Should the Presidential election be changed?

D4fan

Well-known member
States rights need to be preserved. Any state should be allowed to vote however they wish. If they want to start the day after the last election wraps up fine by me.

Electoral college is great way to preserve equal power among states. Should California have more power as one state than Wyoming as one state?

Should white men's votes count more than black women's? Equal representation is very good for the protection of the people living in the small states.


I read a couple articles last week about why many nations have multiple political parties but we only have two. The central point of the articles was the EC keeps us a two party system. Why?

Since it takes 270 votes to win election the only way to allow the people to elect the president is to keep it at two party system. Otherwise, the splitting of votes multiple ways would land the election into the hands of Congress. As nations have multiple parties, they require parties to come together and form coalitions to gain enough power to succeed in the election of their most preferred candidate.
 

bob99

Well-known member
Did you have this thought last general election ? Of course not . So if the electoral college works for you it’s all good , but now that it didn’t it’s time to may be change things ? Because your side got cheated ? Lmao. No conservative values say keep it the same as the Stone Age. Lol . Conserve the antiquated electoral college and give power to the states is a conservative staple . You would just want it changed back the next time you lose
I didn't say anything about doing away with the electoral college. The state doesn't decide how many electoral votes they have. I am a Centrist. I don't have a side that got cheated. If there is cheating that effects all of us. If we went to a centralized voting system there would be no need for the possibility of challenging votes on the state level.
 

bob99

Well-known member
It works just fine as is.

Assuming mail voting continues to be a thing, the states just need to get their sht together so they can count the votes in a day instead of a week.
If it is working just fine as it is, why are so many claiming this election was a fraud and the Capitol was overrun?
 

lc5397

Well-known member
FWIW, I've never understood the fascination with the distribution of votes within a state the GOP has. The whole "my guy won X number of counties versus the other guys Y" argument and the red versus blue breakdown maps they like to post. Other than the fact it's convenient and beneficial for them, why should one person's vote (and where they live) matter more or less than another's? Seems undemocratic. We already heavily discount the power of many people's vote with the Electoral College and amplify others.
 

fish82

Well-known member
If it is working just fine as it is, why are so many claiming this election was a fraud and the Capitol was overrun?

Because they're mad they lost? 🤷‍♂️

Again, it works fine the way it is. Since the Federal government pretty much turns everything they "oversee" to sht, it seems silly to suggest that they be in charge of elections.
 

bob99

Well-known member
Because they're mad they lost? 🤷‍♂️

Again, it works fine the way it is. Since the Federal government pretty much turns everything they "oversee" to sht, it seems silly to suggest that they be in charge of elections.
If the ballot is the same for all voters, if the way we are permitted to vote is the same for all voters and if the votes are counted in the same way across the nation then there can be no way someone can challenge the vote of individual states. I separate Presidential vote only should expedite the election. Each states are counted separately to maintain the electoral college and every state electoral vote will be cast the same.
 

lc5397

Well-known member
If the ballot is the same for all voters, if the way we are permitted to vote is the same for all voters and if the votes are counted in the same way across the nation then there can be no way someone can challenge the vote of individual states. I separate Presidential vote only should expedite the election. Each states are counted separately to maintain the electoral college and every state electoral vote will be cast the same.
The more I think about it, this would take significant constitutional amendments, so highly unlikely.
 

bob99

Well-known member
No way should it be federal controlled. Even more chance of fraud then now.
Voting needs to use block chain. In block Chain programing you cannot alter the block.. if you wish it alter the information in a block you must add another block with the changes you made.. This gives a record of what changed.
Also no more mail in voting.. military would be the only exception. you want to vote get your to the pole... if your on vaca or business too bad.
So how can you have no more mail in voting if the states decide for themselves how the votes will be cast in their individual state?
 

bob99

Well-known member
No...they simply never bothered (or were prohibited by legislative pissing matches and/or antiquated laws) to set up the infrastructure/processes to do it, despite knowing 8 weeks in advance that the avalanche of mail ballots was coming.

Anyway, clearly those are the states I was referring to as needing to get their sht together if mail voting is going to continue. There likely isn't anything that casts more doubt on an election than taking a week to count the votes.
Thanks for making my point(y)
 

Crusaders

Moderator
FWIW, I've never understood the fascination with the distribution of votes within a state the GOP has. The whole "my guy won X number of counties versus the other guys Y" argument and the red versus blue breakdown maps they like to post. Other than the fact it's convenient and beneficial for them, why should one person's vote (and where they live) matter more or less than another's? Seems undemocratic. We already heavily discount the power of many people's vote with the Electoral College and amplify others.

Without balanced representation, the entire thing falls apart. The whole “land doesn’t vote, people do” trope misses that point entirely. If you can’t balance urban and rural, only urbanites and large states will matter and they will have complete control of the Federal government.
 

winbypin

Well-known member
I didn't say anything about doing away with the electoral college. The state doesn't decide how many electoral votes they have. I am a Centrist. I don't have a side that got cheated. If there is cheating that effects all of us. If we went to a centralized voting system there would be no need for the possibility of challenging votes on the state level.
Harry thinks you voted for trump and are mad. You'll have to excuse him. He is, as sleepy joe would say, a one trick horse...or something like that.
 

ByeDon

Active member
Without balanced representation, the entire thing falls apart. The whole “land doesn’t vote, people do” trope misses that point entirely. If you can’t balance urban and rural, only urbanites and large states will matter and they will have complete control of the Federal government.

Your point earlier about the Senate takes care of the of the balance. The issue with the Electoral college, and thus the House of Representatives, is that the House has not been increased in size since 1929, when it was capped at 435. That means the federal voting power of people in Ohio is 1/4 that of the people of Wyoming or North Dakota in the House

 

Yorktown

Well-known member
So how can you have no more mail in voting if the states decide for themselves how the votes will be cast in their individual state?

Yea you dont... Either we have Federalism or we have an all powerful Fed.
Not saying reforms are easy to implement in all 50 states.
 

Crusaders

Moderator
The reforms needed are pretty simple:

- No interstate campaign monies
- Absolute limits on campaign funding and donations
- ID requirement to vote
- Comprehensive surveillance of all voting facilities during entire voting process
- No allowance of denial of an audit if a candidate desires one
 

D4fan

Well-known member
Your point earlier about the Senate takes care of the of the balance. The issue with the Electoral college, and thus the House of Representatives, is that the House has not been increased in size since 1929, when it was capped at 435. That means the federal voting power of people in Ohio is 1/4 that of the people of Wyoming or North Dakota in the House

Interesting read.
 

bob99

Well-known member
Kind of the opposite akshually lol.
Anyway, clearly those are the states I was referring to as needing to get their sht together if mail voting is going to continue. There likely isn't anything that casts more doubt on an election than taking a week to count the votes.


If the states are doing what they individually want to do than you have no right to complain about it. State run elections. What could possibly go wrong?
 

fish82

Well-known member
Anyway, clearly those are the states I was referring to as needing to get their sht together if mail voting is going to continue. There likely isn't anything that casts more doubt on an election than taking a week to count the votes.


If the states are doing what they individually want to do than you have no right to complain about it. State run elections. What could possibly go wrong?

I’m obviously not complaining about anything. You’re starting to talk yourself in circles lol.
 

Crusaders

Moderator
Your point earlier about the Senate takes care of the of the balance. The issue with the Electoral college, and thus the House of Representatives, is that the House has not been increased in size since 1929, when it was capped at 435. That means the federal voting power of people in Ohio is 1/4 that of the people of Wyoming or North Dakota in the House


Context is the Presidential election chief
 

bob99

Well-known member
I’m obviously not complaining about anything. You’re starting to talk yourself in circles lol.
You want the state to handle the presidential elections on the state level but then you say they are doing it wrong and need to get their sht together.
If the state are handling the election the way they see fit there is no sht to get together. So why are you complaining that the way they are doing things will cast doubt on an election?
 

fish82

Well-known member
You want the state to handle the presidential elections on the state level but then you say they are doing it wrong and need to get their sht together.
If the state are handling the election the way they see fit there is no sht to get together. So why are you complaining that the way they are doing things will cast doubt on an election?

That’s not what I said. Compose yourself and go reread what I wrote.
 

Harrycrane

Well-known member
If it is working just fine as it is, why are so many claiming this election was a fraud and the Capitol was overrun?
Because the guy who lost is a malignant narcissist who said the election was a fraud because he lost . He had enough enablers who stuck with him because of their own ambitions . It’s a cult and every challenge and suit was thrown out by every judge who heard them or had to rule. Why do you think “. SO MANY “ are claiming fraud ? Is it because there is so much evidence ? If so why didn’t even one case go Trumps way ?(. Over 50 and some of the judges were appointed by a Trump ). He’s a conman and a pathological liar who has a following who actually believed him and for some god forsaken reason. IN HIM ., I can’t tell you why
 

ByeDon

Active member
Context is the Presidential election chief

Meaning the Electoral College, correct?
  • 435 U.S. Representatives from the 50 states, plus
  • 100 U.S. Senators from the 50 states, plus
  • 3 members of the Electoral College to which the District of Columbia became entitled under the 23rd Amendment (ratified in 1961).
That's where the 538 number of electoral votes comes from.
 

bob99

Well-known member
No...they simply never bothered (or were prohibited by legislative pissing matches and/or antiquated laws) to set up the infrastructure/processes to do it, despite knowing 8 weeks in advance that the avalanche of mail ballots was coming.

Anyway, clearly those are the states I was referring to as needing to get their sht together if mail voting is going to continue. There likely isn't anything that casts more doubt on an election than taking a week to count the votes.
So what am I missing? You are clearly stating that there are states that need to get their sht together. Do you think there is a problem or not? You can't have it both ways.
 
.
Top