How should the US electoral system be reformed?

I find your jingoism immensely irritating. Have you ever been outside of the US?

 

lol like marx you revert to babbling

lol

you know you can't argue with usa since its no 1

why is it no 1?

because its design is superior to anything in europe or in history

to the extent politicians are allowed to go off course is the extent usa goes into debt and has tons of welfare brats

www.fairtax.org

lets stop taxing working and paying workers and owning a house and start taxing spending

 

I believe we should repeal the 17th Amendment. Our Founding Fathers got it right the first time regarding States' rights.

 

I don't know enough to say how I think it should be amended but one thing I've noticed that is surely a flaw, Obama got elected in 2008, loses the House in 2010, so for 2 years is basically a lame duck can't really do anything, is prevented from enacting his programme of reforms upon which he was elected by a majority of the population, which he was given a mandate for by a majority of voters, that is far from ideal. A Republican controlled House meant deadlock while a Democratic President is in office, meaning the political system is broken if it can't function.

In Britain its the opposite, if you have a majority in the House of Commons for the duration of that parliament you are basically untouchable and can pass all your reforms if you use whips to make sure everyone toes the line, its called elective dictatorship, obviously that has its flaws too, but seems preferable to a system that fosters gridlock when the incumbent party loses the House, I know it was set up that way to form checks and balances etc but it seems flawed to me.

 

especially when come election time critics turn round and say you haven't done jack when really he's been prevented from doing anything meaningful by Congress for literally half his first term, thats not a great situation and relies on bipartisanship that is not always present, especially just now.

 

Two years with Obama getting everything he wanted was more than enough. Four years would have been disastrous. The staggered election schedule gives us protection from a dictator. With Obama and Clinton it saved the country.

 

england lost both world warsw and would speak german except for usa

usa dwarfs englands production and science by 10 fold

usa is far superior to uk in every respect, except perhaps stage acting and cute accents

usa was designed by smart people who broke away from the euopean bastards

to the extent we go outside it we ruin things

in jsut 200 years usa no 1

but it can be dissolved with massive massive welfare aka paying people to sit on ass which is what moron obama is doing

if you do nothign else but simply pay people to produce not sit on ass you be no1

and dont bring up swweden it is a (*)(*)(*)(*)hole and msotly pure white which work ethic for years kept welfare at bay but not since 90s not a complete (*)(*)(*)(*) show http://harmful.cat-v.org/society/sweden

 

Our chief magistrate is supposed to be energetic enough to not let that happen.

 

The electoral college was put in place to give representation to the smaller states and populations. In effect providing balance and, most importantly, to keep politicians from pandering to small segments of the vote because those segments alone would win the election. Unfortunately, the field has been so manipulated that the focus has just shifted from large population centers to the few "swing states". It's the same essential problem (small faction determining the election), just a different focus.

There are a few thing that seem like they would be worth considering to help improve the electoral college. I say "considering", because I don't think it something that should changed without considerable thought.

Before anything, GET LOBBYISTS AND MONEY OUT OF WASHINGTON!!! Ok. this part requires no thought. It's a no brainer.

Once this is done...

The first thing that comes to mind is to allot a certain number of electoral votes to the popular vote. The candidate that wins the popular vote gets electoral votes equal to, say, the largest number of electoral votes from any one state (55 votes from CA). Or maybe the average of all of the states electoral votes (I'm guessing that to be around 9 or 10 votes). This would help to pull the focus away from the few swing states and back to whole country. This is the essence of what the founding fathers intended with the electoral college.

Another thing that comes to mind is to add a party or two and get away from the binary system that we have now. Better yet - eliminate parties all together. In his farewell address, George Washington urged the people to examine their loyalty to the United States and not to political parties. He warned that a party system would lead to divisive politics which would bring more harm than good. He was right.

The reason we have two parties is more because of TWO influential politicians rather than the whole body of our founding fathers thinking it was the way to go. Hamilton and Jefferson were in opposition on a number of issues and both wanted to have their way. What did they do? Created factions and swayed groups of the people to back them - thus the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans (irony anyone?) parties were formed.

The founding fathers were smart enough to see that the system they created needed to be a dynamic one and put in provisions for amendments to deal with shortcomings and change. So, the idea of going back to the "original" way or not to change anything because "it's not what the constitution says" is false thinking. It's totally constitutional to change things if they need fixing. It's my belief that they need fixing.

-Joe

 

The problem with giving 55 votes to the person who finishes with the most popular votes is that in elections as close as 1948, 1960, 2000 and 2004 someone might demand a recount for the whole country rather than one state or county. Perhaps you could demand that a person needs perhaps a one per cent lead in the popular vote to get the extra 55 electoral votes, but then someone who appears to lose by 1.1% might demand a nationwide recount. Also in 1968, 1992 and 1996 the obvious winner had less than 50% of the popular vote. There is some satisfaction for the losing candidate and his supporters when they can blame a third party candidate for their loss.
The clause that throws the decision to the House of Representatives was a wise one and some of them lived to see it used twice (1800 and 1824.) If two parties hadn't developed there might have been many elections with three strong candidates splitting the electoral votes, especially as the north and south became so polarized.
The fascinating thing about our present "swing states" is that they're scattered all over the country rather than clustered in one region, forcing candidates to reach out to Cuban-Americans and the elderly in Florida, white yankee types in New Hampshire, Mexican-Americans in Nevada and farmers in Iowa.
Charliechalk, I'd like to ask: what would you say were the three most important decisions made by a British Prime Minister in the last 50 years and what were the political consequences? Did any single act or policy cause the end of a Prime Minister's career during that time?
Americans have little trouble answering those questions and most Americans would have identical lists.

 

I think the Electoral System should stay.