It's official, Huckabee is a crackpot.

gLing said:
How would we do that when the rich people in office are the ones who make the changes?
Click to expand...
Money caps on how much they can raise and spend. That will level the playing field and allow third parties to have a bigger voice and for people who lack the sufficient funds to actually have a decent campaign.


Oh, and a proportional election system with the electoral college in the trash. Popular vote only.
 
All Else Failed said:
Money caps on how much they can raise and spend. That will level the playing field and allow third parties to have a bigger voice and for people who lack the sufficient funds to actually have a decent campaign.


Oh, and a proportional election system with the electoral college in the trash. Popular vote only.
Click to expand...
But the popular vote only would mean states like New York and California would decide who is elected.
 
GraceAbounds said:
I know. It kills me they spend millions to get elected into a job that pays $400,000 or something like that.

It makes no sense, at least not to me.
Click to expand...

It actually makes perfect sense if you really think about it ..

They aren't in it for the money .. like a less fortunate person might be tempted to be.

They don't "need" the job .. they want it. Most of them want it because they are under the impression that they can/will make a difference. The ones who aren't in that category .. just want the power.

I think most just want their hand at trying to correct the things that they think are wrong .. and because they have the finacial means to do so .. it is of course easier for them to pursue/attain.
 
gLing said:
I thought that was what the electoral thing was about.
Click to expand...
The electoral is basically a system that was intended to be used as a tool to avoid what people back then thought of as "the foolish common man". Basically, rich and powerful white men didn't think the common person was smart enough to elect a powerful leader.

If we get rid of the electoral, and install and much more inclusive system of voting (modified of course to make all states matter in the vote), then I think that will level things out nicely. No swing states, no candidates ignoring a few states blah blah. it will force them to pay attention to all states and people, not just pander to a few and say what they want to hear to get elected.
 
SRC said:
It actually makes perfect sense if you really think about it ..

They aren't in it for the money .. like a less fortunate person might be tempted to be.

They don't "need" the job .. they want it. Most of them want it because they are under the impression that they can/will make a difference. The ones who aren't in that category .. just want the power.

I think most just want their hand at trying to correct the things that they think are wrong .. and because they have the finacial means to do so .. it is of course easier for them to pursue/attain.
Click to expand...
You've misunderstood me chickie. I know they aren't in it for the $400,000. What I am saying is, is that I believe much of campaign money to be a waste, when imo we have the means to run a Presidential campaign w/o so much waste.

Put them all on a reality tv show. :p LOL! They will have more viewers than voters. :24:
 
All Else Failed said:
The electoral is basically a system that was intended to be used as a tool to avoid what people back then thought of as "the foolish common man". Basically, rich and powerful white men didn't think the common person was smart enough to elect a powerful leader.

If we get rid of the electoral, and install and much more inclusive system of voting (modified of course to make all states matter in the vote), then I think that will level things out nicely. No swing states, no candidates ignoring a few states blah blah. it will force them to pay attention to all states and people, not just pander to a few and say what they want to hear to get elected.
Click to expand...
But doesn't the electoral vote based on what the majority in the state want?
 
All Else Failed said:
The electoral is basically a system that was intended to be used as a tool to avoid what people back then thought of as "the foolish common man". Basically, rich and powerful white men didn't think the common person was smart enough to elect a powerful leader.

If we get rid of the electoral, and install and much more inclusive system of voting (modified of course to make all states matter in the vote), then I think that will level things out nicely. No swing states, no candidates ignoring a few states blah blah. it will force them to pay attention to all states and people, not just pander to a few and say what they want to hear to get elected.
Click to expand...

What???

Not it wasn't, it was built around congress, plain and simple. And unlike in the UK, when we go to vote for the office of President, it actually determines the outcome. I beleive in the UK they elect their House Of Commons only, and then the HOC elects, or places, whomever is the leader of the party who has the most people. I hardly call that democratic. Notice I left out the House of Lords...different beast there altogether.

THe way the electoral is set up to work, is that we the people go and vote. Then after all the votes are counted, the majoirty in essence "order" their congressmen to vote for that candidate. However, once all the electoral votes are counted for that state, then the state can declare who won the state.

And let's be honest with each other, it's all going to come down to my state again...Ohio is notorious for being the last state to report and we have a large amount of electoral votes here to cash in on.
 
Back
Top