I do however agree with you that the American-Idol concept of voting is pathetic. Actually, it’s just really sad!

And don’t forget, the media benefits from a two-party system, too.

Mahndisa :: Always nice to see you.

Well Steve, as elitist as your idea sounds, I totally agree with you. I am sick of tired of tomfoolery:) ahhahahaha You are funny!

I don’t like the way the media covers the elections, period. But Fox isn’t any worse than any other news outlets when it comes to declaring states… when anyof them declares a state the rest usually follow (but not always). The Florida thing in 2000 was screwy but if anything it screwed Republicans more than Democrats (by deterring voting in the pan handle… a typically conservative area).

I’m not sure what your comment has to so with making it harder to vote, though. Could you explain it to me?

I will say this…I do find it interesting when presidents are declared “winners” before all votes are counted (especially absentee ballots) .

John Ellis, Bush’s first cousin, was the director of Fox’s decision team on election night. He was responsible for interpreting election data and helping Fox News Channel declare states for either Bush or Al Gore. And after Fox made it’s announcement, it just so happens that other major news channels followed the lead? But of course, Fox is “fair and balanced”. Not to mention it just so conveniently happened that Florida’s Governor was Jeb Bush.

I will still exercise my right to vote the way I see fit in hopes that my vote really does count, but when it comes down to it certain elections have really made me wonder if my vote counts at all.

Tara :: As long as Oprah doesn’t keep you from the ballet box you’re ok. And any tests I’d suggest would only keep out people on the basis of exhorbitant ignorance and/or apathy.

mark :: Amen!

Two things:

1. I occassionally like to watch Oprah. But, I am still civic minded.
2. There used to be voting tests that were designed to weed out “undesirables” like African Americans.

Take the 2000 election, since it’s probably the most obvious electoral college failures: in Florida, the votes for Bush/Gore were split at about a 50/50 line, yet Bush won Florida’s popular vote by something like 500 votes, which is a rather tiny margin given the millions of voters we have here. Had the electoral college been representative instead of all-or-nothing, the electoral college votes would have been split, instead of all cast to the Bush camp. Now, I can’t with certainty say that this would have changed the election’s outcome (thoug it probably would have) since this would have to be applied to all states, and the electoral college votes would have probably been just about even throughout most of the country anway (a few of points for Bush in California, for example, could have offset whatever happened in Florida), but it would have likely been a better representation of what the population wanted. (Yes, I am convinced that Gore would have won in that case, but seeing the development of the man in the past few years, I think the best thing that could have happened to him did, in that he lost the election but got a chance to turn from an android to a man, almost ala Assimov’s “Bicentennial Man”. Should he decide to run, he would make a far better President now than he would have made then.)

I’m sure there are areas with some degree of isolation… but I’ve been in cities and it’s hard to be isolated from your polling places when there’s never more than a few miles to travel. Perhaps there are still problems… but I’m not so sure that it’s mostly a minority problem, because in rural areas that are less populous polling places can be long distances… and there are just as many poor white folks in the vast countrysides of America as there are poor minorities in the cities.

There are pros and cons for the college… and I know this. I like the idea of having the college so that landowners are better represented. Some people want to do away with the college so that candidates will visit more than just the swing states… but if we did candidates would visit only the big cities… so in that sense it seems to be six of one and a half dozen of the other. Perhaps for the same reason that we have a Senate with equal state respresentation we should also keep the college.

All Americans have a right to vote, but apathy, lazyness and willing ignorance should be automatic disqualifiers. Luckily, usually they are. (Of course, then you have the problem of civil inequalities, such as economic isolation of certain areas — usually populated by minorities — but we’ll keep it simple here.)

Now, provided this scenario came about and only those who are qualified to vote do vote, what would you suggest we do about the electoral college? Do we still have a representative democracy or do we move to a direct democracy? (Yes, I know, we have a republican democracy, not a democracy per se. Keeping it simple here.)