Quote:
|
Originally Posted by hi_im_god
quick questions: does the president get elected by a majority? if not, is there a runoff? how is that structured?
because no one got a majority in 2000. or 1992. or 1968.
or do we just choose a number like a plurality over 40%? in which case we're still putting in power someone that the majority didn't vote for.
what do we do when there are 300 candidates running for president? because that's what you'd have a few years after dumping the electoral college. it's a key underpinning to our (so far) stable 2 party system.
there are no successful 3rd parties in america because of the difficulty of winning enough individual states to be elected president. you're either ross perot with a broad but too shallow constituency (no electoral votes) or george wallace with a deep but too narrow voting bloc (too few electoral votes).
would you rather have an occasional george bush or be italy?
|
Again, we vote for Governor by adding up the votes in a state. We vote for senators by adding up the votes in the state. We vote for Congressman by voting up the votes in a congressional district. There is no good reason we can't simply add up the votes for President of the country by adding up the votes in the country(not the votes in the states.) This is a National office. It shouldn't have states involved at all. He doesn't represent states interests. He is supposed to represent every Americans interests....And I never want another George Bush again(SINCE YOU ASKED.) For whatever else you asked about look at elections for Governors. They seem to work just fine. I don't know why people don't want to just add up people's votes to determine the President. Probably because they think they have an inherent advantage in the E.C.