DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**illiniastibly** · 07-02-2007, 05:57 PM

Well I think you are wrong.
It can certainly be eliminated, as it does not exist in other actual democracies that work quite well.

I still do not think so. Elimination of things rarely works the way the people behind their elimination intend. Modification of it is needed.

I TRULY fear direct voting in this country. People, in general, are stupid. They are easily influenced by the things that they see around them, and are easily manipulated, en-masse, to go in different directions.

It is like what Issac Asimov said, society is always more predictable than its individual parts. An individual might do this and that, but a group is much easier to influence sometimes than a bunch of free thinkers.

Ninjahedge, we voted in a warmonger anyways, two times. (well, loosely speaking since he wasn't really voted in by us to begin with). I don't see how the electoral college, which kicks in once every four years, is an effective buffer in the way you describe. What would happen when people would vote on a more emotional basis. The whole basis for an EC was to buffer and protect from things that would sway based on emotion. Theoretically, they have the power to go against the popular vote! Although that might not be received too well. A deferment based on irregularities might be the better thing to do.

The electoral college is made up of people, just like the rest of us. They would be just as outraged and susceptible to bad decision making in times of crisis as anyone else. I'd rather trust my future to a larger body, namely the entire population not some electoral college. It is a buffer, not an outright filter MTG. It can only soften the bumps, not make them go away.

What I am saying is that they may also serve to buffer the reactions of individuals rather than sacrificing the opinions and votes of others by creating splits among a support base. hat would happen if there was less of a pooling of votes in the 2000 election? 2004? Would it have been as close if you just counted, 1 for 1, how many votes each received in total?

The thing I fear is that with parties like the Democratic party, you are more likely to get people to vote their opinion rather than party line (because of the closer affiliation of the independent candidates platforms to the democrats than the republicans). This would be more hurtful to those that favor free choices on things, more diversity in general in public policy simply because they will not agree on the same things if given a true choice.

If there is a system to eliminate the free radicals from the equation on more of a local scale (electoral votes by district rather than state) I think we could reach a happier medium.

07-02-2007, 05:57 PM	#19
illiniastibly Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 400 Senior Member	Well I think you are wrong. It can certainly be eliminated, as it does not exist in other actual democracies that work quite well. I still do not think so. Elimination of things rarely works the way the people behind their elimination intend. Modification of it is needed. I TRULY fear direct voting in this country. People, in general, are stupid. They are easily influenced by the things that they see around them, and are easily manipulated, en-masse, to go in different directions. It is like what Issac Asimov said, society is always more predictable than its individual parts. An individual might do this and that, but a group is much easier to influence sometimes than a bunch of free thinkers. Ninjahedge, we voted in a warmonger anyways, two times. (well, loosely speaking since he wasn't really voted in by us to begin with). I don't see how the electoral college, which kicks in once every four years, is an effective buffer in the way you describe. What would happen when people would vote on a more emotional basis. The whole basis for an EC was to buffer and protect from things that would sway based on emotion. Theoretically, they have the power to go against the popular vote! Although that might not be received too well. A deferment based on irregularities might be the better thing to do. The electoral college is made up of people, just like the rest of us. They would be just as outraged and susceptible to bad decision making in times of crisis as anyone else. I'd rather trust my future to a larger body, namely the entire population not some electoral college. It is a buffer, not an outright filter MTG. It can only soften the bumps, not make them go away. What I am saying is that they may also serve to buffer the reactions of individuals rather than sacrificing the opinions and votes of others by creating splits among a support base. hat would happen if there was less of a pooling of votes in the 2000 election? 2004? Would it have been as close if you just counted, 1 for 1, how many votes each received in total? The thing I fear is that with parties like the Democratic party, you are more likely to get people to vote their opinion rather than party line (because of the closer affiliation of the independent candidates platforms to the democrats than the republicans). This would be more hurtful to those that favor free choices on things, more diversity in general in public policy simply because they will not agree on the same things if given a true choice. If there is a system to eliminate the free radicals from the equation on more of a local scale (electoral votes by district rather than state) I think we could reach a happier medium.
	Quote