candidates with highest approval rating should become president

Author: linate ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 14
  • linate
    linate avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 222
    0
    1
    1
    linate avatar
    linate

    trump and hillary had low approval ratings on election day. other candidate had higher approval ratings. most people didn't like either candidate. thus, our election system is flawed. 

    here is my proposal for a ranked voting system. we have a primary where everyone marks who they want considered for president. you can list whoever you want, more than one person. the two persons with the most nominations get into a run off election between just the two of them, and the person with a majority vote wins.i'd also consider making the question "who all do you generally approve of?" instead of "who do you want considered", but i think framing the issue broader would lessen the fringes so much.

    this is better because the current system should be called 'fringe voting'. a fringe plurality wanted trump or hilary to win, but most everyone else wanted neither of them. this gives too much power to candidates from the fringes. my system would broaden who's generally acceptable and has a broader base of support.my guess is it would have been kasich and sanders had we did my system, for whatever it's worth. trump might have did better than i'm guessing, though.
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 7,981
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @linate
    They had high approval because the media didn't get a chance to slander them. The media only targets people who can win office.
  • linate
    linate avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 222
    0
    1
    1
    linate avatar
    linate
    --> @Greyparrot
    good point. but trump never had high approval rating. and, in any case, the current system still causes fringe candidates to get into power. my proposed system would broaden the base of support necessary to get to the point of being president. 
  • 1harderthanyouthink
    1harderthanyouthink avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 256
    0
    1
    3
    1harderthanyouthink avatar
    1harderthanyouthink
    --> @Greyparrot
    Lol what
  • Buddamoose
    Buddamoose avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 3,177
    2
    3
    6
    Buddamoose avatar
    Buddamoose
    the current system still causes fringe candidates to get into power. 

    You need to define fringe. Fringe = not having positive approval ratings?

    Because fringe could also mean candidates with very little support, or polarized/extreme political ideologies. 

    Why have a simple majority election at all? Why not just exclusively a run-off system? 



  • Buddamoose
    Buddamoose avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 3,177
    2
    3
    6
    Buddamoose avatar
    Buddamoose
    a fringe plurality wanted trump or hilary to win, but most everyone else wanted neither of them

    And everyone else wasn't able to field a candidate that beat either in primary elections at the end of the day. 

    If im understanding you right, because the winning primary candidates won, that inherently means the ones who supported candidates who lost, are being deprived of their vote(somehow) wrongly? 

  • Buddamoose
    Buddamoose avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 3,177
    2
    3
    6
    Buddamoose avatar
    Buddamoose
    Or to better put it, because the candidate who won, only recieved votes from a signifigant plurality, this necessarily means they should not hold office/those results are invalid? 
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 7,981
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @1harderthanyouthink
    >>>Lol what

    Don't be silly. you are comparing a blip of coverage to 1000 days of wall to wall slander. 

    Also, I read your link..."has to be some kind of record..."

    Maybe a record for the media attacking someone on the left. Creating negative stories about politicians on the right is part of the normal workday for the WAPO.
  • Buddamoose
    Buddamoose avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 3,177
    2
    3
    6
    Buddamoose avatar
    Buddamoose
    --> @1harderthanyouthink
    Sanders had a good chance to win the primary. Hillary was the establishment Dem choice. That Sanders was attacked is of no surprise. 

    The lefts cannibalization of itself isnt some closely guarded secret 😂. "Omg Bernie had 16 negative articles written in a short period of time, this totally disproves media bias!" 

    Really, a non establishment candidate with solid support getting attacked by media disproves that huh? You have a funny way of defining bias. Also, welcome to every day in media when it comes to conservatives. 🙊


  • 1harderthanyouthink
    1harderthanyouthink avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 256
    0
    1
    3
    1harderthanyouthink avatar
    1harderthanyouthink
    --> @Buddamoose
    It wasn't really the left cannibalizing itself so much as the neoliberal media monopolies galvanizing behind their candidate because both the leftward and rightward candidate excited more people than her.
  • 1harderthanyouthink
    1harderthanyouthink avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 256
    0
    1
    3
    1harderthanyouthink avatar
    1harderthanyouthink
    --> @Buddamoose
    And I was responding to Greyparrot implying Sanders' approval rating is only because he was never slandered - which, if you kept your eyes open for 2015 and 2016, you would have seen it every day.
  • Buddamoose
    Buddamoose avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 3,177
    2
    3
    6
    Buddamoose avatar
    Buddamoose
    --> @1harderthanyouthink
    Ah my b, and yeah, Sanders was slammed repeatedly. Not reflecting on whether those criticisms were justified, rather its pretty obvious media and the DNC rigged as much as they could to make sure Hillary won 🤔
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 7,981
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @1harderthanyouthink
    And I was responding to Greyparrot implying Sanders' approval rating is only because he was never slandered - which, if you kept your eyes open for 2015 and 2016, you would have seen it every day.
    And if he was being targeted by the media as a front-runner, you wouldn't have had to "keep your eyes open" as you so eloquently stated.

  • Mister_Man
    Mister_Man avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 98
    0
    0
    4
    Mister_Man avatar
    Mister_Man
    --> @linate
    No.

    People are morons and will cry about anything, regardless of policy. Trump has low approval ratings because he's said a couple rude things and the media blew that out of proportion as they're funded by Democrat supporters. Stupid people blindly listened to the media and started to hate Trump.

    He's lowered taxes across the board, took out most of ISIS, repaired relations with Russia and North Korea (who were both huge threats to the US before he was elected), helped the North and South Korean countries come together, increased border security, addressed the fake news epidemic and much more... yet his approval ratings are down because 1) people don't like Republicans, 2) people are too dumb to do their own research, and 3) he's said a couple mean things in his lifetime.

    This also applies to right-wingers blindly hating Hillary, although "vote for me because I'm a woman and I'm not Trump" wasn't the best platform to run on.