Thanks! I doubt it will happen anytime soon too. That doesn’t mean the Electoral College remains a good thing. It has plainly failed one of the very purposes it was meant to serve.
Imagine a vanity candidacy turning into a Presidency.
Right now large patches of dirt have too much political power.
Translation:
We lost the election because we're shitbrains that run on a platform of fail, but it's not our fault, it's the electoral college that's the problem. Lets just get rid of it.
Thanks! I doubt it will happen anytime soon too. That doesn’t mean the Electoral College remains a good thing. It has plainly failed one of the very purposes it was meant to serve.
Imagine a vanity candidacy turning into a Presidency.
Right now large patches of dirt have too much political power.
Translation:
We lost the election because we're shitbrains that run on a platform of fail, but it's not our fault, it's the electoral college that's the problem. Lets just get rid of it.
Once again, we as a country are arguing about the wrong things. Until the system in which we nominate a candidate for president is fixed, keeping or doing away with the Electoral College doesn’t matter much. This article from Stanford Magazine (hi @Gladstone!) articulates it nicely:
“The current system is weighted too heavily in favor of celebrity appeal, demagogic displays and appeals to narrow special interests...
...For almost the first half century of the republic, presidential candidates were chosen by the caucuses of the two parties in the House and the Senate. That system worked well until the two-party system briefly died with the Federalist Party. It was replaced by party conventions, which eventually were replaced (almost) with strings of single or multiple state primaries and caucuses. It seems to me that the original system may have been superior to what we now have. The elected officials of both parties have incentives to choose candidates with an eye toward popular electability and governing skill...”
I’m not saying we should return to the old way of nominating a presidential candidate, but after watching the shit show that was the Democratic debates I know something needs to change at that level before we start tinkering with anything else.
Once again, we as a country are arguing about the wrong things. Until the system in which we nominate a candidate for president is fixed, keeping or doing away with the Electoral College doesn’t matter much. This article from Stanford Magazine (hi @Gladstone!) articulates it nicely:
“The current system is weighted too heavily in favor of celebrity appeal, demagogic displays and appeals to narrow special interests...
...For almost the first half century of the republic, presidential candidates were chosen by the caucuses of the two parties in the House and the Senate. That system worked well until the two-party system briefly died with the Federalist Party. It was replaced by party conventions, which eventually were replaced (almost) with strings of single or multiple state primaries and caucuses. It seems to me that the original system may have been superior to what we now have. The elected officials of both parties have incentives to choose candidates with an eye toward popular electability and governing skill...”
I’m not saying we should return to the old way of nominating a presidential candidate, but after watching the shit show that was the Democratic debates I know something needs to change at that level before we start tinkering with anything else.
That and the fact that literally no one wants the job. So the couple prior who would actually be good would never run.
Once again, we as a country are arguing about the wrong things. Until the system in which we nominate a candidate for president is fixed, keeping or doing away with the Electoral College doesn’t matter much. This article from Stanford Magazine (hi @Gladstone!) articulates it nicely:
“The current system is weighted too heavily in favor of celebrity appeal, demagogic displays and appeals to narrow special interests...
...For almost the first half century of the republic, presidential candidates were chosen by the caucuses of the two parties in the House and the Senate. That system worked well until the two-party system briefly died with the Federalist Party. It was replaced by party conventions, which eventually were replaced (almost) with strings of single or multiple state primaries and caucuses. It seems to me that the original system may have been superior to what we now have. The elected officials of both parties have incentives to choose candidates with an eye toward popular electability and governing skill...”
I’m not saying we should return to the old way of nominating a presidential candidate, but after watching the shit show that was the Democratic debates I know something needs to change at that level before we start tinkering with anything else.
Once again, we as a country are arguing about the wrong things. Until the system in which we nominate a candidate for president is fixed, keeping or doing away with the Electoral College doesn’t matter much. This article from Stanford Magazine (hi @Gladstone!) articulates it nicely:
“The current system is weighted too heavily in favor of celebrity appeal, demagogic displays and appeals to narrow special interests...
...For almost the first half century of the republic, presidential candidates were chosen by the caucuses of the two parties in the House and the Senate. That system worked well until the two-party system briefly died with the Federalist Party. It was replaced by party conventions, which eventually were replaced (almost) with strings of single or multiple state primaries and caucuses. It seems to me that the original system may have been superior to what we now have. The elected officials of both parties have incentives to choose candidates with an eye toward popular electability and governing skill...”
I’m not saying we should return to the old way of nominating a presidential candidate, but after watching the shit show that was the Democratic debates I know something needs to change at that level before we start tinkering with anything else.
Think we found CollegeDoog’s dad. Is needing an ID to vote racist?
Absolutely not.
But if black people, poor people and college students were voting Republican, Republicans wouldn't be interested in this particular voter suppression scam.
Comments
We lost the election because we're shitbrains that run on a platform of fail, but it's not our fault, it's the electoral college that's the problem. Lets just get rid of it.
And probably wouldn’t even without benefit of indica edibles and several shots of rye.
“The current system is weighted too heavily in favor of celebrity appeal, demagogic displays and appeals to narrow special interests...
...For almost the first half century of the republic, presidential candidates were chosen by the caucuses of the two parties in the House and the Senate. That system worked well until the two-party system briefly died with the Federalist Party. It was replaced by party conventions, which eventually were replaced (almost) with strings of single or multiple state primaries and caucuses. It seems to me that the original system may have been superior to what we now have. The elected officials of both parties have incentives to choose candidates with an eye toward popular electability and governing skill...”
I’m not saying we should return to the old way of nominating a presidential candidate, but after watching the shit show that was the Democratic debates I know something needs to change at that level before we start tinkering with anything else.
And probably wouldn’t even without benefit of indica edibles and several shots of rye. Is that a call for genocide?
We'll allow it.
But if black people, poor people and college students were voting Republican, Republicans wouldn't be interested in this particular voter suppression scam.