Is our system really the best?

[slugshooter]

A lot of people say that America has the greatest system in the world as far as elections and things of that nature, without really knowing anything about other countries. Thats why this Comparative Politics course I am taking is required for the PoliSci major. We just had our first test and part of the first section was about Germany. I really like how Germany selects their president, plus, European democracies have a looooooowwwwww spending limit and a very limited campaign season. Anyhoo, the thing I like about Germany is this, now imagine last election season cause I am gonna use their names. Say on November 2nd we had our first election, every candidate would be on the ballot so lets see we have:

George Bush
John Kerry
John Edwards
Howard Dean
Al Sharpton
Dick Gephardt
Carol Mosley-Braun
Joe Lieberman
Dennis Kucinich
Wesley Clark

Now, on the 2nd, everybody in America votes for one of those candidates, the top 2 vote getters in that election face off about 3 weeks later in another election and whoever wins that is that President. I really like that system but it would never work here for a number of reasons, 1) The last election had a record number of votes cast, and it was still like a 55% turnout. People are gonna either turn out for the 1st vote or the 2nd vote, but the turnout won't be that great I suspect. 2)The electoral college would never be disbanded in order to accomplish this because our founding fathers didn't think we were smart enough to make the choice.

Of course, other countries take their government and election process a lot more serious than we do. I honestly think that too much is said about our system being so great when our president is indirectly elected, not really a true democracy is it ?

[johnf]

Another flaw in the system- you have 1 person in the 1 party against 9 from the other party.

Assuming that at least 40% would vote down party lines, bush would have 40 % of the vote and the others would have less than 10% each tops. This would make the incumbant the winner vertually every time.

Wouldn't work at all with our system.

[ParrotHead]

In theroy your plan works however, as long as you have multiple parties you WON'T have a party running against a seated President.

[ QUOTE ]
not really a true democracy is it

[/ QUOTE ]

This country wasn't founded under the "democracy" flag but rather was founded as a Republic. Check history - democracies don't last - nor will ours.

[stevebeilgard]

we are a republic. libs want to change it to a democracy, even though every democracy in existance has failed or is failing. take germany. 12% unemployment, with little hope for recovery. france? may be too late to save them financially. the list goes on.

[slugshooter]

[ QUOTE ]
Another flaw in the system- you have 1 person in the 1 party against 9 from the other party.

Assuming that at least 40% would vote down party lines, bush would have 40 % of the vote and the others would have less than 10% each tops. This would make the incumbant the winner vertually every time.

Wouldn't work at all with our system.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have to look at all the candidates as being from a different party. The last German election had 7 or 8 parties represented. It was all very close in the 1st vote, but the 2nd vote was the landslide. Schroeder got like 82% of the vote.

[wtnhunt]

Best or not it is our system. It works for this country.

[ParrotHead]

[ QUOTE ]
You have to look at all the candidates as being from a different party. The last German election had 7 or 8 parties represented. It was all very close in the 1st vote, but the 2nd vote was the landslide. Schroeder got like 82% of the vote.

[/ QUOTE ]

7 or 8 parties….have you lost your mind?

The way this country changes it’s mind on a whim, just imagine if we had 8 different parties running every 4 years just how screwed up things would get. A whole lot more screwed up than they are today with just 2 parties!

How many parties can we come up with?

Extremely Right Republican Party
Middle of the Road Right Republican Party
Extremely Left Democratic Party
Extremely Extremely Extremely Left Kennedy, Clinton and Kerry Party
Independent Party
Libertarian Party

Course, we’d have a few knucklehead parties sprout up like….

Gay Party
All White Party
All Black Party
Everybody Else That Isn’t White or Black Party

Ok, that 10 representatives running for President in the year 2004 so lets look at our candidates

EERP - George W. Bush
MRRRP – John McCain
ELDP – John Kerry
EEELP – Hillary Clinton
IP – Ralph Nader for the 97th time
LP – Neal Boortz
GP – The queer from queer eye
AWP – David Dukes
ABP – Al Sharpton
EETIWBP – George Lopez

Ok, I’m thinking our system while flawed a little by electorial colleges isn’t all that bad!

[markyj987]

The electoral college is essential for our form of government--it works for us as William said--and was set up to create a balance between each state's influence on the federal level.

No, our system definitely isn't perfect--but with the size of our nation alone, direct democracy would not work at all.

[Norm Sauceman]

It may not be the best, but it is all we have.

[OJR]

I will take it over anything else that is on the face of the earth!

Give me a "good" example of something better! Nothing that has been posted so far even comes close!

[stevebeilgard]

can't imagine anyone smart enough today to do what our forfathers set up. i certainly don't want a change.

[Norm Sauceman]

I agree Steve...I agree.

[wtnhunt]

Hmmm, our government has held elections for a long long time in comparison to other countries and they still go on today. Must tell us something.

[ParrotHead]

[ QUOTE ]
The electoral college is essential for our form of government--it works for us as William said--and was set up to create a balance between each state's influence on the federal level.

No, our system definitely isn't perfect--but with the size of our nation alone, direct democracy would not work at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Give me a break - while I'm thankful that Al Gore never made it to the pulpit in 2000 he did recieve the majority of the voteing population. Reverse this and Bush loses to Kerry after pulling down the majority of the vote and you'd have a different view of electorial colleges.

[slugshooter]

Regardless of who wins, I don't agree nor support the electoral college. I feel it was just a way for our founding fathers to preach democracy and it's greatness while still taking away our right to vote directly for our president. I still prefer casting a vote for president versus England who elect members of parliament and the majority party in parliament votes on a prime minister. I don't feel the electoral college does anything but tip the balance of an election. Gore won the popular vote in 2000, he should have been president, but because someone devised a way that determines one states votes carry more weight than another state, he was the loser, that is not democracy. Basically, the State of Ohio elected Bush, if the electoral college did not exist it would require candidates to campaign in all states, not just those that they feel are more important to their election chances, Bush and Kerry spent most of their time in Ohio and Florida last year, telling residents that their plan and ideas were the best for them, well great, but what about residents of Wyoming, or Delaware, or Rhode Island, they have needs and problems also. One or two states shouldn't carry the balance of a presidential election on their shoulders.