I have a great idea. Just flip a coin. Mark heads or tails. When the tallies are counted, then go to the candidates. Flip a coin. The winner gets to choose either heads or tails. Once they choose, then you reveal the number of votes for each and the one with the most votes wins.

Probably a lot cheaper and just as effective as some elections...

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Flipping coins? I don't know... I'd say roll a dice and let the candidates choose a number, whichever number was rolled more often, that candidate wins... :p

They've made a complex game out of what should be one of the simplest things for a democracy to pull off in the first place.:nope: One person, one vote. Down with electoral voting.

Amen to the one person, one vote:up:

One question though, does the person have to be living?:rotfl:

There have been more proposed amendments to the Constitution concerning the Electoral College than for another issue. Over 700 proposals.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-regi...llege/faq.html

The consensus seems to be that the Electoral system is crap but probably the best crappy system we can find. As with many issues with the United States, it is a delicate balance between citizen rights (democracy) and State rights (Representative).

Since this country is slowly but firmly moving away from being the United States of America toward being the United Federation of America the issue of State rights is becoming mooter (I just made that up :up: )

Technically there is no reason not to have the President and Vice President elected by direct citizen vote. Politically though there are issues. The smaller states will feel more left out of the political game when the candidates concentrate solely on the highest population centers of the country. Why would any candidate spend the money and more importantly the time to campaign in Alaska for instance. Whether this is a valid point or not can be debated.

The bottom line seems to be that while a lot of people recognize the problems with the Electoral College, the system does work and the current political machines are geared for operating within an Electoral system. Since Congress is one of only two bodies that can change the system, and the political machines that run congressional elections like the Electoral system, fat chance of any changes.

That leaves the states being the only other body that can make this change. Smaller states sure aint goin to give up the Electoral system so it would be doubtful to get the necessary 2/3rds of the states (33 states) to propose the amendment nor get the necessary 3/4ths of the states (38 states) to ratify the amendment.

So we seem to be stuck with the Electoral system. The Electoral system was brought into existence like a bastard child -- half improvised, half compromised.

I would not count on either Congress nor the States changing it any time soon.

The system here in Australia is pretty simple. Just number the boxes, and the directions are on the ballot paper and printed on the inside of the voter screens. Some people do make mistakes, but it's still pretty low overall and everyone knows how it is done!:yep:

The same system is used for local, state and federal elections in all areas of the country, it keeps it simple and as there is no difference between locations, if you move, you don't have to figure out how to vote again.

I ran a polling both for the recent local elctions, we had 1000 votes to count with three people doing the counting. All results were in withing 1 1/2 hours of close of voting (6 PM) and we had packed up and left the place by 8 PM (only one paper to count!:D) I can work all three differnet elections and there is very little difference between them. It makes training alot easier!:yep:

Good summary, Platapus. The Constitution specifies that electors are to be appointed "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct", and that has never changed. There is nothing in the Constitution that even hints at a popular vote, and it is only because the people of the states have influenced their respective legislatures to do it that way that we vote for the president at all. We don't actually even vote for the presidential candidate, we vote for the local elector who will vote for him.

Actually, according to the Federalist Papers, Anti-Federalist Papers, and Common Sense, democracy is incorrect. The nation was founded as a republic, hence representatives, with a Constitution to chain down men from mischief (Jefferson). But since the days of Woodrow Wilson, the use of the word democracy as our form of government, has been mis-taught to every citizen. And FDR kicked it into high gear, and it hasn't stopped, nor has it slowed.

To qualify it, read Article IV, Section IV of the Constitution.
The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union, a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and upon application of the legislature , or the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened), against domestic violence.
This is not to be misconstrued with the Republican Party, as it is anything but. It is more accurate to be called Republicrat.

Democracy is a direct translation from the old Greek government by the people, or the people to rule.

Republic comes from the old Latin and means literally, the public affairs, or the law. The party does not subscribe to this. So it is in name only.

The Founding Fathers took the Republic a few steps further and provided a list of rules and regulations that gave the Federal and State governments the authority to perform certain tasks and duties. But I seriously doubt they would approve of what they dig their fingers into today.

Citizens Rights come from their Creator, as viewed by the founders. The Constitution and Bill of Rights(?). The former alone has 286 safeguards built into it to protect the citizens from tyrannical government, but as todays lawyers would have you believe, it's a living breathing document open to interpretation, and you can then interpret those safeguards out of existance, and do as you will with the citizens, including enslaving them and making them subjects at the will of those they elect. A far cry from what the founders had envisioned. The Bill of Rights should have been called What the Governmant Shall Not Do.

To say they could not have forseen this, or that is pure bunk. The founders were lightyears ahead of their time, and lightyears ahead of most in our modern times. But as time marches forward and the United States of America involves itself more and more in global affairs, it becomes more and more like what Rome became, an Imperium.

To quote Hamilton: "Real liberty is never found in despotism or the extremes of democracy"

James Madison from the Federalist Papers #10: ".....democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatable with personal security, or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

Hamilton on June 21, 1788: " It had been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity."

Bejamin Franklin to a Mrs. Powell of Philadelphia after the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention, "......well Dr. Franklin, do we have a monarchy or a republic? Madame, you have a republic, if you can keep it."

The term democracy has been misused for a long time but remains a catchy phrase.

Fighting for democracy sounds so noble. It is a shame that there aint no democracies around these parts (Switzerland being close to an exception.)

In trying to bridge between the fantasy of democracy and the reality of representative government, variations of the word democracy crop up

Indirect democracy
Representative democracy
Republican democracy

All of which obfuscate the fact that the population is separated from the decision making process by intermediaries who are elected.

And this is a good thing. Can you imagine a nation like the United States being governed by a direct democracy? :nope:

The funniest thing about this post is that most people won't get the joke :-D

Vote Early... Vote often

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Little chance of that ever happening here in Australia!:doh: You would be hard pressed to find anyone who would want to vote more than once! As for voting early, I had three people knock on the door after closing time this election, but within 15 minutes of the poll closing (they still didn't get in, I don't care how long or how loud they knock!)

Best ever late turn up was 1 1/2 hours after close!:roll:

You'll get an "F" in Mrs. Larson's 12th-grade Government class if your essay says something like that. America is a democracy . It says so in the text.

She suggests that you take more time learning the "Key Concepts" in each chapter and less time coming up with ridiculous theories that just nitpick semantics. :p


I hate that b1^$%:x

:p Well, maybe half :p

Since even the easiest solution is not going to work as long as general public has to move its ass, so I got a perfect solution.
How about bringing election procedure to home?

We can put McCain, Obama, Palin and Biden in an isolated house, and rig that house with cameras. Yes, exactly. BIG BROTHER "THE PRESIDENT". If a candidate is going to do better in house stuff then he will get votes from viewers.

People just need to sit infront of TV, watch their favorite candidates 24/7, and vote. Easy, isn't it?