[Aardwolf]

I figure this is as good as any of the other "we are fed up with our political system" threads to bump...

According to somebody I'm friends with on Facebook:

Thus far there are seven states, California, Illinois, Washington, Massachusetts, Maryland, Vermont, and Hawaii; who have signed legislation to change their method of granting electoral votes. This legislation will effectively end the electoral college entirely by sidestepping it at the state level, but the legislation only enters into effect once a total of 270 electors, the amount required for victory, have entered into this pledge. Once that amount of electors is reached, these states would award their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the national popular vote instead of the state result.

[SypheDMar]

Historically speaking, I can't seem to decide whether populism is a good thing.

[Mikes]

Historically speaking, I can't seem to decide whether populism is a good thing.

Is that reply meant for Aardwolf and did you mean direct democracy?


Because "populism" really is something else entirely.

[MP-Ryan]

Early voting starts today. I'll be casting my ballot for Obama soon. Although I do not really agree with either candidate's space policy.

Given the current state of affairs in the United States, I'd say space policy is probably the last thing you should be worried about in your choice of President for the next four years.

[el_magnifico]

Historically speaking, I can't seem to decide whether fear of populism is a good thing.

There. Fixed.

[jr2]

Wasn't part of the problem of a direct vote system the probability that the candidates will basically just court (and later, enact policies that support) the states with the highest population and leave sparsely populated states as inconsequential, because they suddenly are?  Although, the alternative is having the say of the fewer people in the sparsely populated states matter more than the masses packed into other states...

I think it basically comes down to states' rights and power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population

http://712educators.about.com/cs/polisciresource/f/foundingfathers.htm

Question: Why did the Founding Fathers create electors?

Answer: Two reasons:

1. To give extremely small states some say in the election.

2. To place a check on the 'uneducated' masses. At the time of the Constitutional Convention, many voters could not read and did not have access to accurate information. The framers of the Constitution felt that a check was needed.

[Ghostavo]

Wasn't part of the problem of a direct vote system the probability that the candidates will basically just court (and later, enact policies that support) the states with the highest population and leave sparsely populated states as inconsequential, because they suddenly are?

Except the electoral college doesn't stop that candidates from courting states that actually matter in the elections.

It's not like, for example, Texas and California will vote any differently unless the corresponding candidate personally makes his mission to piss in the living room of every person in those states.

Check last election's number of visits to, say... Ohio and Pennsylvania, against every other state combined or something.

[Mikes]

Prejudices against WoW Players are common - even people who play other games have them.

While it's nice to bash the GOP, I still can remember Tipper Gore and that Rap Music Thing...

Players who played WoW and stopped have them too...

It's kinda like smoking I guess

However...  playing WoW makes a politician no more or less fit or unfit than smoking or not smoking would do.