Candycorn's Idea for Changing the Way We Elect Candidates For President.

[candycorn]

The winner will always be the winner of the popular vote.

Not so the other way around.

in 94+% of the elections we've had in the nation, that is the case.

I think people should have a direct say in who becomes president.

 

[candycorn]

I could quite easily find out who they are, where they are and what they do for a living.

That's not anonymous. We know their names and what state they live in.

And once you do that, will you be okay with them casting a vote in your name? You're going to say "yes, of course" even though we both know you're being intellectually dishonest.
At this point, you're arguing just to argue. Have a good day.

 

[buckeye]

And once you do that, will you be okay with them casting a vote in your name? You're going to say "yes, of course" even though we both know you're being intellectually dishonest.
At this point, you're arguing just to argue. Have a good day.

I've been OK with them casting a vote in my name since I was 19. You don't understand the meaning of anonymous or why we have an EC to begin with.

I will have a good day, you do the same.

 

[kc48]

Many people I have seen cast a vote based on candidate's personality. They will say, "I like that guy." I ask them why they like a guy, and they have no answer.

Try it someone. Ask someone why they like a candidate. They will often give an answer related to personality.

 

[Correll]

Correct.

They were giving them more seats to "Their kind".

As opposed to Third World voters? Correct.


Why do you want America to be a third world nation? With Third World policies.

 

[Cellblock2429]

I think we need to revamp the system by which we elect Presidents.

First and foremost we need to change the number of electoral votes to an odd number. Having the possibility of a tie (269 to 269) is just stupid.

Secondly, we need to expand the requirements to become President Elect from a simple majority of the electoral college (currently 270) to also include a plurality of the popular vote (more votes than anyone else on the ballot nationwide). In this day and age, the will of the people can be known well before the mid-December deadline. If there is a disagreement between the electoral college winner and the popular vote winner, the parameters of the 12 amendment kick in to decide who is the President-elect.

Lastly, the scheduling of state primaries to award delegates is mind bogglingly idiotic. Iowa or South Carolina, New Hampshire, Nevada…these 3 states get to weed out a very high percentage of candidates before larger populations get to weigh in on their efficacy. What I propose is not one super Tuesday but five of them involving 9-11 states each.

On the 2nd Tuesday in January, February, March, April and May have 9-11 states go to the polls at once. Have the 2nd Tuesday in June as a stand-by in case there are states who couldn’t hold the elections on schedule due to blizzards, tropical storms, etc… Just as an example… (remember this is for the primaries)

January: ME, NH, MA, CT, RI, NY, NJ, PA, DE

February: WA, CA, OR, HI, AK, AZ, NV, ID, UT, MT, WY, NM

March: FL, GA, SC, NC, MD, VA, WVA, KY, TN, AL, MS

April: TX, AR, OK, CO, KS, NE, ND, SD, LA,

May; IL, MN, WI, MI, OH, IN, IA, MO,

States with over 10M in population are listed in bold. You spread out the votes between urban and rural, between large cities and small towns, between industrial and agrarian, between coastal (when you can) and landlocked. Candidates no longer have to jump through hoops to please a single demographic and can play to their strengths.

/———/ What a convoluted nightmare no one will understand. Keep changing the rules until democRATs win.

 

[Cellblock2429]

As opposed to Third World voters? Correct.


Why do you want America to be a third world nation? With Third World policies.

/——-/ Because it’s only fair. Libs want to make everyone equally miserable—- except for themselves of course.

 

[Correll]

/——-/ Because it’s only fair. Libs want to make everyone equally miserable—- except for themselves of course.

They are such assholes.

 

[kc48]

The rules of constitutional convention were done that way to prevent whimsical ideas from taking hold. There are good reasons why the founding fathers did what they did. People clamor about popular vote, and don't even bother to understand 6th grade civics.

 

[Mac-7]

The rules of constitutional convention were done that way to prevent whimsical ideas from taking hold. There are good reasons why the founding fathers did what they did. People clamor about popular vote, and don't even bother to understand 6th grade civics.

The same applies to the fillibuster

 

[kc48]

The same applies to the fillibuster

I was also thinking that. ty

 

[WorldWatcher]

The same applies to the fillibuster

I was also thinking that. ty

The filibuster as we know it today were not a product of the founding fathers.

It used to be that no Senate business could be conducted during debate (such as using the filibuster for unlimited debate). But people had to actually speak.

Then the filibuster was allowed with a simple "objection" with no speech requriement.

Then the two-track system provided that other Senate business could be conducted while another bill was being filibustered.

WW

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

The rules of constitutional convention were done that way to prevent whimsical ideas from taking hold. There are good reasons why the founding fathers did what they did. People clamor about popular vote, and don't even bother to understand 6th grade civics.

Holy shit rook.

You come out of the gate LYING.
The EC was selected by default.
The slave states rejected a direct vote, because they could use the 3/5ths votes of slaves as a voting block.
Slaves couldn't vote but they could use them for he EC as population.

 

[kc48]

The filibuster as we know it today were not a product of the founding fathers.

It used to be that no Senate business could be conducted during debate (such as using the filibuster for unlimited debate). But people had to actually speak.

Then the filibuster was allowed with a simple "objection" with no speech requriement.

Then the two-track system provided that other Senate business could be conducted while another bill was being filibustered.

WW

The founding fathers discussed the concept. They wanted genuine inquiry and deliberation. The reality that it took hold fulfilled the intent.

 

[kc48]

Holy shit rook.

You come out of the gate LYING.
The EC was selected by default.
The slave states rejected a direct vote, because they could use the 3/5ths votes of slaves as a voting block.
Slaves couldn't vote but they could use them for he EC as population.

Annnnnnnnnnnnddddddddd.................here comes the "lying" card.

 

[Mac-7]

The filibuster as we know it today were not a product of the founding fathers.

It used to be that no Senate business could be conducted during debate (such as using the filibuster for unlimited debate). But people had to actually speak.

Then the filibuster was allowed with a simple "objection" with no speech requriement.

Then the two-track system provided that other Senate business could be conducted while another bill was being filibustered.

WW

You are correct

In the past when repubs had majorities and dems engaged in obstruction I often wished for the old standard

But now I think the new rule is more protective of both sides and we ought to keep it

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

As opposed to Third World voters? Correct.


Why do you want America to be a third world nation? With Third World policies.

WTF?

Every other country in the world uses the popular vote to elect politicians to office.

What a ******* retard.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

Annnnnnnnnnnnddddddddd.................here comes the "lying" card.

Open a history book, nut job.

Why Was the Electoral College Created?​

History.com
https://www.history.com › Articles
Jul 15, 2019 — The Founding Fathers had to compromise when it came to devising a system to elect the president.

 

[Mashmont]

I think we need to revamp the system by which we elect Presidents.

First and foremost we need to change the number of electoral votes to an odd number. Having the possibility of a tie (269 to 269) is just stupid.

Secondly, we need to expand the requirements to become President Elect from a simple majority of the electoral college (currently 270) to also include a plurality of the popular vote (more votes than anyone else on the ballot nationwide). In this day and age, the will of the people can be known well before the mid-December deadline. If there is a disagreement between the electoral college winner and the popular vote winner, the parameters of the 12 amendment kick in to decide who is the President-elect.

Lastly, the scheduling of state primaries to award delegates is mind bogglingly idiotic. Iowa or South Carolina, New Hampshire, Nevada…these 3 states get to weed out a very high percentage of candidates before larger populations get to weigh in on their efficacy. What I propose is not one super Tuesday but five of them involving 9-11 states each.

On the 2nd Tuesday in January, February, March, April and May have 9-11 states go to the polls at once. Have the 2nd Tuesday in June as a stand-by in case there are states who couldn’t hold the elections on schedule due to blizzards, tropical storms, etc… Just as an example… (remember this is for the primaries)

January: ME, NH, MA, CT, RI, NY, NJ, PA, DE

February: WA, CA, OR, HI, AK, AZ, NV, ID, UT, MT, WY, NM

March: FL, GA, SC, NC, MD, VA, WVA, KY, TN, AL, MS

April: TX, AR, OK, CO, KS, NE, ND, SD, LA,

May; IL, MN, WI, MI, OH, IN, IA, MO,

States with over 10M in population are listed in bold. You spread out the votes between urban and rural, between large cities and small towns, between industrial and agrarian, between coastal (when you can) and landlocked. Candidates no longer have to jump through hoops to please a single demographic and can play to their strengths.

But notice leftwingersCandycorn stays far away from solutions that would ensure a fair honest election: mandatory photo, iris, facial recognition or fingerprint voter ID in every state; same-day voting, and limited absentee voting. He opposes these things because Republicans would win every time in every state.

 

[candycorn]

/———/ What a convoluted nightmare no one will understand. Keep changing the rules until democRATs win.

That was too complicated for you? What part confused you?