pro a national popular vote?

[Zebra]

are you in favour?

i think it ok

 

[ZestolPastilevsky]

I voted no, because while I can see the logic behind it, and I can see some benefits, it would give very little incentive for small states to remain in the union. They would be practically unrepresented. It would also result in political campaigns that basically just ignore everything but the East, West, and Gulf coast. Finally, it would in some way make the concept of separate states sort of pointless.

 

[Zebra]

now

one each

 

[lg325]

Not for elected officials. National Referendums on an issues like Federal Balanced budget, Line item veto for the president, Term limits for elected and non elected government employees and other things would be a good idea maybe.

 

[Donald H]

The entire system is flawed. America shouldn't waste time on trying to fix it that way If you don't want a pure form of democracy then the parliamentary system works.

But it can still be corrupted and destroyed if lessons aren't taken from China's new system of capitalism with a social conscience. l

America's ruling class aren't ready for that yet. It's going to cost them billions and billions.

 

[Donald H]

Trump is going to be taken down before he gets the opportunity to destroy everything American. Exile to Cuba looks the most likely at this point.

It's not too early to be contemplating what must happen after Trump.

 

[Independent thinker]

are you in favour?

i think it ok

We don't need California and New York deciding who is going to be president of rural America, which is 2/3's of the country. If Democrats truly want people to vote, this would take away all the votes from the small states. What would be the point of voting? If Democrats really want everyone to vote then you have to give them a reason to think their votes would actually count.