(01-09-2019, 07:55 PM)Last42min Wrote: Yeah... I'm not shadow boxing. I've seen you state on here that you are Republican before. You're not. You are not conservative, either. I also recognize that there is a difference between conservative and Republican, but it doesn't matter for my point. A direct election would eliminate their voice, which is my primary concern. I wouldn't want it the other way around, either.

Let me be clear that I don't care who's voice is being stifled; I'd be against it. I am a psychological liberal with a conservative political bent. This is not because I think there's anything "right" about the way this nation was founded, but, rather, because I believe there aren't very many better alternatives currently. Almost everything you hear being proposed is to promote dominance for one party or the other, and gives little thought to the individual citizens. There has to be a balance. Any system that would alienate a group of people is a bad system. The idea behind the EC was a good one. Even it's flawed state is better than a direct election.

a direct election would be similar enough to what happens already that no one whose voice is loud today would be silent tomorrow.
Turnout would be higher overall because party affiliations would change often and every vote would have an impact no matter what state the voter is in. 
So there would be more voices.
If you don't like that because you think it means the two dominant voices today would be "stifled," I think that's dumb. people who happen to agree with the party line of either of the current parties shouldn't be privileged over those who are just as smart but have some disagreements with both. And you shouldn't have to put on a big show of being loyal to the party as it exists before you're allowed a chance at office. it should be easier to just start your own party when the two major parties get stuffy and wooden.

---