3 ms·
> You might as well have a Parliamentary system like in Europe if you don't vote directly. Vote for MPs, the MPs pick one among them to be PM. That way you at l
by anthony_romeo 10y ago
> You might as well have a Parliamentary system like in Europe if you don't vote directly. Vote for MPs, the MPs pick one among them to be PM. That way you at least know whoever is elected can govern.
Arguably, one can say that the electoral college decouples electing the head of state from possible corruption from an entrenched parliament while reaping the benefits [?] of not having them elected by the people directly. Realistically it means nothing, especially when states mandate that all of their electors vote for one candidate.
What I really don't about the EC is that policy becomes dictated by less than a dozen "swing states". Who cares about Massachusetts or Mississippi when Ohio and Florida are angry about something?
- maxerickson 10y agoWho cares about Massachusetts or Mississippi when Ohio and Florida are angry about something? Every candidate. If they don't stand somewhere between Massachusetts and the swing states or Mississippi and the swing states, they aren't even going to be on the ballot.
- mountaineer22 10y agoDisagree. Once you have the nomination, there are less than 15 states that are important in our binary system.
- maxerickson 10y agoYes, but getting the nomination is sort of an important part of the system. Which is pretty much what I was saying above.
- humanrebar 10y ago> What I really don't about the EC is that policy becomes dictated by less than a dozen "swing states". If it were a purely popular vote, candidates would only visit particular urban centers instead of particular states. It would be just as arbitrary and unbalanced, just in a different way.
- jmanderley 10y agoAs opposed to now, where they only visit places in a handful of states. Getting rid of the EC would mean that candidates have to pander to voting blocs more. This would likely empower the rural population.
- humanrebar 10y ago> Getting rid of the EC would mean that candidates have to pander to voting blocs more. What's the difference between a 'voting bloc' and a 'special interest'? Is the pandering to farmers in the form of more ethanol subsidies and below-market-rate crop insurance? That vision sounds like there would be more power to lobbyists and less power for local political groups. That's a sideways move at best.
- jmanderley 10y agoTo the contrary, it would decrease lobbying influence. And every vote should be equal. One man one vote. Not a sideways move in any way.
- lordnacho 10y agoIt's 2016. It matters not a jot whether a candidate comes through your town. You can still hear what he has to say. In fact, you can barely avoid it.