Yes, my point is you came in and basically said “abolish the Electoral College” and never told anyone why it should be that way. Then you went on to say our two recent Presidential elections would have different ha we not had an Electoral College.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Yes, my point is you came in and basically said “abolish the Electoral College” and never told anyone why it should be that way. Then you went on to say our two recent Presidential elections would have different ha we not had an Electoral College.[/quote]
The only election that would have been effected is 2000 (not 2004) so your last sentence makes absolutely no sense
How exactly does one dissolve the two party system? [/quote]
First, I was speaking more thematically than literally. I’d rather be well represented by candidates and staff that accurately represent near the totality of our ideals within the system than rewrite the system because the person who carried the minority of our ideals lost.
IMO, a broader field of candidates is more likely to, on sheer chance alone, bring in more governing talent as well as dilute out campaigning talent. (I understand there are drawbacks to abandoning two-party, they are lesser than eliminating the EC or the 17th Am. IMO).
Second, the machinery is already in place, vote third party and encourage others to do the same, as well as registering as ‘other’ or not delineating political party when registering or reregistering, contribute time, effort, money, resources, etc. to ‘third party’ causes.
We are not a constitutionally two-party country and I don’t believe our melting pot is best represented by such heterogeneity.
Third, I think any blueprint to truly dissolve the two-party system in any active manner would require criminal activity, rewriting the laws, or both, which is pretty much what is going on now and wouldn’t fix things.
The only election that would have been effected is 2000 (not 2004) so your last sentence makes absolutely no sense
But previously, you said:
Bush won by millions of votes but won the EC my less than 100K.
If Kerry received just 100K more votes in Ohio then my assertion would take on a whole new meaning.[/quote]
You wrote:
“Yes, my point is you came in and basically said “abolish the Electoral College” and never told anyone why it should be that way. Then you went on to say our two recent Presidential elections would have different ha we not had an Electoral College.”
I never said anything about our last 2 presidential elections being effected by the EC. The 2000 election was the only one effect by our EC. The 2004 election came precariously close but was not.