A question about the presidency...

[Tenaciousd1212]

If you could choose the way the president is chosen (- elections) what would you do?

I'd make it a fight to the death...fight club style.

[Knerys]

I'd make them take a lie detector test andsee if all those campaign crap is true or not.

[Mr. Blonde1]

Nothing is better than a rousing game of Hungry Hungry Hippos!

[zamphir66]

I'd do an instant run-off(?) in the primaries, where you rank the candidates in your order of preference, and then something else, or, hell I don't know.

[Tornado]

Flip a coin.

[UnicornBlood3]

Whoever gives me the most money wins. ;)

[Boro]

i appoint myself.

[equipe]

I think they should play the game of Life and winner take all.

[Citizen Kane]

I would put the candidates on a scale, and whichever one weighed less than wood would be burnt at the stake, and the other guy would be president. ;)

[equipe]

There should definatley be more buring at the stake in presidential elections. Maybe it'll keep'em more honest.

[Citizen Kane]

That gives me another idea.

Both candidates are on a plank. Every time they lie, they're forced to take a step forward, and you can see how it turns out. ;)

[equipe]

Are there sharks with frickin' laserbeams on their heads in the water below?

[Citizen Kane]

Naturally. :D

[Mat]

Why do we need a president? Anarchy Rules!

[Knerys]

Why do we need a president? Anarchy Rules!
Until you want something done. ;)

[equipe]

I say screw the president. Screw law and order.

Lets all revert to Hobbes' state of nature! Sounds like fun!

[stonefaced_1]

Until you want something done. ;)

If you want something done, just let your AK-47 do the talking. ;)

[Knerys]

But then they get their AK-47's and then where do we go. ;)

[Colorado Cajun]

But then they get their AK-47's and then where do we go. ;)
Hooters? :P

[Rogue]

I'd make them take a lie detector test andsee if all those campaign crap is true or not.


But..but..it's inadmissible in court. ;)

[Knerys]

Forget court. I give the results straight to the media. Then the real fun begins. :hehe:

[equipe]

I think that electrodes should be hooked up directly to the candidate in the lie detector test. So that everytime they lie they get a 500volt jolt.

[bbf2]

Dance contest.

Kerry would do the robot, Bush would do some lame square dancing, and in the end we have President Hammer.

[equipe]

The daughters should fight it out. A jello pit fight! Yeah!

[bbf2]

The daughters should fight it out. A jello pit fight! Yeah!

The fat Bush twin would win.

[equipe]

Dance contest.

Kerry would do the robot, Bush would do some lame square dancing, and in the end we have President Hammer.

Patrick Swayze is the President of the Dance. At least according to Denis Leary

[JBond]

I think that electrodes should be hooked up directly to the candidate in the lie detector test. So that everytime they lie they get a 500volt jolt.

That's what I was going to add.

[PsychoMike]

Whoever gives me the most money wins. ;)
I agree but once I got all their money I would apoint myself.

[Tenaciousd1212]

Patrick Swayze is the President of the Dance. At least according to Denis Leary


According the "Clerks", Patrick Swayze is enjoying his job at the pet store...

"Get back to work Swayze!"

I say a good old fashion duel...with dodgeballs...with spikes on them...make it interesting.

[pixiness]

Ideally - there would be some sort of test that would be compiled by the American people. Questions about history, democracy, foreign policy, and especially the consitution. Portions of it may be essay some may be multiple choice. Then, every american gets to see the answers without knowing which candidate the answers belong to. Then, every american citizen votes on who they want as president based on those answers and the winner is decided by the popular vote.

It'd be a long-ass test and there would be no televison campaigning or debates.
I know it's unlikely, but I feel its really the only fair way to decide. It eliminates things like people voting because it's the democratic candidate or the republican candidate. And because there's no campaigning - there's no fundraising and more political parties can adequately join the race.

[PsychoMike]

I like your idea about the test, pixi..... But they need to keep debates in any fair election process.

Real debates not the frauds we have today. The candidates need adaquite time to answer the questions and propose solutions. Limiting the answer time to 2 minutes dosen't give them time to propse indepth solutions... it is just enough time to get rehersed sound bites out to the public. The questions need to be harder and the candidates need to be incoraged to answer the question and not just talk. Also more candidates need to be involved in the debate process.

[equipe]

And the moderators in the debates should have a large whacking stick for when the candidates don't answer the questions.

[pixiness]

I like your idea about the test, pixi..... But they need to keep debates in any fair election process.

Real debates not the frauds we have today. The candidates need adaquite time to answer the questions and propose solutions. Limiting the answer time to 2 minutes dosen't give them time to propse indepth solutions... it is just enough time to get rehersed sound bites out to the public. The questions need to be harder and the candidates need to be incoraged to answer the question and not just talk. Also more candidates need to be involved in the debate process.


The only reason I don't like debates is because it's another chance for the american public to decide who they like based on stage presence. Yes, I think it's important that the leader of the free world is capable of handling themselves in public - but we're also a nation of idiots influenced by things like how our leaders dress. A lot of people speculate that FDR would have never been elected if people had seen him on TV and known he was wheelchair-bound and we would have missed out on what is arguably one of the greatest presidencies of our time. I happen to agree with that opinion.

Keep debates - just put em on the radio or distribute them via transcripts.

[PsychoMike]

I've hear the FDR argument before.... I don't totally agree with it. At the time Great Depression was going on many people were unemployed and living in shacks. Alot of the blame was put on Hoover, I think if FDR was nominated there were enough people out there that would vote for anyone other than Hoover.

I do agree that many people vote baced on stage presence, all you have to do is look at the reaction after the first debate in 1960 to prove that.... JFK looked young, refreshed, and alert, while Nixon was old, exhausted and tired. Many voters just liked JFK because he looked better.

I find it sad that so many people vote based on name reconition, appearence, along party lines and for the incumbent, as opposed to voting on the issues. The get out the vote drives are alot less helpful, all they seem to do is encourage people to vote witout giving them information on the candidates (or giving them partisan information). I really don't want someone who dosen't know what is happening in the world or what the issuse are or where the candidates stand deciding who the next president will be.

Along with testing the candidates maybe they should test for the voters too. Something that shows they understand the candidates positions.

[ip_guru]

I've hear the FDR argument before.... I don't totally agree with it. At the time Great Depression was going on many people were unemployed and living in shacks. Alot of the blame was put on Hoover, I think if FDR was nominated there were enough people out there that would vote for anyone other than Hoover.

I do agree that many people vote baced on stage presence, all you have to do is look at the reaction after the first debate in 1960 to prove that.... JFK looked young, refreshed, and alert, while Nixon was old, exhausted and tired. Many voters just liked JFK because he looked better.

I find it sad that so many people vote based on name reconition, appearence, along party lines and for the incumbent, as opposed to voting on the issues. The get out the vote drives are alot less helpful, all they seem to do is encourage people to vote witout giving them information on the candidates (or giving them partisan information). I really don't want someone who dosen't know what is happening in the world or what the issuse are or where the candidates stand deciding who the next president will be.

Along with testing the candidates maybe they should test for the voters too. Something that shows they understand the candidates positions.

The whole test idea is fine, but you all know it will lead to lawsuits. States are getting sued now, just for trying to make a voter show an ID to prove they are who they say they are. Imagine the lawsuits if the voter had to be able to read (plus read in which language), or if the voter had to answer a test. It would be a nightmare.

This year is going to be bad as it is. I've just read that Kerry already has a team of 10,000 (yes 10,000) lawyers around the country, and they are hoping to get that up to 30K. They are preparing to challenge every county that has a close election result. The lawsuits that would happen if we required some level of competence or a voter test would be hard to imagine...

[adt100]

Here's an idea, why not decide the prsidency on the basis of who gets the most votes.

A perhaps naive, over simplistic, and idealist view I realise, but surely even the most backward of third world countries if creating a similar 'presidential' style of government today would come up with this type of procedure?

[wackmasterted]

IQ test, which niether of em would pass, but bush would would be smarter in a sence of balance

[ip_guru]

Here's an idea, why not decide the prsidency on the basis of who gets the most votes.

A perhaps naive, over simplistic, and idealist view I realise, but surely even the most backward of third world countries if creating a similar 'presidential' style of government today would come up with this type of procedure?

Sure if we get rid of the state's borders and change the foundation of the country from a republic of states to one big democracy where all decisions are made not on the best direction of the country, rather made by the current popular will of the majority.

[Tenaciousd1212]

I still say knife fight.

Or a rap battle.

Or the worlds longest game of risk.

[adt100]

Sure if we get rid of the state's borders and change the foundation of the country from a republic of states to one big democracy where all decisions are made not on the best direction of the country, rather made by the current popular will of the majority.

But surely that is just what a democracy is all about, the current popular will of the majority.

I don't understand your argument about getting rid of state borders etc. Nothing whatsoever need change, just get rid of this archaic 'electoral college' nonsense and total up the votes for each candidate across the entire country.

Seems perfectly logical and perfectly feasible to me. After all, every person eligble to vote in the USA has just 2 choices, George Bush or John Kerry. The total number of votes cast per state determine who gets the electoral college votes, therefore just totalling these across all states would surely be the most fair and democratic way of deciding a president would it not?

[ip_guru]

But surely that is just what a democracy is all about, the current popular will of the majority.

I don't understand your argument about getting rid of state borders etc. Nothing whatsoever need change, just get rid of this archaic 'electoral college' nonsense and total up the votes for each candidate across the entire country.

Seems perfectly logical and perfectly feasible to me. After all, every person eligble to vote in the USA has just 2 choices, George Bush or John Kerry. The total number of votes cast per state determine who gets the electoral college votes, therefore just totalling these across all states would surely be the most fair and democratic way of deciding a president would it not?

This might belong in a different thread... However, the US isn't a single democracy like that, never has been. It is a republic of states. The current will of the majority isn't what elects Presidents, the majority of the states elect the President. The popular majority is what elects local politicians, not national.

The EU is growing in power, what if the EU becomes a government that rules Europe, as some people want. Should the countries vote, or just the popular majority of all of Europe? If it is just the popular majority, what voice does Austria or other smaller countries have? Every election would be decided by the UK, France, and Germany.

[Frizzo the Clown]

I always thought the whole "electoral" college thing was an unnecessary step. Instead of voting for the President, we're voting for the people who will vote for the President an entire month after the "election." All the individual votes get counted anyway, so why not just have them represent the will of the people?

[adt100]

I think the 2 situations are clearly very different. America IS a country with 1 leader, Europe is a continent. The countries that make up the EU will never allow it to become some superstate, the UK public certainly wouldn't stand for it, and I'm sure neither would many others if it were to ever get to that point.

I still don't see why your federal system of government has any effect on a presidential election being decided in the way I have mentioned though. You are 1 country, 1 people, with 1 president who is said country's leader, therefore every one should have a vote and the totals tallied to give a majority vote.

[ip_guru]

I think the 2 situations are clearly very different. America IS a country with 1 leader, Europe is a continent. The countries that make up the EU will never allow it to become some superstate, the UK public certainly wouldn't stand for it, and I'm sure neither would many others if it were to ever get to that point.

That's the exact point. The situations are not different. When founded the states had all the power, they even had different currency from one another. The US is comprised of individual states, with a Federal government to run Federal issues. The EU running Europe is not that different. Similar geographical size, similar populations, comprised of different ethnic groups.

Why would the countries never allow it? Well, because that minimzes their role in the governance of their country and their lives.

Same thing here. Why would, say Montana allow the removal of the electoral college? Once gone, their voice in how the Federal government operates is virtually non existant. The whole population of the state of Montana is less than the capitals of many of the other states. Why would a President ever spend any time in or listening to the people of Montana then?


I still don't see why your federal system of government has any effect on a presidential election being decided in the way I have mentioned though. You are 1 country, 1 people, with 1 president who is said country's leader, therefore every one should have a vote and the totals tallied to give a majority vote.

We are 50 states with locally elected government. We are 50 states that belong to the Republic of the United States. From a personal standpoint, I understand both the pros and cons of the electoral college. I happen to be one of those who likes the system.

Usually what happens is that if a person loses, the losing side (regardless of the party) says the EC has to go. The winning side, of course, sees no problems. No doubt though, I expect a full-on attack to get rid of or change the EC in a significant way after this election.

[PsychoMike]

The whole test idea is fine, but you all know it will lead to lawsuits. States are getting sued now, just for trying to make a voter show an ID to prove they are who they say they are. Imagine the lawsuits if the voter had to be able to read (plus read in which language), or if the voter had to answer a test. It would be a nightmare.

This year is going to be bad as it is. I've just read that Kerry already has a team of 10,000 (yes 10,000) lawyers around the country, and they are hoping to get that up to 30K. They are preparing to challenge every county that has a close election result. The lawsuits that would happen if we required some level of competence or a voter test would be hard to imagine...
I know it will lead to lawsuits and tons of other problems. I just don't like the idea of people voting when they don't really understand the issues, or even pay attention to what is going on. There are many stupid people in this country and the number seems to be growing.

for adt100: To put simply what ip has been saying..... when the federal govenment in America was established the main it had only a few roles.... 1) Trade (including inter- and intra- national arrangements, currency) and 2) International relations (including diplomatic and military arangements). Overtime; however, the federal government has gained more power.

[Tenaciousd1212]

Hey this thread is not for debates on elections...its a thread about how YOU would choose your president and by what means...

I also think a good pie eating competition could work.

[pixiness]

I'm against the electoral college too - not only because I believe it skews what the majority will is, but that it further reinforces a two-party system. The votes for candidates outside the democratic and republican parties largely get thrown away because the electoral representative can't split their vote. I think there was a time and place where the electoral college was necessary - but I think it has far outlived its usefulness in a world where we can accurately track the will of the people.

[ip_guru]

Hey this thread is not for debates on elections...its a thread about how YOU would choose your president and by what means...

I also think a good pie eating competition could work.

Well, the elections are how the president is chosen, so I think it fits....

I wouldn't change much for the election, I think the EC does just what it is supposed to do. I would, however, make the voting system the same everywhere. I'd make each state follow the same rules, formats, etc... We have far too many systems, even different systems in individuall counties - it just makes for messes and now for lawsuits. I would make every voter show some form of ID when they go to vote - I think that is very fair.

One of our biggest problems is not how we elect people, it is that we do not really hold them accountable once elected. To this, I do have some suggested changes.

First, there are non-partisian groups that rate politicians on different issues, from taxes, to defense, to liberal and conservative issues.

If I were running on a platform of low taxes, I think the system should hold me to that. So, when I go for re-election, if I did not meet the ratings I said I would meet, then I have to either include (on my marketing/campaign materials) that I didn't do what I said I would, or not seek re-election.

For the first time, there is no record, so this cannot work, but for all re-elections it could. In other words, let's work the system so that we have much more emphasis on the candidate's actual actions/records versus their spin.

Take today (most current example). Kerry is out hunting Geese in Ohio. For his entire career, he has been consistent in being against most gun rights - his voting record proves this. But, now for a photo op he is out killing geese? People should be able to see his history on this issue, not just be subjected to a photo op that shows him as the opposite of what he is.

I guess, after all this blather, I'd be for any changes that allow the citizens to learn more of the reality of the candidates without their spin attached.

[PsychoMike]

You can't have it both ways ip. Either the elections are fully in the states control. Or fully in the nations control.

If they are controled by the state then the ferdeal government should have no control of how elections are handeled. ie. voting systems, who is on the ballot.

IF the Federal government is in control of voting then the EC should be abolished.

[ip_guru]

I'm against the electoral college too - not only because I believe it skews what the majority will is, but that it further reinforces a two-party system. The votes for candidates outside the democratic and republican parties largely get thrown away because the electoral representative can't split their vote. I think there was a time and place where the electoral college was necessary - but I think it has far outlived its usefulness in a world where we can accurately track the will of the people.

I know you're against it, as we've touched on this before. But, what I think most people miss is that we are not, nor have we ever been, a pure democracy. We use a democratic system to elect local representation, then that local representation is given the responsibility of making decisions on our behalf. I'm sure this will ruffle feathers, but... we shouldn't want the straight majority will to govern. That would be disaster.

The citizens don't vote on issues, our representatives do. And, when the representation differs, they vote differently. In reality, the US government operates as a merger between a democracy and a oligarchy.

Pixi, you have argued the exact opposite of this in the Gay marriage thread. As you correctly pointed out in that thread, there have been many times that the majority of the citizens wanted something that was bad in the long run. You know how hard it is to overturn a law, once it is a law? How about overturning an amendment? There are countless times in our short history, where the majority has been proven wrong.

Our society couldn't handle being run that way. We would get the world's largest special interest groups spending billions to convince 50.00000001% of the people they are right. The ability to purchase elections would be many times greater than it is right now.

People argue that all Kerry does is listen to his focus groups and follow what the majority wish to hear; and they rail on him as not being able to follow his gut instead. He gets constant critism for being unwilling to make a stand that is right, even if it is unpopular. If we start voting on pure majority will, then focus group type politicing will be the norm, not the exception.

Now, to your point on the two party system, to that I couldn't agree more. I wish the stage could be set for a third party to better participate. But, to this I place just as much blame on us (the people for not getting educated on the other parties)and on the media (for note giving people fair information to make decisions). There were many elections early on in the US that had more than 2 parties, so it is possible. What will most likely happen is one of the two main parties will be replaced with a third. I could see a scenario (unlikely yes, but I can see it happening) where the main two parties are the repubs and the libs.

[ip_guru]

You can't have it both ways ip. Either the elections are fully in the states control. Or fully in the nations control.

If they are controled by the state then the ferdeal government should have no control of how elections are handeled. ie. voting systems, who is on the ballot.

IF the Federal government is in control of voting then the EC should be abolished.

I don't want the fed to control the actual voting process, just move towards the states having some sort of consistency in the way we elect a president. I don't want the fed to control who is on the ballot.

The Fed could pass a law that says the states can do whatever they wish, just as long as it is at least consistent in the whole state. That way, the local state reps can decide which system they want and stick with that. The states decide the system, the states control the system.

[adt100]

Why would, say Montana allow the removal of the electoral college? Once gone, their voice in how the Federal government operates is virtually non existant. The whole population of the state of Montana is less than the capitals of many of the other states. Why would a President ever spend any time in or listening to the people of Montana then?

I still maintain that the situation in the USA is a very different one to the USA. Regardless of your federal system of government, and the founding of the country, the fact remains that you are still 1 country, with 1 president who leads you all. Individual states do not therefore really come into the equation when deciding who that president will be.

Surely the number of 'votes' the electoral colleges have are essentially determined by the size of their population, in which case they have just as much or just as little 'voice' as any individual in any other state.

1 further point, is it not those privileged few on the EC's that actually give their votes to the candidate of their choice? Usually of course this will mean that if a state's voters has given the majority vote to candidate A, then candidate A will get all the corresponding EC votes. But this is not set in law (is it?), therefore although usually a formality, it is at its core a less than truly democratic system IMO.

From the self-proclaimed 'land of the free', I would have thought that a system of '1 member 1 vote' would be in place.

[adt100]

BTW ip_guru, I do actually agree with much of what you said in you penultimate post in response to pixiness, I just don't think that applies when it comes down to the basic issue of electing a president.

You elect representatives to make decisions with regard law making, but the representatives are, in the first instance, elected by majority will.

[PsychoMike]

I still maintain that the situation in the USA is a very different one to the USA. Regardless of your federal system of government, and the founding of the country, the fact remains that you are still 1 country, with 1 president who leads you all. Individual states do not therefore really come into the equation when deciding who that president will be.

Surely the number of 'votes' the electoral colleges have are essentially determined by the size of their population, in which case they have just as much or just as little 'voice' as any individual in any other state.

1 further point, is it not those privileged few on the EC's that actually give their votes to the candidate of their choice? Usually of course this will mean that if a state's voters has given the majority vote to candidate A, then candidate A will get all the corresponding EC votes. But this is not set in law (is it?), therefore although usually a formality, it is at its core a less than truly democratic system IMO.

From the self-proclaimed 'land of the free', I would have thought that a system of '1 member 1 vote' would be in place.
The number of Electoral votes each state gets is determined by the number of Congressmen each state has (1 for each member in the House of Representives and 1 for each Senator) plus 3 votes for the District of Columbia.

Each state has the right to determin how ther Electoal college divides it's electoral votes. 48 states plus D.C. give all of their electoral votes to the person who wins the majority of the popular vote. Nebraska and Maine give 2 votes to the winner of the popular vote in the state and one vote to the popular winner in each congerssional district (both state has yet to split their electoral votes between th 2 candidates). On the ballot in Colorado there is an admendendment up for vote that would allow the Electoral Votes to be divided baced on a precentage of the popular vote.