Fundamental Changes Needed To the Presidential Voting Process the Legislative Branch

Discussion in 'Politics' started by GHook93, Feb 19, 2010.

  1. GHook93
    Offline

    GHook93 Aristotle

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2007
    Messages:
    17,915
    Thanks Received:
    3,126
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Chicago
    Ratings:
    +4,927
    Presidental Voting Process:

    There are voting districts in each state. Each votes for a separate house rep and each of these districts determines how the state will vote in the Presidental election. Electoral votes are broken up by State by how the majority of districts vote and its majority take all.

    I say they should be broken up by district. Instead of a winner take all approach for each state. If the D's get 60% of CA and the Rep get 40% of CA, then the 60% of CA electoral votes for to D and 40% goes to R. The reverse for TX. This way politician won't just dismiss states because the will lose or easily win them. Republican and Democratic districts will actually mean something. Heck even an independent 3rd party could win something.

    Second benefit would be that it would take away the power that the big states have in a national election. Come on CA, FL, IL, NY and TX have a little too much power in national elections. If its districted, then it more representative of the state and the nation.


    Legislative Branch:
    (1) Get Rid of the Senate: Why the fuck do we need two branches of congress. The Senate is where legislation goes to DIE. Senate makes it so hard to get things done, that earmarks, special gifts and water-down legislation are required to get the 60 votes. It ruins the system. A second legislative branch is not needed. It doesn't protect small state's rights, rather it fucks everyone because nothing can get through Congress and the things that do are so half-assed it screws everyone. Many moons ago they tried to get rid of it, but failed. Its a damn shame it didn't go then.

    (2) Get rid of filibusters: The rationality for filibusters is that they have a right to protect free speech of Congressman. Give me a fricking break. Either get rid of the filibuster altogether or enact a time limit. Such as, here is the final bill today (no changes allowed after this point), then we have 1 month to review and discuss and then we vote, majority vote wins. Unless there is a veto then 2/3 vote required.

    (3) Stop the 2 year fucking reelection thing. All House Reps do is campaign for reelection and never have time to do there jobs. We also need to stop created career politicians. Here is my plan:
    (a) 5 year term limits.
    (b) 2 term limits
    (c) 3rd and 4th term are possible, by consenus. 6 months before the 2nd term is up a district wide vote is taken 70% of the voters must vote in favor allowing a 3rd term. 6 months before the 4th term 80% of voters must vote in favor of allowing a 4th term. This is straight vote, no quorum needed.
     
  2. Luissa
    Offline

    Luissa Annoying Customer Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Messages:
    43,190
    Thanks Received:
    5,593
    Trophy Points:
    1,785
    Location:
    TARDIS
    Ratings:
    +5,664
    Isn't this how they used to choose the nominee?
     
  3. ihopehefails
    Offline

    ihopehefails BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2009
    Messages:
    3,384
    Thanks Received:
    228
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +228
    I agree with that. If your are going to have the president chosen by direct popular vote then at break it down into smaller districts or just get rid of the electorial college completely.
     
  4. Luissa
    Offline

    Luissa Annoying Customer Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Messages:
    43,190
    Thanks Received:
    5,593
    Trophy Points:
    1,785
    Location:
    TARDIS
    Ratings:
    +5,664
    There is a purpose for the electorial college!
     
  5. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,520
    Thanks Received:
    5,898
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,931
    I disagree with dissolving the Senate. Both houses need to stay.

    As for how States divide up their electoral votes, you need to go to EACH individual State. It is State not Federal Law that determines how a State counts who won what in the State. SO you would need to convince the 48 States that still have winner take all individually to change their State Law and possibly their Constitution.
     
  6. ihopehefails
    Offline

    ihopehefails BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2009
    Messages:
    3,384
    Thanks Received:
    228
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +228
    That is to have the governors appoint two selectors who then cast votes for the president. While I think that has a lot of advantages over direct popular vote we should just throw it away completely if we are going to use direct popular. This way everyone's vote counts.
     
  7. GHook93
    Offline

    GHook93 Aristotle

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2007
    Messages:
    17,915
    Thanks Received:
    3,126
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Chicago
    Ratings:
    +4,927
    I don't think you need to get rid of the electoral colleges, but why should say CA or TX have to vote all their electoral votes one way, when a good percentage of the population wants and has voted the other way. Heck that is how its works for many states in the primary system works! In the primary system each candidate works hard for the non-winner take all states. Democrats should not just dismiss Texas because they can't win it and the Republican should not have to do the same things for CA.
     
  8. GHook93
    Offline

    GHook93 Aristotle

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2007
    Messages:
    17,915
    Thanks Received:
    3,126
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Chicago
    Ratings:
    +4,927
    Have you ever heard that too many cooks in the kitchen spoil the bunch! Look at ever piece of important legislation. Approval by both houses kills everything and screws up everything.

    Case in point: Healthcare (specifically Obamacare) and Immigration (McCain-Kennedy).

    You are not going to find too many Americans that don't want healthcare reform. Both sides of the isle want it. However, when you needed so many people to agree, special interests and earmarks needed to be included. In the end came a mess of a bill.

    Same happened for immigration during Bush years. Whether people want to believe it or not the vast majority of Americans (moderates, central left leaning, right, African Americans, Whites and many Latinos) want immigration reform and a protected border. But same thing happen. Too many cooks in the kitchen. Too many special interests, too many people vying for something. In the end came a bills that was half-assed.


    So what is the consequence: No healthcare reform and no immigration reform!


    To some the 2 parties sound like a safety nets, but be honest what is a safety net worth it nothing can ever get done because of the net! The net is then worth dick!
     
  9. MaggieMae
    Offline

    MaggieMae Reality bits

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2009
    Messages:
    24,043
    Thanks Received:
    1,599
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +1,601
    Constitutional Amendments would be needed to do all of the above, which takes years. Good luck with that.
     
  10. MaggieMae
    Offline

    MaggieMae Reality bits

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2009
    Messages:
    24,043
    Thanks Received:
    1,599
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +1,601
    It's always amusing that it's always the losing side that wants to abolish the electoral college. Then when they win again, it's never mentioned. Same with the filibuster rule: The majority party always HATES IT and tries to get rid of it--until they lose their majority.
     

Share This Page