*promote

Here's the thing though. I am in favor of the split vote. It allows people in stronghold states who are in the other party to still have SOME voice and not be completely overruled by winner-take-all. There is a reason we're a republic and not a direct democracy. Direct democracy is not a good idea, there has to be at least somewhat of a buffer against mob rule and high population centers dominating every election.

The problem is, of course, gerrymandering. If the winners are allowed to redistrict as they see fit, then the whole thing is corrupt. District lines HAVE to be drawn by a strictly independent, non partisan group and/or adhere to strict guidelines so that it's fair.

The other problem is that while I favor the split vote, the GOP doesn't care what a fair system is, they just want to swing more votes their way. If winner take all gives them more votes, they'll go with that. If split vote does, they'll go with that. They don't care.

The same shit happened in Nebraska last election when Obama won a single electoral vote. The GOP there went batshit and pushed to return to a winner take all system. It was only when someone pointed out to them that in a decade or two, because the urban area's population will eventually outstrip the rural areas, NE would eventually become complete blue state that they dropped the idea.

Split vote is more fair in my opinion, but the district lines HAVE to be drawn independently for it to work.

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Friday, January 25th, 2013 8:39pm PST - promote requested by original submitter VoodooV.

I'm with Lewis [Louis?], "We need to just go with the popular vote altogether."

Exactly, that last sentence is why I upvoted. There's no justification for any state or any district to wield disproportionate power in the presidential election. And there's a simple way to make it fair, one man one vote.

Why do you think Direct Democracy is not a good idea? Has there been an example in history where it has turned out worse results than our form of Democracy?

As to the video, it doesn't really matter. Our democracy is fundamentally broken, and it's designed that way. Aristotle and John Adams could see that having a system where the "mob" could rule over the minority constantly wouldn't be a fair system because they just redistribute wealth and harm the rich. However they came to two opposite conclusions, Aristotle decided the answer was to have greater equality. John Adams reasoned that you have to subvert democracy, which is basically where the Rich Ass Senate comes from.

There is no reason why Direct democracy wouldn't work, it at the very least would be better than what we have. An Empire, designed to stifle the voices of it's people and lives for profit today over sustainability tomorrow.

Exactly...and more to the point you should have to earn 50% of the public plus 1 vote in order to win. If no one gets that, there should be a run off election.

http://www.chicagonow.com/opinion-youth-america/2012/02/direct-popular-vote-v-the-electoral-college/

I've already mentioned a few of the things the article talks about, but the main thing IMO is that we're not just a nation of people, we're a nation of states. The president needs to win not just the people, but the states as well and the EC represents that.

If we decided elections by direct popular vote, rural areas would be completely fucked and the east and west coasts' interests would dominate every election.

I may lean left, but that is NOT how I want to win elections. The nation is already moving leftwards anyway without a direct popular vote so there is just no reason to manipulate the vote like that.

If the population of this nation was spread evenly throughout the country, a direct popular vote might work better, but that's just not the situation is it.

It's another one of those things, like flat tax, where it SOUNDS like a great idea, but when you put it to the test, it just doesn't really work out. Simple ideas don't solve complex situations, and we need to step past that way of thinking if we're going to progress.

It's the same reason rational people laugh when the gun nuts talk about how we need guns to defend against tyranny. Sure tyranny is a very real possibility when you have a monarch, but our government was designed with that in mind. Our gov't is specifically designed to make it hard for tyranny to thrive. You have to have a lot of people on board in order for gov't to make a significant change. Sure it may be slow and inefficient sometimes, but that's a small price to pay for liberty.

Like I said initially though, I do think the EC needs to be tweaked a bit and go to split vote, but the problem of gerrymandering needs to be solved first, before that will work.