One vote is such BS.

[JaySin]

With all the different candidates, why the heck do we get only one vote?

This makes it so there are few supporters for the candidates that could actually make our country prosper (Ron Paul), and the people that vote for them only take votes from the front runner that shares a lot of the same views. If they didn't purposely set it up like this, then they sure are taking advantage of it. Which is why it need to be changed.

You should get a primary vote and a secondary vote. That way I could vote for Ron Paul and then cast my secondary vote for Obama. That way I can make sure that my vote for Ron Paul doesn't just lose a vote for Obama to McCain. Cause Obviously Ron Paul isn't going to win, but I DEFINITELY DO NOT want McCain winning just because I supported someone that should actually be president instead of the two people they parade around as if they are the only two candidates.

[maladroit]

if we had proportional representation, there would be more greens and libertarians and even marijuana party candidates in our governments...we had a referendum on proportional representation in british columbia a few years ago...if i recall correctly, almost 60% of people supported the switch, but it fell short of the required 65% to make the change official

Proportional representation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation)

[killerweed420]

I would just be happy to have my vote counted at all. Don't care how they do it, I just want the right to be able to vote for my president.

[Revanche21]

I've proposed negative votes before also

if you don't like any, you can make sure one doesn't get into office

[killerweed420]

Anybody get the chance to watch the documentary "Hacking Democracy" You should see it.
Hacking Democracy (2006) (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0808532/)
It goes through all the cheating that when on in some of our more famous elections. Its an eye opener.

[IAmKowalski]

What you are describing is called Instant Runoff Election, or Preferential voting.

The way it works, is you rank your choices in order, 1st, 2nd,3rd,... That way you vote first for the candidate whose views you most support, second for your alternative preference, and etc.

If your first vote were, for instance, for a third party that winds up with a small percentage of total votes in your state then that vote is skipped and your second choice is counted instead and etc. etc. down the line.

Here's a Wikipedia link on preferential voting:

Preferential voting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferential_voting)

Instituting a ranked vote system in our elections would make an enormous difference in our democratic process: it would make third parties viable by creating a complete meritocracy of ideas, and it would force the main parties to discuss and debate third party ideas.

[theforthdrive]

I would just be happy to have my vote counted at all. Don't care how they do it, I just want the right to be able to vote for my president.

This day in age with electronics cant we do away with the whole electoral college thing and just go on popular vote?

[flyingimam]

This day in age with electronics cant we do away with the whole electoral college thing and just go on popular vote?

NO

that will be a democracy
we are a republic

we gotta change it from there

more info
Republicanism in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism_in_the_United_States#A_typical_defin ition_of_democracy_vs_republic)

[8182KSKUSH]

NO

that will be a democracy
we are a republic

we gotta change it from there

more info
Republicanism in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism_in_the_United_States#A_typical_defin ition_of_democracy_vs_republic)

Whoa! I would rep you for that but I can't.
Above and beyond informative sir!
While our government is far from perfect, it's the best in the world in my honest humble opinion. I don't see how it could be changed without fundamentally dismantling everything that is the foundation of our Nation. Literally.
There is a reason that it is important to vote, and it's because those people in the electoral college that really vote for president, guess who they are!
Anything is possible, and it could change somehow someday, but I don't think that it is likely to happen in my lifetime, nor would I want it to.:jointsmile:

[flyingimam]

Whoa! I would rep you for that but I can't.
Above and beyond informative sir!
While our government is far from perfect, it's the best in the world in my honest humble opinion. I don't see how it could be changed without fundamentally dismantling everything that is the foundation of our Nation. Literally.
There is a reason that it is important to vote, and it's because those people in the electoral college that really vote for president, guess who they are!
Anything is possible, and it could change somehow someday, but I don't think that it is likely to happen in my lifetime, nor would I want it to.:jointsmile:

ty:)

Electoral college by itself aint that bad of a thing. What really is bad about it is that the people in there who cast their vote are NOT "obligated" nor "required" to follow their's state's popular vote outcome.

example: State X can pick candidate A after all votes have been counted and if the their delegate wishes, they can vote candidate B without having to conform to their constituents vote. This is exactly what my government course professor said, although I personally know of no such occurrence in the past and have no confirmed it independently, but since this guy was a political science guru, i wouldnt think he is wrong

EDIT: wait, i found it
Electoral College (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Electoral_College#Claims_against_the_Electora l_College)

despite all the hate and criticism, u gotta love this wikipedia, does a fairly good job and speeds things up:thumbsup::D

[8182KSKUSH]

ty:)

Electoral college by itself aint that bad of a thing. What really is bad about it is that the people in there who cast their vote are NOT "obligated" nor "required" to follow their's state's popular vote outcome.

example: State X can pick candidate A after all votes have been counted and if the their delegate wishes, they can vote candidate B without having to conform to their constituents vote. This is exactly what my government course professor said, although I personally know of no such occurrence in the past and have no confirmed it independently, but since this guy was a political science guru, i wouldnt think he is wrong

EDIT: wait, i found it
Electoral College (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Electoral_College#Claims_against_the_Electora l_College)

despite all the hate and criticism, u gotta love this wikipedia, does a fairly good job and speeds things up:thumbsup::D

You are right, I understand what you are saying that the electoral college could vote for whomever they want to period.
But the tradition is to vote for whom your constituents voted for. There have been instances where that has happened, but that is political suicide, and those electors do get held accountable.
The biggest problem, is that we do not even have a majority of eligible voters voting. :wtf:
I am not really talking about the big national elections, but really about your local elections. It counts! Far too many just don't believe in it, or are apathetic. I think that we are getting exactly what we put into it, "our current government".
Shit shit shit shitty shit shit, on a shit stick.
But that issue, is not because of our "process of government", which as I said previously, is the best. IMHHO.:jointsmile:

Totally unrelated, I had an inspiring idea, somewhere, members here should make a pact to run for local city office, (or state or whatever you want I guess), can you imagine, in a few years, literally there could be any number of cannabis.com members, holding political seats everywhere. Now would be the time to start planning for the next elections. People are always asking what they can do for cannabis etc, well, you could go into the belly of the beast directly, you may or may not ever move the cannabis agenda forward, but you never know. You may do a whole lot of good in many other areas.
Waddya think?

[flyingimam]

You are right, I understand what you are saying that the electoral college could vote for whomever they want to period.
But the tradition is to vote for whom your constituents voted for. There have been instances where that has happened, but that is political suicide, and those electors do get held accountable.
The biggest problem, is that we do not even have a majority of eligible voters voting. :wtf:
I am not really talking about the big national elections, but really about your local elections. It counts! Far too many just don't believe in it, or are apathetic. I think that we are getting exactly what we put into it, "our current government".
Shit shit shit shitty shit shit, on a shit stick.
But that issue, is not because of our "process of government", which as I said previously, is the best. IMHHO.:jointsmile:

Totally unrelated, I had an inspiring idea, somewhere, members here should make a pact to run for local city office, (or state or whatever you want I guess), can you imagine, in a few years, literally there could be any number of cannabis.com members, holding political seats everywhere. Now would be the time to start planning for the next elections. People are always asking what they can do for cannabis etc, well, you could go into the belly of the beast directly, you may or may not ever move the cannabis agenda forward, but you never know. You may do a whole lot of good in many other areas.
Waddya think?

couldn't agree more with ya on both points.
people need to understand that inaction will not do any good, and u r right, very few people compared to all eligible people to vote actually show up in different elections and cast their vote. This is especially true about younger generation, we need to get involved in OUR destiny from now, partying n everything is aight, but taking the tiny amount of time to cast your vote isnt gonna hurt anyone in any special way, u can sit there and bitch about anything n everything from bad days for voting and bad candidates, but when u dont vote, it only means u accept whatever that comes out by other peoples decisions.

i think this is indeed a bright idea that may actually get somewhere!!! hey! we got rebgirl runnin for prez already :D j/k

but yeah, its got to start from a community like this and from people like us, not every politician or office holder is a political science graduate, they were all people like us from the beginning, but had great ambition and interest in politics and ran with it, now look where they are @

although i must admit almost all of them do have higher education in political science or law, but i guarantee there are some out there with politics-irrelevant degrees and some without any college degrees at all (maybe the latter is just the extinct generation of office holders)

but all it takes is a will, u will acquire everything else in the process

[8182KSKUSH]

I am starting a new group right now.:jointsmile:

[theforthdrive]

Totally unrelated, I had an inspiring idea, somewhere, members here should make a pact to run for local city office, (or state or whatever you want I guess), can you imagine, in a few years, literally there could be any number of cannabis.com members, holding political seats everywhere. Now would be the time to start planning for the next elections. People are always asking what they can do for cannabis etc, well, you could go into the belly of the beast directly, you may or may not ever move the cannabis agenda forward, but you never know. You may do a whole lot of good in many other areas.
Waddya think?


Great idea, can I count on your vote? Im in the process of admission to law school . Working out the financial end. but I have no aspirations of becoming an attorney. But maybe I would run for a local office! I dont know if this sounds dumb but after watching The Union I really wanted to apply that education to the MMJ advocacy. Not sure if a small time political office would help but hey Im sure it would be an eye opening experience to do once! LOL, belly of the beast directly....nicely put!

[Mississippi Steve]

With all the different candidates, why the heck do we get only one vote?

This makes it so there are few supporters for the candidates that could actually make our country prosper (Ron Paul), and the people that vote for them only take votes from the front runner that shares a lot of the same views. If they didn't purposely set it up like this, then they sure are taking advantage of it. Which is why it need to be changed.

You should get a primary vote and a secondary vote. That way I could vote for Ron Paul and then cast my secondary vote for Obama. That way I can make sure that my vote for Ron Paul doesn't just lose a vote for Obama to McCain. Cause Obviously Ron Paul isn't going to win, but I DEFINITELY DO NOT want McCain winning just because I supported someone that should actually be president instead of the two people they parade around as if they are the only two candidates.

Are you serious?? they have a hard enough time with the simple "one man, one vote" concept, and most of the folks counting the ballots can't count higher than 6 without having to take off their shoes... and now you want to add to the confusion?? then there are the voters themselves.... we are not talking about the best of the best...... right Chad??

[dragonrider]

What you are describing is called Instant Runoff Election, or Preferential voting.

The way it works, is you rank your choices in order, 1st, 2nd,3rd,... That way you vote first for the candidate whose views you most support, second for your alternative preference, and etc.

If your first vote were, for instance, for a third party that winds up with a small percentage of total votes in your state then that vote is skipped and your second choice is counted instead and etc. etc. down the line.

Here's a Wikipedia link on preferential voting:

Preferential voting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferential_voting)

Instituting a ranked vote system in our elections would make an enormous difference in our democratic process: it would make third parties viable by creating a complete meritocracy of ideas, and it would force the main parties to discuss and debate third party ideas.

I would definitely be in favor of preferential voting. It has been tried in different places around the world, and it worked out well. It gives you a chance to vote your preference without feeling like your vote is just going to be wasted. Right now, a person might really want to vote for say a Libertarian or a Green, but they know that the party has little chance of winning so instead of "wasting" the vote, they vote for a Republican or a Democrat instead. With preferential voting you could rank your choices as #1 Libertarian, #2 Republican, etc. When the votes were counted, if no candidate had more than 50% for a clear win, they'd throw out votes for the candidates with the fewest votes and count the second rank choices for those voters instead, so if the Libertarian candidate was at the bottom, your first choice vote would get dropped, and your vote go to the Republican, your second choice. I think it would encorage more paritcipation by third parties and give a way to register your support for them. Right now people have to choose between making a statement that doesn't count for much or making a vote that counts for a candidate that is not their first choice. It sucks.


This day in age with electronics cant we do away with the whole electoral college thing and just go on popular vote?

I wish we could do away with the Electoral College. It is an anachronism from the days when it was technically impossible to do a direct election, and it was also a way of maintaining the independence and importance of the individual states. But it has a couple of problems. One is that a candidate can actually win the popular vote and still lose the election, which puts a stain of illegitimacy on the president. Why would we have a system that would allow that to happen? How does that serve us? I don't think Bush ever really recovered from his stain of illegitimacy.

The other problem is that it means all the campaigning happens in the "battleground" states. I live in a "safe" state, so we do not get any campaigning here. We are taken for granted. Our issues get ignored. I'd like to see the candidates travel to other states outside the battleground and talk about issues other than what appeals to those battleground voters. Unfortunately, it would require a major Constitutional ammendment, and many states would not want to give up their inflated importance in the election.

[Gatekeeper777]

I am a libertarian. I would run but i have a riminal record so i wouldn't make an honest politician. ROTFLMAO :hippy:

[GoldenBoy812]

The Electoral College is another part of the "checks and balances". You cannot just give ultimate power to a populace, because saddly there are allot, i mean allot of stupid motherfuckers out there. I bet anyone could find 10 people on a college campus that would vote for Flavor Flave to be president in less than an hour.

[dragonrider]

The Electoral College is another part of the "checks and balances". You cannot just give ultimate power to a populace, because saddly there are allot, i mean allot of stupid motherfuckers out there. I bet anyone could find 10 people on a college campus that would vote for Flavor Flave to be president in less than an hour.

But have you ever heard of the Electoral College defying the popular vote on any scale at all? Maybe one or two electors will go against their mandate, but not much more than that, and it would be hard to argue that they did so because their own judgement was so much better than the people who sent them to the Electoral College. If there were ever enough Electoral College defectors to actually swing an election, there would be hell to pay, and especially if their rationale was that they were acting as "checks and balances" against "stupid motherfucker" voters. There would be armed insurrection. As a practical matter, the idea that the Electoral College can balance the stupidity of the general electorate is unworkable. And I don't even believe that there are enough truely stupid people who are motivated enough to vote to warrant overriding the popular vote --- if we start down that road, we might just as well do away with Democracy altogether.