McCain?

[Imitation Saccharin]

The electoral college is outdated and unneeded.

Aye. But if we went by how many people instead of rural vs. urban, conservatives would loose a breathtakingly huge amount of power.

 

[OuroborosChoked]

You know I walked away from here feeling a little angry so I'll say this: A lack of will to participate in a "topic" in a videogame community over politics where half the members are seeing things from one side of fence isn't a valid argument.

Never was, never has been.
Thank you.

So a 50/50 split is unfair?

And...

"The Escapist Portal > The Escapist Forums > Off-topic Discussion"

FTW.

 

[TheKnifeJuggler]

Question! Semi-related to what Doug said, how do states figure into direct (non-electoral college) voting anyway? Wouldn't it come down to each person's vote counting?

I'm against the electoral college. It makes no sense at all.

I'll explain this as best as I can remember...

With Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_Collage_(United_States)

Okay. I read most of that article, but it doesn't address that representative voting isn't democratic. It touches on inaccuracy of representative voting, but doesn't explain that philosophically, if your personal vote may not count, it's not technically a democracy.

We have the technology today. We can make it one person, one vote. There is no need to add unneccessary bias to the system. Even if that resulted in candidates only stumping in large urban areas, there IS mass media to show the speeches either live or recorded.

The electoral college is outdated and unneeded.

Yes, but the Mass media can still be biased.
Fox News for example.
If there are competent people who make informed decisions in the Electoral college, then the system does work.

 

[TheKnifeJuggler]

You know I walked away from here feeling a little angry so I'll say this: A lack of will to participate in a "topic" in a videogame community over politics where half the members are seeing things from one side of fence isn't a valid argument.

Never was, never has been.
Thank you.

Okay, goodbye.

(Thank Christ, he's gone now.)

 

[OuroborosChoked]

Question! Semi-related to what Doug said, how do states figure into direct (non-electoral college) voting anyway? Wouldn't it come down to each person's vote counting?

I'm against the electoral college. It makes no sense at all.

I'll explain this as best as I can remember...

With Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_Collage_(United_States)

Okay. I read most of that article, but it doesn't address that representative voting isn't democratic. It touches on inaccuracy of representative voting, but doesn't explain that philosophically, if your personal vote may not count, it's not technically a democracy.

We have the technology today. We can make it one person, one vote. There is no need to add unneccessary bias to the system. Even if that resulted in candidates only stumping in large urban areas, there IS mass media to show the speeches either live or recorded.

The electoral college is outdated and unneeded.

Yes, but the Mass media can still be biased.
Fox News for example.
If there are competent people who make informed decisions in the Electoral college, then the system does work.

As I said, "to show the SPEECHES either live or recorded". Not coverage, punditry, or bias. I'm talking about the candidates themselves talking.

And that's a pretty big IF on your part. I'd prefer to not take things like the leadership of my country on faith in people I've never met and were hired by the political parties...

 

[spazzattack]

I would rather see a dog turd in office than McCain. (Come to think of it, a turd would be better then the current president as well)

It would still technically be the first black president.

I think Obama has a much better tax and health care plan, but he seems woefully short-sighted in terms of the war in Iraq, not that there is a simple way to resolve that particular conflict. Obama seems to be the pick for people who are non-American, which should be taken into account, considering how we are viewed as an imperialist state as of right now. We could use the foreign relations credit right now. The biggest problem with John McCain isn't anything about John McCain surprisingly. His pick of Senator Palin as V.P. was a tragic mistake. It was obviously a pander move to pick a person to relate to the average man by picking an average man, er woman. Its a shame that she is pretty uninformed about whats going on in this country.

 

[OuroborosChoked]

You know I walked away from here feeling a little angry so I'll say this: A lack of will to participate in a "topic" in a videogame community over politics where half the members are seeing things from one side of fence isn't a valid argument.

Never was, never has been.
Thank you.

So a 50/50 split is unfair?

And...

"The Escapist Portal > The Escapist Forums > Off-topic Discussion"

FTW.

Doesn't change the fact that any educated argument cannot be brought to a community such as this. Message boards aren't even valid pieces to argue over...

*waits for the default hypocritical rant*

Sarcasm is funny and it makes you look clever.

Why don't you try BRINGING an educated argument instead of just complaining? So far, you haven't presented anything at all except a quickly deleted irrational rant...

Put up or... well, you know the rest.

 

[TheKnifeJuggler]

Question! Semi-related to what Doug said, how do states figure into direct (non-electoral college) voting anyway? Wouldn't it come down to each person's vote counting?

I'm against the electoral college. It makes no sense at all.

I'll explain this as best as I can remember...

With Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_Collage_(United_States)

Okay. I read most of that article, but it doesn't address that representative voting isn't democratic. It touches on inaccuracy of representative voting, but doesn't explain that philosophically, if your personal vote may not count, it's not technically a democracy.

We have the technology today. We can make it one person, one vote. There is no need to add unneccessary bias to the system. Even if that resulted in candidates only stumping in large urban areas, there IS mass media to show the speeches either live or recorded.

The electoral college is outdated and unneeded.

Yes, but the Mass media can still be biased.
Fox News for example.
If there are competent people who make informed decisions in the Electoral college, then the system does work.

As I said, "to show the SPEECHES either live or recorded". Not coverage, punditry, or bias. I'm talking about the candidates themselves talking.

And that's a pretty big IF on your part. I'd prefer to not take things like the leadership of my country on faith in people I've never met and were hired by the political parties...

Yes, but even without the Political parties choosing electoral college members, your still putting your countries faith in people you've never met before.
And now, there are a whole lot more of them.

 

[Alex_P]

Yes, but the Mass media can still be biased.
Fox News for example.
If there are competent people who make informed decisions in the Electoral college, then the system does work.

Even then, the electoral college ridiculously privileges a few states -- the states that have the right demographic mix to make them "battlegrounds."

And it's not even about those states. It's about the fears and misconceptions of a handful of indecisive folks who mostly vote based on social conservatism and empty promises of tax cuts.

-- Alex

 

[TheKnifeJuggler]

You know I walked away from here feeling a little angry so I'll say this: A lack of will to participate in a "topic" in a videogame community over politics where half the members are seeing things from one side of fence isn't a valid argument.

Never was, never has been.
Thank you.

So a 50/50 split is unfair?

And...

"The Escapist Portal > The Escapist Forums > Off-topic Discussion"

FTW.

Doesn't change the fact that any educated argument cannot be brought to a community such as this. Message boards aren't even valid pieces to argue over...

*waits for the default hypocritical rant*

Message boards are so valid places to argue over.
As I see from the way you are talking, you seem to be a far right winger.
In a place like the internet, you simply don't have a lot of people who agree with you.

 

[OuroborosChoked]

Yes, but even without the Political parties choosing electoral college members, your still putting your countries faith in people you've never met before.
And now, there are a whole lot more of them.

I'd rather have it be in the hands of ALL of the people than the chosen few.

It's easier to bribe fewer people, for one thing...

 

[TheKnifeJuggler]

Even then, the electoral college ridiculously privileges a few states -- the states that have the right demographic mix to make them "battlegrounds."

And it's not even about those states. It's about the fears and misconceptions of a handful of indecisive folks who mostly vote based on social conservatism and empty promises of tax cuts.

-- Alex

Yes, but again, can't the same be said without the electoral college?

 

[TheKnifeJuggler]

Yes, but even without the Political parties choosing electoral college members, your still putting your countries faith in people you've never met before.
And now, there are a whole lot more of them.

I'd rather have it be in the hands of ALL of the people than the chosen few.

It's easier to bribe fewer people, for one thing...

Yes, but it's also easier to lie to a whole lot of people at once.

 

[Rankao]

Your electoral college system really does suck ass

It's actually a good thing it keeps some states from having too much say in elections. An example(of no EC system) would be Il. Chicago controls that states agenda because it is the premire population center. So the electoral college system allows lesser states and population centers a bigger say in running the country. Without the EC the northeast would have the biggest control of elections leaving the south and midwest with very little imput into elections.

Erm, surely the number of people is what should determine the election, not the states. If there really are fewer people in those states, surely its fair that they have a lesser say?

I've been saying for the longest time, there are less black people so they defiantly shouldn't have as important say (Sarcasm)

 

[hefajstos2]

Your not alone.

 

[OuroborosChoked]

Yes, but even without the Political parties choosing electoral college members, your still putting your countries faith in people you've never met before.
And now, there are a whole lot more of them.

I'd rather have it be in the hands of ALL of the people than the chosen few.

It's easier to bribe fewer people, for one thing...

Yes, but it's also easier to lie to a whole lot of people at once.

That's a cop out. We'll be lied to either way. We're being lied to now. Lies won't change.

 

[Alex_P]

Even then, the electoral college ridiculously privileges a few states -- the states that have the right demographic mix to make them "battlegrounds."

And it's not even about those states. It's about the fears and misconceptions of a handful of indecisive folks who mostly vote based on social conservatism and empty promises of tax cuts.

-- Alex

Yes, but again, can't the same be said without the electoral college?

But then the "battleground" population actually represents some kind of middle ground of the whole population's opinion rather than the middle ground of some random states' opinions. Kind of an improvement, no?

-- Alex

 

[TheKnifeJuggler]

Yes, but even without the Political parties choosing electoral college members, your still putting your countries faith in people you've never met before.
And now, there are a whole lot more of them.

I'd rather have it be in the hands of ALL of the people than the chosen few.

It's easier to bribe fewer people, for one thing...

Yes, but it's also easier to lie to a whole lot of people at once.

That's a cop out. We'll be lied to either way. We're being lied to now. Lies won't change.

Yes, but there are those who are lied to and those who check the facts.
If it's impossible to check the lies, then the only way to see they are lies is to wait for the people to get into office.
Thing is, America has a three house system, with the power balanced between the three houses so that none of them can act out on their own, and they try as best they can to act as one government, so no one person has all the power.

 

[TheKnifeJuggler]

Even then, the electoral college ridiculously privileges a few states -- the states that have the right demographic mix to make them "battlegrounds."

And it's not even about those states. It's about the fears and misconceptions of a handful of indecisive folks who mostly vote based on social conservatism and empty promises of tax cuts.

-- Alex

Yes, but again, can't the same be said without the electoral college?

But then the "battleground" population actually represents some kind of middle ground of the whole population's opinion rather than the middle ground of some random states' opinions. Kind of an improvement, no?

-- Alex

Well, you see the only way a political system like this can work is if the public is educated on who their candidates are.
Problem is, there are those who don't make informed decisions, and it's up to the people to choose someone who is either well known or narrow minded.

Problem is, the people who are narrow minded often vote for those who are narrow minded...

 

[TheKnifeJuggler]

The entire system is dependent on people who can make well informed decisions and can put people who support their opinions in power.

If one group has more people, then they win.
It doesn't necessarily make them right though.