What if we had all the candidates in a big election and if one didn't get 50%, we took the top two in a runoff? Now, let's say that only eligible American citizens voted , who would win? Who would be in the runoff? You think it would still be one Democrat and one Republican?


I have to say I think Ron Paul might do it. It would remove the "who stands the best chance of beating Hillary" type of questions from the decision making process.

__________________
Order without liberty and liberty without order are equally destructive. - Theodore Roosevelt

I think that's a great idea, 12th.

This whole idea of the "electoral college" is a very strange system of representation - I mean, going "outside of the normal channels", that kind of thing.

And come to think of it, the primary system is pretty wierd too.

There's some interesting history behind this, I mean "why" the Founding Fathers didn't do a "direct popular vote" from the git-go.

'Cause you know, there were "issues" about landowners, and "issues" about slaves, and all kinds of contention between the States it was a very interesting debate, and a very interesting resolution, all things considered - a fascinating piece of history.

Then, there's also the observation that a lot of my cousins and friends from Europe - when they ask about American politics, this is one of the things they always ask about - like, "explain your primary system, and how the Presidential election works" - 'cause you know, they read about stuff like the popular vote going one way and the electoral vote going another, and they want to understand why this is -

So, how would you propose to change things? "Process" changes, a bit at a time, or would you try to bite off the whole enchilada with a Constitutional Amendment or something?

Keep the electoral college and the state structure but go back to #1 is Presidnet #2 Vice President.

Yes thats insane today but its the best alternative we have without destablizing the USA. If nothing else one of the two will kill the other



The Europe system and much of the worlds is inherently too unstable IMO
...Don't mess with the States system or you will get "Don't Tread on Me Flags" and if you push it well Dixieland!..lesson learned?

__________________
McCain 2008
"We make war that we may live in peace"
"...peace is the highest aspiration of the American People. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it, we will never surrender for it, now or ever."
"War critics can no longer credibly argue that we are losing in Iraq, so now they argue the war costs too much."
"Oderint dum metuant"
http://members.cox.net/neddy/bobhope_kerfuffles.wmv
http://youtube.com/watch?v=RnfflRNpwKA
http://youtube.com/watch?v=j-QYIP7o2-A

That's funny. It's going directly into "classic quotes". Congratulations.


Yep. I'm down with that. I'm a big States-rights' guy. I even have one of those flags flying in front of my door, right now as we speak. And on the other side is the skull and crossbones, and it says, "Surrender the Booty".

I like the idea. Frankly I don't think it will make life any easier for Ron Paul. I think Obama would benefit greatly, as would McCain.
Paul's only shot is actually based on the current system. He can only win if Republicans are heavily divided on the other candidates. If McCain, Giuliani, Romney, and Thompson each get less than 20% of the vote, Paul could squeak by with just over 20. This of course would anger a lot of Republicans and Paul would be punished in the general election.

__________________
"It's never over... BOY!"
The Tall Man, Phantasm III

But, that is the exact reasoning I used to suggest that Paul could win if the system were changed. He gives the anti-war people a non-liberal choice. It's possible that he would steal votes from both sides. I agree that Obama might benefit, but not so much McCain.

__________________
Order without liberty and liberty without order are equally destructive. - Theodore Roosevelt

I like the idea, too. Some would say, however, that a popular vote would have NYC, L.A., and Chicago choosing every President. That would certainly suit me just fine. Let the little people suck eggs.

Paul is really starting to surprise me now. He's gaining supporters from both sides. I have a feeling, that if he really wanted to, he could bolt the Republican Party and make a very strong showing as an independent third party candidate.

Paul is a lot stronger with Republicans though, 'cause he knows how to talk to 'em. He's got a lot more explaining to do with Dems, know what I mean? He can get there, but the real question is whether the audience is patient enough to listen, and m take is probably "not", unless there's some specific reason they're dis-satisfied with Hillary.

Paul could go after the Obama votes - in fact, that would be an extremely amazing turn of events, wouldn't it? A Paul-Obama ticket, in either order? Hmm...

The Founding Fathers didn't accidentally or by mistake create the electoral college system, they were FARRRRR smarter men than YOU, and they knew exactly what they were doing. Likewise, the primary election, a result of reforms advocated by the progressive movement in the early 20th century is done for a VERY good reason. You should have gotten the reasons in elementary school american history and government - why don't you read up on what you missed while dozing in class?

Yeah, I know my history. Land owners, slave owners, yadda yadda.

Questions about "who" should vote, and "how" they should vote.

And even "how much" of a vote they should have.

These days though, we kinda go along with "one man, one vote", don't we?