POLITICS Theresa May out as PM.

Because of every available alternative - including those you now suggest - it was the Electoral College which gained the necessary consensus, was passed by a majority of delegates, and which now exists.

If you’ve got a better one, work to replace the Electoral College with it.

 

A general election. Everybody votes and they all count the same. The Electoral College is dissolved as an antiquated method with its electors and unequal voting values.

 

Goes for nominations as well?

 

Yes, I get that you are justifying its place by its simple existence since your arguments for it otherwise were poor and countered effectively. The point is still whether or not it is a good system, the basis of any discussion of laws, ideas, government processes, etc.

But, just for future discussions, we can't really argue the value of laws or anything else as long as they are justified by merely existing and having been passed by a majority at some point in time? Then what's the point of this board? Why discuss the value of anything?

 

I assume no since those are managed by private organizations.

 

Yowza

 

Nominations, as in the Supreme Court and/or cabinet positions?

 

Party nominations

You name it

 

Well, technically, you can get on the presidential ballot through signatures (only 275 in Tennessee) or as a write-in. In practicality, I'd be in favor of the system in a primary which best reflects one man, on vote, too, though. It's a bit different, as well, since primaries aren't elections to office, officially. The previous delegate system of the Democrats was pretty bad, though.

 

More just Cotton Re: IP

 

i think the EC is still an important aspect to our government especially since the federal government is way outside of its banks with no sign of us putting it back anytime soon.

I still don't know why most policies need to be federal instead of state and local government level.

 

Money, you can’t have it without our rules

 

Rural is largely not equal to poor. Poor people all over the place.

 

I think that African Americans would point to the Emmett Till thread as a reason.

 

Look, [uck fay] wit, I’m not “justifying it by its own existence” - its existence actually justifies it perfectly, given that it is the only [dadgum]ed system that we have ever and still currently use, and the only one that now and ultimately matters.

It is real.
It exists.
It’s what was passed and what is followed.

This isn’t my opinion, but a simple statement of fact, and which I’ve repeatedly said.

Are the pros and cons to majority vote? Sure.

What about first past the post? Absolutely.

Throwing random darts at a board? Yes.

Letting a cow shit on a square in a hand-painted grid? Of course!

Our current system isn’t the only one in the [dadgum]ed world, or certainly not the only one that your [uck fay]ing retarded brain can conceive or which you or similarly stupid others may more prefer, imagine, wish upon, want, wish were true, hope to get, yearn to experience or anything beyond the current system, and the only one which has ever been, is now, or will ever be used to elect any President of the United States of America.

And neither because my statement is in any way lacking nor you have or are even capable of stumbling across back-to-back cogent thoughts - but because there truly is no bounds that are safe from the random possibilities of your absolute, incessant, utterly moronic and unmitigatedly stupid [uck fay]ing thoughts, opinions and ideas.

You’ve only further proven that you’re a [dadgum]ed moron, and are neither worth my time and effort to engage, nor anyone else’s.

I’m just going to put you on ignore, Un, act like you don’t exist, and honestly don’t give a single [uck fay] what you or anyone else thinks about it.

 

Damned fair point.

 

Who gives a shit? You can't even understand the [uck fay]ing point, argue false points and think you have made a [dadgum] irrefutable notion none of us lesser people can fathom. I made some simple straight forward arguments and you can't [uck fay]ing deal. It's the "system we have" and "there are other ideas"? No shit, you dumb[uck fay].

So, go [uck fay] your arrogant ass self. Talk to me, don't talk to me; I don't give a shit. I'll talk to anyone, so do whatever your dipshit ass wants.

 

https://images.app.goo.gl/NKHALkkTXjCZATnv9

 

As a little kid, I remember listening to my grandfather and his cronies debating this and I am now a grandfather, so I tend to agree.

The only change I see even remotely happening would be in how states allocate their electoral votes (winner take all -> % share). That happening will depend on which party holds power in the state and whether or not changing it will give them more power.

People are lazy when it comes to politics and electing government representatives. Half of eligible voters can't even bother to vote. It pizzs me off that we aren't hitting a 90% participation rate.

 

I agree with this. The EC won't change, probably not until both parties have been burned by it. However, even though it won't, I still think it should and your last example is a great reason why.

People have an apathy to voting, in a lot of respects, because they don't feel their vote counts (Also, lazy). Unless you live in the 10-12 setting states, how much does your vote for POTUS count? With a general election, states are irrelevant. Only votes matter and, suddenly, living in Sacramento or Birmingham just got me interesting in terms of how you vote.

In any event, it should be, but it won't. Not in my lifetime, anyway.