Campaign Reform

[Aeson]

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_719.asp

The people at large was in his opinion the fittest in itself. It would be as likely as any that could be devised to produce an Executive Magistrate of distinguished Character. The people generally could only know & vote for some Citizen whose merits had rendered him an object of general attention & esteem. There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections.

The people are uninformed, and would be misled by a few designing men. He urged the expediency of an appointment of the Executive by Electors to be chosen by the State Executives.

[giblets]

The main reason the Electoral College exists is to keep morons like Trump out of the Oval Office

[Proteus_MST]

...

Actually, America was probably the most literate country in the 18th and 19th centuries.
....

The 2nd or 3rd most literate till 1850.
On place 1, before 1850 seems to have been ... funny enough ... the Netherlands
And Sweden seems to have been place 2.

From 1850 onwards the USA rose to place 1 ... dunno why, perhaps because of former slaves getting access to education

Souce:

https://ourworldindata.org/literacy/

[DaShi]

The Dems have rigged the Illinois house so to say it's a one party is silly. Whoever has the power to do it, does it. Plain and simple.
Neither party should have that power.

My reform would be either have the election on the weekend or make the day a national Holiday. The reason for it being on Tuesday is well outdated.
And if people whine that this would help the democrats too much, just force a national ID requirement to even it out.

It's sad that one party wants there to be less voters because if everyone's voice was heard they would lose.

[Ben Kenobi]

The 2nd or 3rd most literate till 1850.

I stand corrected. Still, my point is made.

[PLATO]

It's sad that one party wants there to be less voters because if everyone's voice was heard they would lose.

Would it be sadder if their voices were heard multiple time in an election?

[giblets]

It would be sad if someone could register to vote multiple times

[BlackCat]

Your voters registraton scheme seems rather flawed - that could be improved.

Apparently, at some places, it takes several hours in queue to get to vote - why ? Half an hour should be max.

[DaShi]

Would it be sadder if their voices were heard multiple time in an election?

How many voters should lose their right to vote in order to prevent one instance of voter fraud?

[giblets]

Your voters registraton scheme seems rather flawed - that could be improved.

Apparently, at some places, it takes several hours in queue to get to vote - why ? Half an hour should be max.

I think the purpose of long queues is to discourage people in urban districts (likely Democrats) from voting.

[Aeson]

I stand corrected. Still, my point is made.

Your point is irrelevant, as was made very clear by the arguments made while forming the EC. One of the reasons it was adopted is some of the founders felt the common folk were not informed enough. All your whining can't change what was actually said.

[DaShi]

Voting should be mandatory under pain of death.

[Aeson]

You know who all the people who don't want to vote for are going to vote for if you enact such a policy? Someone who will run on removing the requirement to vote

[PLATO]

How many voters should lose their right to vote in order to prevent one instance of voter fraud?

2384. Why?

Seriously...Why would they lose their right to vote? To lazy to go get a free ID?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[giblets]

On the margin some people probably are too lazy.