Ketraar wrote: ↑Fri, 26. Apr 19, 10:41
They are split in the sense that if you are voting in a area with a strong opposing majority, your vote literally is worth nothing, which discourages people from voting in the first place, added with gerrymandering, its even worse as the majorities are artificially constructed. This is the most idiotic system I know of, even dictators try to at least appear to be democratic. In addition FPTP forces a 2 party systems, making it impossible for 3rd or more parties to have any chance or voice, which again reduces representation.
You seem to be arguing against "voting." So, if there's a majority anywhere does that then discount the meaningfulness of the votes cast for the losing side? As far as two-party system goes, the US has plenty of political parties. There are "Independents" holding office in Congress right now. Here's a list:
https://ballotpedia.org/Current_third-p ... iceholders
You already have a states representation by having a senate that has 2 reps from each state, making the states having equal power there, there is no logic in having the states elect the President, again, since its a single seat office, might as well not have it being elected by the people and have it say be nominated by either senate or Congress, similar to parliamentary systems, but I recall reading that the point of having the "people" elect the president was to have a 3 way power check, just that the people designing the system dont trust the people to vote the right way and thus had this important task handed over to people that had a clue what is best. Not very democratic, but it was never supposed to be. It just does no longer fit the times.
It is important that the States be represented as independent entities bound together in a shared government. That's important... It's a fundamental part of our political system.
Now, is it "archaic?" Maybe. In some ways there can certainly be an argument that a general democratic election is the better way and the EC should be flushed down the toilet. But... all the elections are conducted by the States. They set up the ballots. They organize voting and poling places. They do all the "grunt work" of carrying on a national election. Candidates don't apply to a "Federal Ballot" - They have to get their names on individual State ballots. Party Primaries are also generally conducted by State, though specifics (with much controversy) are according to the individual party.
In short, the whole framework of a National Election revolves around the States and their individual empowerment of the election process. Framed like that, taking the State's involvement out of the election equation would be taking a very prominent role away from the States. And, there's some political philosophizing going on with that idea, too - We're founded not only on the principles of individual liberty, but the collective rights of States which, by "Right", have all the powers that are not specifically relegated to the Federal Government and enumerated in the Constitution. In short - The collective power, concerns, and rights of individuals specific to a region is observed. The Federal Government can not make a law forcing people to remove all the snow from their property without the people and States in Northern regions rebelling at the very idea of picking up a snowshovel no matter how much the Snowblower Manufacturer's Association lobbies for such a law.
In short - The process of conducting a National election in the US reaffirms some basic ideas and while the empowerment of the individual is at the forefront, so is the idea of the collective rights of people in the member States and the power of those States. Removing the E.C. would do away with that affirmation and would certainly have ramifications regarding the concept of "Statehood" in our system of government.
A losing vote is still a vote. Elected candidates pay attention to those votes, too. They're a message from their constituents and "good" politicians read and understand that message and seek to serve even those who did not vote for them by attempting to address issues in competing platforms that they appeared to be concerned about. "Good" politicians, that is... No, I don't know where those are.
fiksal wrote: ↑Fri, 26. Apr 19, 05:22
..I could add that, maybe switch up the election of executive branch into election of several people. Maybe I'll like that.
I wouldn't mind seeing the offices of President and Vice-President split instead of them running together on the same ticket... However, I would also not like to see it set up as an adversarial sort of governance process. It wouldn't be right to burden a President with having to fight their own Administration - They already have to fight, if necessary, another branch of government or two, if it came to that.
I'll personally need an excel sheet I think, with easily sort-able columns. Maybe assign some weights, few points... draw some graphs... play Witcher.
I should really get that game... And, I should reinstall my ancient copy of Office that doesn't require friggin subscription fees. I have no idea if Win10 will even accept it. (Really friggin' tired of "MicroSoft Orifice" refusing to accept that I don't want it to have any file associations at all, ever, never, ever...
<click .ods file, MicroSoft Orifice pops up because it claims everything and resets my friggin file associations all-too-often>
"Oh, you would like to use Micro$oft Orifice? You should register for your Micro$oft Orifice sub$cription, today!"
<Get ticked-off, decide to look at my meme collection, click .jpg, expecting it to be associated with IRFanView>
"LOOKIT! WE GIVED U A PICTSHUR VIEWER! U WANNA UPKLODE IT TO UR ONEDRIBE, TOO, I BET!>"
</quit Goes to play Witcher, but doesn't have it>