Quote:
|
I think I understand your point. However, I think that your point is based on this false premise:
|
What's the False Premise?
Quote:
|
Most of the bad presidents we had did have the support of the people and would have continued to have the support of the people even if we changed our system of voting.
|
As long as we can only choose between the lesser of two evils, this will
be true. Or should we call it the only two different evils to choose from.
Quote:
|
The primary problem with our system of voting is that the people are supporting the wrong candidates.
|
That's not true! When America was forced to choose between "ONLY"
The Dem candidate and The Rep candidate the majority picked Bush!
Both candidates are wrong, just for different reasons.
Quote:
|
The primary problems are the fact that people are usually ignorant. The three problems are that too many people are ignorant of the positions of the candidates and that those who do know the positions aren't educated about what actually makes a good government. They'll instead just try to find an issue that favors themselves, and support that issue no matter who else it hurts. This is how the majority ends up oppressing the minority.
|
Well regardless of people’s intellect, I'm sure most people still will try to
pick a gov, that will be good. And yes everyone has different priorities so
don't expect everyone to think the same. Still when you are stuck picking
between "ONLY TWO" Parties (That have lied countless times) it's almost
pointless to listen to them anyways.
Quote:
|
I do see that pattern. But Ross Perot was just a guy with a bunch of money. Creating a system where he wins doesn't solve the real problems.
|
R.Perot was a little more than just some guy with money. But what he did
was very eye opening. In a short time got ~20% of the voters to support
him, not because he had money but because of what he said. If anything
I think people would be disenchanted with him, because he was goofy!
I thought he did a good job of embarrassing both parties, If you saw him
in the debates.
Quote:
|
I understand what you are saying, and I don't deny that third party candidates cannot win except in exceptional circumstances. What you say is true. But I do deny that this is the root cause of our problems. Implement Instant Runoff Voting, and take away the electoral college, and we'll still get bad presidents. Even with more choices, the majority is just as likely to make a bad choice.
|
Yes we still might get some bad Prez's but at least this way we Actually
have a chance of getting a really good one. As long as candidates are
under the Dem or Rep banner they are very limited in what the can do.
Also if the Dems&Reps have more competition they will be forced to do
a better job at governing or they won't!!!! Right?
Quote:
See, but that only works if each party questions his opponent's attacks on someone else. Would Nader have questioned Bush's attacks on Kerry? Why would he do that, Nader doesn't want Kerry to win. In order to play the political game successfully, Nader would try to call Bush a hypocrit, so that both Bush and Kerry look bad, and suddenly we have even more false rumors going around.
The real solution to our problem would have to involve getting people to see past that. It doesn't matter whether someone "can't make up his mind" or whether someone did drugs when he was young. What matters is the issues and the direction our country will go with each president. But people base their opinions only on whatever trash talking happens to float their way, and they vote for the wrong person.
|
The more parties fighting for the peoples votes the harder each
party will try to be the best governing body! Now we have only 2 parties,
so is all they have to do is be better that the other chump!
Quote:
The electoral college was made with a good idea in mind, but they made the mistake of allowing states to choose how electoral college members are elected. All of the states chose an horrible method of electing them.
But it's still better than nothing because with an electoral college, candidates are not forced to compromise, to play the political game, on every issue. They only need to do it on the issues important to swing states.
So what does the electoral college have to do with keeping only democrats and republicans in power, anyhow? If we got rid of it, I don't see how any third-party candidate would have a greater chance than he does now. If anything, a third-party candidate should have a better chance with the college, since it means he doesn't have to get a majority of the votes, necessarily.
|
The E.C. originated in the 1800's. Yes it was a good idea back then. It was
because people did not know anything about the Prez candidates so they
pick a guy they knew and trusted to go to D.C. and hear what each
candidate was about, come back tell everyone and pick from there.
Now we know more about Prez candidates than we do people in our own
families.
And the E.C.'s "winner take all rule" is what really gives the D&R's a
monopoly. Who pick the EC? Us or the politicians? The EC is not forced
by law to vote for the most pop. candidate!
Clinton got ~42% of the poeples Vote --> 70% (Electroial )
Bush Sr got ~39% of the peoples Vote --> 30%
Ross P. got ~18% of the peoples Vote --> 0%
In 2000
Al Gore got more votes (The Peoples Votes) but lost!
Thank the E.C.