Minority Rule Has To End...

[Vastator]

This coming election has one result that is guaranteed. The majority of those voting will have to suffer the choice of a minority of voters...
This can only breed animosity amongst the people. We need to rethink our election process, so that the majority of voters have their way, as was intended.
Perhaps we need to hold elections like sports championships. Where in the end there are only two choices; and everyone's vote is brought to bear on one clear winner. Or loser...

 

[Mousterian]

A few democracies use 'preferential voting', where you number your choices 1,2,3 etc.
This system has much to commend it, in that it more accurately reflects the intent of voters.
So I could vote 1 Johnson, 2 Trump, 3 Clinton, 4 Stein.
This way, if Johnson doesn't get 50.1%, (which would give him the job, outright), my vote is not wasted, it goes to Trump, and so on.
BTW, I would not personally vote that ticket, but you get the idea.

 

[Mousterian]

Another good idea is compulsory voting, which typically sees 90%+ turnout, and delivers a more credible outcome.
Our present arrangement is a hangover from the 19th century, when communications took weeks, between the far reaches of the nation.

 

[PurpleOwl]

Another good idea is compulsory voting, which typically sees 90%+ turnout, and delivers a more credible outcome.
Our present arrangement is a hangover from the 19th century, when communications took weeks, between the far reaches of the nation.

it'll never happen the republicans would cease to exist if they did

 

[Nia88]

I agree. Most people is this country are progressive and I think compulsory voting would keep this country progressing and not regressing.

 

[Onyx]

I agree that minority rule should end.

When do we lynch members of the ruling class?

 

[Vastator]

Shortly after the rigged election?

 

[Onyx]

Shortly after the rigged election?

Doubtful.

You guys, assuming you are not slaughtered like dogs, would just put some new self serving megalomaniacs into power.

 

[martybegan]

I agree. Most people is this country are progressive and I think compulsory voting would keep this country progressing and not regressing.

What proof do you have that most people in the country are progressive?

 

[320 Years of History]

This coming election has one result that is guaranteed. The majority of those voting will have to suffer the choice of a minority of voters...
This can only breed animosity amongst the people. We need to rethink our election process, so that the majority of voters have their way, as was intended.
Perhaps we need to hold elections like sports championships. Where in the end there are only two choices; and everyone's vote is brought to bear on one clear winner. Or loser...

Red:
What exactly is it that you anticipate will make that happen?

• Do you think the winning candidate will earn less than 50% of the popular Presidential vote yet earn 50% or more of the electoral vote? That's happened before, you know. Lincoln won with less than 40% of the popular vote, and J.Q. Adams with just ~31% of the popular vote, for example.
• Do you think that the next President will earn less than 50% of the electoral vote?
  
• Do you think the next President will be chosen by the U.S. House of Representatives and they will choose a person who received less than 50% of the popular Presidential vote?
• Some other way?

Remember, "voters," "people," "the citizenry," "Presidential voters," and "the electorate" are each different things.

• People --> everyone
• Citizenry --> everyone who is a citizen of a given country
• Electorate --> everyone who is a citizen that is eligible to vote
• Voters --> everyone in the electorate who casts a vote
• Presidential voters --> voters who cast a vote for President

 

[Vastator]

Yes. The next President elected by the electoral college, will have received less than 50 % of the popular vote. The current system is broken, and ineffective at giving the citizenry an actual representative say in their governance. This will lead to violence , and unrest. Some may argue that it already has.

 

[Onyx]

Yes. The next President elected by the electoral college, will have received less than 50 % of the popular vote. The current system is broken, and ineffective at giving the citizenry an actual representative say in their governance. This will lead to violence , and unrest. Some may argue that it already has.

The electoral college was designed as a compromise between state rights and popular vote.

If the electoral college did not exist, presidential candidates would completely ignore campaigning in smaller battleground states.

 

[Vastator]

Yes. The next President elected by the electoral college, will have received less than 50 % of the popular vote. The current system is broken, and ineffective at giving the citizenry an actual representative say in their governance. This will lead to violence , and unrest. Some may argue that it already has.

The electoral college was designed as a compromise between state rights and popular vote.

If the electoral college did not exist, presidential candidates would completely ignore campaigning in smaller battleground states.

I understand that. However unless there are only two candidates in the end... The system doesn't produce a "just" result. I'm not against having the electoral college. I am against having more than two candidates when it comes down to very end.
It defies reason that a person receiving less than 50% of the vote, could become president

 

[Fang]

Yes. The next President elected by the electoral college, will have received less than 50 % of the popular vote. The current system is broken, and ineffective at giving the citizenry an actual representative say in their governance. This will lead to violence , and unrest. Some may argue that it already has.

The electoral college is fine. It's the amount of money that candidates get from donors that is the issue. When a facebook founder can donate 20 million to keep Trump out of the White House (and vice versa for rich donors who give to Trump) we have an issue. The candidates are owned and owe favors. The rest of America not in the 1% is screwed.

 

[Vastator]

Perhaps the federal government should dole out a given, and equal amount of money two the last two remaining candidates, to be used for campaigning... It is our money after all...
But that still doesn't prevent a corrupt media from giving unequal coverage. Good or bad...
We really need to revamp our system. Its spiraling away from control of the people.

 

[frigidweirdo]

This coming election has one result that is guaranteed. The majority of those voting will have to suffer the choice of a minority of voters...
This can only breed animosity amongst the people. We need to rethink our election process, so that the majority of voters have their way, as was intended.
Perhaps we need to hold elections like sports championships. Where in the end there are only two choices; and everyone's vote is brought to bear on one clear winner. Or loser...

Proportional Representation, it's the only way forwards. Works in many places, and means one person one vote.

 

[Fang]

Perhaps the federal government should sole out a given, and equal amount of money two the last two remaining candidates, to be used for campaigning... It is our money after all...
But that still doesn't prevent a corrupt media from giving unequal coverage. Good or bad...
We really need to revamp our system. Its spiraling away from control of the people.

Call me crazy but I think 70% of Americans are ill-equipped to make an informed decision. Big money and ignorance has led to the state of American politics and 20 trillion in debt. "The debt", does either party even care?

 

[Vastator]

This coming election has one result that is guaranteed. The majority of those voting will have to suffer the choice of a minority of voters...
This can only breed animosity amongst the people. We need to rethink our election process, so that the majority of voters have their way, as was intended.
Perhaps we need to hold elections like sports championships. Where in the end there are only two choices; and everyone's vote is brought to bear on one clear winner. Or loser...

Proportional Representation, it's the only way forwards. Works in many places, and means one person one vote.

With that system... The slaves would never have been freed... It has significant drawbacks.

 

[Vastator]

Perhaps the federal government should sole out a given, and equal amount of money two the last two remaining candidates, to be used for campaigning... It is our money after all...
But that still doesn't prevent a corrupt media from giving unequal coverage. Good or bad...
We really need to revamp our system. Its spiraling away from control of the people.

Call me crazy but I think 70% of Americans are ill-equipped to make an informed decision. Big money and ignorance has led to the state of American politics and 20 trillion in debt. "The debt", does either party even care?

Perhaps. But at least then we truly would get the government we deserve. Unlike now...

 

[FJO]

Yes. The next President elected by the electoral college, will have received less than 50 % of the popular vote. The current system is broken, and ineffective at giving the citizenry an actual representative say in their governance. This will lead to violence , and unrest. Some may argue that it already has.

The electoral college was designed as a compromise between state rights and popular vote.

If the electoral college did not exist, presidential candidates would completely ignore campaigning in smaller battleground states.

I understand that. However unless there are only two candidates in the end... The system doesn't produce a "just" result. I'm not against having the electoral college. I am against having more than two candidates when it comes down to very end.
It defies reason that a person receiving less than 50% of the vote, could become president

Even with only two candidates enough write-ins could still produce a winner with less than 50% of the votes..