Do any of you have an idea of which electoral system the USA should use? Why or why not?
445822
I think the one we have is just fine.  I mean, come on, does any sane person really think that we today are smarter that the men who founded this country? No. In fact, I think we are infinitely more uneducated than they were.  If you study their reason for using the electoral college, they make perfect sense - a lot more sense than any argument that people make for converting to a popular vote system today.
1162575
Ouch, I'm not sure that I have the time nor you the attention span, but lets start somewhere.\n\nFirst divide the nation into virtual municipalities of 150,000 people each.   This is to counter a paradox in democracy first pointed out in the 1500s by a Scottish political theorist and historian.  The paradox is that once a populous is over 150,000 people the average voter will not personally know the candidate they are voting for.  \n\nThere is a pre-defined process by which municipalities will be divided when their number exceeds 150,000.\n\nEach municipality will elect a three person triumvirate to lead their municipality.  This triumvirate will vote for one of their 3 members to appear in the federal congress and represent their municipalities interests within the congress.\n\nThe federal congress, comprised of the elected members of the municipalities will elect three people to form a triumvirate that will serve as "president" to the congress.  The presidential triumvirate will require a two-thirds agreement on presidential actions.\n\nI do have the plans worked out for a technological system that would provide complete accountability for government actions, if nothing else we could pick apart a scandal after it happens and determine for sure what had happened.  Every conversation between government officials is stored and recorded, though classification levels of access would still exist to protect national security data.\n\nThe campaign budgets are small and paid by taxes, no advertisement is allowed.  Each candidate must use direct face to face contact to sway votes.\n\nA socialization system will be set up after we've analyzed the cost of our needs (meaning anything we NEED to survive, including food, cars, houses, a military)  After determining the cost per citizen of survival we need a tax bill that will be enacted to cover these needs first.   All other budgetary considerations will take a back seat to the needs of the populous.  The "free market" will still apply to any product, service or commodity that isn't defined as a "need".\n\nAfter that we can address how shared ownership of businesses has destroyed our chances of having a stable economy by giving the investors the power to force corporations into unethical behavior in order to provide the highest possible return on their investments.  This has left us in a position where we would have to legislate ethics to have ethical business, which is unacceptable because...\n\nlaws create criminals\nand too many laws creates too many criminals\n\nI would go on to address the necessary changes in our agriculture systems, our educational systems etc...  but I can sense that you are losing interest.   \n\nSo the short answer would be:\n\nBetter than these A-holes
740327
I'm afraid our election system gets pretty complicated but there's plenty of information available. So, here's a few places for further reading! Wikipedia is a great place to start looking for basic information on any topic. You'll also find more links there.\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_house\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_house\n\nCongratulations on learning about our system!
332320
Supposedly the citizens of the USA, but we really only vote for the electoral college. The Electors are under no obligation to vote the way the people voted. That's democracy for you.
845749
popular vote, let every vote REALLY count. We should abolish the electoral college.\n\nI am tired of hearing Texas Democrats, California Republicans, and Florida residents saying their vote doesn't count.
853887
"Regional Presidents" can still be elected.  California has 56 voters, while the Dakotas have 3 or 4 each.  Abolishing the Electoral College would only cause our cast votes to actually count towards a President, instead of a group of voters.\n\nIsn't that a step in the right direction for Democracy?
1030114
i've thought about this since the last election fiasco...there is really no way to ensure that it's fair and that every person gets their vote in, short of going door to door as in census time, and that would take forever.  It isn't fair though, that the majority in a state can completely throw off the fairness of an entire election...why should we be voting for a majority state by state?  that's fine for a gubernatorial election, since we are electing the head of the STATE, but i think that the countrywide popular vote should be tallied, a winner declared, and the election over.  The electoral college was appropriate for the time it was organized, but it's time has passed...i would like to feel like MY vote actually did count, and the only way to make that happen for a lot of people is to do away with the electoral college system.
724804
The Electoral college in many ways is a remnant of the past. It is bloated, cost too much money, and is ripe for corruption\n\nTwo US Presidents have been elected by the electoral vote, despite losing the popular vote! In a Democracy, the popular vote should always be more important.
964438
This supposedly free system of elections boils down to two candidates and parties, so why bother if you don't want either candidate, choose the lesser evil and it's your time and gas.\nI would think this has much to do with it as well the registration of voters is outdated as Americans move so often. Change the system and reform. Regardless which candidate you elect or re elect it comes down to what their party wants and the money that supports them.
776792
I wouldn't; it is an outdated system that needs to be completely overhauled...the genius of the founding fathers is that they knew that they could not anticipate what the future would be and therefore built in a system to change things as the country evoled...i.e the second amendment and the electoral college both need to be reconsidered
362059
it always amazes me that out of over 250 million plus people in the US, they could only come up with Bush.  Someone gets elected leader of a party and you are stuck.  No decent choices to be made.  We have the same problem here in Canada.
913110
The Constitution mandates that the President and Vice President be chosen by Electors (members of the Electoral College). Only the Electoral college vote is used determine who becomes President. There is actually no national popular vote as far as the Constitution is concerned. See Article II and the 12th Amendment. \n\nThe Electors are chosen by the citizens of the states, according to laws established by the states. So, each state determines the formula for how the popular state vote is converted to an electoral vote, and then directs the state's Electors to vote that way.\n\nMost states allocate Electoral votes all-or-nothing, based on which candidate gets the highest number of votes in the state. So, if a candidate gets 51% of the popular votes in a state, that candidate gets 100% of the Electoral votes for that state.\n\nThe problem with the Electoral college is two-fold. First, it results in situations where a person loses the national popular vote, but because of the way the formula is applied ends up getting a majority of Electoral votes.\n\nThe other problem is that the all-or-nothing system effectively locks us into a two-party system, since a candidate must get the majority of votes in a state before ANY of the Electoral votes count. So, in a three-way race, someone could easily get 2/3 of the national popular vote, yet still fall below the threshold in every single state and thus end up with NO electoral votes at all.
1039857
There is a reason for it to exist.  The Electoral College was designed to make sure that there is a clearcut winner in the Presidential election to avoid the problems that could arise if the transition between administrations was not peaceful, as has been observed in other countries.  It also doesn't cut the small states out of the equation for selecting a President, for, due to the fact that each state's electoral vote is equal to its number of Senators and Representatives in Congress, the smaller states have a larger percentage of the Electoral College total than they do of the overall population (e.g. Wyoming's population is roughly 1/100 that of California, but in the Electoral College Wyoming gets 3 votes to California's 56 or so).  It is also not a "secret society" as almost every state has a law that the electors to the College are bound to vote for the person getting the highest percentage of the popular vote in the state (as each party nominates its own electors for each election, it's usually the case that those people will vote for the candidate of that party).\n\nAnd, given that it is part of the Constitution, and that that can only be changed by an amendment that would have to be ratified by 3/4 of the states, the Electoral College will always be with us, because there are at least 13 states that are intelligent enough to see that they don't want to give any more power to California.
394698
The 2 party system was not the idea of our founding fathers. George Washington was actually VERY opposed to it. There have been some contenders recently who has challenged it, Ross Perot and Ralph Nader most recently. I, for one, am sick of being forced to vote for either idiot #1 or idiot #2 when there is not really all that much difference between them. I don't think we need to strengthen the 2-party system. I think we need to abolish it and start over.
1064699
A two party system can't really represent a population as diverse and huge as the US.  There are other parties, but most people are creatures of habit and do not want to stop doing what they've always done, picking Dem or GOP at every election.  The major parties focus on important political issues because they want to gain seats in congress, but they don't necessarily focus on issues that really matter in the lives of Americans, because those might not get as many people to the voting booths come november.\n\nI hope that people will seize on any curiosity caused by this question and check out some third parties.  Even if you never vote for a third party member, it's good to get another perspective on the issues that face the US today.
94069
The two party system is as old as the country itself.  actually, it is patterened after the house of commons in merry ole England.  If you think our party system is volitile, you should see and hear the antics used over there.  the two party system works as well as any other, probably better, given its longevity. I vote that we leave it alone except for one factor, that is popular vote.  I believe that we should still base our outcomes on the popular vote of this country.  In this way, the people have truly spoken! By the way, the hell with abroad.  We owe no other nation, or group of people, an explanation as to the domestic decisions of this country.
708652
The one that rigs the voting system the best..\nOr pays the most to media outlets..\n\nIn Australia we use 1 voting system for all, too.\n\nNo weird differences between rich and poor states, town or country voting areas.\n\nSimple too...\nMark a standard paper ballot ...cheap efficient and fast.\n\nUnlike  USA where  unreliable local methods are used to determine who runs the wars for the next term.\n\nDemocracy in action in USA , I think not..