Much like Operation Iraqi Freedom, you have the right general idea, but botch every step of the execution: (1) The two big parties are actually nominating the most "centrist" candidates that they can muster, like Kerry and Romney, which is why they seem so similar. The Green, Libertarian, and Constitution parties are quite extreme by comparison. (2) Centrist views are crap. (3) The electoral vote isn't the problem; the popular vote is. Read the Federalist Papers. (4) Approval voting > rank votes
Sounds good to me except I think the majority of Americans are too stupid (ignorant/uninformed/apathetic) to perform the "complex" task of voting in this manner. Does an election go by where the public isn't confused in some way by the voting machine?
I think the best solution would be to require an intelligence test to be allowed to vote. We have too many stupid rednecks voting for the cowboy-hat-wearingest republican, and too many stupid blacks voting for...the black guy.
A way to reform our election process that I would propose (not exactly a new idea I admit) would be reforming campaign financing. Instead of big corporations pouring huge amounts of money into one canidates fund, and ensuring big benefits for themselves later on, the contributions would go into one big pot so to speak. It would then be evenly distributed among all candidates of all parties, enabling third parties the ability to get the air time they need to get their views out there.
2) the country is not centrist - majority are pro-life, pro-medicare/medicaid, etc
3) USA is far to the right of other western democracies - democrats are centre-right by european standards - most rational policies are considered 'radical-left' such as legalisation of drugs and massive defence cuts
Therefore, I would support a system which benefits third parties but only because they are a rejection of the enforced centrism of the 2 party system
The President can make edicts which have the force of law, but are simply temporary throughout the course of time before Parliament and Congress can act in creating said law or disapproving the passing of said law. Usually if something is very dire and it runs off the money the President has in surplus or adds upon the deficit, but this would be only one to two year stuff, so it wouldn't be that costly, and he needs to first pass the measure through the Council of Governors.
Then you have four more branches of government. The Authoritarian or Legitimacy Branch, Electoral, Advisory, and Constitutional.
By the way, the President is largely independent of the government as matters of the government would be divided and ran by the three prime ministers in retrospect to their own region. President's authority is to break up any disagreement between then and to supervise over the Foreign Chief Minister who heads the military and State Department as well as diplomats.
Actually the Chief Judges of the Superior Courts would have to be elected upon approval by the Supreme Court and Nomination by the President. All other Judges are appointed by the President, upon discretion made by the elected Chief Judge and the approval of the Supreme Court.
All Chief Judges, Appointed Judges, and Supreme Justices are elected politically independent like the President, Senators, and 2/3 of Congressmen. As I have explained earlier.
Judicial System: Divided by an elected Supreme Court and Appointed Lesser Superior Courts (Civilian, Military, Criminal, Administrative, Equity, Tribal (independent from the others and only concerning Native Americans), and Ecclesiastical which behave on matters separate from any of the others and can easily be over-ridden by the Supreme Court if they address a matter that goes beyond separation of church and the state).
Establish precedents on the basis of the philosophy of Justice.
Ideological Laws can also be laws pertaining to laws addressed in Congress and Parliament. How laws should be carried out, how they should be addressed, how they should be debated. And so on. But they cannot pass measures affecting the budget of Government policies, agents, and departments or taxation. Nor can they pass treaties or declare war or decide on issues such as state parks or establish laws directing behavior between states.
1) Parliamentary Laws; Budget, finances, and Taxes and organization of agencies as pertaining to budget and taxes
2) Congressional Laws; Laws pertaining to regions, states, the country as a whole, and overseas affairs
3) Senatorial Laws; Ideological Laws, rules of Congress and Parliament, rules of the President, rules of the Judicial Branch. Most of their members debate and their strong attachment to intellectual thinking can establish new party ideologies.
Divide the Executive Branch into three, Governor Council headed by the President, Foreign Chief Minister, Domestic Chief Ministers (West, South, and North)
President elected outside of party interests, in other words, has to run independent.
Foreign Chief Minister - appointed by President.
Domestic Chief Ministers - nominated by President, elected by people (can affiliate with party identity)
Congress or rather the National Assembly as I would call it, divided into three chambers.
1) Lower House, called Parliament, consists of members elected by the basis of population to represent ideas affiliated with political parties, it is proportional, thereby more than two parties would have substantial numbers of representatives, say Libertarians have over 100 seats as an example.
2) Middle House, called the Congress, consists of members from each state, three, rotating each two years.
And Parliament members consist of three year terms, while Congressmen consist of six year terms.
Each seat from each state is elected and nominated differently, generally consisting of the Irish Multi-pick system, in which you can rate how you favor candidates.
But generally secession one is nominated by the State government, secession two is nominated by special citizen endorsed conventions, and three is political party affiliated. 1 and 2 independent.
3) The Senate, nine year terms. Ideological group representing intellectual differences, not ideas or professions or people or regions. Number of seats is debatable, considerably less than the Congress or the Parliament, not politically affiliated, so they run independently. There should be about twelve to fifty seats depending on how many different forms of intellectual ideology there could be. Mainly these political ideologies may represent the core foundations of certain political parties.
Not sure if you thought through the abolition of the electoral college. Without that, candidates will be able to focus on population centers and ignore smaller states. That will lead to candidates just as extreme with a rural/urban split.
I feel really guilty for saying this and NOT doing anything.
But there will be NO change in America if ALL American citizens don't band together and do a major protest (aggressive and passive) all over the country; every man, woman, child must do this.
This questionaire will contain all the parties points and what they stand for and you have to make decisions and choose what you like most. THEN it will tell you which party best suits your political views. THis is sort of like a voting exam. THese days a lot of people vote simply because "they always vote XXX" or "because that guy has such a nice smile". THis is no political reason to vote and quite frankly those kinds of votes ruin the intire system.
how could it be implemented.... the answer i simple the powers that be won't EVER let ti come to that. Still wanna make it possible...the only answer is complete civil war and break up of hte country into smaller ones. That is the ONLY it willever happen... unfortunatley.
I think these are both great ideas. But how could they be implemented? Those who benefit from the existing staus quo will probably do everything in their power to block attempts to reform it no matter how much popular support there may be to do so.
I am however optimistic that change could gradually come. Educating people that they DO HAVE better options is really key. Spread the word the get more people thinking and discussing this.
Chance that the current Democrat party will bring this to the floor for a vote: .0004%. Chance the Republican party will bring this to a vote: .0002%.
Not a promising thought but a great idea. My other favorite that has no chance of passing is a national sales tax. That would promote saving, tax tourists (like we do when we travel), illegals, criminals, etc. and severely diminish the need for the I.R.S.
America is still under the shadow of McCarthy, and as long as it is so, it can never be fixed. It'll remain an unstable militaristic corporatocracy, because lets not mince words, that's all to close to what it is, if not an exact description.
Fear and lies are a poor basis for running any country and that's exactly what McCarthy pumped the American psyche chockfull of, and what many Americans unwittingly accept for truth, even if it is not.
If only we could abolish political parties altogether, the way George Washington originally wanted, and instead focused on who we thought would be able to get the job done... but no way that's going to happen now.
And why the democratics are called like that?Many people comfuse Democracy With Res Puplica.Democracy:Origin-Athens.The p;eople,and only have the power.Everyone who is opponent of the democracy is thrown oyt of the country.President changes every day,10 presidents,1 from every athenian tribe.the people has the power to ellect,no matter if they are poor or wealthy.I opose,res publica originated in rome.people have only the power to elect a major.Just like the think we,today call democracy.
i have an idea to change washington dc , take all poloticians out in front of the capitol building and put them in front of the steps and then use a firing squad on them, lol just kidding , but for real shit has got to change
why not forgetting about a President and give his Powers to the two Chambers of the Parliament. There you can have as many Partys as you want and they have to find a consensus of a Mayority to agree upon a Position.
The runoff voting system seems like a great idea however the electoral college is here to stay. Removing it would cause more harm than good. Politicians would focus their attention on urban areas, thus abandoning all suburbs & rural areas. During a polititian's term, attention would be focused onto the issues of these urban areas, once again, ignoring the issues of the rural population.
So the E.C. may not be perfect, but it's there for a good reason.
Another thing that would fix washington is to outlaw all corporate lobbying. However seeing that all of these ideas would disperse the concentration of power they're not at all likely to get implemented. There are many ideas that could be put to equally good use, but the first and only thing that needs full concentration is to address how any change at all can be successfully brought about.
i can really get into the ..run off vote system 8)
but still uneasy about electorial being trashed...what i mean is, it'd seem NY LA SF DL AU PDX SEATAC ATL MIA will count then, ma an pa farmers be mute
because only the situations in heavy congested areas will be addressed, thats good an bad, just a bur that needs polishing
you'll just have a few blobs to attend to, and its ez to sway crowds to false dangers
I think making an "election spending policy" would help too. If all candidates were only allowed to spend only a certain amount on ads and such...it would level the field more also. So, the "biggest war chest" means nothing.
hmm like obama wanted in the democratic election, but threw it to the curb in the primary?
now not sayin its good or bad, just wanted to know if thats what you mean, while at the same time staten, not a big enough factor, few changes to campaign spending took place, and walla loop holes were found to exploit
an laws written in plain english an not colledge words that people cant understand without a colledge degree under their belt. let us understand better not be tricked into voting for a law we dont like or want because of fancy wording. we want laymans terms.
Well, I "really like Democrats". However, I agree that IRV would be A Good Thing. Mostly because all the Nader voters back in 2000 could have made it clear that Bush would be the worst president ever, and That Would Have Been Good. And besides, electoral college is obvious.
Sounds good so far. I'll have to do some research though and see if I find any negative/unintended consequences.
I already know a downside to dropping the electoral college, but I still think it should be done. Small States will end up getting no attention from the Presidential candidates. But, since the Presidency is a federal office, State lines shouldn't be affecting policy anyway.
The electoral college forces candidates to also campaign in smaller states rather than just trying to win the votes of big population areas. Though I agree with IRV.
That sounds fine and all, but ultimately you are forced to vote for a candidate and all the positions that they hold, rather than individual issues.
Wouldn't it be more effective to just vote for one "government" to oversee domestic issues/economics etc., a separate one for national security, and another for foreign policy? And then make individual states or districts more autonomous so that issues like gay marriage and healthcare become irrelevant in a federal election.
I live in Australia. We have runoff voting. Yet we have what is essentially a two party system. We had John Howard, a right wing anti-immigrant george-bushes-best-friend dickhead in office for 11 years.
The problem with doing away with the electoral college is that canidates will only have to campaign and represent the views of those who live in huge population areas. Think NYC, Boston, Miami, Las Angelos, Chicago, the list goes on. People in flyover country tend to be more conservative on issues like gun control, welfare and taxes. The electoral college gives those people more of a say.
that isn't a reason for doing away with the electoral college. Policy and political figures must be defeated in the arena of ideas, not by shutting out segments of the population whose ideas you don't agree with.
"not by shutting out segments of the population whose ideas you don't agree with."
well i certainly don't think they should get more of a say than i do if their votes count more than mine then whats the point of even bothering with voting for what i want
Uhhh dont you realize this is impossible? Too many corporations pay hard earned money on presidential electees so they can win, not lose to the stupid poor idiot lower class third party people.
In political Science my teacher told me one of the only ways we are going to change things is this country is with a violent overthrow of the government. I hate to say it... But I am beginning to think he's right.
Runoff voting is a good idea but states have ruled against it in an effort to protect the parties. The FEC would never let something like runoff voting be accepted because ti threatens the party that runs the FEC. It is really good solution but the powers that be will, as usual, resist.
obviously the states will reject IRV now. The idea is just beginning to catch on. But with greater local representation of third party views, it will be increasingly difficult for the state to reject IRV
If I moved to America I would feel quite cheated out of a truly democratic process.
Also Elithrion I would have to disagree with you. In the two party system America has it wouldn't seam to matter how extreme each party was you would have to vote for one or the other. In Australia third parties tend to be less centered the the two major parties because the majority vote is fought over the middle. But our system is not setup that allow the major parties to completely ignore third party issues.
Wow I thought every democratic voting system, used preferences. Not using preferences is such an alien concept to me, it seams so flawed not to have preferences.
That said hardly anyone in Australia votes for third party candidates because they are either of how preferences work or are ignorant of the third party ideologies. The major parties in Australia are quite centrist probably for this reason. They do sometimes adopt some third party ideologies to claim some far left or right support.
immediately go to public financing of campaigns, which would stop the selection of our leaders by corporate America and put it back to the election of our leaders by Americans. I am using up way too much character space so I will stop my list and pipe dreams here.
said, I know that my idea is just as unrealistic as 100% voter turnout, but it is more logical if applied. We could immediately get rid of the idea that money is free speech, allowing your common man to be heard in the House or on the Senate floor, instead of just corporate lobbyists. We could immediately get rid of lifetime benefits for politicans, allowing those who truly want to be in public service for the betterment of their society, instead of the lining of their pockets. We could
changes needed to create a Government of the people, for the people by the people, the system does not need simple tweaking, it needs radical change and overhaul. 100% voter turnout will do nothing to bring about change even under your premise, however conversely 100% non participation would bring about change very quickly. Reason being, the next implied step to the unanswered demands of protest would be anarchy. One could not discount the power of hundreds of millions protesting. With that
happen to third party candidates. Which if history is any indicator on the true nature of man, is, they will eventually succumb to the same BS that our two party politicians succumb to, the desire for power, money and influence. And who quenches their thirst for these things? Lobbyists. We have 100 Senators in WA and 434 Representatives BUT we have over 35,000 lobbyists. Each one ankle deep in their pockets with money and influence to pass out as candy to anyone who wants it. To make the
I am sure to get lambasted for this but the only radical changes brought about in America have come from protest. Women's rights, abortion, Viet Nam, Civil rights for blacks, Prohibition, etc., etc., ad infinitum. Instead of trying to go through every single problem within our corrupt political system which is full of corrupt professional politicans, stop validating the corrupt system through passive acceptance, i.e. voting. True your idea seems plausible until you extrapolate what will
forget my remark about "why not going for a third party candidate" you have made your stance clear in this video i guess a revolution (in time) is the only solution of how to fix the us gov.
too bad that the credible candidates (gravel, paul and kucinich) have "left" the election due to many factors (manupialtive main stream media, voting fraud, and more)
look up: New Hampshire Primary Sham Chain of Custody (on youtube) too bad that it is douche and turd again makes you wonder why^^......
Well, I feel you're mistaken on one point. A two-party system actually lends itself to the most centrist candidates winning, while three or more viable parties would actually give greater voice to the extremes.
A simple illustration: pretend there's one issue, and voters will vote for the person who matches their views best. With two parties it pays to stay as close to the centre as possible for both to capture the most votes. With three, off-centre can be better. Simplistic model, admittedly.
But the people committing the acts don;t see it as terror. They probably see it as something good. The Nazi party thought they were cleaning up their homeland by murdering millions. To them it was good, for their nation.
It's not universal, some people see women not covering themselves from head to toe as immoral, do you? Why? Because it's how you were raised. Pushing any ideas, even the ones you see as right on someone else is still pushing ideas.
Removing the electoral college system is extremely unlikely. It would require a constitutional amendment which requires 2/3 congressional vote and 3/4 state ratification. Do you really think the good people of Montana and Delaware are going to give up their perceived voting advantage? Not likely. That's why we still have it 8 years after Bush v Gore. Good idea, but it'll never happen.
Interesting theory. first off, agreed the electoral college should be abandoned. Of course there is a slight problem that might arise with introducing more parties into the political fray. Because of the two current parties inability to work together, nothing seems to get accomplished. Now I'm not for sure, but a side effect of even introducing a 3rd party might even create greater incoherence among our lawmakers? Just a thought. I think Obama is a centrist by the way.
I anyway don't understand how america can be satisfied with a two party system. As if there'd be only two ways to look at an issue. Isn't that a false dichotomy? Also you can't possibly demand that people stick to the opinion of the party they've voted for. You're not innately democrat or republican before you touch issues.
You might think that, if the electoral college was actually doing anything, considering anything before voting, then some Bush electorates would have voted for Gore, at least those from Florida, citing that their own personal understanding of the will of the people was that. However, none did that I know of. This demonstrates that the electoral college does not, in fact, have true function anymore.
I've been suggesting as much for years for my own country, in which the Prime Minister is not elected directly but rather parties are. This indeed allow you to have the will of the people. But. The reason I'm not promoting this ATM is because this drastically increases the power of small factions (extremists) and promotes political extortion, problems that're already big here and got bigger when we briefly had direct PM elections. What you suggest may be more "just" but could have ill effects.
Greetings from Australia (one of the countries that does it this way, although we also have the option of voting for a party (one vote system) if you don't want to label something like 43 different preferences :P ) Nice music too, I wish you'd label composers/piece names when using cool music :P
Each state has proportionate representation in Congress. You know, Senate, House of Representatives.
But in a Pres. election, the entire country is voting for who will run it for all of us. That's 300 million Americans, not xxx Iowans and xxx Californians. The primaries are to cull the herd. Different ballgame.
The Presidential election should be about who the American people want. Not who the electoral college goes with.
Good vid. I've felt for a while that the Electoral College should be ended, but never heard of IRV until now. It's a good idea.
There've been some decent 3rd party candidates out there before, but the problem is always that said candidate will draw away votes from the other one. By voting #3, you risk losing both him and the only other guy running against the one you definitely don't want.
At least this way, the guy you like most has a chance, and you can still block the one you want least.
Great video. I've heard of IRV before in the Nation magazine and on Air America Radio and I think it would be a great thing to implement this system in conjunction with tossing out the Electoral College. My vote for Kucinich in the primaries would then not have been wasted!
People say that people who side with some of the third party candidates or the non-mainstream such as Ron Paul, Kucinich, or Gravel are nutty.
The truth that I see is that they just want to spread the knowledge and inform others that there are other great candidates and actually good people out there that we CAN vote for.
And unfortunately, with our current structure and media, these candidates will not have a chance.
You have to be a bit more outgoing to get these candidates heard.
You know the saddest part about it... I here my support up here in Washington for Ron Paul then I do for any other candidate aside from Obama. In spite of this, due to the illusion its hopeless (And because all the other republican representatives paid more money to advertise and bought their way into the ballot), no one will even consider voting for Ron Paul... I honestly believe if people really just voted for who they though the best candidate was, Ron Paul might be competitive... We're sheep
I'm amazed at the number of people against every vote mattering and having our leaders elected by majority... Among other arguments... You people do realize one of the fundamental rights in this country is equality correct? That's all we're asking for. Give the people power, rather they use it wisely or not, and give all people equal power, and let them use their power in the way they choose instead of being blackmailed into using it the way the government wants them to... I hate people...
Wow ... there seems to be a lot of hate out there. Very surprising!!! I figured most people would be happy to get back the power to choose who goes to Washington.
Read "The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter Than the Few and How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies and Nations" written by James Surowiecki.
Forget run off voting. Have a lottery instead of elections. If you want to serve in politics, then just put your name in the lottery. Don't want to run? Give your ticket to someone you respect and increase their chances.
That would be a true democracy. Lobbyists would face a harder time "buying candidates" and we would have the best education system in the world because no one would want an ignorant hick as President.
Great! A real democracy! Since we can out-vote those rural areas, most of us can live in urban areas and make those country peons supply us with everything we want by virtue of our voting power! I think it is called serfdom.
SERIOUSLY THOUGH...
The voting idea does have merit. Corporate elections often allow each voter to have as many votes as there are candidates.
I like the plan! I don't think it's too crazy or anything. And in this day and age with computers, we can calculate the weight of the votes in moments, whereas it might've been impossible when the voting system was devised.
That's my point. I disagree and your firm belief doesn't disprove it. Right and wrong are clear to you based on what you know and how you grew up. Right and wrong are also clear to the "terrorists" threatening the "free world" based on how they grew up. To say "I'm right you're wrong" isn't fair because it just starts ridicules "WOW... you got it all figured out!LOL." non-sense.
I don't think the electoral college is so bad. It ensures that big population states don't bully small population states. The way you can think of it is like having a house (popular vote) and a senate (electoral college).
No I don't. I say like it is better than not having a system where the big population states like California can be the sole force in choosing an election. It would be nicer if it was all based on counties, but you'd probably still complain saying it's not like everyone living in a given state is on the same team.
The United States is not a democracy. It is a republic, and if memory serves correctly, it was the north's oppressive ways for having more influence than the south that caused the Civil War.
It is a presidential election. You never heard of the power to veto? Think it's okay to give the larger states nearly sole power to choose who does that?
What you don't realize is that this essentially takes away the idea of state at all. Population is just population and people are just people now. It doesn't matter if one state has more people. Without the college, there is no need to think about state majorities. Just total popular vote.
I disagree. If anything, the idea of a state should be re-inforced. We have different subcultures in each state and thus different ways to look at morality and justice. Almost never one way is the only way. The variety of option give citzens the ability to choose where they fit bests. America should be thought as a "european union" of the states.
The last thing we need are more borders. More things to separate us. More things to fight about. People are people. I don't see why we should treat them differently just because they live a couple hundred miles apart. You are reinforcing an us versus them mentality. We all live in the same country under the same president. We should all have equal power to choose him/her.
No. Unlike you, I realize that people are localized. People have different cultures and mentallity depending on where they are. Their laws vary from state to state because people's morality varies. This is good because it's arrogant to pretend one way is the only way. It gives people options. Don't like California laws? Move to another state. It's wise and it takes into account human individuality instead of this collectivist view about the world.
Is it too hard for you to understand that we live in a republic? Obviously the people who live in regions that can be overpowered by others give a fuck. This is why we have the senate set up the way it is. It gurantees that one region can't overpower all others and keeps the union prosperous.
Each state having individual laws is fine with me, but the president basically rules over everyone as a whole, so we should decide who he is as a whole. People shouldn't have to choose a state based on politics. I live in Indiana, where my democratic vote is basically worthless because of all the bible-thumping republicans. Should I have to move to a bigger city just so I can cast a vote that matters?
Yeah, why not? That's the whole point of the system. That way it ensures what the majority in each state wants and it balances. I live in California where my Republican vote is "worthless." You don't see me crying about it.
Your vote counts within your State. You're all voting for the interest of your State. Remember, this is a union made up of STATES. Of course, if more people are as stupid as you that will throw in the towel, your vote is worthles. Anger against the electoral college simply exists now because a lot of people are still anal about Gore, but the electoral college had never come into play for 120 years before that. Sorry, but the electoral college proved its purpose and worth.
It was that at one point but the office of president has changed too much since then. Unless I live in a swing state my vote is meaningless. I already vote for my state interest by local elections. The president needs to be a national tally.
The problem is that you don't understand federalism. The point of the federal government is that the president is the commander of the independant states, not the people directly. This is also why we have a representative democracy and not a true democracy. Now, if you believe the entire system of the federal government must change, that's another story.
dear subach, i am sorry for where you are right now. "we" never gave power to govt. WE are taxed without representation. I am an old democrat and when this police action in iraq started no democrats in congress (cept one) voted against this lie! I am not being satisfied by the will of multi-multi-millionaires. have you ever met the elite?
cubesolver, if your going to argue a point about someone else being an idiot you might attempt not to sound like one yourself. Using big words doesn't convince anyone that your smart. You've just done an outstanding job of sounding like an asshole.
The intelligence required to run a country ISN'T math and science. If two presidential candidates have 5 each PH.D's in math and science does it make them a good candidate? I don't you want a person who has a degree in microbiology and nothing else running our country. Condescending close minded idiots like you should think a little bit more.
Check out the Simpsons episode where the Mensa Group take over the running of the town for a taste of why this is a bad idea. CDK's idea is excellent and more democratic. But since when do politicians give a toss about democracy?
America was based on the same old crap from europe monarchies, BUT with a twist, tell the peasants that they are participating in gov. with their little vote. yippie. then the elite do what they have always done., start wars that peasants can fight and die and regret and wonder where there benefits are.
"The elite", yes it's always the elite, yes we can blame it all on these so called elites, and forget the fact that we were the ones that gave the government the power to fight wars in far off lands, take our money, and run our lives for us.
The reason the electoral college exists is because our founding fathers thought the common man too stupid to be given total control. However in recent times our politicians are becoming more and more ignorant, so I suppose abolishing the electoral college wouldn't hurt.
Sure buddy, might as well abolish the Senate too. If you think the EC was formed because the founding fathers thought the common man was too stupid, then you're the idiot.
Actually, it partially was. Also why Senators get 6 yrs so they can make unpopular decisions and have time to make up for it. The FF feared the ruthless majority, and decided that they needed the EC make the right decision, even if it wasn't the people's vote.
Not if you eradicate money from political campaigns. Almost all lobby group influence flows from the campaign money they provide for candidates who support their cause.
You know, the government IS law. You had better know about law if you are the EXECUTIVE of a LAW MAKING ORGANIZATION. That is just as true, if not even more so, for congressman as well for what should be very obvious reasons. Don't get me wrong though, he DOES need to have more than just law to be president, but law is a necessity.
Care to give reason why your idea is "SHIT LOADS" better than this idea? Your idea doesn't even pertain to the matter being discussed. And YOUR idea isn't far from scrutiny either, does it take science or math to know how to run a country? Is knowing the cosine of 3pi/4 going to help bring the country out of debt, or can collecting a sample of hydrogen save our retirement system? You sir are and idiot.
The founding fathers knew our country would be doomed if citizens were able to vote directly. As you can see, citizens do not have the resolve to win wars. Citizens would have surrendered during the long civil war resulting in extending slavery & the end of our united country. Citizens would vote themselves money & bankrupt the government. The electoral college is a crucial safeguard. Our constitution is the reason our country has been successful. Foolish changes like yours would weakened it
This is a great idea but it needs to be imposed from the outside somehow, we can't expect the two parties to voluntarily implement this. Nobody ever voluntarily gives up power.
The point of the electoral college is so that the big states don't muscle the small states. Seeing how most often the candidate with most votes is president, I think it's working.
Much like Operation Iraqi Freedom, you have the right general idea, but botch every step of the execution: (1) The two big parties are actually nominating the most "centrist" candidates that they can muster, like Kerry and Romney, which is why they seem so similar. The Green, Libertarian, and Constitution parties are quite extreme by comparison. (2) Centrist views are crap. (3) The electoral vote isn't the problem; the popular vote is. Read the Federalist Papers. (4) Approval voting > rank votes
electgmax 3 weeks ago
Sounds good to me except I think the majority of Americans are too stupid (ignorant/uninformed/apathetic) to perform the "complex" task of voting in this manner. Does an election go by where the public isn't confused in some way by the voting machine?
I think the best solution would be to require an intelligence test to be allowed to vote. We have too many stupid rednecks voting for the cowboy-hat-wearingest republican, and too many stupid blacks voting for...the black guy.
FoxOutsideBox 3 months ago in playlist Politics
A way to reform our election process that I would propose (not exactly a new idea I admit) would be reforming campaign financing. Instead of big corporations pouring huge amounts of money into one canidates fund, and ensuring big benefits for themselves later on, the contributions would go into one big pot so to speak. It would then be evenly distributed among all candidates of all parties, enabling third parties the ability to get the air time they need to get their views out there.
ColumbiaGorgeGuy 3 months ago
2:59 Its actually used in governmental elections in Ireland too
sillysully93 7 months ago
1) 3rd parties are not centrist
2) the country is not centrist - majority are pro-life, pro-medicare/medicaid, etc
3) USA is far to the right of other western democracies - democrats are centre-right by european standards - most rational policies are considered 'radical-left' such as legalisation of drugs and massive defence cuts
Therefore, I would support a system which benefits third parties but only because they are a rejection of the enforced centrism of the 2 party system
discipleoftheteapot 7 months ago
Equity though?? If a minority is made less significant it leaves a little possibility they will get discriminated in some way or an other?
Pascalatron 1 year ago
The President can make edicts which have the force of law, but are simply temporary throughout the course of time before Parliament and Congress can act in creating said law or disapproving the passing of said law. Usually if something is very dire and it runs off the money the President has in surplus or adds upon the deficit, but this would be only one to two year stuff, so it wouldn't be that costly, and he needs to first pass the measure through the Council of Governors.
TheRadicalRyushin 1 year ago
Then you have four more branches of government. The Authoritarian or Legitimacy Branch, Electoral, Advisory, and Constitutional.
By the way, the President is largely independent of the government as matters of the government would be divided and ran by the three prime ministers in retrospect to their own region. President's authority is to break up any disagreement between then and to supervise over the Foreign Chief Minister who heads the military and State Department as well as diplomats.
TheRadicalRyushin 1 year ago
Actually the Chief Judges of the Superior Courts would have to be elected upon approval by the Supreme Court and Nomination by the President. All other Judges are appointed by the President, upon discretion made by the elected Chief Judge and the approval of the Supreme Court.
All Chief Judges, Appointed Judges, and Supreme Justices are elected politically independent like the President, Senators, and 2/3 of Congressmen. As I have explained earlier.
TheRadicalRyushin 1 year ago
Judicial System: Divided by an elected Supreme Court and Appointed Lesser Superior Courts (Civilian, Military, Criminal, Administrative, Equity, Tribal (independent from the others and only concerning Native Americans), and Ecclesiastical which behave on matters separate from any of the others and can easily be over-ridden by the Supreme Court if they address a matter that goes beyond separation of church and the state).
Establish precedents on the basis of the philosophy of Justice.
TheRadicalRyushin 1 year ago
Ideological Laws can also be laws pertaining to laws addressed in Congress and Parliament. How laws should be carried out, how they should be addressed, how they should be debated. And so on. But they cannot pass measures affecting the budget of Government policies, agents, and departments or taxation. Nor can they pass treaties or declare war or decide on issues such as state parks or establish laws directing behavior between states.
TheRadicalRyushin 1 year ago
Break down of Laws pertaining to each
1) Parliamentary Laws; Budget, finances, and Taxes and organization of agencies as pertaining to budget and taxes
2) Congressional Laws; Laws pertaining to regions, states, the country as a whole, and overseas affairs
3) Senatorial Laws; Ideological Laws, rules of Congress and Parliament, rules of the President, rules of the Judicial Branch. Most of their members debate and their strong attachment to intellectual thinking can establish new party ideologies.
TheRadicalRyushin 1 year ago
Here are my ideas.
Divide the Executive Branch into three, Governor Council headed by the President, Foreign Chief Minister, Domestic Chief Ministers (West, South, and North)
President elected outside of party interests, in other words, has to run independent.
Foreign Chief Minister - appointed by President.
Domestic Chief Ministers - nominated by President, elected by people (can affiliate with party identity)
Congress (now) (continued in next post)
TheRadicalRyushin 1 year ago
Congress or rather the National Assembly as I would call it, divided into three chambers.
1) Lower House, called Parliament, consists of members elected by the basis of population to represent ideas affiliated with political parties, it is proportional, thereby more than two parties would have substantial numbers of representatives, say Libertarians have over 100 seats as an example.
2) Middle House, called the Congress, consists of members from each state, three, rotating each two years.
TheRadicalRyushin 1 year ago
And Parliament members consist of three year terms, while Congressmen consist of six year terms.
Each seat from each state is elected and nominated differently, generally consisting of the Irish Multi-pick system, in which you can rate how you favor candidates.
But generally secession one is nominated by the State government, secession two is nominated by special citizen endorsed conventions, and three is political party affiliated. 1 and 2 independent.
The third chamber is the Senate.
TheRadicalRyushin 1 year ago
3) The Senate, nine year terms. Ideological group representing intellectual differences, not ideas or professions or people or regions. Number of seats is debatable, considerably less than the Congress or the Parliament, not politically affiliated, so they run independently. There should be about twelve to fifty seats depending on how many different forms of intellectual ideology there could be. Mainly these political ideologies may represent the core foundations of certain political parties.
TheRadicalRyushin 1 year ago
Looky here, this is a website on how to REALLY revolutionize our democracy (serj takian approves!) electthedead(dot)com
BJ219 1 year ago
Not sure if you thought through the abolition of the electoral college. Without that, candidates will be able to focus on population centers and ignore smaller states. That will lead to candidates just as extreme with a rural/urban split.
Benwoodruff 1 year ago
I feel really guilty for saying this and NOT doing anything.
But there will be NO change in America if ALL American citizens don't band together and do a major protest (aggressive and passive) all over the country; every man, woman, child must do this.
Now, whoever isn't lazy stand up and lead us!
anythingnew 1 year ago
(read 1st part of comment above)
This questionaire will contain all the parties points and what they stand for and you have to make decisions and choose what you like most. THEN it will tell you which party best suits your political views. THis is sort of like a voting exam. THese days a lot of people vote simply because "they always vote XXX" or "because that guy has such a nice smile". THis is no political reason to vote and quite frankly those kinds of votes ruin the intire system.
mauzzzie 1 year ago
how could it be implemented.... the answer i simple the powers that be won't EVER let ti come to that. Still wanna make it possible...the only answer is complete civil war and break up of hte country into smaller ones. That is the ONLY it willever happen... unfortunatley.
DarthDrizzt 2 years ago
I think these are both great ideas. But how could they be implemented? Those who benefit from the existing staus quo will probably do everything in their power to block attempts to reform it no matter how much popular support there may be to do so.
I am however optimistic that change could gradually come. Educating people that they DO HAVE better options is really key. Spread the word the get more people thinking and discussing this.
ctfchris 2 years ago
Chance that the current Democrat party will bring this to the floor for a vote: .0004%. Chance the Republican party will bring this to a vote: .0002%.
Not a promising thought but a great idea. My other favorite that has no chance of passing is a national sales tax. That would promote saving, tax tourists (like we do when we travel), illegals, criminals, etc. and severely diminish the need for the I.R.S.
Jadinor 2 years ago
America is still under the shadow of McCarthy, and as long as it is so, it can never be fixed. It'll remain an unstable militaristic corporatocracy, because lets not mince words, that's all to close to what it is, if not an exact description.
Fear and lies are a poor basis for running any country and that's exactly what McCarthy pumped the American psyche chockfull of, and what many Americans unwittingly accept for truth, even if it is not.
Shavarnarak 2 years ago
If only we could abolish political parties altogether, the way George Washington originally wanted, and instead focused on who we thought would be able to get the job done... but no way that's going to happen now.
Kakarot21591 2 years ago
And why the democratics are called like that?Many people comfuse Democracy With Res Puplica.Democracy:Origin-Athens.The p;eople,and only have the power.Everyone who is opponent of the democracy is thrown oyt of the country.President changes every day,10 presidents,1 from every athenian tribe.the people has the power to ellect,no matter if they are poor or wealthy.I opose,res publica originated in rome.people have only the power to elect a major.Just like the think we,today call democracy.
metallicabillxxx 2 years ago
Pericles said that,whoever does not been part of the politics of a country,he is useless for his country.
metallicabillxxx 2 years ago
i have an idea to change washington dc , take all poloticians out in front of the capitol building and put them in front of the steps and then use a firing squad on them, lol just kidding , but for real shit has got to change
kenmabie 2 years ago
why not forgetting about a President and give his Powers to the two Chambers of the Parliament. There you can have as many Partys as you want and they have to find a consensus of a Mayority to agree upon a Position.
DeHerg 2 years ago
The runoff voting system seems like a great idea however the electoral college is here to stay. Removing it would cause more harm than good. Politicians would focus their attention on urban areas, thus abandoning all suburbs & rural areas. During a polititian's term, attention would be focused onto the issues of these urban areas, once again, ignoring the issues of the rural population.
So the E.C. may not be perfect, but it's there for a good reason.
Goalie3533 2 years ago
Another thing that would fix washington is to outlaw all corporate lobbying. However seeing that all of these ideas would disperse the concentration of power they're not at all likely to get implemented. There are many ideas that could be put to equally good use, but the first and only thing that needs full concentration is to address how any change at all can be successfully brought about.
pocoapoco2 2 years ago
Super Awesome!
patternmachine 2 years ago
Good work.
I've always found it strange that the US is only one party away from being a dictatorship.
airihi 3 years ago
i can really get into the ..run off vote system 8)
but still uneasy about electorial being trashed...what i mean is, it'd seem NY LA SF DL AU PDX SEATAC ATL MIA will count then, ma an pa farmers be mute
because only the situations in heavy congested areas will be addressed, thats good an bad, just a bur that needs polishing
you'll just have a few blobs to attend to, and its ez to sway crowds to false dangers
e.g. yell fire in a crowded movie theater
DONT do that, btw, just a point im tryn 4
horny4bears 3 years ago
I think making an "election spending policy" would help too. If all candidates were only allowed to spend only a certain amount on ads and such...it would level the field more also. So, the "biggest war chest" means nothing.
Masher88 3 years ago
hmm like obama wanted in the democratic election, but threw it to the curb in the primary?
now not sayin its good or bad, just wanted to know if thats what you mean, while at the same time staten, not a big enough factor, few changes to campaign spending took place, and walla loop holes were found to exploit
horny4bears 3 years ago
What is the name and artist of this song? anybody. please.
firewater3x11 3 years ago
Ludwig van Beethoven, presto agitato movement of the Moonlight Sonata. (aka - sonata quasi una fantasia)
christyell 3 years ago
an laws written in plain english an not colledge words that people cant understand without a colledge degree under their belt. let us understand better not be tricked into voting for a law we dont like or want because of fancy wording. we want laymans terms.
grizz11952001 3 years ago
Well, there are several venues. Wikipedia is one, there are organizations out there too that demand truth and openness.
FromBoomTown 3 years ago
What piece is this?
I love it so much!
xtrastage 3 years ago
That's the presto agitato movement of the Moonlight Sonata by Ludwig van Beethoven.
christyell 3 years ago
the problem is, like it said at the end of the video, getting people to think.
kroovyandcal 3 years ago
I wish this video would get featured.
Promatheos 3 years ago 3
You forgot Bob Dole.
Dunsparce4Prez 3 years ago
@Dunsparce4Prez
Bob Dole don't know, he just say Bob Dole.
anythingnew 1 year ago
i agree that the electoral system should be reformed: but who can change the electoral system?
-the people who benefit from it (republicans, democrats)
so why should they change it?
they won't!
so who can change the system?
-only the people! no representatives - just the people
--------------------
elections don't change anything, or else they would be illegal
antiantiantifahool 3 years ago 2
Well, I "really like Democrats". However, I agree that IRV would be A Good Thing. Mostly because all the Nader voters back in 2000 could have made it clear that Bush would be the worst president ever, and That Would Have Been Good. And besides, electoral college is obvious.
1angelette 3 years ago
wow those ideas are awesome why don't they do that
tomyo669 3 years ago
Sounds good so far. I'll have to do some research though and see if I find any negative/unintended consequences.
I already know a downside to dropping the electoral college, but I still think it should be done. Small States will end up getting no attention from the Presidential candidates. But, since the Presidency is a federal office, State lines shouldn't be affecting policy anyway.
viper999999999 3 years ago
bloody good stuff.
stratocaster539 3 years ago
People also need to simply SHOW UP and VOTE!
Over 50% of the people will not vote!
Don't you wonder why we have such a-h's in office?
AwakenedByTyranny 3 years ago
Allowing people to assuredly vote for who they want to would likely get a large portion of those 50% into the booths. - I know it would've got me to.
Jaydo 3 years ago
The electoral college forces candidates to also campaign in smaller states rather than just trying to win the votes of big population areas. Though I agree with IRV.
KabaneTheChristian 3 years ago 2
I like this idea
Mostly cuz i think the electoral college is retarded. And this is fair
tnichols321 3 years ago 2
That sounds fine and all, but ultimately you are forced to vote for a candidate and all the positions that they hold, rather than individual issues.
Wouldn't it be more effective to just vote for one "government" to oversee domestic issues/economics etc., a separate one for national security, and another for foreign policy? And then make individual states or districts more autonomous so that issues like gay marriage and healthcare become irrelevant in a federal election.
OstadJim 3 years ago
I live in Australia. We have runoff voting. Yet we have what is essentially a two party system. We had John Howard, a right wing anti-immigrant george-bushes-best-friend dickhead in office for 11 years.
Almost everyone votes for the two major parties.
Saktoth 3 years ago
Like what happened with Ron Paul ;_;
nemesisnick66 3 years ago
The problem with doing away with the electoral college is that canidates will only have to campaign and represent the views of those who live in huge population areas. Think NYC, Boston, Miami, Las Angelos, Chicago, the list goes on. People in flyover country tend to be more conservative on issues like gun control, welfare and taxes. The electoral college gives those people more of a say.
Darthbelal 3 years ago
there say got us bush for 8 years and a war
nemesisnick66 3 years ago
that isn't a reason for doing away with the electoral college. Policy and political figures must be defeated in the arena of ideas, not by shutting out segments of the population whose ideas you don't agree with.
Darthbelal 3 years ago
"not by shutting out segments of the population whose ideas you don't agree with."
well i certainly don't think they should get more of a say than i do if their votes count more than mine then whats the point of even bothering with voting for what i want
nemesisnick66 3 years ago
It's like you're reading my mind. Too bad,there's too much money in DC and its far too corrupted for them to change anything.
bamboo4tameshigiri 3 years ago
good ideas, and kept simple for us tards.
jamminjago 3 years ago
Uhhh dont you realize this is impossible? Too many corporations pay hard earned money on presidential electees so they can win, not lose to the stupid poor idiot lower class third party people.
Sarcasm.
CAsunrise 3 years ago
Sorry, this just makes too much sense to be implemented.
BolterBolter 3 years ago
In political Science my teacher told me one of the only ways we are going to change things is this country is with a violent overthrow of the government. I hate to say it... But I am beginning to think he's right.
HasanAbulFez 3 years ago
Interesting idea, but who has the power to make this drastic change?...the democrats and the republicans.
sandkings42 3 years ago
Runoff voting is a good idea but states have ruled against it in an effort to protect the parties. The FEC would never let something like runoff voting be accepted because ti threatens the party that runs the FEC. It is really good solution but the powers that be will, as usual, resist.
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago 2
obviously the states will reject IRV now. The idea is just beginning to catch on. But with greater local representation of third party views, it will be increasingly difficult for the state to reject IRV
myko 3 years ago
I came to the same conclusion, that the two party system was ruining us, but that's a fantastic solution you came up with. Props.
PrometheusWithLight 3 years ago
If I moved to America I would feel quite cheated out of a truly democratic process.
Also Elithrion I would have to disagree with you. In the two party system America has it wouldn't seam to matter how extreme each party was you would have to vote for one or the other. In Australia third parties tend to be less centered the the two major parties because the majority vote is fought over the middle. But our system is not setup that allow the major parties to completely ignore third party issues.
b0b0maj0 3 years ago
Wow I thought every democratic voting system, used preferences. Not using preferences is such an alien concept to me, it seams so flawed not to have preferences.
That said hardly anyone in Australia votes for third party candidates because they are either of how preferences work or are ignorant of the third party ideologies. The major parties in Australia are quite centrist probably for this reason. They do sometimes adopt some third party ideologies to claim some far left or right support.
b0b0maj0 3 years ago
immediately go to public financing of campaigns, which would stop the selection of our leaders by corporate America and put it back to the election of our leaders by Americans. I am using up way too much character space so I will stop my list and pipe dreams here.
IaintNoGood 3 years ago
said, I know that my idea is just as unrealistic as 100% voter turnout, but it is more logical if applied. We could immediately get rid of the idea that money is free speech, allowing your common man to be heard in the House or on the Senate floor, instead of just corporate lobbyists. We could immediately get rid of lifetime benefits for politicans, allowing those who truly want to be in public service for the betterment of their society, instead of the lining of their pockets. We could
IaintNoGood 3 years ago 2
changes needed to create a Government of the people, for the people by the people, the system does not need simple tweaking, it needs radical change and overhaul. 100% voter turnout will do nothing to bring about change even under your premise, however conversely 100% non participation would bring about change very quickly. Reason being, the next implied step to the unanswered demands of protest would be anarchy. One could not discount the power of hundreds of millions protesting. With that
IaintNoGood 3 years ago
happen to third party candidates. Which if history is any indicator on the true nature of man, is, they will eventually succumb to the same BS that our two party politicians succumb to, the desire for power, money and influence. And who quenches their thirst for these things? Lobbyists. We have 100 Senators in WA and 434 Representatives BUT we have over 35,000 lobbyists. Each one ankle deep in their pockets with money and influence to pass out as candy to anyone who wants it. To make the
IaintNoGood 3 years ago
I am sure to get lambasted for this but the only radical changes brought about in America have come from protest. Women's rights, abortion, Viet Nam, Civil rights for blacks, Prohibition, etc., etc., ad infinitum. Instead of trying to go through every single problem within our corrupt political system which is full of corrupt professional politicans, stop validating the corrupt system through passive acceptance, i.e. voting. True your idea seems plausible until you extrapolate what will
IaintNoGood 3 years ago
forget my remark about "why not going for a third party candidate" you have made your stance clear in this video i guess a revolution (in time) is the only solution of how to fix the us gov.
too bad that the credible candidates (gravel, paul and kucinich) have "left" the election due to many factors (manupialtive main stream media, voting fraud, and more)
look up: New Hampshire Primary Sham Chain of Custody (on youtube) too bad that it is douche and turd again makes you wonder why^^......
CrazyKraut19 3 years ago
Well, I feel you're mistaken on one point. A two-party system actually lends itself to the most centrist candidates winning, while three or more viable parties would actually give greater voice to the extremes.
A simple illustration: pretend there's one issue, and voters will vote for the person who matches their views best. With two parties it pays to stay as close to the centre as possible for both to capture the most votes. With three, off-centre can be better. Simplistic model, admittedly.
Elithrion 3 years ago
that is germany for me :P
CrazyKraut19 3 years ago
"So you see terrorist activity is wrong"
But the people committing the acts don;t see it as terror. They probably see it as something good. The Nazi party thought they were cleaning up their homeland by murdering millions. To them it was good, for their nation.
It's not universal, some people see women not covering themselves from head to toe as immoral, do you? Why? Because it's how you were raised. Pushing any ideas, even the ones you see as right on someone else is still pushing ideas.
GnosticDjinn 3 years ago
Removing the electoral college system is extremely unlikely. It would require a constitutional amendment which requires 2/3 congressional vote and 3/4 state ratification. Do you really think the good people of Montana and Delaware are going to give up their perceived voting advantage? Not likely. That's why we still have it 8 years after Bush v Gore. Good idea, but it'll never happen.
L4STW0RD 3 years ago
Interesting theory. first off, agreed the electoral college should be abandoned. Of course there is a slight problem that might arise with introducing more parties into the political fray. Because of the two current parties inability to work together, nothing seems to get accomplished. Now I'm not for sure, but a side effect of even introducing a 3rd party might even create greater incoherence among our lawmakers? Just a thought. I think Obama is a centrist by the way.
murfy22 3 years ago
Germany has like 5 major political parties, yet still get their work done.
PISTOLcm 3 years ago
obama's a socialist not centrist, check his voting record
dhartin 3 years ago
It amazed me when I first heard how the American voting system worked. When growing up I'd always seen America as the shining star of Democracy.
Non-compulsory voting, one candidate voting. It's hardly even a democracy.
Risingashes 3 years ago
its not suppose to be a democracy its a republic :)
gwed0 3 years ago
It's a Republic with a Democratic voting process. So it's both really...
LordBLB 3 years ago
what was the music in the background?
Wernerrrrr 3 years ago
I anyway don't understand how america can be satisfied with a two party system. As if there'd be only two ways to look at an issue. Isn't that a false dichotomy? Also you can't possibly demand that people stick to the opinion of the party they've voted for. You're not innately democrat or republican before you touch issues.
infinit888 3 years ago
You might think that, if the electoral college was actually doing anything, considering anything before voting, then some Bush electorates would have voted for Gore, at least those from Florida, citing that their own personal understanding of the will of the people was that. However, none did that I know of. This demonstrates that the electoral college does not, in fact, have true function anymore.
Polymeron 3 years ago
I've been suggesting as much for years for my own country, in which the Prime Minister is not elected directly but rather parties are. This indeed allow you to have the will of the people. But. The reason I'm not promoting this ATM is because this drastically increases the power of small factions (extremists) and promotes political extortion, problems that're already big here and got bigger when we briefly had direct PM elections. What you suggest may be more "just" but could have ill effects.
Polymeron 3 years ago
Yeah, and do you know those super-delegates? They are the least democratic thing I have ever seen! They don't represent the people's will!
JTS11d6 4 years ago
Greetings from Australia (one of the countries that does it this way, although we also have the option of voting for a party (one vote system) if you don't want to label something like 43 different preferences :P ) Nice music too, I wish you'd label composers/piece names when using cool music :P
musicalaviator 4 years ago
That's what amendments are for - to enable changes to the Constitution.
nightflyer28 4 years ago
Each state has proportionate representation in Congress. You know, Senate, House of Representatives.
But in a Pres. election, the entire country is voting for who will run it for all of us. That's 300 million Americans, not xxx Iowans and xxx Californians. The primaries are to cull the herd. Different ballgame.
The Presidential election should be about who the American people want. Not who the electoral college goes with.
nightflyer28 4 years ago
Good vid. I've felt for a while that the Electoral College should be ended, but never heard of IRV until now. It's a good idea.
There've been some decent 3rd party candidates out there before, but the problem is always that said candidate will draw away votes from the other one. By voting #3, you risk losing both him and the only other guy running against the one you definitely don't want.
At least this way, the guy you like most has a chance, and you can still block the one you want least.
nightflyer28 4 years ago
Great video. I've heard of IRV before in the Nation magazine and on Air America Radio and I think it would be a great thing to implement this system in conjunction with tossing out the Electoral College. My vote for Kucinich in the primaries would then not have been wasted!
JoeyRamone63 4 years ago
People say that people who side with some of the third party candidates or the non-mainstream such as Ron Paul, Kucinich, or Gravel are nutty.
The truth that I see is that they just want to spread the knowledge and inform others that there are other great candidates and actually good people out there that we CAN vote for.
And unfortunately, with our current structure and media, these candidates will not have a chance.
You have to be a bit more outgoing to get these candidates heard.
GimbleTheWizard 4 years ago
You know the saddest part about it... I here my support up here in Washington for Ron Paul then I do for any other candidate aside from Obama. In spite of this, due to the illusion its hopeless (And because all the other republican representatives paid more money to advertise and bought their way into the ballot), no one will even consider voting for Ron Paul... I honestly believe if people really just voted for who they though the best candidate was, Ron Paul might be competitive... We're sheep
Daharen 3 years ago
I'm amazed at the number of people against every vote mattering and having our leaders elected by majority... Among other arguments... You people do realize one of the fundamental rights in this country is equality correct? That's all we're asking for. Give the people power, rather they use it wisely or not, and give all people equal power, and let them use their power in the way they choose instead of being blackmailed into using it the way the government wants them to... I hate people...
Daharen 4 years ago
Wow ... there seems to be a lot of hate out there. Very surprising!!! I figured most people would be happy to get back the power to choose who goes to Washington.
Right now the system is just F$#%ed!
sazoulai 4 years ago
fucking love the 3rd movement of sonata 14, my favorite piece
thauruin 4 years ago
The title of the background music?
FibonacciPrower 4 years ago
Yes!
Read "The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter Than the Few and How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies and Nations" written by James Surowiecki.
waveoflight 4 years ago
Awesome ideas. Now how do we get the assholes in washington to actually do this?
Adnara 4 years ago
Forget run off voting. Have a lottery instead of elections. If you want to serve in politics, then just put your name in the lottery. Don't want to run? Give your ticket to someone you respect and increase their chances.
That would be a true democracy. Lobbyists would face a harder time "buying candidates" and we would have the best education system in the world because no one would want an ignorant hick as President.
imrational 4 years ago
Great! A real democracy! Since we can out-vote those rural areas, most of us can live in urban areas and make those country peons supply us with everything we want by virtue of our voting power! I think it is called serfdom.
SERIOUSLY THOUGH...
The voting idea does have merit. Corporate elections often allow each voter to have as many votes as there are candidates.
EcotecUSA 4 years ago
Right on the money.
xoxgodofgodsgodxx 4 years ago
Saddly, we dont live in a democracy... but those changes would fix that!
Can my vote count now plz? k, thanx!
brwyatt2 4 years ago
good call cdk007, i for one have been of the opinion that the electoral college be abolished it is outdated and archaic.
hellshade2 4 years ago
I like the plan! I don't think it's too crazy or anything. And in this day and age with computers, we can calculate the weight of the votes in moments, whereas it might've been impossible when the voting system was devised.
paulmarko 4 years ago
I guess that depends who you ask. (don't misinterpret this as me saying I support the terrorists...)
esigs 4 years ago
That's my point. I disagree and your firm belief doesn't disprove it. Right and wrong are clear to you based on what you know and how you grew up. Right and wrong are also clear to the "terrorists" threatening the "free world" based on how they grew up. To say "I'm right you're wrong" isn't fair because it just starts ridicules "WOW... you got it all figured out!LOL." non-sense.
esigs 4 years ago
I'd also through in 3. Term Limits on the Houes and Senate
xnostromo 4 years ago
Wrong.
esigs 4 years ago
Right and wrong are subjects of morals and the people will always have different morals from each other.
GnosticDjinn 4 years ago
"Government is Law?!?!
What kind of new sick shit ideology does this stem from?!?"
What happens when the police kill you?
GnosticDjinn 4 years ago
us atheists are a long way from the whitehouse, but that doesnt mean that you shouldnt vote.
DozenYears 4 years ago
"Two simple changes to our electoral system(...)
can have an enormous impact on the politics of this nation"
And that's exactly the reason why this will not come.
The people who could do this change are very aware of the fact, that such a change would lower their influence.
Simply speaking it is not in their interest to do this.
durstwurst 4 years ago
So I agree with the video, but what are we single citizens supposed to do about this? How do we get things going?
pretzelip 4 years ago
great video and great ideas
alienjesus2012 4 years ago
I don't think the electoral college is so bad. It ensures that big population states don't bully small population states. The way you can think of it is like having a house (popular vote) and a senate (electoral college).
TheBlindWatchmaker 4 years ago
You say it like everyone who lives in a given state is on the same team.
alienjesus2012 4 years ago
No I don't. I say like it is better than not having a system where the big population states like California can be the sole force in choosing an election. It would be nicer if it was all based on counties, but you'd probably still complain saying it's not like everyone living in a given state is on the same team.
TheBlindWatchmaker 4 years ago
I fail to see the problem with the concept of a bigger population having a bigger influence on the vote. Is this not what democracy is about?
This is for a presidential election, not a referendum where larger states may push through a bill that unfairly advantages them.
tetherson 4 years ago
The United States is not a democracy. It is a republic, and if memory serves correctly, it was the north's oppressive ways for having more influence than the south that caused the Civil War.
It is a presidential election. You never heard of the power to veto? Think it's okay to give the larger states nearly sole power to choose who does that?
TheBlindWatchmaker 4 years ago
Yes. I do.
While it is a republic, the president should be elected democratically.
tetherson 4 years ago
I disagree. The president is the most important person in the country, and thus, giving inequality between a much larger gap is undesireable.
TheBlindWatchmaker 4 years ago
What you don't realize is that this essentially takes away the idea of state at all. Population is just population and people are just people now. It doesn't matter if one state has more people. Without the college, there is no need to think about state majorities. Just total popular vote.
pretzelip 4 years ago
I disagree. If anything, the idea of a state should be re-inforced. We have different subcultures in each state and thus different ways to look at morality and justice. Almost never one way is the only way. The variety of option give citzens the ability to choose where they fit bests. America should be thought as a "european union" of the states.
TheBlindWatchmaker 4 years ago
The last thing we need are more borders. More things to separate us. More things to fight about. People are people. I don't see why we should treat them differently just because they live a couple hundred miles apart. You are reinforcing an us versus them mentality. We all live in the same country under the same president. We should all have equal power to choose him/her.
alienjesus2012 4 years ago
No. Unlike you, I realize that people are localized. People have different cultures and mentallity depending on where they are. Their laws vary from state to state because people's morality varies. This is good because it's arrogant to pretend one way is the only way. It gives people options. Don't like California laws? Move to another state. It's wise and it takes into account human individuality instead of this collectivist view about the world.
TheBlindWatchmaker 4 years ago
Each person deserves an equal vote. Who gives a fuck where they live?
alienjesus2012 4 years ago
Is it too hard for you to understand that we live in a republic? Obviously the people who live in regions that can be overpowered by others give a fuck. This is why we have the senate set up the way it is. It gurantees that one region can't overpower all others and keeps the union prosperous.
TheBlindWatchmaker 4 years ago
Each state having individual laws is fine with me, but the president basically rules over everyone as a whole, so we should decide who he is as a whole. People shouldn't have to choose a state based on politics. I live in Indiana, where my democratic vote is basically worthless because of all the bible-thumping republicans. Should I have to move to a bigger city just so I can cast a vote that matters?
alienjesus2012 4 years ago
Yeah, why not? That's the whole point of the system. That way it ensures what the majority in each state wants and it balances. I live in California where my Republican vote is "worthless." You don't see me crying about it.
TheBlindWatchmaker 4 years ago
Thats rediculous. If a person has to move just to cast a meaningful vote than the system is obviously flawed. This is why people don't vote.
alienjesus2012 4 years ago
Your vote counts within your State. You're all voting for the interest of your State. Remember, this is a union made up of STATES. Of course, if more people are as stupid as you that will throw in the towel, your vote is worthles. Anger against the electoral college simply exists now because a lot of people are still anal about Gore, but the electoral college had never come into play for 120 years before that. Sorry, but the electoral college proved its purpose and worth.
TheBlindWatchmaker 4 years ago
I haven't thrown in the towel.
Yes, the college is rarely an issue, but that doesn't make it right.
I have said all I need to say. We aren't going to see eye to eye on this.
alienjesus2012 4 years ago
I have too. Thanks for the exchange of ideas.
TheBlindWatchmaker 4 years ago
It was that at one point but the office of president has changed too much since then. Unless I live in a swing state my vote is meaningless. I already vote for my state interest by local elections. The president needs to be a national tally.
captainspirou 4 years ago
The problem is that you don't understand federalism. The point of the federal government is that the president is the commander of the independant states, not the people directly. This is also why we have a representative democracy and not a true democracy. Now, if you believe the entire system of the federal government must change, that's another story.
TheBlindWatchmaker 4 years ago
dear subach, i am sorry for where you are right now. "we" never gave power to govt. WE are taxed without representation. I am an old democrat and when this police action in iraq started no democrats in congress (cept one) voted against this lie! I am not being satisfied by the will of multi-multi-millionaires. have you ever met the elite?
michaelsrulee 4 years ago
Holy shit, you guys DON'T use this? That's insane, I thought it was a universal thing! Gawd, it's just basic logic.
closedmouth 4 years ago
cubesolver, if your going to argue a point about someone else being an idiot you might attempt not to sound like one yourself. Using big words doesn't convince anyone that your smart. You've just done an outstanding job of sounding like an asshole.
narmattarum 4 years ago
The intelligence required to run a country ISN'T math and science. If two presidential candidates have 5 each PH.D's in math and science does it make them a good candidate? I don't you want a person who has a degree in microbiology and nothing else running our country. Condescending close minded idiots like you should think a little bit more.
cubesolver 4 years ago
Who told you that? It ain't so.
Oceanus57 4 years ago
Check out the Simpsons episode where the Mensa Group take over the running of the town for a taste of why this is a bad idea. CDK's idea is excellent and more democratic. But since when do politicians give a toss about democracy?
Oceanus57 4 years ago
America was based on the same old crap from europe monarchies, BUT with a twist, tell the peasants that they are participating in gov. with their little vote. yippie. then the elite do what they have always done., start wars that peasants can fight and die and regret and wonder where there benefits are.
michaelsrulee 4 years ago 3
"The elite", yes it's always the elite, yes we can blame it all on these so called elites, and forget the fact that we were the ones that gave the government the power to fight wars in far off lands, take our money, and run our lives for us.
subach 4 years ago
The reason the electoral college exists is because our founding fathers thought the common man too stupid to be given total control. However in recent times our politicians are becoming more and more ignorant, so I suppose abolishing the electoral college wouldn't hurt.
101011001 4 years ago 2
Sure buddy, might as well abolish the Senate too. If you think the EC was formed because the founding fathers thought the common man was too stupid, then you're the idiot.
subach 4 years ago
Actually, it partially was. Also why Senators get 6 yrs so they can make unpopular decisions and have time to make up for it. The FF feared the ruthless majority, and decided that they needed the EC make the right decision, even if it wasn't the people's vote.
humanistfuture 4 years ago
1. Take money out of political campaigns.
2. Eliminate all secrecy from government except troop and weapon strength/movement.
3. Impose term limits for all including Supreme Court justices.
4. Eradicate omnibus/bloated/pork-laden bills. Each bill should deal solely with one issue.
5. Eliminate lobby groups.
6. No elected official should be allowed to accept any gift or gratuity.
7. ALL government business conducted by elected officials should be simulcast to the public.
duhCider 4 years ago 5
5. Eliminate lobby groups
...Good luck getting that to pass. Might as well ask them to give themselves enema.
GnosticDjinn 4 years ago
Not if you eradicate money from political campaigns. Almost all lobby group influence flows from the campaign money they provide for candidates who support their cause.
duhCider 4 years ago
You know, the government IS law. You had better know about law if you are the EXECUTIVE of a LAW MAKING ORGANIZATION. That is just as true, if not even more so, for congressman as well for what should be very obvious reasons. Don't get me wrong though, he DOES need to have more than just law to be president, but law is a necessity.
ziminaiman 4 years ago
cdk007, please keep your videos coming!
fireandashes36 4 years ago
Care to give reason why your idea is "SHIT LOADS" better than this idea? Your idea doesn't even pertain to the matter being discussed. And YOUR idea isn't far from scrutiny either, does it take science or math to know how to run a country? Is knowing the cosine of 3pi/4 going to help bring the country out of debt, or can collecting a sample of hydrogen save our retirement system? You sir are and idiot.
cubesolver 4 years ago 2
The founding fathers knew our country would be doomed if citizens were able to vote directly. As you can see, citizens do not have the resolve to win wars. Citizens would have surrendered during the long civil war resulting in extending slavery & the end of our united country. Citizens would vote themselves money & bankrupt the government. The electoral college is a crucial safeguard. Our constitution is the reason our country has been successful. Foolish changes like yours would weakened it
truthadvocate 4 years ago
Our constitution has been successful because it allows room for change.
...and the guns.
GnosticDjinn 4 years ago
This is a great idea but it needs to be imposed from the outside somehow, we can't expect the two parties to voluntarily implement this. Nobody ever voluntarily gives up power.
oggleman 4 years ago
The point of the electoral college is so that the big states don't muscle the small states. Seeing how most often the candidate with most votes is president, I think it's working.
TheBlindWatchmaker 4 years ago
a peasant with a vote is still a peasant!
michaelsrulee 4 years ago