yes

More trouble than it's worth. Electoral college is fine.

>>76078
Gore would like to have a word with you.

If this country is going to continue touting democracy and praising it's good values, it needs to actually become a full fledged democracy, not a representative democracy.

nope. The federal government should obey the constitution

>>76087
We're a republic. Deal with it.

hurr 70% of people are too fucking stupid to read a book but letting them determine choices of national importance is AOK

>>76098

>>76093
That's why we can amend our constitution. We did it with senators, so there really is no legal reason that we cannot do it with the president.

how about we restrict voting to those with an IQ above 100, or 120, or 140 for all i care. too many idiots are voting.

Abolish/remove political parties. Have smaller faction identities. In general force people to look at congressional and presidential candidates, especially congressional.

President doesnt mean shit if congress isnt active.

As long as the nomination system remains same, I'd love to see the electoral college get kicked out of the government.

>>76139
>Abolish/remove political parties
First amendment.

>>76150
Thats a hollow fucking argument.

Really, all we need is an amendment to eliminate deficit spending which should include discretionary and entitlement like SS, Medicare, and Medicaid.

>>76123
no I mean it's only a problem because the U.S. no longer functions like a federal republic. If we were a confederacy of states like the constitution says, no one would complain.

>>76132
This isn't my idea, but how about removing party affiliation from ballots?

>>76158
Not really. It highlights your simplistic grasp of the fucking fundamental government. Right to Assembly, motherfucker.

>>76150
Conversely, force official factions within a political party. Every faction may have a candidate in a race.

rome fell when it went from a republic to a democracy.

>>76141
But what the electoral college does is force candidates to at least spend some time in smaller states. Wyoming has three elected officials at the federal level corresponding to about 0.5% of the total, but they only have about 0.2% of the total population

The US should go back to only landowning white men being able to vote. That would put the riffraff in its place.

>>76166
This is a good option. Funny to think how legislative and local government voting will go. Most people just vote according to party.

>>76087
>If this country is going to continue touting democracy and praising it's good values, it needs to actually become a full fledged democracy, not a representative democracy.
Direct will never happen at the federal level. People are too stupid.

>>76175

this

if you 16 year olds ever read fucking history, you would see that democracy is the final stage before societal collapse.

>>76175
You would still have a republican government.

This is simply for the president. It would remove the electoral college, which is a very stupid institution. That's why Bush was allowed presidency in the first place.

>>76166
One of the biggest reasons to keep the Electoral college is the same reason we have the Senate. It gives the states more power. If a candidate won 90% of the popular vote in California, New York and Texas, it would mean they could pretty much skip over half of the rest of the US. With the electoral system it encourages candidates to win over as many states as possible.

>>76166
This is really needed. The political party system does not work for congress. Its been dysfuntional since their rise.

>>76166
It won't make much of a difference since the party machine turns out votes and tells them who to vote for by name.

>>76177
Why would the size of the state matter? Maybe population density, but it doesn't matter what state boundries it falls in. They would still go to larger cities in the midwest. I think it's kind of dumb how they spend so much time in Iowa but ignore most of the population.

anyway, long live the confederacy

>>76187
>>76087

L2History fucktard. Aristotle proved that democracy is BAD.

We don't have democracy in the US, we have indirect representation, IE, A REPUBLIC. The reason morons in the US here keep fucking calling it a democracy is because history and government textbooks and teachers are too god-damned lazy to mention the difference.

>>76165


Confederacy of states? Trolling sir, you are. The Constitution created a central government because the Articles of Confederation did not and therefore faltered including the destruction of currency and massive inflation.

Go read the Debates in the Federal Convention before you get back in this thread.

>>76215
Holy shit you are fucking retarded.

>>76192
Just crunched the numbers real quick. 90% of the popular vote in Texas, California, and New York barely gets you a forth of the way (78 mill/300 mill). Winning the all electoral votes from those same states, on the other hand, is pretty close to half the total (121/270).

So if anything, switching to a direct vote will be better for the smaller states.

>>76217
>L2History fucktard. Aristotle proved that democracy is BAD.
No shit fucktard. It's because people are stupid.

>>76232
>implying the entire population is eligible/does vote.

would the libfags or the conservatives win if it were direct election? as in if everyone voted for one of 2 people and every single vote was tallied up. even though alot of libniggers live in fag states like cali and jew york, nearly all of the middle states and small towns in the middle of nowhere vote republican. and theres alot of these towns and states.

see map.

i think republicans would win it with a flawless victory.

awesome.

Several states have already enshrined in their constitutions a provision which gives their electoral votes to the popular vote, this provision will kick in when enough states to account for a majority of the electoral votes have also made this move towards awarding electoral votes to the popular vote winner.

No need for any sort of federal constitutional amendment.

>>76239
Okay then, Mr. Greentext, I'll go look at the numbers from the 2008 election.

>>76230
no u. It makes no sense. You act like the president would only go to California or some shit, like they wouldn't want to travel to other cities throughout the country in whatever state.

Direct democracy is evil.

>>76246

you mean like they did in 2000?

>>76256
That is exactly what would happen. And your command of the language proves my point about your intelligence.

>>76258
>implying there was a direct election in 2000
>implying there has ever been direct election in the US
>wtf am i reading.jpg

>>>76232

270 electoral votes? WTF. There were 538 electoral votes in the 2008 election.

I figured you would oppose direct democracy given how it has worked out in California.

>>76246
It grieves my heart that Deborah Solomon running for Senate in MO said to me in a FB message, "I would not encourage abortion, however, believe a woman should have that right in the cases of rape, incest" So my life, conceived when 8 men raped my mother, to her is worthless? Who else is worthless?

no, but we should recount the electoral college votes

>>76291

270 is how many you need to win. 50 percent plus 1 percent. Jesus how old are you kids?

>>76291
You need 270 to win. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

>>76239
>>76239
>>76239
Texas, New York, and California accounted for about 22% of the TOTAL votes in the 2008 election.

Happy?

Considering the new ruling by the Supreme Court allowing big tobacco and big business and big foreign enterprise to spend unlimited amounts of money on our elections, I think allowing the gullible and easily-scared masses determine who should be president is a bit too much to ask for.

>>76232

Hey, guy. Your math is stupid.
78/300 (100% of population)
121/270 (50% of electoral votes)

78/150 (50% of population)

OH LOOK THEY ARE BOTH 50% NOW AND ABOUT THE SAME. Fuck you sir, FUCK YOU and your purposeful disinformation.

>>76313
They hold about 24% of the total electoral votes, by the way.

>>76287

are you a fucking moron? democrats won the popular vote, your fucking thesis on how ZOMG REPEDOPUBLICANS WILL WIN EVERYTHING IN POPULAR VOTE ELECTION FLAWLESS VICTOLY just got served.

>>76232
Comparing apples to oranges.
Oh, and I screwed up my post. It should also include Florida (been a few years since I wrote that paper). And you need to look at registered voters, not total population.

Comparing the top 4 states (total registered in 2004) have just shy of 25million registered voters. So 90% is roughly 22.5m votes.

The bottom 25 states have roughly 25m registered voters.

What's the point of campaigning in half the country if you can shoot for the necessary popular votes in just four states?

>>76342

because every vote against you actually counts against you, even in the states that you win the majority.

131,257,328 people voted in the 2008 elections.

Going with the top five populous states:
California 36,961,664 28% (of 2008 vote)
Texas 24,782,302 47%
New York 19,541,453 61%
Florida 18,537,969 75%
Illinois 12,910,409 84%

The total from the top five states can almost make up the entire 2008 Presidential vote.

>>76356
I fail to see your point. I'm discussing the need for a president to get broad based support in more than four states.

>>76342
pretending you actually care about the country?

>>76369


you'll lose even more votes than you would have otherwise if you ignore half the nation.

Dr. Dean had it right, fifty state strategy, electoral or direct.

>>76385
>you'll lose even more votes than you would have otherwise if you ignore half the nation.
Not really. The political party will still fund an office and flyers, events, etc. but the president doesn't need to campaign in the less populated states if we went off the electoral system. It's pretty safe to say that a candidate will get at least 10% of the vote of every state.

>>76318 I have no idea what's going on, lol

Let's say that the tobacco lobby donates 100 BILLION dollars to a presidential candidate (this isn't a guarantee that they'll win btw), the watchdogs get one sniff of this and the email is around the world three times before lunch. tl;dr - end of candidacy.
http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission

Sometimes I think that it's a shame that ignorant people such as yourself are permitted to vote.

>>76414
The threat is going to be more powerful than the actual donation.