Vote to comment and see the results
avatar
7 Comments
  • Filter by:
  • Agree
  • Unsure
  • Disagree
  • 2 years ago

    Compared to whom?

  • 2 years ago

    I think it's a poorly worded assertion. I don't necessarily agree it's inefficient, but I haven't given it that much thought. I probably would agree after the 2000 and 2016 presidential elections that the electoral college has some major flaws, and can be inequitable. But, I certainly would not agree - if your equating the U.S voting system with the electoral college - that it is idiotic. It was well thought out by the founding fathers to reach a compromise giving less-populated states a little more equal-footing with more heavily-populated states. It may be outdated, but I would never agree it's idiotic.

    • 2 years ago

      I'd like clarity on what exactly you mean by the 'US Voting System". Which part do you see as inefficient, inequitable and idiotic.

      Are you talking the polling sites, run-offs, electoral college.

      Also, what would you propose is a better system of voting?

      • 2 years ago

        Yet we can still beat them at their own game. Creating a Wonderful World. (let's get it done already). First the cities, then the states, then the nation and then the world. https://www.facebook.com/groups/379816208803429

        • 2 years ago

          I think it has to do with what you think the goal of voting is. If it's to be purely the most democratic then your prop is obviously correct. If it serves some other purpose (ex: a more distributive democracy) then that's not correct.

          Not that I think there should be such a thing as POTUS, but given that we do have one, I am glad it is not based entirely on the popular vote as this would give over-representation to urbanized areas.