I was in another thread and this question rose in my mind, If you could make one change to the government or political system what would it be, how would you change it?

You are talking the system or changing of laws. For example, I am getting that if I say outlaw abortion that is not the purpose of your question. Is that right?

 

You are looking for something like outlawing all lobbying?

I would be very tempted to transform our government into a parlimentary system. At the very least, I would like to see the president required to stand before Congress and answer questions spontaneously, as the prime ministers of the UK and Australia do.

 

This would help ensure that parties would select presidential candidates who are quick thinkers and effective communicators. I am tired of presidents who dodge questions and seem incapable of changing public opinion on important issues.

You are talking the system or changing of laws. For example, I am getting that if I say outlaw abortion that is not the purpose of your question. Is that right?

 

You are looking for something like outlawing all lobbying?

He's asking what change you would make to our system of government, not laws.

He's asking what change you would make to our system of government, not laws.

 

 

HHSDad has the idea,

 

I asked my students this very question, it was very interesting, and I know the different views on here, so I am curious to see.

Find a Way for the common man to run for High Political Office.

Do away with the electoral college and make the popular vote matter. And have everyone vote on the same day.

Do away with the electoral college and make the popular vote matter. And have everyone vote on the same day.

 

Make election day a national holiday too.

Oh this is Great. I've waiting for this to come up and not smart enough to start (word it) it. The way we vote for the presidency. The states with the most delegates have the most imput. Popular vote is the only way. I hate the way we do it. Al Gore had more votes that W, but W had the "NAME STATES". and thats wrong.

While I agree the electoral college is flawed, one argument for it is that candidates would be able to ignore most of the states and campaign only in the top 10 most populous states. Most of the country would be ignored.

While I agree the electoral college is flawed, one argument for it is that candidates would be able to ignore most of the states and campaign only in the top 10 most populous states. Most of the country would be ignored.

 

I'm asking, does the electoral college actually give more power to lower-populated states then a popular vote would?

I'm asking, does the electoral college actually give more power to lower-populated states then a popular vote would?

 

Absolutely it does! The EC is one of the main reasons the south has been over-represented in politics. Before slavery ended the 3/5ths rule helped the south in their over-representation.

Without the electoral college system a state like Kentucky would get zero attention in presidential elections. As I recall in 2000 Gore won huge states like California and New York while Bush won the so called "fly-over" states.

 

I also recall several polls before that election showing Bush with a lead in popular vote and Gore with a lead in the EC and many on that side defending the system.

 

It's not a perfect system but IMVHO it's better then letting a few huge staes control the outcome of presidential elections.

Without the electoral college system a state like Kentucky would get zero attention in presidential elections. As I recall in 2000 Gore won huge states like California and New York while bush won the so called "fly-over" states.

 

I also recall several polls before that election showing Bush with a lead in popular vote and Gore with a lead in tye EC and many on that side defending the system.

 

It's not a perfect system but IMVHO it's better then letting a few huge staes control the outcome of presidential elections.

 

I think so also.

You guys who are supporting the EC because of the possibility of KY and other smaller states being ignored are talking as if we would have a winner take all scenario in the large states. That would not happen, even though that is what is flawed about the EC.

 

If you (presidential candidate) only focused on the 10 most populous states and won 51% in all of the them and the other candidate got 49% in those states, then the smaller states are still going to be VERY important. If our nation continues to be split politically you are going to have to have a true National Campaign and garner as many votes as possible from every state.

 

At the very least I would prefer that all states change their process to become proportional with their delegates to the EC. You win 51% of the vote in KY you should not get all of our EC votes you should only get 51%. I think that would mean that you would get 4 and the other person 3. This is much more democratic than given you all 7 from our state and discounting all of the voters who cast a vote for your opponent.

 

Right now, if the candidate I vote for loses in the state of KY, my vote does not count at all.