The Electoral College

[Tnnaas]

Background on the Debate

On a presidential election day in November, voters technically do not directly elect a President, but rather choose a slate of presidential electors for their State. The number of electors chose en each State is equal to the total number of representatives the State has in Congress. Each State’s representation in Congress is, in turn, based on the State’s population as determined every 10 years by the U.S. Census Bureau. For example, in 1996, Georgia possessed 13 electoral votes since it had 11 representatives in the House of Representatives and, like all States, two U.S. senators. By contrast, California had 54 electoral votes because it had 52 representatives in the House and two in the Senate. The entire Electoral college consists of 538 electors, which is the sum of the number of representatives in the House (435), the total number of senators (100), and three electoral votes awarded to the District of Columbia through the 23rd Amendment. A presidential candidate must receive a majority of all electoral college votes – at least 270 – to win the election. If no candidate receives a majority, the House of Representatives chooses the President and the Senate chooses the Vice President.On Election Day in 1996, a voter in Georgia voting for Bob Dole was actually selecting 13 electors who had pledged to support the Dole-Kemp ticket. A voter choosing Bill Clinton was really selecting a different 13 electors who were pledged to support the Democratic ticket. Since Dole obtained a plurality of all popular votes cast in Georgia, he received all of Georgia’s 13 electoral votes. Clinton won the popular vote in California, thereby gaining that State’s 54 electoral votes. This is known as the winner-take-all feature.

In the 1996 election, Bill Clinton won 379 electoral votes and Bob Dole 159. The popular vote totals for the election were 45,590,703 (49 percent) for Clinton and 37,816,307 (40 percent) for Dole. Reform Party candidate, H. Ross Perot, received 7,866,284 (8 percent) popular votes, but no electoral votes. The ticked with the greatest number of votes also won the most votes in the Electoral college.

Critics of the Electoral college system point out that the college may someday cause a constitutional crisis because of the winner-take-all feature and because nothing in the Constitution requires electors to cast their votes for the candidate receiving the most popular votes. Many critics favor abolishing the electoral college in favor of a direct popular election.

Arguments Supporting the Change

The electoral college is undemocratic because it is possible for one candidate to win a majority of the national popular vote, but still lose the presidency. This was the case in 1824, 1876, and 1888. The electoral college exaggerates the importance of votes in the States with many electoral votes and diminishes the influence of votes in States with a small number of electoral votes. In addition, if no one candidate received 270 electoral votes, the House of Representatives, not the people of the United States, would select the President from among the top three candidates. Why should such an irrational voting system be used in a democracy where popular choice is valued so highly?
The factors that originally caused the Framers of the Constitution to create the electoral college are no longer relevant. In 1787, most people in the United States were illiterate and communications were poor. The Framers envisioned that the electors would be drawn from among the wisest and most distinguished men in each State, and that they would be better qualified and informed to objectively choose the nation’s chief executive. Voters today get information about the candidates through the media.
There is nothing in the Constitution that requires electors to cast their votes for the candidate receiving the most popular votes. Historically, some electors have switched their allegiance, as one elector did in 1988. If one candidate received 270 electoral votes and another received 268, one elector switching his or her vote could cause the election to result in a tie, thereby passing the election to the House and the Senate.
The best reform would be to abolish the electoral college and substitute a direct popular election system. The candidate receiving the most (at least 40 percent of the total popular votes) would be elected.

Arguments Opposing the Change

The proposed reforms of the electoral college create more problems than they resolve. Why tamper with the college which has been a proven, workable system over the years? For example, presidential elections within each Sate are now democratic under the electoral college system. To allow for direct popular election would undermine the American system of federalism, in that the presidential election would become more national by removing the impact of the individual States from the electoral process. Furthermore, the probability of a presidential candidate receiving a majority of the popular vote but losing in the electoral college is relatively remote – it has not occurred for over a century.
Another disadvantage of popular election exists. Presidential candidates would have to campaign even more strenuously than they do now, in every part of the nation, because all votes would become equally important. In the electoral college system, a candidate can concentrate on those large States or smaller swing States where there is a chance of attaining in-state pluralities.
The “faithless elector,” an elector who does not vote for the candidate he expressed support for, may be a problem but it is a minor one at best. Over 17,000 electoral votes have been cast since 1789, with only 10 of those votes being considered breaches of faith. None of these “faithless electors” has ever changed an election outcome. A House election of the President has not occurred in over 150 years.
Direct popular election could complicate and delay the presidential selection process. The requirement that a runoff election be held if no candidate receives at least 40 percent of the popular vote is expensive and needlessly complex. By contrast, the electoral college immediately reveals who the winner is, without the necessity of holding a runoff election.

[TVTyrant]

For the sake of bumping something you clearly put effort into, I will post an essay I wrote last spring. Took me about 2 hours to write.

Throughout history, there has been a need for governance. And in that need there have always been problems. The people are unruly, and the leaders are all big rich guys who hate the common man and only want to exploit them. But in 1787, a document of governance was written in Philadelphia, intended to bring a level of understanding and basic equality to the citizens and leaders of the 13 colonies. This document forged the United States, and it has lasted longer than any other modern document of governance. It features a fancy set of checks and balances, which are meant to make sure no part of the government ever becomes too big or powerful to deal with. Of these checks and balances, the Electoral College is the most obvious one that was meant to take power out of the hands of the citizens. It’s also the most controversial, and is the subject of this essay. I started with a basic research question. Is the Electoral College an unnecessary component of the presidential elective process? I did my research, including looking at the numbers from the last handful of elections, and came to a decision. No, the Electoral College is not unnecessary. Its job is to prevent someone from rising to power the way Hitler did in the centuries following the Constitutions creation. More than anything, it allows for a basic level of regional organization that simplifies the elective process.
There have been 56 elections in United States history, and 44 presidents. Among those, there are only three examples that come to mind where it feels like the current electoral system has failed us. This was in 2000, 1968, and 1876. These elections are famous because in 2000 the winner lost the popular vote, in 1968 the winner won the Electoral College by a land slide but barely won the popular vote, and in 1876 the election was won by a single Electoral College vote by extremely controversial means. While one could point to these three elections and say that the system is broken, that person would ne forgetting that 53 other presidential elections went off with out a hitch. We might complain because, when one gets messed up, it gets messed up bad. But outside of some frustrations with the system it works, and has worked since the very first presidential election in 1789.
It has been two hundred and twenty five years since the constitution was written and ratified. In that time, the number of changes to the document has been incredibly minimal. Comparatively, some countries like Germany, France, and Russia have switched governmental systems as many as three times. This kind of stability is not an accident. It is intentional. The founding fathers, as the original members of the Philadelphia Convention are known, wanted to create a system which would be able to bend to the shape of modern times, but not so much that its entire image was changed. This was done to add a rock for the people to lean against. While the men of America ventured west into the great unknown, the government would always be there to back them up with law and order. They made laws hard to change and amendments hard to pass in order to achieve this. This has had some negative repercussions on the issues of slavery and civil rights, but for the most part it has been beneficial to our country. My point is that, based on the number of successful elections that we have had, it would be quite the difficult task to pass a constitutional amendment and change the system. We have a working system that has been stable and successful for many years. Why would we decide to mess with that now?
Now, I will say that there are some huge benefits that could be had by changing from the Electoral College to a direct popular vote system. The first is that the majority of Americans already support the idea. According to a Gallup poll conducted in 2004, sixty one percent of Americans want to change the system to a direct popular vote using a constitutional amendment. It would also significantly simplify the system, since studies show that the majority of Americans do not understand the Electoral College system. So, it is not as if there are not advantages to changing the system.
But these reasons are part of why we have an Electoral College in the first place. The people have their say in these kinds of things by electing representatives, who set out to do their best to do what’s right for the people. We aren’t a Democracy, we are a Republic, and by that basis abolishing the Electoral College would damage the basic premises of Federalism. The idea of Federalism is to ensure that the government never gets too overbearing or powerful. By this, changing from a the current system to a national popular vote damages the way we have broken up the system. It would make recounts nearly impossible, since we would be counting one hundred million votes rather than a couple of thousand from each congressional district. It would also mark a massive change towards centralist government, where the divisions of States and Districts would be nearly meaningless.
Another problem is that it could precipitate the idea of “mobocracy”, so feared by the members of early American government. The thought was that, without proper forms of representation, the uneducated masses would be able to elect people who completely supported their own ideals. They had a good point, since its been forgotten in modern times that most Northerners did not like Lincoln, that he barely won the election of 1864, and that many did not care either way on the issue of slavery. In our times, these things seem ridiculous and stupid. Illogical ideas that can only be viewed as “another time”. But its not necessarily that hard to believe in modern times. There are those who believe we should abandon safety laws and food quality regulations. If that were to become the popular idea, would you want the government to listen to these people? Or would you trust that our Representatives are smart enough to figure that one out?
This kind of rule is not as outlandish as it might seem, either. Do not forget that most of the men reviled in history were elected by popular votes, some of which were very close. Indeed, Hitler gained power through a lesser office in the German government that he gained because of the Centralist government system Germany. While throwing his name out there is often a cop out by people, it should always be considered when one talks about the idea of “mobocracy”. With a Federalist system, he probably would not have been elected to office in the first place. The votes simply weren’t there for him to win a plurality. Which leads me to my next point.
Many have brought up the winner take all system as an example of the Electoral College’s failings. It’s what allowed for George W. Bush to be elected in a year where he lost the popular vote. But the government believes in a system of plurality. How many people voted for the candidate is not as important as who wins the election in our system. All other elections run in this country are run on the basis of winner take all. So it seems logical that we should continue on this course. However, I feel like this is where we should improve the system. The winner takes all system is an inaccurate reading of the opinions held by the voters. It’s a big part of why many feel like their votes “don’t count”. However, abolishing the Electoral College for a popular vote would make it nearly impossible to properly manage, and would take out the conscious safety check of a faithless elector.
What we should do is make a national move towards proportional representation. Proportional Representation would allow for congressional districts to maintain their own basic level of organization, and would allow for a more accurate version of what the Electoral College does, which is make sure that the people of the United States do not elect a President with extremely radical or reactionary views to office. The intrinsic safety mechanism provided by the College would still be there, and it would maintain that specific population’s votes within the country would be properly represented during presidential elections.
One of the problems to solve within this idea is what to do with the two votes that are left over by the electoral system. Well, these two votes would be allocated based on that State’s overall voting. So, a state that voted majority Republican would give all of the votes won district by district to the Republican candidate, along with two extra votes that the candidate would receive for holding a majority in that state. This seems like an insignificant idea, but it would have a huge effect in California. Say, if we had used this system in 2008, Obama would have received thirty four votes, plus two for a total of thirty six. On the other side, McCain would have received 21 votes in total from the state. Other states this would have a huge impact on would be Florida, Ohio, Texas, Michigan, Alabama, and North Carolina. These are all states where the vote is either already in contention one way or the other, or areas where because of demographics many people are not properly represented in the presidential elections. I have a difficult time believing that the majority of African American voters in South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana voted for John McCain, or that the Hispanic voters in Arizona and Texas did this as well.
In conclusion, I believe that the Electoral College is pivotal to maintaining balance in Presidential politics in the United States. It prevents the election of candidates based strictly on their popularity with the masses, and allows for a more defined political stratum for the American people to focus on. It has been part of the rock that our government has become, providing an important check on who becomes President and who is given consideration as being a legitimate candidate. Its built in safety net against dangerous candidates makes sure that the Presidential office will always be the most middle leaning office in the American Government. But, while it provides all of these great features that protect our country, it has room to be improved. It is not perfect. Nothing in this world will ever be perfect. But it is our way, and our form of election. Not chosen by the people, but chosen for the people by those who created this great nation we all inhabit.

[neuro]

the american elective system is one of the most insane 'systems' in general in any contect i have ever seen in action.

it might have worked 50 years ago, but now it's just beyond rediculous

[DarkHalo003]

the american elective system is one of the most insane 'systems' in general in any contect i have ever seen in action.

it might have worked 50 years ago, but now it's just beyond rediculous
Rediculous is a crayon color.

The electoral college is a double-edged sword: while it sacrifices the popular vote, it takes into account more intellectual decisions based on their respective states. Popular votes are usually on par with the electoral college and the college heavily considers it. However, its primarily reasoning aside from the popular vote is for that state's well-being in relation to other states. What problems or benefits will this President give my state?

I see the college as a failsafe against voter stupidity. 50% of voters are not intelligently informed. The electoral college votes based on information it receives that is directly relative to its state. That said, it probably has a better idea in general on the most important factors of the state than 50% of that state's popular voters do.

Of course, the flipside is that we are handing the power to some political elite who are influenced by this country's stupid elite parties. The problem with U.S. politics is more that there are two elite parties rather than four or five. Sure, there are more parties and candidates than just in the Republican or Democratic parties, but simply put none of them have a snowball's chance in a fiery hell. It's always R v D now, which is one reason why the college is so controversial in the first place.

[kohler]

537 popular votes won Florida and the White House for Bush in 2000 despite Gore's lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide.

The precariousness of the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes is highlighted by the fact that a shift of a few thousand voters in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 13 presidential elections since World War II. Near misses are now frequently common. There have been 6 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections (1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, and 2008). A shift of 60,000 voters in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 million votes.

[kohler]

With the Electoral College and federalism, the Founding Fathers meant to empower the states to pursue their own interests within the confines of the Constitution. The National Popular Vote is an exercise of that power, not an attack upon it.

The Electoral College is now the set of dedicated party activists who vote as rubberstamps for their party’s presidential candidate. That is not what the Founders intended.

The National Popular Vote bill preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College.

The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state, ensures that the candidates, after the conventions, in 2012 will not reach out to about 80% of the states and their voters. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind.

80% of the states and people have been just spectators to the presidential elections. That's more than 85 million voters.

Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

States have the responsibility and power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond.

Unable to agree on any particular method, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution-- "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ." The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

Federalism concerns the allocation of power between state governments and the national government. The National Popular Vote bill concerns how votes are tallied, not how much power state governments possess relative to the national government. The powers of state governments are neither increased nor decreased based on whether presidential electors are selected along the state boundary lines, or national lines (as with the National Popular Vote).

[kohler]

There is NO requirement that a runoff election be held if no candidate receives at least 40 percent of the popular vote.

With the current system of electing the President, no state requires that a presidential candidate receive anything more than the most popular votes in order to receive all of the state's electoral votes.

With the current state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes, winning a bare plurality of the popular vote in the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population, could win the Presidency with a mere 26% of the nation's votes!

[kohler]

The current system does not provide some kind of check on the "mobs." There have been 22,453 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 17 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party. 1796 remains the only instance when the elector might have thought, at the time he voted, that his vote might affect the national outcome. Since 1796, the Electoral College has had the form, but not the substance, of the deliberative body envisioned by the Founders. The electors now are dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable rubberstamped votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.

If a Democratic presidential candidate receives the most votes, the state's dedicated Democratic party activists who have been chosen as its slate of electors become the Electoral College voting bloc. If a Republican presidential candidate receives the most votes, the state's dedicated Republican party activists who have been chosen as its slate of electors become the Electoral College voting bloc. The winner of the presidential election is the candidate who collects 270 votes from Electoral College voters from among the winning party's dedicated activists.

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld state laws guaranteeing faithful voting by presidential electors (because the states have plenary power over presidential electors).

[kohler]

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. There would no longer be a handful of 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 80% of the states that now are just 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.

When the bill is enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes– enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC.

The presidential election system that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers but, instead, is the product of decades of evolutionary change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.

The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%,, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.

The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 states. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions possessing 132 electoral votes - 49% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

NationalPopularVote
Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc

[Amit]

Spam?

[=sw=warlord]

Spam bot more like.

[Patrickssj6]

So Tyrant, next time you want to write an essay, just open up a new thread and wait for a spambot :v:

[Rainbow Dash]

It's pretty sad when, in 5 posts, a spambot out-contributes most of the members of this site in serious discussion.

[DarkHalo003]

Looks like Copy Pasta bias to me. Just saying.

[annihilation]

They're getting pretty crafty now.

[TVTyrant]

So Tyrant, next time you want to write an essay, just open up a new thread and wait for a spambot :v:
Yeah, seriously, since he just said exactly what I said in my essay lol.

[Amit]

Who gives a fuck. Spambot makes more sense than the rest of you combined. hail spambot!

[Warsaw]

I like this idea better:

Everybody has to take a test to get a voting license. Only those with the license can vote. The test to get said license will basically consist of the naturalization exam, maybe some basic algebra and calculus as well. The Electoral College disappears and we have a..erm...popular...vote where there is proportionality...no winner-take-all.

I don't want to entrust the fate of the nation to the average Joe. Unfortunately, this also leaves open the possibility for abuse of the system...it's really not any worse than the Electoral College though since there is plenty of room to abuse that as well.

[Patrickssj6]

Everybody has to take a test to get a voting license. Only those with the license can vote.
This would kill the secondary purpose of a democratic system (the government being a reflection of the entire society). Not saying this is bad, it just wouldn't be called a Democracy anymore.

Also having trouble that you don't entrust the average Joe voter but would accept some equally average Joe politicians? In your case having a voting license and a direct voting system where all decisions are voted upon would make a lot more sense.

[TVTyrant]

It's not a Democracy. Its a Republic.

[Warsaw]

This would kill the secondary purpose of a democratic system (the government being a reflection of the entire society). Not saying this is bad, it just wouldn't be called a Democracy anymore.

Also having trouble that you don't entrust the average Joe voter but would accept some equally average Joe politicians? In your case having a voting license and a direct voting system where all decisions are voted upon would make a lot more sense.

Possibly. The whole story isn't told with just what I wrote above, that could get lengthy. Just as there should be a more stringent criteria to decide who can vote, there should be one determining who can run for office.

A direct democracy is ultra complex and leaves too much of a margin for abuse, more than a properly-done republic.

That said, the ideal form of government would be an enlightened oligarchy with a benevolent set of leaders. You just can't guarnatee that the successors will be as just and good, and that's why authoritarian governments always collapse. What the USA has right now is really no better than mob rule, and is far from just. What I really think about the Electoral College is that it is trivial and merely a symptom of a larger problem, that we need a new Constitution enumerating a new government.

[Tnnaas]

What I really think about the Electoral College is that it is trivial and merely a symptom of a larger problem, that we need a new Constitution enumerating a new government.We've had the same constitution for around 240 years now. That's way longer than most other constitutions anywhere in the world. This brings me to an interesting question: Are we better off with an aged constitutional system or should we rework our constitution from the ground up like other countries, some of whom are better off than us?

This was just spewn off at the top of my head; I would have prepared more. Maybe next time, but seriously consider the question. Do you think we need a new constitution or not? This is for everybody, so feel free to say why or why not.

[=sw=warlord]

A direct democracy is ultra complex and leaves too much of a margin for abuse, more than a properly-done republic.

It's a simple fix.
Have a machine with multiple choices and when you select the party you want, sign the vote with a scan of a finger print of your thumb.
Single use only thus stopping multiple votes but can also be kept anonymous.

[Warsaw]

It's simple: we kill the Batman.

Also, that doesn't fix rigged software. Software could be keyed to only accept a percentage of votes for one party as they are, while converting the rest into supporting the opposite side's candidate.

@DarkHalcyon: I can't think of a single country that is legitimately better off than us except maybe New Zealand...everybody has pros and cons. I would want to rework the Constitution into a new document. Take the old and use it as a baseline, but bring it into the modern era. If done properly, it would destroy the ability for interest groups and businesses to lobby the government for favours.

[Bodzilla]

new zealand is not better off. hence 50% of the population moving to australia for work

[Warsaw]

Hence the "maybe." I'm not really familiar with NZ's condition, but everybody seems to be of the opinion that it is the last Western-civilized country to still be a good place to live.

Apparently not.

So yeah, nowhere is really "better off" than the USA. Each place has its pros and cons, you have to choose what matters the most to you.

[Bodzilla]

you gotta remember that america's at the bottom of the list because of your terrible social infrastruture and programs.

Nearly every country in the world is better off then america.
dont make me post that newsroom opening scene again >:U

[Warsaw]

But economically, America is better off than most of the rest of the NATO countries and all of the former Warsaw Pact members. We also enjoy a few more rights, whether you agree with them or not.



You win some, you lose some. Pick you habitat based on what matters most to you.

[Timo]

new zealand is not better off. hence 50% of the population moving to australia for work

Well its more like <1%/year, with the last couple being an exception due to the earthquakes.


You win some, you lose some. Pick you habitat based on what matters most to you.

Pretty much this. As much as I love NZ wages are pretty low in comparison to the US/Aus, and stuff is relatively expensive. I'd never consider moving to the US though.

[Bodzilla]

obviously i was exaggerating timo lol.

[Timo]

You sure about that bro?

[Bodzilla]

nah bro, 50% of new zealand no longer lives in new zealand. theres ghost towns everywhere which actually enhances the beauty of the country by minimizing the impact on the environment by humans.

Brah.

[=sw=warlord]

But economically, America is better off than most of the rest of the NATO countries and all of the former Warsaw Pact members. We also enjoy a few more rights, whether you agree with them or not.



You win some, you lose some. Pick you habitat based on what matters most to you.
Economic integrity does not by itself determine which country is "better off", not by a long shot.
As for rights, You might well have rights but just how many of them are federally protected and actually exercisable without the local law clamping on to you?
You seem to think that the USA enjoys more rights than others but the truth is, the majority of Europe and the common wealth countries also enjoy those same rights even if the wording is slightly off from what you've come used to.

[Matooba]

Back to Paper Ballots Please! Gawd wish there was a New Planet Already!