4 ms·

As opposed to now where presidential elections are decided by three-four fairly unimportant states?

• protomyth 11y ago
  Which states do you feel are "unimportant"?
  • sammydavis 11y ago
    Since about 1980, only 10 states have been potential swing states. So those 10 get most of the attention (Ohio, Florida). We'd be far better off with direct vote for the prez. I want to make house of rep elections be fore an entire state too, this is one of the few ways to break gerrymandering.
    • protomyth 11y ago
      > Since about 1980, only 10 states have been potential swing states. So those 10 get most of the attention (Ohio, Florida). We'd be far better off with direct vote for the prez. They are swing states because of how the population votes and divides between people in the US. We are based on states and a direct vote would be a nightmare and go against the principles this country was founded on (Federal, State, People). > I want to make house of rep elections be fore an entire state too, this is one of the few ways to break gerrymandering At the cost of no actual representation for rural areas of a state, no thanks.
    • Grishnakh 11y ago
      You're right about the prez, but wrong about rep elections. The whole point of having two houses in Congress is that they'll have a different dynamic. The Senate is supposed to be the more stodgy of the two that prevents crappy laws from getting passed, while the House is supposed to be the more agile one. The idea was copied directly from England's Parliament, with its House of Commons and House of Lords. The House of Commons directly represents the people and proposes most new legislation, while the House of Lords is full of unelected aristocrats who act like an overseer and limit what the other house can do. Over here, the House of Reps are directly elected by the people by "congressional district" and serve short terms, while the Senators were elected by state legislatures and served longer terms. The 17th Amendment changed it so Senators were elected directly by the people in each state. But the effect isn't that much different: they have longer terms, and they represent all the people in the state, not just a smaller district as Reps do. Having the House members represent only their district is a good thing: if your district is a minority in your state (like if you live in rural, conservative California, or you live in liberal Austin, Texas), this means you're able to elect someone who represents you. If the reps were elected by everyone in the state, you wouldn't have any liberal Reps from Texas, nor any conservative ones from California. When you lump everyone together, it just creates disenfranchisement among minorities. As for the prez, yeah, the current system with the Electoral College and first-past-the-post voting and party primaries is total crap. But personally, I think we should scrap the whole concept of having a President, and adopt something like Canada's system with a Parliament and a Prime Minister. With the PM elected by Parliament, there'd be little conflict between the executive and the legislative branches, and voters would concentrate only on voting for their own representatives and senators, and do a much better job of that than they do now. But you're right, gerrymandering is a big problem. I wonder how other nations deal with that.