Interesting. Believe it or not, I can almost always tell whether a user on this board is American or not by reading their comments and looking at the way they structure their arguments. This left-right-conservative-liberal-republican-democrat rhetoric usually gives it away. I'm in no position to critcize your political system, but this two party system really seems to create some kind of 'either-or' way of thinking with no alternative in between. I for one find this 'You're either with me or against me, you're wrong and I'm right' type of thinking and debating to be rather one sided.
It's the 'choice' we've been given by the two major parties. They conspired to create a monopoly on our political system. It's impossible for independent parties to have any meaningful impact; and you can forget about 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Our system requires a vote for a specific person that will hold a specific seal, not a party that will gain a proportion of seats. You'll have to amend the constitution to change this.
Indeed, it would mean a very big change to the fundamentals of our system. Probably a new constitution, in fact. Now that would be a mess!
You prefer people's votes not mattering in a national election just so a fraction of land can look important? Politicians never actually needing to answer to a majority of the population is one of the reasons why regular people are always screwed over.
That fraction of land IS important. Each state is sovereign and deserving of being represented as equally as is reasonable. Besides do not be so eager for the tyranny of the masses. At this time public opinion may be in favor of people and ideas you are in favor for. But just as likely in the future that will not be the case. Your great grand children could easily suffer for the decisions you make today. Centralization benefits only the majority. The minority has to suffer under their boot and pray they are benevolent. But under our system if you are marginalized in Kansas you can just pick up and move to California. Or if things are too crazy in California you can just move to Utah. That is why this country is so great, we have a place for everyone.
That's exactly what you do with super delegates. Tell me in states that Bernie won, why did Hillary get the delegates? Didn't Bernie voters matter?
That's why we have strong state governments. National elections should be about the national population.
As someone who voted for Bernie in the primaries, I was very upset by that. I am completely against super delegates.
"The entire country" being a collection of 50 states, yes. That's why all elections are state elections.
No, the entire country is every citizen. The 50 state system gives more power to certain votes, meaning that the head of state does not necessarily have to win over the general public.
Not here. The US is made up of 50 states, represented in the federal government by people elected from those states by the people of those states. The President does not represent the people of the United States and are not elected by same. That's why all elections are state elections.
Exactly. I too agree it's not perfect, but it's the best we can do. If we just do a strict popular vote, then Los Angeles will decide who is President every 4 years. Then Republicans will need to move there to have a say in the in election. I don't want to move to California. Ever
I know, but I am saying that it's an incredibly stupid system used to satisfy a bunch of overlily paranoid "States rights" fanatics. A head of state should be chosen by the individual people to ensure that they are truly serving the country. Constantly jumping through hoops and adding all these bureaucratic filters to give states power just devalues the presidency.
See: US Constitution, Article V. Let us know how you do. If by that you mean "It's been in the constitution since 1791", then yes.