Obama's Final Two Years

BlazerBob wrote: We are. You are not helping .

How are "we" trying to fix it?

POTUS Jill Stein? You would have seen even more gridlock because she wouldn't have much of a base in the House and Senate. And I think both parties would have done all they could to make her look weak and ineffectual. Can't have competition for the two party system.

ScienceChic wrote: LOL. Did you not see my post about who I voted for, and wished I could vote for? Have you not seen my posts over and over again about getting rid of incumbents and voting 3rd party, just as you've said? Just because it's not Tea Party doesn't mean I'm not helping. I can't even remember the last time I voted straight party ticket - I vote for who I think is going to do the best job working for the people and working with their fellow representatives. Because you can't get anything done spouting rhetoric and playing the blame game.

Imagine this: how do we think the next 2 years would go had my Presidential choice, Jill Stein of the Green Party, won and been sitting in the White House for this term?

I have read them. There was a time when I agreed. Now is not that time. I do not think we have enough time left to nurture a third party to the point it would make a difference before the sky falls.

Look at the metrics. What party other than tea have both parties exhibited so much fear and hate. Not the greens not the libertarians.

Haven't had adequate time to fully review this site, but at first glance it appears to have some pretty good stuff:

www.fairvote.org/research-and-analysis/c...air-voting-solution/

Perhaps instead of looking at the electoral process currently in place (two party system - pretty much winner takes all), we might could oughter look at redoing what many consider to be a broken primary system?

And for presidential elections:

www.fairvote.org/research-and-analysis/presidential-elections/

Another group seeking fundamental transformation of our representative republic into a social democracy. Not interested in their solutions, not even enough to read their tripe. Once I saw "National Popular Vote" I had seen all I needed to see.

The primary system doesn't need revamping, it needs elimination. I don't care if there are 3 Republicans, 3 Democrats, a couple of Greens, Libertarians and Constitution folks thrown into the mix. If you can get the number of signatures needed to appear on the ballot your name is on the ballot in November. That goes for every election from dog catcher to president of the Union. That is why I support both the elimination of the primary system and the elimination of the 12th Amendment. Do those two things and you create the possibility that the best person for the job gets elected in November instead of the most loyal member of one party or the other.

And if we are going to mess with the indirect election of the president model, then the change ought to be the elimination of winner take all for the electoral votes, not an elimination of the indirect election of the president.

PrintSmith wrote: Another group seeking fundamental transformation of our representative republic into a social democracy. Not interested in their solutions, not even enough to read their tripe. Once I saw "National Popular Vote" I had seen all I needed to see.

Ok. I presented the site as appearing to have some pretty good stuff at first glance. I'll leave it at that if, or until, I've had more time to look at it.

To me, the Electoral College is past its prime, and needs to be revisited. If that means revamping it, so be it. If it means eliminating it altogether and going to a direct popular vote, so be it. I'm open to either.

PrintSmith wrote: The primary system doesn't need revamping, it needs elimination. I don't care if there are 3 Republicans, 3 Democrats, a couple of Greens, Libertarians and Constitution folks thrown into the mix. If you can get the number of signatures needed to appear on the ballot your name is on the ballot in November. That goes for every election from dog catcher to president of the Union. That is why I support both the elimination of the primary system and the elimination of the 12th Amendment. Do those two things and you create the possibility that the best person for the job gets elected in November instead of the most loyal member of one party or the other.

Agree on the primary system. 12th Amendment? If we had a direct popular vote, the 12th Amendment would be moot.

PrintSmith wrote: And if we are going to mess with the indirect election of the president model, then the change ought to be the elimination of winner take all for the electoral votes, not an elimination of the indirect election of the president.

Why?

ZHawke wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: And if we are going to mess with the indirect election of the president model, then the change ought to be the elimination of winner take all for the electoral votes, not an elimination of the indirect election of the president.

Why?

Because it is less representative of the desires of the citizens of the States rather than more.

The indirect system I propose, which would take a constitutional amendment to achieve, is that the 12th amendment be eliminated, so that the electors are casting two equal votes for president once again, and that the votes in each congressional district be cast according to the results in that congressional district with the votes which represent the equal representation of all the States in the Senate assigned to the candidates with the greatest number of votes from the congressional districts. This gives a more accurate picture than a statewide count does of who the people desire to be their president. Remember, at the beginning it was the electors who were chosen by the people based upon who they committed to cast their votes for and the electors were representatives of regions, or districts, within the State itself, just as the system I am proposing be adopted is.

Clearly the citizens of Colorado that reside in the 5th CD didn't prefer Obama in the last election, and yet the electoral vote which represents them was cast for Obama as a result of the statewide election. Doesn't that serve to disenfranchise those in the Colorado 5th CD?

PrintSmith wrote: Because it is less representative of the desires of the citizens of the States rather than more.

The indirect system I propose, which would take a constitutional amendment to achieve, is that the 12th amendment be eliminated, so that the electors are casting two equal votes for president once again, and that the votes in each congressional district be cast according to the results in that congressional district with the votes which represent the equal representation of all the States in the Senate assigned to the candidates with the greatest number of votes from the congressional districts. This gives a more accurate picture than a statewide count does of who the people desire to be their president. Remember, at the beginning it was the electors who were chosen by the people based upon who they committed to cast their votes for and the electors were representatives of regions, or districts, within the State itself, just as the system I am proposing be adopted is.

Clearly the citizens of Colorado that reside in the 5th CD didn't prefer Obama in the last election, and yet the electoral vote which represents them was cast for Obama as a result of the statewide election. Doesn't that serve to disenfranchise those in the Colorado 5th CD?

For clarification, are you saying we should revert back to the pre-12th Amendment Electoral College?

I'm for repeal of the 12th Amendment and a return to electors casting 2 equal votes for president. I'm for doing away with the ability of a party to reduce the number of members of their party that appear on the ballot for any elected office. I support the idea that the electoral votes should be decided in accordance with the popular vote of the congressional districts with the electoral votes which represent the 2 Senators being cast according to the results from the congressional districts, though I leave open the possibility of having them apportioned according to the results of the popular vote in the State.

Do I think we should vote for electors from within the CD according to their stated intentions of who they will cast their 2 equal votes for? No, I don't. I believe that the citizens of the States casting a direct vote for president and the results of that democratic process should determine for whom the two equal votes for president are cast.

The current primary system results in the most loyal member of the most popular party being elected to office. It is designed to ensure the primacy of the parties, not the primacy of the citizens, in deciding elected offices.