POLITICS Theresa May out as PM.

I wonder if making voting days a Holiday or a Saturday would do much to increase the voter participate rates.

 

I was raised by my parents and taught by my teachers that it is was your duty as an American to vote. Period. Full Stop.

It did not make a tinker's damn, who you voted for, R, D, L, I, etc. You don't like whose on the ballot? Write in somebody you think can lead YOUR country. People fought and died for that right, just get your azz up, quit whining and fricking vote.

 

I think it's an excellent idea. Tuesday voting is also an outdated idea.

 

Whereas I was taught that people fought and died for the right not to, as well. I don't vote. I actually need to cancel my registration so I don't get jury duty'd.

 

I used "rural" as a synonym for "less populated." The point is that the system is designed specifically so that the people in NYC, LA, Chicago, etc. cannot rule over the rest of the country as a whole. That is exactly what happened in the 2016 election as represented by the map I posted. That is a protection for every voter who doesn't live in those population centers, and who may not share the same views as those who do live there. That's a good thing, IMO.

"Weird" that your dumb ass is just noticing the electoral college and the parliamentary system that have been in place since 1789 and 1215, respectively.

You know that Clinton received a "minority" of votes in both of his elections, right? I refer, of course, to the Clinton who got hummers from his teenage intern, not the crazy one; she got a majority.

 

I'm actually a bright, logical, articulate, and damned good-looking person.

I do not like IP. I think he is gross.

 

Monetary incentive or tax credit

 

Fair enough

 

Your argument ignores the fact that we are, still, in some watered-down form, a collection of States. Over a couple of centuries, the idea that federal government has and should wield more control has become more pervasive, and any mention of the rights of States is tarnished by the fact that the idea was used to defend abhorrent practices like slavery and segregation. But the fact remains that Tennesseans are different than New Yorkers by fact of citizenship of Tennessee instead of New York--one America, 50 States.

Tennessee or Wyoming or anywhere else did and, IMO, should continue to, demand that their state, and the will of the majority of their state, should be heard in federal election matters. It is the reason that the people of Colorado, or anywhere else that is trying to push the idea that the electors from their state be assigned by popular vote, should immediately vote from office anyone espousing that idea--it cedes influence on federal affairs away from their state. And why? Because somebody didn't like the result of the LAST election. It is short-sighted, stupid, and takes power away from the people of Colorado.

 

But, the intent wasn't necessarily about population. Hamilton and others worried about the electorate, the riff raff they didn't entirely trust, being duped and the electors were there to serve as a buffer to this possibility. So, it really wasn't about population centers as much as the elite of each area getting a say.

I'm still not understanding why, specifically, the views of rural voters need to be specifically given a priority above other groups. To use an obvious comparison, about 70% of the US is white. Should we create a system in which those different views are given a similar priority or greater value? I don't see why any group should be given any sort of consideration beyond getting their equal share of the vote. If Americans are choosing to live in urban areas over rural areas then that is simply a product of our developing society. In 1790, the population in urban areas was 5%, but no consideration was given to them in terms of disproportionate vote. I don't see why it would be different know the roles have reversed.

 

“in some watered-down form, a collection of States“ -Cotton

This is what it all boils down to.

The argument goes from this.

 

I can attest to the good looking; both you and your wife.

 

These states still have representation in Congress, designed by the Constitution to have much greater powers than the Executive, however true or not this may have worked out (I have an argument we should get rid of the Senate, but it is a harder argument to make, in my opinion, than the EC.). President is a national office where the entire country should vote as a collective entity. The idea a person in Wyoming, effectively, gets four votes to a person in California's one is a fault in the system which needs to be corrected.

I get the argument of the EC you are making, but I just find it an inherently flawed system where the fewer people live in your area, the greater your relative influence.

 

Hear, hear... I used to buy into that “patriotic duty to vote” crap too but when I noticed over the past several election cycles that I always seem to be voting AGAINST somebody I despise (even if I despise the other candidate also, just not as much...) rather than FOR somebody I truly support it became clear to me that I was, in fact, “wasting” my vote. Why stand in line for hours to cast a ballot for somebody you really don’t support just so other folks will be satisfied that you “did your civic duty”... there’s no one on the GOP horizon that seems like they will challenge Trump successfully and I really don’t see anyone on the Democrat side that is palatable either. It just seems like such a waste of time to participate in a national election when the field is populated with people who are completely sold out to their party’s interests even if it goes against the overall best interests of the nation. The system in place now is broken and I honestly don’t have any faith whatsoever that it can ever be put right again, if it ever was to begin with...

 

I doubt many know that until 1913 Senators were selected by State Legislators.

 

I understand the logic behind your "right not to" freedoms and can not/will not argue against those freedoms.

I did not mean for the interpretation of "duty" to be a compulsory requirement.

I just feel we are stronger when everyone participates, no matter what your political persuasion. It is a personal feeling not a logically defined position.

 

How about, whoever wants to run, we put their name on the list, the one with the most votes wins. Easy

 

I haven't voted at a polling place since I started voting