The current American election system does not bring the most qualified American individuals to the white house.
Submitted 102 days ago by AmerFavoriteEmbedOptions
The current American election system does not bring the most qualified American individuals to the white house.(Please click yes or no)
Wouldn't it be interesting if we had a President who could actually speak a second language, like most heads of state? Say, Spanish (we have a HUGE presence in Latin America) or Mandarin(do a LOT of business with the Chinese). Just as one almost trivial example of what many might consider to be a possible qualification.
He does speak enough Spanish to do so at a rally. Have seen him do it. The funny part? He doesn't stutter and flounder around in Spanish the way he does in English. (rofl)
I suppose that depends who you ask. There are people who think it is all an act. Of course there are people who think 9/11 was an inside job.
I think he became the man he needed to win the election. Not to say it is all an act, but it would not surprise me if he played it up a little in speeches.
[1 point]101 days ago by CDogReplyEdited 101 days ago by CDog
Disagree. But many people don't seek it because of the awesome responsibilities. I haven't seen a President yet that didn't leave the office looking much older than his actual years.
I dont think its the responsibilities that keeps people from running for office. Its the amount of money needed. There are plenty of businessmen that could run for office but it doenst make business sense to spend $50 million to campaign for a job that pays less than $1million a year. Only a crook would do something like that.
Its point is to keep third-party votes from being spoilers. Simply put, you could either vote for one candidate like before, or rank candidates on the ballot in the order you would vote for them if runoffs were held to eliminate the lowest vote-getter in each round.
If polls are accurate about the views of third-party voters in prior elections, then several recent elections may have turned out differently:
1992: Bush Sr. wins with Perot voters.
1996: Dole wins with Perot voters.
2000: Gore wins with Nader voters.
2004: No change, but Kerry closer.
On the other hand...
1860: Douglas would have beat Lincoln in a landslide.
Although many factors contributed to the Civil War, the final straw was the election of 1860, in which about 60.2% of voters voted for Democrats, but Democrats nominated 3 candidates, so Lincoln's 39.8% was enough to win the electoral college without winning any southern states. They seceded. The rest is history.
Of course, we needed the Civil War to finally cast off the chains of slavery, and Lincoln is widely regarded as one of the greatest presidents ever.
So, the automatic runoff may not be a sure-fire way to get the best people in office. However, it is the best way to elect the people's real preference.
Actually, the system functions very well to put the most qualified person in the White House, as long as you assume that the purpose is to install the most Big Business-friendly candidate.
Community votes are collected from you and other visitors to Ask500People. Independent votes are collected from visitors to hundreds of other websites around the world.
Sign Up or Login
Sorry, this data is only available to users with an account.
Loading...
Duh.
Wouldn't it be interesting if we had a President who could actually speak a second language, like most heads of state? Say, Spanish (we have a HUGE presence in Latin America) or Mandarin(do a LOT of business with the Chinese). Just as one almost trivial example of what many might consider to be a possible qualification.
Can you see Bush with a foreign language, he cant handle English.
He does speak enough Spanish to do so at a rally. Have seen him do it. The funny part? He doesn't stutter and flounder around in Spanish the way he does in English. (rofl)
He didn't stutter and flounder when he was governor either. You can find videos of him being completely eloquent from before he ran for president.
So... it's all an act? Or has he been driven to drink? Or...?
I suppose that depends who you ask. There are people who think it is all an act. Of course there are people who think 9/11 was an inside job.
I think he became the man he needed to win the election. Not to say it is all an act, but it would not surprise me if he played it up a little in speeches.
Hmmm. Then it's Cheney's fault. "Come to the dark side ..." (qoooeeq)
Can't you just see BEC44 with an objective mind? She can't handle it.
This comment was deleted.
[4 points] 101 days ago by deleted user ReplyDisagree. But many people don't seek it because of the awesome responsibilities. I haven't seen a President yet that didn't leave the office looking much older than his actual years.
I dont think its the responsibilities that keeps people from running for office. Its the amount of money needed. There are plenty of businessmen that could run for office but it doenst make business sense to spend $50 million to campaign for a job that pays less than $1million a year. Only a crook would do something like that.
I guess that explains why Obama is running for this office.
To be honest I wasnt talking about just Obama, all of them are crooks, some may be more crooked than others but none of them are to be trusted.
The automatic runoff would be an improvement:
http://www.e-campaignfinancereform.net/runoff.htm
Its point is to keep third-party votes from being spoilers. Simply put, you could either vote for one candidate like before, or rank candidates on the ballot in the order you would vote for them if runoffs were held to eliminate the lowest vote-getter in each round.
If polls are accurate about the views of third-party voters in prior elections, then several recent elections may have turned out differently:
1992: Bush Sr. wins with Perot voters.
1996: Dole wins with Perot voters.
2000: Gore wins with Nader voters.
2004: No change, but Kerry closer.
On the other hand...
1860: Douglas would have beat Lincoln in a landslide.
Although many factors contributed to the Civil War, the final straw was the election of 1860, in which about 60.2% of voters voted for Democrats, but Democrats nominated 3 candidates, so Lincoln's 39.8% was enough to win the electoral college without winning any southern states. They seceded. The rest is history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1860
Of course, we needed the Civil War to finally cast off the chains of slavery, and Lincoln is widely regarded as one of the greatest presidents ever.
So, the automatic runoff may not be a sure-fire way to get the best people in office. However, it is the best way to elect the people's real preference.
I disagree that the Civil War was needed to finally get rid of slavery. It speeded up the process, but slavery was on the way out in any case.
Actually, the system functions very well to put the most qualified person in the White House, as long as you assume that the purpose is to install the most Big Business-friendly candidate.
True, it is not a perfect system, but it is so much better than the methods used by those not electing their leaders.