IS our present system of electing the president good or it should be replaced?

Question

this is a topic for debate in my school ,pls give some serious answers

Answer 1

I think the entire process should be changed,no political parties;just people and it would save a lot of money!

Answer 2

There is nothing wrong with our electoral system except the money being spent on campaigns. Elections should funded by the people, through taxes, with no private donations. Each candidate should be given an equal amount of money and a certain number of debates between the candidates should be mandatory for television and radio stations to provide.

Also, there should be a Pre-Election to decide on the candidates, with a limited number allowed to run. The amount of money flowing into a bottomless pit in today's campaigning would feed every poor person in the country for a year or more.

This would eliminate candidates who are indebted to large contributors. It would eliminate the differences between those with huge amounts of money to spend, and those with only a small amount of money to spend. We have reached a point where the richest man wins and, in today's world, Abraham Lincoln would be passed over, because he was too poor.

It should be a criminal offense for anyone, rich or poor, to contribute to a political campaign. Nor should candidates be allowed to spend their own money. This would go a long way toward keeping them honest and it would put an end to the president who is in the pockets of his largest contributors.

Answer 3

The basic system is sound. There should be some type of finance reform. There is far to much money to be made in government. It has to be less so motivated. More motivated to do things for the country and less for ones self. The Electoral College is a necessity. There needs to be term limits in the other branches of government as there is with the Presidency. No more life long politicians is a good place to start. No more life long Supreme Court appointees either.

Answer 4

Actually, it is isn't fair. The whole point of the electoral college was because when voting was first initiated not enough people could actually make it to the voting booths so the electoral college was put in place to represent states as a whole since most people could not get to voting booths. However, now that voting is much simpler and easier to do, the electoral college no longer makes sense and in some cases goes against the popular vote therefore making the majority vote in that state insignificant.

Answer 5

The reason for the electoral college, was to allow sparsely populated states to have a voice in who becomes president.

The best most recent example would have to be the 2000 presidential election. Al Gore won the popular vote, but lost because George W. Bush received the most electoral votes.

If we changed and went off solely the popular vote like some people suggest, you would have states like New York,California,Pennsylvania, etc. deciding the outcome.
Small states like South and North Dakota would have no chance at swaying the outcome.

The best way would be to expand the electoral system. States would have their own electoral votes to give rural counties the same voice as their urban counterparts. Ex. I live in Oregon, in almost every election the majority of counties vote one way but the 4 most populated ones vote opposite. This results in a handful of counties running the entire state. The electoral system would give a voice back to the rural communities to help guide their state.
This same system would work great no matter what state it is applied to, Las Vegas wouldn't control Nevada, New York City wouldn't have as much pull in New York, etc.

Hope this helps!!!

Answer 6

Ohio voting fraud
http://www.xopl.com/blog/2006/02/25/ohiovotingfraud.html

Welcome Crooks and Liars readers...

As far as I'm concerned, this is the final and definitive proof that both the 2000 and 2004 elections (and probably the 2002 Congress races) were fraudulent:

A Collapsing Election Fraud Illegal ‘residency
http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts156.html
The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center finds that President Bush’s support among the American people has fallen to 33%. Even more devastatingly, the survey finds that people’s most frequently used one-word description of ‘resident Bush is "incompetent”.

Voting Expert: Widespread Election Fraud Again
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2006/071106votefraud.htm

Harris tells Alex Jones Show she has acquired software for big three companies, stories of mass voter intimidation, arrests, machine meltdowns proliferate

Vote fraud crusader and rights activist Bev Harris has told the nationally syndicated Alex Jones Show that she is in possession of voting software used by the big three voting systems companies and is now in a position to completely expose the true scale of electronic vote fraud, as a cascade of stories about voter intimidation, arrests and machine meltdowns arrived on election day.

"They aren't even being sneaky about it now," said Harris in summarizing the widespread voting machine failures and election fraud that unfolded throughout the day, referring to policies whereby voting precincts have imposed complete blackouts on any indication of their results until the official confirmation from headquarters is given.

Precinct reports are now being treated as illegal and individuals are being charged for even suggesting that precincts keep tally counts of votes so comparison checks can be conducted later.

Answer 7

I actually think it would be nice to have an election system that implemented two separate elections. Not like the generals and the primaries, but an election that would encompass all of the chosen candidates from each party, and one that would encompass the two out of that group that received the most votes. The first election would allow people to vote for their favorite candidate, and the second would allow for those who feel that both candidates suck but one is far less evil to vote against someone.

As an example of this, I have a friend who liked a third party candidate. He went to the polls and voted for Bush. Why, because he didn't want Kerry to win. Okay so why didn't he vote for the third party candidate? Because he didn't stand a chance. I think to many people feel that way. That they need to vote against this man by voting for that one even though they feel someone else who is running would do a better job.

Answer 8

The system isn't too bad. The trouble is that it is too influenced by lies and brainwashing. It doesn't matter how good a tool is, if the person using it is a not able to think properly and he's reading the wrong instructions it won't work properly. Fill a factory with people who don't understand what is going on and who are producing political figures with flawed information and you have the USA.

Answer 9

The Supreme Court has declared the standard for justice in elections is "one man, one vote". The electoral college defeats this concept by allowing the majority in a state to decide ALL the electoral votes of that state. That is how George Bush who received less individual votes than Al Gore was able to claim the election in 2000. You tell me how good the process is.

Answer 10

We need paper reciepts validating our vote that we can check against results we can "log in" and view on a PC.

People in some states and precincts have to go to a Democrat or Republican table to fill in information before voting. Some states require registration under a party to vote. This needs changed because voting should be secret ballots entirely.

The entire process needs to be more accountable to the people.

Answer 11

I am not an American but I would like to suggest that a form of preferential voting could be used to elect your president which would allow you to vote for the person you really want but in the event of them not getting the required number of votes transfer that vote to somebody else, thereby still nominating against a person you don't want.
That would help people like memnoch's friend.