TED Conversations

Juan Donado

High School Student,

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Should Americans eliminate the Electoral College and elect their presidents through simple majority vote?

Given that some presidents have won without persuading the majority of Americans, and the huge deal of money spent only on swing states I ask myself that question

I have always thought that it is unfair that republicans in California or Democrats in Texas are not taken into account just because people around them think differently.

Time for change?

+7
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • John Dunbar 10+

    • +1
    Oct 23 2012: @ Pat Gilbert, "In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of the landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be jsut, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority." -James Madison

    Originally land owners were only allowed to vote, a lot of the founding fathers owned slaves and George Washington was far from a grass roots guy, he was worth roughly 500 million today. The founders cared about themselves and their friends, the did not care about anyone who was not white, woman, or the poor at least in regards to allowing them to take part in shaping their society.

    "Complexity is typically an indicator of someone's lack of understanding. You are economically and politically illiterate. Of course it appears complex."

    Pat, anyone who does't passionately love free markets is illiterate according to you, anyone who doesn't believe in libertarian ideology is illiterate to you. I used to espouse the ideas you do, i voted for Ron Paul in 08 I've later come to see absurdity in that ideology. Its a clear call for corporate tyranny. Would you call the human brain complex? I would and so does everyone who studies it. You would never here a neuroscientist say the human brain is not complex just because they understand the current literature and findings, sorry your point makes zero sense. The entire history of humanity as well as our current political problems with the economy is complex. If you think it isn't my guess is that you have settled for a feel good ideology that only benefits you.

    yes we had 3,000 people killed on our land but Iraq was not even close to the beginning of war for profit.
    • thumb

      pat gilbert 50+

      • 0
      Oct 24 2012: Having skin in the game is a valid way to keep the vote to the people who do want what is best for the country.

      I would not want someone to operate on my brain who thought it was complex. There are parts of the brain that Science does not understand. I imagine for you to say I don't know would be a very complex problem.

      Ron Paul and the Libertarian philosophy is very viable (not to be confused with nut cases like Noam Chomsky) I have been a registered Libertarian since the mid 70s.

      All you have to say is I don't know about this stuff. Which would be impossible for you.

      http://www.ted.com/talks/kathryn_schulz_on_being_wrong.html

      I don't disagree regarding war.

      I might add that the infinitely more effective and important disposition is this:

      http://www.ted.com/talks/matt_ridley_when_ideas_have_sex.html

      • John Smith 30+

        • 0
        Oct 24 2012: "Ron Paul and the Libertarian philosophy is very viable"

        Lol, I have yet to meet the first libertarian who was willing to start from scratch in a libertarian society. They're always rich people or people who are financially secure and have a Napoleon complex that makes them think they would've been millionaires if there were no taxes (because they don't make mistakes, everything that's not perfect in their lives is the fault of "gubment" and "moochers"). All libertarians expect to become top dog, I say let them, dumpe them on an island and let them battle it out, Lord of the Flies style...

      • John Dunbar 10+

        • 0
        Oct 24 2012: Pat what is best for the country is to be decided by everyone who lives in the country. The idea that only those who hold economic power should vote is ridiculous. I cannot think of a quicker route to oppression. I know how you feel about a federal government guiding you, how would you feel if the federal government blocked your right to vote on social issues because you were not a sociologist or because you didn't work in the field. This is just an attempt to highjack power from those you disagree with. Everyone has stake in the outcome in the United States you just think the ones you happen to disagree with should be silenced.

        Pat, continuously hinting that I don't know what I'm talking about and then rebutting me with meaningless responses doesn't bode well for your argument. Ill gladly watch the links I think being able to admit when your wrong shows maturity as well as rationality.

        What I really do not get is you telling me I should just admit I don't know what I'm talking about, sorry Pat your not the authority on this subject as bad as you may want to be. What is it that I don't understand? Let me guess, your train of thought goes "if he disagrees with me then he just does not get it" I think I get it, the scary thing is I know you do too yet you still hold steadfastly to your beliefs.
        • thumb

          pat gilbert 50+

          • 0
          Oct 24 2012: Oppression does not work that way.

          No I'm just trying to hijack power from those who want a free ride those who do not care about the American Dream or America.

          I'm sorry did I infer that I was inferring, my mistake, You don't have a clue what you are talking about I mean that in an in your face, black and white, sort of way.

          Am I the authority NOPE, but I do know which way is up. The thing is you and other people think that we are playing patty cakes, which is not the case we are talking about the future of the world. You can say I'm being dramatic but the fact is I'm not.

          When I recommend those videos I'm not trying to be right I'm trying to learn you something. I would not waste my time on someone like John Smith, but I think you might smell the coffee... A lot of people would say I'm being provocative but I assure that is not the case. What I 'm saying is to LOOK
      • thumb

        peter lindsay 30+

        • 0
        Oct 24 2012: " Having skin in the game is a valid way to keep the vote to the people who do want what is best for the country."
        In general I agree with this statement but there must be allowance made in some cases. If the GFC caused me to lose my job which in turn caused me to default on my mortgage should I lose my right to vote as I am now unemployed with no material assets?
        • thumb

          pat gilbert 50+

          • +1
          Oct 24 2012: The GFC was a consequence of government meddling that should not have occurred in the first place.

          Having skin in the game goes way back and is not relevant to today.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.