<p>Earilmadith, your brought up a point that Montesquiea, a European philosopher, made when America was just becoming independent, which was that America would become too big to be democratic, as evidenced with our president having a 23% approval rating, yet still hasn’t been impeached.</p>
<p>Do you really think that we don’t need the electoral college anymore? People haven’t gotten smarter about choosing who they want to run the country. They did reelect a certain current president, you know.</p>
<p>Well, St. Hudson, we fumble along representatively. I think it would work if people gave a care about politics, unfortunately, that’s all up to lobbyists now.</p>
<p>I agree, Earil, socialism has been successful in Europe (esp. Scandanavia and those countries nobody ever thinks about). The main reason it would fail in America, though, is because Americans don’t have the capacity to accept it. And the size of the bureaucracy would be simply horrendous (ergo, corrupt, like you said).</p>
<p>The electoral college is f-ed up.</p>
<p>Electoral college is not obsolete, it’s just screwed up. America is filled more with people who decide who they’re voting for AS they are in the booth voting, mainly for stupid, arbitrary reason, like they think a person “looks presidential.” Until we have a country that cares, we need the electoral college to insure we don’t elect a celebrity like Oprah to the oval office.</p>
<p>I HATE OPRAH!</p>
<p>Because it’s not directly democratic? Why do you feel that way?</p>
<p>but i do believe the first time around there were issues with whether he had really won. i think the population was against him. and would you really have prefered kerry. and the college usually goes with the people, therefore they are a useless middle man. unless im mistaken.</p>
<p>Earilmadith, you want to know why I hate the O’ster?</p>
<p>It’s not just that the electoral college is undemocractic, but some people’s votes turn out to be worth more than others’. Why should the elite get to decide who is educated enough to vote “properly,” for lack of a better word? People elected Bush the second time, but the electoral college elected him the first. And the electoral college certainly didn’t prevent his reelection.</p>
<p>When my parents applied to become citizens, they had to take a citizenship test. I wonder how many true-blooded Americans would pass that test?</p>
<p>id like to know.</p>
<p>They’re a failsafe, in case the people really screw up. They might not work as well in the two party idiocracy we live in, because they’re staunch party members, but I still think it’s a good plan to have a measure of security between the general population and the president.</p>
<p>I think more power should be focused in Congress. Less sexy or effective than having a one-man show of the president, but that’s what the founding fathers intended and if people started thinking about politics more it would be a vast improvement, because you can petition your congressmen and they might have the time to listen to you.</p>
<p>Sure, St. Hudson.</p>
<p>Wink, that I think is a problem with the states- more states should divide the electoral votes in proportion to the actual popular votes, instead of an all or nothing approach like most states have.</p>
<p>and that citizenship test would probably tear me up. im not going to lie it’s mean what they want others to know when I, a student in an american school, doesnt. though i heard they were supposed to make it easier.</p>
<p>ha! congressmen pfft. but what’s this about not liking the two party system? do tell.</p>
<p>But the times when the electoral college chose a different president than the people, (Bush, Hayes, etc.) the choice didn’t exactly prevent screw-ups, rather caused them.</p>
<p>I think you’re right about the two-party system. It’s just awful.</p>
<p>Well, Oprah is dumbing down America left and right. She is lauded with praise for being so nice and "soccer-mom"ish when she prays on people’s emotions. For example, kidnappings/rapes/child prostitution are low in America, yet every mother thinks that a pedophile is around the corner because Oprah has stories everyday about stuff like that to keep people watching, thinking they’re being informed. As well, shes a billionaire yet acts like she’s “just one of the gals.”</p>
<p>wink, i live a loooonnnnnngggg way from Michigan</p>
<p>also, i think elections should be by popular vote only. It’s the people who should decide, not where you live</p>
<p>Old Georgie Washington hated on political parties, and I think he was right to do so. It gives the common man an easy cop out for voting- he only has to decide once whether he’s a democrat or republican, and he can go vote that way for the rest of his life, regardless of whatever actual merit the candidates possess. Without political parties, candidates have to come up with their own platform, maybe have an original idea once or twice, get elected on their own steam. It’s an exciting possibility.</p>
<p>The two-party system is very limiting it scope. It’s a matter of “you’re either with us or against us” (i.e. with “them”). People are forced to pick between two groups, neither of which does a good job of representing the interests of the country, and both of which are too proud and stubborn in their ways to accomplish much at all. A three-party system would not only bring to light new issues (Nadar, I think, first introduced the environment) but give people choices. People define who they vote for by which parties they’ve voted for for years, often ignoring the issues. Maybe this is wishful thinking, but I think a multi-party system would force them to think more seriously about their positions.</p>
<p>Ugh, I HATE sensationalism. Unless it’s about something I’m sensationalist about, like trusted computing.</p>
<p>Democracy is meant to accept all opinions, not just two sides, like our two-party system.</p>