I can’t believe that we haven’t came with a fail safe undisputable way to vote and get the results within a day, the more this drags out the more suspicion that one side is cheating, this has been going on since Daily of Chicago was mayor. seems to me the technology should be there for one of the most important things we can do in voting for the candidate of your choice.
Bureaucratic incompetency for you!
In person with an ID…
Have a traveling service to hospitals, nursing homes and such.
I guess it’s just too hard for people to be honest upstanding citizens. (no dig on a specific party)
Optically scanned paper ballots are the most secure, auditable, and easily recounted. It’s not a technology problem, to count them faster you buy more scanners and hire/train more people.
edit to add:
here’s what voting technology results in http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2008/08/ohio-voting-machines-contained.html
There are too many options involved. Straight ballot counts, forget this archaic electoral college. We are in the 21st century WITH technology, not the turn of the 18th century when things were spread out and no technology.
I’d be good with campaign reform too….not being able to say anything or even mention an opponent or opposing party and state what the candidate intends to do. If a plan is mentioned at all, tell what the plan is and how its going to be implemented. The name calling and threats and “his plan will do this” garbage has gone too far.
I don’t trust any politician any more, not do I believe in what they say. The last four years has been the biggest %hitshow I’ve ever seen and if this country’s two major parties can’t find someone worth anything to be in office then we are in a world of hurt.
Congress has left voting laws up to the states. Each state has their own law. Want change? It needs to start in the US house of representatives.
I’m all for a national standard. Especially in the presidential race. I think there should be a standard limit to early voting. For example, the 5 days prior to the first Tuesday in Nov. Candidates and voters should both be alive and eligible on election day. Minn started Sept 18.
-J.
forget this archaic electoral college.
100% agree. I can’t believe it’s lasted this long.
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Tom Sawvell wrote:</div>
forget this archaic electoral college.100% agree. I can’t believe it’s lasted this long.
Bad Idea. The country would be run by voters in NY, LA and other large cities. The rural vote would never matter. It’s there for a reason. Do more research on why it was written into the Constitution. It’s very interesting.
-J.
I know why it was written. And it makes votes and states disproportionate.
I know why it was written. And it makes votes and states disproportionate.
At least part of the problem is that the House has been capped since 1929 and based on the 1910 census if I remember right. The electoral college doesn’t work correctly anymore when the house no longer represents state populations accurately.
Edit: been the same since 1913, was made law to fix it there in 1929.
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Tom Sawvell wrote:</div>
forget this archaic electoral college.100% agree. I can’t believe it’s lasted this long.
Careful what you wish for.
Please correct me if I’m wrong. (I’m far from a politician) But I believe the Electoral College was put in place to give less populous States more of a voice?
Without the Electoral College we could potentially just count the ballots in the top 10 states and get the majority. This would ignore the needs of 40 other states…
The way it is now each state gets a voice. The more populous states get less of a voice per person than the less populous states in the midwest. Without the Electoral College the MidWest votes would be useless.
Get rid of the Electoral College and the opinion of the people in the big cities is all that will ever matter.
Maybe this is what you guys want? That would be fine. I just wanted to make sure you knew what you were wishing for.
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Dan wrote:</div>
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Tom Sawvell wrote:</div>
forget this archaic electoral college.100% agree. I can’t believe it’s lasted this long.
Careful what you wish for.
Please correct me if I’m wrong. (I’m far from a politician) But I believe the Electoral College was put in place to give less populous States more of a voice?
Without the Electoral College we could potentially just count the ballots in the top 10 states and get the majority. This would ignore the needs of 40 other states…
The way it is now each state gets a voice. The more populous states get less of a voice per person than the less populous states in the midwest. Without the Electoral College the MidWest votes would be useless.
Get rid of the Electoral College and the opinion of the people in the big cities is all that will ever matter.
Maybe this is what you guys want? That would be fine. I just wanted to make sure you knew what you were wishing for.
This is not correct. Most Americans have no idea why the electoral college was implemented.
You have to remember, the electoral college dates back far before any of these megacities or a majority of our states existed. It had nothing to do with certain population centers and rural areas being represented. The electoral college was put in place as an alternative as our founding fathers did not trust the general public to choose a leader(who ultimately looked like them and would help them retain their control). They wanted a fall back plan. Also remember, there was a lot of hesitation to let anyone vote who didn’t own land, much less women, minorities, etc.
Today, most people have wrongly casted the purpose of the electoral college as a means to protect rural representation. I’m not arguing that it may do that, but it was not the historical intention.
I see arguments for both sides of keeping and eliminating the electoral college. My opinion is that it is not going anywhere though.
Bad Idea. The country would be run by voters in NY, LA and other large cities. The rural vote would never matter. It’s there for a reason. Do more research on why it was written into the Constitution. It’s very interesting.
That’s exactly what is happening now.
As a candidate, you only need to focus on the large population centers of each state and if you win them, you get ALL the marbles. If you win 51% of the vote, you get 100% of what REALLY puts you in office–the electoral college votes.
So basically a full 49% of that state’s votes are irrelevant. They don’t count for anything because the winner didn’t take 51%, the winner was handed 100%.
Getting rid of the “winner take all” electoral college would result in candidates having to compete for every vote because it’s the grand total that counts. It would actually matter if you ran a tight race in a state like MN because getting a million votes here in MN would be just as important as getting a million votes in NYC.
Right now that is NOT the case, a small group of states are literally the ONLY states that matter and within those states only the large cities matter because they have enough population to give the 51%.
The Electoral College made sense at a point in time and for reasons that have long passed. Make every vote matter.
Grouse
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Dan wrote:</div>
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Tom Sawvell wrote:</div>
forget this archaic electoral college.100% agree. I can’t believe it’s lasted this long.
Bad Idea. The country would be run by voters in NY, LA and other large cities. The rural vote would never matter. It’s there for a reason. Do more research on why it was written into the Constitution. It’s very interesting.
-J.
[/quote
I agree with Jon & Joe on not doing away with the electoral votes.
I don’t know for sure but the big cities here in the Midwest run our states now or at least in Wisconsin. If you look at how Biden carried Wisconsin. Biden only won 14 counties, but they were the counties that had Milwaukee and suburbs, Madison, Janesville, Beloit, East Claire, Superior, etc. Most all of the rural counties voted for Trump. So Wisconsin voted for Biden in the nation’s eyes. I’m not sure but I think the same thing happened in MN.
Our large cities are where the Liberal and minority population lives for the most part.
Much like 4 years ago, we are going to have a new President. Some will claim fraud, dishonesty, threaten to leave, continually share false information, etc. Good for them.
Also like 4 years ago, most people’s lives will not change one bit. The extremists will be extreme. The less educated and easily manipulated people on each side will continue to spew false information to fit their narrative. Just as things start to cool off, we will start looking towards the 2024 general election.
Rinse, recycle, repeat. The older I get…the more I try to distance myself from all of it.
As a candidate, you only need to focus on the large population centers of each state and if you win them, you get ALL the marbles. If you win 51% of the vote, you get 100% of what REALLY puts you in office–the electoral college votes.
To me another argument against it is that this is not how the electoral college originally worked, it’s state laws that made them (except two) winner take all. The electoral college we have now is very different than what was originally created.
I agree with you buckybadger, although I will say this time around things seem more tense then I can ever remember so I hope people stay calm for the most part. A few riots here and there are to be expected and our country can definitely withstand that.
As with many things the effects of the changes that inevitably will come out of these times won’t be felt for years to come
All politicians are crooks, just the way the system makes them, not really their fault. If you are a politician and are honest and truly work for the people you won’t make it far because neither party will support you. Without party support and party dollars you can’t get far. All the higher ups want is sheep to be elected that will blindly support anything that they put out there. If a politician puts out a bill/law/whatever that may help you, it is helping them 10x more…..we need term limits for all politicians and party leaders.
I’d like the electoral college to be changed to every state has the same number of votes. CA will always be liberal and will give one side 20% of the presidency election after election after election.
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Jon Jordan wrote:</div>
Bad Idea. The country would be run by voters in NY, LA and other large cities. The rural vote would never matter. It’s there for a reason. Do more research on why it was written into the Constitution. It’s very interesting.That’s exactly what is happening now.
As a candidate, you only need to focus on the large population centers of each state and if you win them, you get ALL the marbles. If you win 51% of the vote, you get 100% of what REALLY puts you in office–the electoral college votes.
So basically a full 49% of that state’s votes are irrelevant. They don’t count for anything because the winner didn’t take 51%, the winner was handed 100%.
Getting rid of the “winner take all” electoral college would result in candidates having to compete for every vote because it’s the grand total that counts. It would actually matter if you ran a tight race in a state like MN because getting a million votes here in MN would be just as important as getting a million votes in NYC.
Right now that is NOT the case, a small group of states are literally the ONLY states that matter and within those states only the large cities matter because they have enough population to give the 51%.
The Electoral College made sense at a point in time and for reasons that have long passed. Make every vote matter.
Grouse
You are conflating the electoral college with states’ policies on “winner take all” process. I think more states should be like Nebraska and Maine, where electorates are given to the districts they won. Biden won 1/5 of Nebraska’s electorates and Trump won 1/4 of Maine’s.
I think more states should be like Nebraska and Maine, where electorates are given to the districts they won.
Agreed. That would be better and a more realistic representation of the population then. I think the whole country learned a LOT about how Nebraska and Maine cast their electoral college votes this year. In a way it’d still be like the electoral college where they go with the majority of certain area, but it’d be on the smaller scale of districts and not entire whole states.
You are conflating the electoral college with states’ policies on “winner take all” process. I think more states should be like Nebraska and Maine, where electorates are given to the districts they won. Biden won 1/5 of Nebraska’s electorates and Trump won 1/4 of Maine’s.
I understand NE and ME do this but these are the only two states that split their electors. Also, again by winning part of one of these states, you don’t recieve the actual sum of the individual votes to add to your nationwide tally, you just receive 1 or 2 electors.
So yes, this is better in terms of getting away from winner take all, but it is still invalidating the need to maximize a candidate’s total vote count.
Grouse
I dont see why a popular vote would be bad – it sure would make voting seem more meaningful on a personal level no matter what flavor of state you live in. Maybe we could average more than 50 something % voter turnout.
Given that it would take a constitutional change to axe the college most think it will never happen, so states are getting creative. Maine and Nebraska did their own thing which made it more representative even if it’s still not one person one vote. The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is slowly gaining states (currently 196 electoral votes) and if it ever reached 270 it would functionally end the electoral college and it would be a true popular vote.
The federal government (in theory) has to work for the whole nation. Your state and local officials should be the ones acting most closely with your interests specific to where you live.
Ya you think the federal government is going to work for North Dakota if the EC goes away?
So many people must have failed their junior high and high school Civics classes.
So many people must have failed their junior high and high school Civics classes.
Do public schools even teach it as a general subject any more?
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>buckybadger wrote:</div>
So many people must have failed their junior high and high school Civics classes.Do public schools even teach it as a general subject any more?
Our local schools teach it. One of the guys I coach with teaches a high school course centered on Civics and Civic Engagement. They do a really nice job getting kids to see the government in action while eliminating biases or preferences from the equation completely. They have had older 18 year old students volunteering during different elections. Students are attending board meetings at the county and school level and reporting back to classes. State and local government leaders come in to explain their job and everything that goes with it. They regularly write letters to elected officials and make videos to send them. They tour the local courthouse and meet with department heads. It’s amazing the response the students get. Most elected officials who our local district have worked with wish more schools would reach out to them and are more than willing to help out, visit, or join a class via zoom.
I dont see why a popular vote would be bad – it sure would make voting seem more meaningful on a personal level no matter what flavor of state you live in.
If it was one person one vote, I can’t see why it would even make sense to vote if you lived in most parts of the country. Unless your views aligned with the inner city there would be no point because they would rule all. Plain and simple.
Our local schools teach it. One of the guys I coach with teaches a high school course centered on Civics and Civic Engagement. They do a really nice job getting kids to see the government in action while eliminating biases or preferences from the equation completely. They have had older 18 year old students volunteering during different elections. Students are attending board meetings at the county and school level and reporting back to classes. State and local government leaders come in to explain their job and everything that goes with it. They regularly write letters to elected officials and make videos to send them. They tour the local courthouse and meet with department heads. It’s amazing the response the students get. Most elected officials who our local district have worked with wish more schools would reach out to them and are more than willing to help out, visit, or join a class via zoom.
Thanks for posting. I hope this becomes more common.
I’m fine with getting rid of the electoral college. If and only if, there is a law to go along with it.
You either own a homestead, or are not currently receiving a certain dollar amount of public assistance before you can vote.
The way it is now, there are so many folks on the dole, that of course they are gonna vote for more free handouts. This keeps the party they vote for in control of them for the rest of their lives.
It’s not right IMO, that the people that do no giving and only taking even get a vote.
The topic ‘In this day and age’ is closed to new replies.
