You might not agree with all he says - I don't - but it puts the 'choices' into perspective...

"This is the question which people ask themselves before almost every presidential election: why, when the United States is teeming with brilliant and inspiring people, are its voters so often faced with a choice between two deeply unimpressive men? I would have thought the answer was pretty obvious: because deeply unimpressive men continue to be elected..."

[url]www.monbiot.com/archives/2004/08/17/the-bad-or-the-terrible/#more-887[/url]

"The Bad or the Terrible" Great Title

And overall a great read, thanks for the link. Almost everything in this article I wholeheartedly agree with. Especially the frightened, flinching man comment. I swear, Theresa wears the pants in that family.

[quote]Kerry?s ability to raise almost as much money as the Republicans is seen as a triumph for American democracy; but his corporate backers are funding him not because they believe in democracy, but because they believe that he will do what they want. And they are unlikely to be wrong. When Kerry gets his orders, he reports for duty.

The idea that this frightened, flinching man would oversee the necessary democratic revolution is preposterous. He has made the system work for him by working for the system. He knows that as soon as he turns against it, it will destroy him. What else does he have to fall back on? Charisma? Popular enthusiasm? He?s no Hugo Chavez.[/quote]

gosh ... i have been pushing this for a decade now.

the truth is ... the family of repubs and demogoblins has a root so deep in Americain history that it is hard for a regular good Joe to even have a chance. Besides the need of money to run, and etc. Most Presidents come from a very wealthy family, oil, gold, diamonds, etc. It is hard to beat that kind of wealth. It is bad root in our system, it really needs to be removed. It's so flawed and unfair.

This is just a rant ... the real question is how is it done?

[quote=asdf_admin]

This is just a rant ... the real question is how is it done?[/quote]

I know this won't solve the problem by a long stretch, but getting rid of the electoral college would be a good start. Why we continue to use this antiquated and archaic system to elect our president when we use popular vote for everything else is beyond me.

With the EC in place, candidates have to be affiliated with one party or the other to have a serious chance of winning. Maybe discarding that would allow some third party candidates to be taken seriously, since a vote for a 3d wouldn't be a throwaway vote, as it is now.

That doesn't really address the money problem, though. Indeed, one of the major benefits of being affiliated with a party is the financial backing it provides. The internet has proven to be a powerful fundraising tool this election cycle, though, so perhaps a groundswell of support behind a non-blue blood third-party candidate could allow him/her to raise enough money to compete.

Really, though, who knows? I'm not naive enough to think that any of this would actually result in some random person winning the presidency. Damn good question... :unsure:

herm .... the EC has been an issue for a while ... yet it has worked. I understand that states like Cali which are is pretty much demogoblin and New York take up a lot of votes. Those are two of the worst Democratic states in the USA, and have been for some time. Surely I do not think getting rid of the EC is an answer, but surely some reform. Last election was an eye opener for many, how can some win by popular and still loose the election? lol. O well, tuff life, better luck next time.

Toast Muffin, it surely is a start. That is one small step. The thing there is really not much you can do. The nation runs on the top 5-7% of the most wealth'est people. They run this country. That is it. The only thing you can do is spread the wealth, but you can not because DemoDemons Or RePubics will not allow such a thing. It also looks Commie. It is a dead road. Perhaps that is why I like Bush ... "I am not a smart man Jeenny, but I know what love it" ... He has his heart in the right place, now excution wise ... well Houston we have a problem.

My solution. Close off all borders. Get rid of money, and start from ground zero. That is the only way, and it truly is. I was saying ... the roots go deep, so once you start messing with that, people go "hey buddy you can not touch that" If eliminate the rich that have been put there because of history, and stay weatlhy because of history. Not because they have worked or created something create in the last few decades ... do you see the problem ?

[quote=asdf_admin]He has his heart in the right place, now excution wise ... well Houston we have a problem. [/quote]

:Bingo: Of course, if good intentions were sufficient qualifications, most of the country could run. Although, you would have to be a sick puppy, and probably a megalomaniac, to WANT to be president, so we might be stuck with the same two fuckers no matter what. :|

Another thing about the electoral college I was thinking as I was sitting here -- could you imagine how campaigning would change with no electoral college? Right now, candidates focus their time and energy on "battleground states" b/c they are either almost certain to win or lose the other states. If it were to become governed by the popular vote alone, pretty much everywhere would be fair game. Would candidates just stick to metropolitan areas where most of the people are?

that is a good point ...

also ... wouldn't it be nice to have more choices? like we do in normal life?

haha. it's like you have steak or you have cooked steak ... :wink:

Re:: Edit: now Civic's read it - the US presidential 'choice

wouldn't it be great if it really didn't matter who won the presidency because all the candidates running were smart, trustworthy, and capable?

Instead, we have two choices on election day that are basically supported by the rich and special interest groups.

yep. ain't that the truth. hesh.

[quote=asdf_admin]My solution. Close off all borders. Get rid of money, and start from ground zero. That is the only way, and it truly is. I was saying ... the roots go deep, so once you start messing with that, people go "hey buddy you can not touch that" If eliminate the rich that have been put there because of history, and stay weatlhy because of history. Not because they have worked or created something create in the last few decades ... do you see the problem ?[/quote]

Few truer words have been written :RockOn:

i must admit it is a little crazy. but that is the only true solution.

Cutting out the cancer of power of inheritance and tradition based political power, and shifting to a merit-based political system?

Utopian, but I'd like to see that happen. Not just in the US.

In Belgium it is illegal for parties to get financial support from companies, they are allowed to have private fundings but there's a maximum amount of money an individual can donate. they do get money from the government depending on there amount of senators the party has. this would fix the problem of companies buying political decisions by supporting president candidates. I still wouldn't improve the chances of candidates who aren't affiliated with parties tho.

Re:: Edit: now Civic's read it - the US presidential 'choice

[quote]but his corporate backers are funding him not because they believe in democracy, but because they believe that he will do what they want. And they are unlikely to be wrong. When Kerry gets his orders, he reports for duty.[/quote]

does anybody know of any benefits that come from politician whoring themselves at corporations? Aren't they just prostitutes in a 3-piece suit?

[quote]The Nation?s columnist Eric Alterman blames Al Gore?s defeat on Nader?s ?megalomania?.[/quote]

shit, we need a third party in there to break this rep/dem option.

[quote]The contest is so close that if even a few thousand people vote for Nader rather than Kerry in the swing states, it could win the election for Bush. This is why Republicans have been giving money to Nader.[/quote]

is nadar really taking money from republicans? now that's embarassing.

[quote=asdf_admin]herm .... the EC has been an issue for a while ... yet it has worked. I understand that states like Cali which are is pretty much demogoblin and New York take up a lot of votes. [/quote]

How has the Electoral College served us well in any sense? 1 person = 1 vote is the best. California and New York should have the most say because they have the most people...duh! Not only that but they also pay the most taxes and get fairly little in return.

^^^ not my fault people like to live in a in tin can with no room.

HBK. it has worked. Just not lately, because Al Gore lost. :wink:

I'll preface this by saying that I don't personally have a huge problem with the electoral college apart from just thinking it is silly in this day and age, but I'll throw this out there:

Can anyone explain why we still need it?

tradition. i think that is it. :wink:

[url]http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf[/url]

pretty valid arguments both for and against the system.

it still seems like a good idea to me in order to protect rural interests from being overrun by large metropolitan areas.

the downside being that there is a rare possibility that in a close election the less popular candidate will win, which we saw in 2000. However, with a vote that close, it says that either candidate can govern equally as good as the other since the votes were nearly split in half.

[quote=asdf_admin]^^^ not my fault people like to live in a in tin can with no room.

HBK. it has worked. Just not lately, because Al Gore lost. :wink:[/quote]

Actually my complaint is that it ignored the popular vote. i always figured the team with the most votes wins. :Rolling:

sure. i can understand that.

Question(s) ...

So why does the "media" reflect on and show the popular vote when really it comes down to the EC? Wouldn't there just be more peace in the world if we went by what gets our Pres into office?

The vote is rarely so narrow that it comes down to the electoral college, in which case, because it's so close, either candidate could govern equally (so they say.) In the case of 2000, i'd say WHEW, Gore, holy hell that would have been worse than Bush, imo of course.

Last time it happened was Harry Truman who lost the popular vote as well. (and damn glad he was president too, the last great Democrat imo. If the Democratic party could be what it was in the days of FDR and Truman, i'd be on their side. It isn't even a worthy comparison these days. Truman or Kerry, damn, can't even mention them in the same breath.)