Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Johonny

(26,412 posts)

22. I agree

Reply to Spider Jerusalem (Reply #21)

Tue Apr 12, 2016, 11:17 AM

Apr 2016

They are the professional organization of politicians and there's an argument they have better knowledge of who they want to present to the people as the face of their party. In a perfect system there would be no parties, but such a system is not likely.

Also there have been numerous articles showing how the electoral college actually maximizes your vote (or at least has the potential too). Thus, in some ways it is better than a general popular vote in terms of maximizing the value of your vote. It's one system in which the minority can win (which is not always a horrible idea). I believe the ranking voting system is more powerful than the electoral college, but is extremely unpopular to the point of never being used here.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

22 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

All voting should be open to all in a democracy. AND, the following should be dumped by law! [View all] RKP5637 Apr 2016 OP

I agree metroins Apr 2016 #1

Probably, but it's not even about Hillary. It's about our supposed democracy in general. However, RKP5637 Apr 2016 #2

Representative Democracy metroins Apr 2016 #3

... but the delegates do not necessarily have to follow what the people voted for. n/t RKP5637 Apr 2016 #4

Neither do our congressmen or presidents nt metroins Apr 2016 #6

Yep, is that ever true!!! n/t RKP5637 Apr 2016 #9

Too simplistic. To be heard you need to advertise. To advertise, you need money. randome Apr 2016 #5

Yes on public financing. ...but I don't think politicians should buy elections with their own money. RKP5637 Apr 2016 #10

Career politicians are bad? Dr Hobbitstein Apr 2016 #7

Far too many career politicians. I'm speaking of the future. n /t RKP5637 Apr 2016 #11

So he gets a pass... Dr Hobbitstein Apr 2016 #14

Yep, as does Hillary! n/t RKP5637 Apr 2016 #18

Get rid of caucases too Beaverhausen Apr 2016 #8

Yep! Caucuses were likely great eons ago, but IMO not in the 21st Century. n/t RKP5637 Apr 2016 #13

Don't forget the damned EVM's stellanoir Apr 2016 #12

Definitely!!! But as is often the case, it just morphs along. The entire voting system needs to be RKP5637 Apr 2016 #16

Congress could be challenged by this clause cleverly embedded in their oath of office. . . stellanoir Apr 2016 #19

So let's go back to the genteel corruption-free politics of the 1870's! whatthehey Apr 2016 #15

LOL!!! n/t RKP5637 Apr 2016 #17

You mean the Tammany Hall era? Retrograde Apr 2016 #20

Voting in general elections, sure Spider Jerusalem Apr 2016 #21

I agree Johonny Apr 2016 #22