zanev wrote:Our votes dont count as long as we have the electoral collage. If we want to truly have a nation based on democracy we need to get rid of it.
I sort of agree with you, but not really.
First, very few electors have voted differently than what they promised (it's only happened a few times throughout history, and I don't think it's happened recently). Therefore, the vote is not being decided by the electors (which is what was originally intended in the constitution, I believe).
Second, for most states that have a "winner take all" system for selecting electors, the electoral college basically magnifies the popular vote and shrinks the minority vote. So, if a state splits 49%/51%, the will of the majority is magnified (because they get 100% of the electors) while the minority shrinks (they get nothing).
I suppose the one problem that I see is that the "winner take all" system doesn't allow opinions that are dispersed among the states aggregate together. For example, if 49% of Nevadans and 49% of Arizonians vote Democrat, the democratic votes in Nevada don't help bolter the democratic vote in Arizona. They both lose.
Anyway, I think the
real problem is that both political parties have shut out everyone else. I think we need a greater diversity of ideas in government, but silly laws have locked out a lot of non-mainstream political parties, and socially, we think of these parties as 'fringe' so they're not often taken seriously, which in turn results in them often having poor candidates. It's a feedback loop which keeps diversity of opinions down in Washington.
I think a second problem is that elections, thanks to media, have become popularity contests. It's kind of scary that someone with as much influence as the president of one of the most powerful countries in the world (the U.S.) is elected without even getting into a half-way heated, intellectual, political debate. Debates are more often a show than an intellectual exercise. I tend to wonder if not electing the president directly was better, but having spoken to someone from China (which apparently uses indirect election for higher offices), this can lead to having no control over leaders. Apparently in China, their system works in a way such that the people elect local representatives, and then local representatives elect state representatives, who elect federal representatives, who elect the highest offices. In that system, the people are so removed from the election process that they have little control over the high offices.
BTW, if I've got facts wrong, please feel free to correct me.
