Posted: 2/26/2007 2:12:12 AM EDT
|
You want REAL election reform? You'll need to get SCOTUS to revisit the notion that its OK, constitutionally, to Gerrymander for political party majority status. You have all these "safe" seats for one party or the other, and that results in the "wackos" of each party getting the time of the primary. If they had to really compete with the other mindset, they'd be more moderate. |
|
We only have to make a VERY TINY change to our electorial system to achieve much better elections! A) every citizen gets ONE vote B) you can vote FOR or AGAINST one candidate C) somebody adds up all the FORs and subtracts all of the AGAINSTs D) you have to have a positive score to WIN E) if nobody has a positive score, then you re-run the election, but those candidates with negative scores are not allowed to run. E) alternative: If nobody has a positive score, then office is un-occupied for the duration of the election cycle. |
We need to get away from a popular vote, not closer to it. People are idiots. Look at the millions gasping and drooling over Anna Nicole and the Emmys or Grammys or whatever the fuck they're doing now. Those millions rush out to vote for the most photogenic, most "hip", or the most "compassionate" candidate. They know nothing about any of the issues, and are too stupid to understand or care even if we could explain it to them. I believe there should be a test administered before elections. In order to vote, you must show that you have some understanding of what the issue(s) is/are. You should be able to give a one-sentence synopsis of the issue at hand. For candidates, you should be able to take, say, a 20 question multiple-choice exam on what that candidate stands for, and pass with, say, 80% If you can't do that, if you have no idea who they are or what their positions are, you should not be voting. Honestly, I'm enough of an elitist to admit that I don't exactly have a huge problem with the time in our history when you had to be a landowner to vote. I wouldn't go quite that far today... it's entirely possible that someone might not own land for any number of reasons, but still understand what's going on enough to be able to have a voice. Basically, we need to stop stupid people from voting. Any way we go about trying to do that is going to be open to abuse and allow someone to set the standards... say, if you are too dumb to realize that global warming is an imminent disaster waiting to happen and that it could only have been caused by the United States and George Bush, then you're invalidated. But, allowing every drone packed into Welfare Central to vote is as certain a road to disaster. Just because, while our way of life is dying, we can say "It's equitable, and the people have spoken!", doesn't change the fact that the US is being flushed down the toilet. I don't think it's particularly "fair" that uneducated, indoctrinated masses can vote to confiscate my wealth for their own ends. |
|
Worry more about the socialists' attempt to subvert the Electoral college by passing legislation in the most populous states REQUIRING that their Electoral votes go to the winner of the popular vote, regardless of how the individual state actually votes. This effort is already underway in many states, with this scumbag Dr. John R. Koza as the poster-boy - http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/articles/nytimes_20060922.php Leave the lid on the pandora's box of Electoral College "reform" firmly shut. Destroy the socialist seditionists, instead. |
