karma: 352
the electoral college has become a perpetuation of the two party system, which i believe to be a serious hindrance to the progress of our country and mankind

the shit is broken, and if it werent for a war on terrorism, and another two in iraq and afghanistan maybe our country would have paid attention to real problems.  repeal that shit, remove career politicians, practice some goddamn isolationism and stop making my country which has the potential to be far superior than it is now or ever has been, a fucking mockery of the democratic process
Sep 6 2012 1:59PM
0 0
profile picture
ThaLorax
Posts: 21083 - Karma: 8,455
while i agree with everything you said, and that we meddle in other's affairs far too much, we are living in global times and isolationism will end up back firing. power comes from cooperation and collaboration, not centralization and/or militarization. also, helping people in ways that don't involve killing them might work well too.

also, you forgot the war on drugs.
Sep 6 2012 2:25PM
0 0
profile picture
theabortionator
Posts: 51675 - Karma: 162,683
We don't need any increases in our military. We don't need to have them in pretty much every spot in the world constantly. Honestly we would be in much better shape if we were fixing the problems here at home.


I'm interested in what you mean by backfiring. Give me an ish example.

"helping people in ways that don't involve killing them might work well too."

Yes, generally that is helpful.

"you forgot the war on drugs"
drugs are bad mmmk?
Sep 6 2012 2:29PM
0 0
profile picture
ski.cats
Posts: 577 - Karma: 352
agreed. isolationism is a bit of a stretch.. like many things, its a balance/middle ground
Sep 6 2012 2:31PM
0 0
profile picture
currentwestman
Posts: 3292 - Karma: 330
the general population is still pretty stupid imo. like people vote based on how the guy looks, speaks, dresses etc when they should be focusing on their policies. theres isnt complete separation of church and state. this country is complicated its tough to know who's policies would really benefit the people more without an extensive history of economics and all that.

having said that i still think popular vote is better. but idk what would work better for the US
Sep 6 2012 2:32PM
0 0
profile picture
ThaLorax
Posts: 21083 - Karma: 8,455
I think you misread my post Rusty. Try giving it another read. I was saying militarization and occupation is NOT the answer. By backfiring, I meant all of the shitstorms that ensue after we occupy foreign countries where we're either not welcome in the first place, or overstay our welcome.
Sep 6 2012 2:33PM
0 0
profile picture
ski.cats
Posts: 577 - Karma: 352
cutting ourselves off from the rest of the world can be comparable to burning bridges (maybe just a few, maybe a lot).

sometimes we have no choice but to act. 

we're a nation of immigrants and should welcome everyone's best and brightest. 

but at times(most), i think our nation is better off minding our own goddamn business

i think it comes down to our politicians needing to get our priorities straight. because they are butt ass backwards/heavily short term/too economically influenced
Sep 6 2012 2:36PM
0 0
profile picture
theabortionator
Posts: 51675 - Karma: 162,683
Oh. That's why I was like wut? I thought I was agree with the one part and then you were saying something completely different in the second. My favorite color is blue... My favorite color is red. I was like ?
I got you man.


I hear you on that as well. Thought you were talking about backfiring from NOT occupying the entire world and keep to ourselves more.

I just goofed on reading that post pretty much.
Sep 6 2012 2:36PM
0 0
profile picture
theabortionator
Posts: 51675 - Karma: 162,683
When I was agreeing on the isolation, I wasn't saying complete isolation. I'm just talking about worrying about our own country and not being involved in the affairs of over 100 others. Not saying we should cut off trade, stop speaking, and just kick it here with a big wall around us. At the same time, I think what we're doing now is fucking ridiculous.

"sometimes we have no choice but to act."

The majority of our actions don't stem from that. I mean hell, we have all these preemtive strikes because this country could maybe do this, or this guy could do this. I think that's far different than somebody trying to invade our country and us defending ourselves.

"we're a nation of immigrants and should welcome everyone's best and brightest"

You're also talking about a country that stole the land from the indians, killed a bunch of them off, put the japanese in camps, and shit like that. I don't think you were implying anything by that and I wasn't trying to say you were. I think we really do need to be much more open. Look how scared everyone in this country still is of anyone different. The news has anyone terrified of anyone from the middle east. I think harold and kumar 2 nailed it with the way people perceive things through fear.

"but at times(most), i think our nation is better off minding our own goddamn business"

Hell yeah. Especially with our country in the shitter as deep as it is. We really need to fix somethings now, actually needed to fix somethings years ago. But hopefully if we fix some things asap we can turn this country around.

"i think it comes down to our politicians needing to get our priorities straight. because they are butt ass backwards/heavily short term/too economically influenced"

I think that there are a lot of politicians that just don't give a fuck about us. With economically influenced, are you talking about their own financial interests, lobbying groups?
Sep 6 2012 2:47PM
0 0
profile picture
ski.cats
Posts: 577 - Karma: 352
partly. lobbyists, personal financial interests(much of our congress is guilty of insider trading), and the power that money brings in general acts as a medium for corruption and as a halt to real progress of things that actually matter.

so much gets tied into how we're doing economically RIGHT NOW, or the LAST 4 YEARS, people often miss what is really going on around them.  economically people have trouble looking further than a year from now or heeding past mistakes.  its like the person scrounging everything together the last week his rent is due, to only feel a sense of relief until he has to do it again a month later.  or the fact that in any econ class, high school and up, it'll say right in the damn textbook that trickle down economics does not work. yet people still think money needs to be sent to the top. that doing so creates jobs and stimulates the economy.  i mean really.. come on


however, the bigger problem is that the economy is what this and the last election have really focused on.  its only part of the picture, yet people pay all their attention to it and where has it gotten us?
Sep 6 2012 3:23PM
0 0
profile picture
ski.cats
Posts: 577 - Karma: 352
those were "ish" examples. i also dont think we are really disagreeing anywhere
Sep 6 2012 3:25PM
0 0
profile picture
Jewschoolers
Posts: 1785 - Karma: 1,142
im all for the electoral college. common sense is overrated
Sep 6 2012 3:42PM
0 0
profile picture
oil.
Posts: 2255 - Karma: 1,254
wow... an ns political debate without the name calling, call outs, and vicious attacks at each others beliefs. what a pleasant surprise.
my opinion: i think the electoral college is stupid and should be done away with. a popular vote would work, or get rid of the electors. whoever wins the popular vote in each respective state should get the points of that state.
Sep 6 2012 3:58PM
0 0
profile picture
Funnel
Posts: 7816 - Karma: 1,533
We're not the sharpest tools in the shed, but we are still far more educated on the candidates than people were in the 18th and 19th centuries. The electoral college really serves no use anymore, though.

I don't believe it contributed to the two party system. That would have formed regardless. Imagine if there were four or five candidates i the election, it's too much for one American voter to take in. Also, if there's anything we should be worried about, it's Congress, that's who passes legislation. There's so much that goes into everything, I'll just stop now.
Sep 6 2012 6:26PM
0 0
profile picture
Dunnah
Posts: 1215 - Karma: 277
It's my safety school.
Sep 6 2012 6:32PM
0 0
profile picture
theabortionator
Posts: 51675 - Karma: 162,683
For better or worse. The only way most people get informed is what they see on the news. In away the only way people get informed is by not really getting informed. You can sit and watch fox or cnn all day to try to learn about everything and still come out very ignorant.

"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge"
Sep 6 2012 7:20PM
0 0
profile picture
Ac31stuff
Posts: 557 - Karma: 10
that and all the smart people voted for nader not gore and then afterwords were like
Click for larger image
Sep 6 2012 7:27PM
0 0
profile picture
Kreech
Posts: 4178 - Karma: 3,024
This so much
Sep 6 2012 10:28PM
0 0
profile picture
theabortionator
Posts: 51675 - Karma: 162,683
Every once in a great great while it happens.
Sep 7 2012 1:04AM
0 0
profile picture
deleted5
Posts: 14507 - Karma: 13,507
this^ why would anyone want it?
Sep 7 2012 1:06AM
0 0
profile picture
ski.cats
Posts: 577 - Karma: 352
contributed=/=perpetuate

i think we can both agree that it supports the two party system. how could a third party ever win? it seems near impossible

however, as a framing portion of our constitution(article 2 section 1 and yes i had to look that up), while the two party system is not specified ANYWHERE, i would have to disagree in that the electoral college  did/does contribute(s) to the two party system
Sep 7 2012 2:37AM
0 0
profile picture
ThaLorax
Posts: 21083 - Karma: 8,455
When the constitution was written, they intended multiple parties to be established and compete with each other, not just two like things have worked out to be.
Sep 7 2012 12:44PM
0 0
profile picture
Lt-Aldo-Raine
Posts: 2309 - Karma: 120
Hit the nail on the head with this one
Sep 7 2012 2:08PM
0 0
profile picture
PON3
Posts: 3817 - Karma: 783
.
Sep 7 2012 2:09PM
0 0
profile picture
vailsux.com
Posts: 1769 - Karma: 440
Repeal the 17th amendment.
Sep 7 2012 4:17PM
0 0
profile picture
a_burger
Posts: 5235 - Karma: 20,715
Against it, but it's not going anywhere any time soon.
Sep 7 2012 4:26PM
0 0
profile picture
theabortionator
Posts: 51675 - Karma: 162,683
That's the same for a lot of things. We have a trend of keeping things the way they've been simply because it's the way they've been. Kind of hard to fix shit if you don't ever go and fix shit.


Just driving your car without ever changing the oil or checking the fluids, then wondering why your engine shits the bed.
Sep 10 2012 2:52PM
0 0
profile picture
Ac31stuff
Posts: 557 - Karma: 10
Thank you. I feel people in America are too content with leaving stuff as is or run its course some times things need to change.
Sep 10 2012 5:12PM
0 0
profile picture
Kreech
Posts: 4178 - Karma: 3,024
Yeah, whenever I think I want to go into politics I think about how frustrating politics are in america and it makes me want to move to Sweden.
Sep 11 2012 9:08PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)