2020 Presidential Race

#34,752
#34,752
Weezer said:
I'm good with the system our FFs came up with, that we've used since the Constitution was ratified.
Click to expand...
Fair enough.
Basically the compromise was that more populated states carried greater weight but not in a one person/one vote ratio.
 
#34,753
#34,753
volfanhill said:
That’s interesting. I thought you and I were the only ones left with sense. Glad to hear there are three of us.
Click to expand...

giphy.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#34,754
#34,754
Weezer said:
I don't care which way they skew. I don't think states should have infinitely more power than other states based simply on population. The idea is that everyone's needs are addressed, not just the most populous places.
Click to expand...

If we based presidential elections on the popular vote it wouldnt matter what state the voter lived in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: luthervol
#34,760
#34,760
McDad said:
1. Yes.
2. They do have more "say".
2A. repeal 17th amendment; Increase Congressional reps to about 5,000 to 8,000.
Click to expand...
Then what was the whole each state should have 1/50th of the say BS? That in no way fits into your answers to questions 1 and 2.
 
#34,762
#34,762
luthervol said:
That's pretty much what it is.
Click to expand...
God you two are dense. It has nothing to do with party. And wasn’t designed as such. It was designed to insure that the United States were a thing. We have never had any interest in being a democracy at the fed level. As evidenced by how the POTUS and senators were selected initially. The FF knew a pure democracy is a bad idea at the fed level.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeslice13 and McDad
#34,765
#34,765
clarksvol00 said:
No.

Edit: ... and just to clarify I thought Trump would win. But how does that matter anyway?
Click to expand...
Each area of the country has their biases toward a particular candidate or party. CA/NY (D), TX/TN (R). Would both candidates have a fair shot to win? Going one person one vote creates a power vacuum where everything is not equal.
Now lets flip this, lets say we abolish parties and have candidates run on their ideas without the backing of a political party. Then I would entertain the idea of 1:1. But as long as we have separate political parties the EC makes all votes count as equal as possible while eliminating as much human bias as possible.
 
#34,766
#34,766
volfanhill said:
God you two are dense. It has nothing to do with party. And wasn’t designed as such. It was designed to insure that the United States were a thing. We have never had any interest in being a democracy at the fed level. As evidenced by how the POTUS and senators were selected initially. The FF knew a pure democracy is a bad idea at the fed level.
Click to expand...
A neutron star used to be the most dense object in the universe, then luther was discovered.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hUTch2002, DC_Vol, W.TN.Orange Blood and 3 others
#34,767
#34,767
McDad said:
A neutron star used to be the most dense object in the universe, then luther was discovered.
Click to expand...
Just curious, what are your thoughts on the abolishment of political parties. Ive thought it would be better if we could get rid of parties and have candidates running on their own centralized ideas vs. a party platform we could get better candidates with more equal chances of winning, instead of candidates and places with bias to certain candidates.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#34,768
#34,768
mr.checkerboards said:
Each area of the country has their biases toward a particular candidate or party. CA/NY (D), TX/TN (R). Would both candidates have a fair shot to win? Going one person one vote creates a power vacuum where everything is not equal.
Now lets flip this, lets say we abolish parties and have candidates run on their ideas without the backing of a political party. Then I would entertain the idea of 1:1. But as long as we have separate political parties the EC makes all votes count as equal as possible while eliminating as much human bias as possible.
Click to expand...

Wow.
 
#34,774
#34,774
mr.checkerboards said:
Just curious, what are your thoughts on the abolishment of political parties. Ive thought it would be better if we could get rid of parties and have candidates running on their own centralized ideas vs. a party platform we could get better candidates with more equal chances of winning, instead of candidates and places with bias to certain candidates.
Click to expand...
When it comes to political things, my first reaction is cynicism. I think the party system is horrible and corrupt. But i also believe if the parties were abolished then clandestine parties would fill the void. Essentially, we would move political parties from the public to a private affair. I suspect political parties evolved because it made things easier for candidates running and politicians governing. I doubt they give that up even by an act of abolition.

I would test just about any ideo over what we currently have, tbh.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mr.checkerboards
#34,775
#34,775
mr.checkerboards said:
Just curious, what are your thoughts on the abolishment of political parties. Ive thought it would be better if we could get rid of parties and have candidates running on their own centralized ideas vs. a party platform we could get better candidates with more equal chances of winning, instead of candidates and places with bias to certain candidates.
Click to expand...
Multiple diverse parties that have to form coalitions to form a government seems to have worked in some places. Of course, it hasn't worked in some places, too.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top