You are trying to argue that just because a whole bunch of people live in CA and NY that their individual vote is not as important as votes of those living in small states.
etech:
This whole map argument is ridiculous.
Are you saying we should elect presidents by area controlled by their party? Should 100 people living on 1 square mile have less of a voice then 10 people living on 100 square miles?
This whole map argument is ridiculous.
Are you saying we should elect presidents by area controlled by their party? Should 100 people living on 1 square mile have less of a voice then 10 people living on 100 square miles?
You are trying to argue that just because a whole bunch of people live in CA and NY that their individual vote is not as important as votes of those living in small states.
founding fathers never wanted a situation where one or two states had complete control over a presidential election. Electoral votes are based on population. Amount of house reps + 2.
founding fathers never wanted a situation where one or two states had complete control over a presidential election. Electoral votes are based on population. Amount of house reps + 2.
The founding fathers also never wanted a situation where the Supreme Court interferes in the states' business of picking electors. What's your point?
SuperTool this is as easy as I can explain it for you:
The electoral college is designed so that a candidate is required to appeal to the entire country. Not just one or two states. We are a nation consisting of fifty individual states.
This election has proven that without the electoral college a candidate could win without any support in the south. Guess what happens when an entire half of a nation is disenfranchised? Can you say civil war?
The electoral college is designed so that a candidate is required to appeal to the entire country. Not just one or two states. We are a nation consisting of fifty individual states.
This election has proven that without the electoral college a candidate could win without any support in the south. Guess what happens when an entire half of a nation is disenfranchised? Can you say civil war?
The founding fathers also never wanted a situation where the Supreme Court interferes in the states' business of picking electors. What's your point?
When the State's own supreme court has made a decision that interprets federal law the founding fathers most certainly did want the US Supreme court to monitor and intervene if necessary.
What you neglect to mention is that the US supreme courts decision was entirely federal. They found that the Florida Supreme Courts ruling was not in line with the constitution.. the US consitution.. not hte FLORIDA CONSTITUTION.
When the State's own supreme court has made a decision that interprets federal law the founding fathers most certainly did want the US Supreme court to monitor and intervene if necessary.
What you neglect to mention is that the US supreme courts decision was entirely federal. They found that the Florida Supreme Courts ruling was not in line with the constitution.. the US consitution.. not hte FLORIDA CONSTITUTION.
It doesn't really matter what you or I think does it. On election day the law of the land was the President of the United States would be decided by the electoral college. Well, actually awhile later but you understand.
So you can talk and discuss and argue it, but that was the rules under which the election was conducted.
If you want to discuss changing the election system to popular vote vs. electoral college then that is a different discussion. Personally after looking at the map I have a clearer understanding of why it was set up.
So you can talk and discuss and argue it, but that was the rules under which the election was conducted.
If you want to discuss changing the election system to popular vote vs. electoral college then that is a different discussion. Personally after looking at the map I have a clearer understanding of why it was set up.
Last time I checked, states were supposed to pick electors according to STATE's CONSTITUTION. You don't see the conflict of interest in the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in an election that will determine it's own composition? I believe the founders were smarter than that.
<< Guess what happens when an entire half of a nation is disenfranchised? >>
Last time I checked, half of US population didn't live in small states.
<< Guess what happens when an entire half of a nation is disenfranchised? >>
Last time I checked, half of US population didn't live in small states.
This country was divided in half once, we aren't going to have that happen again.
As for the rest of that SuperTool.. go read the Supreme Courts opinion. I've got it printed out right next to me.
But in lamans terms I will quickly explain, the us constitution clearly states that the same standards must be applied to all voters.. you are not allowed to treat certain people differently. Changing the standards in those districts was a violation of constitutional law.
I'm through, if you can't understand that then this is a fruitless debate. I'm out for a while.
As for the rest of that SuperTool.. go read the Supreme Courts opinion. I've got it printed out right next to me.
But in lamans terms I will quickly explain, the us constitution clearly states that the same standards must be applied to all voters.. you are not allowed to treat certain people differently. Changing the standards in those districts was a violation of constitutional law.
I'm through, if you can't understand that then this is a fruitless debate. I'm out for a while.
<< the us constitution clearly states that the same standards must be applied to all voters.. >>
Well since every prescinct uses different balloting and counting methods that argument goes out of the window pretty fast.
Besides, the supreme court didn't force uniform standards to the recounts, it stopped the recounts.
It maybe a fruitless debate in a sense that you and I both will have same opinions at the end, but that doesn't mean that just because I can't convince you, I should change my opinion on the subject.
I too will call it a night on this subject unless you break the cease fire
Just have to add, the USSC stopped the recounts after the ballots had been recounted according to Florida law.
The added recounts and the changing of the standards is what was stopped.
The added recounts and the changing of the standards is what was stopped.
the problem is they think the market will even itself out after awhile, problem is there is no real market due to the former regulation of energy here
Let's look at the record how Bush got elected.He won on the vote of the Electoral College.He won on the Supreme Court's ruling.He won the state of Florida's election by following their election laws.Every time there was a recount, he gained votes.Sure, it would have been great, and less divisive if he had won the popular vote by a landslide.
Both candidates knew the rules(or at least their constitutional advisors did)...going in.Al Gore conceded that he lost.I am positive that he did not want to lose, he fought the good fight.
Al can accept that he lost.Now, the question is, can we?
Both candidates knew the rules(or at least their constitutional advisors did)...going in.Al Gore conceded that he lost.I am positive that he did not want to lose, he fought the good fight.
Al can accept that he lost.Now, the question is, can we?
finally you guys are starting to see what an @ss bush is. Howver it only works when a problem occurs in your own country.
i pitty da fool
i pitty da fool
Red, Bingo?
You took a quote out of context. That only refers to the fact that the electoral college form of election was in effect at the time of the presidential election. Whether or not SuperTool disagrees with it or whether I can see the advantages of it at this time did not matter then.
ukDave, Thanks ukDave for that extremely well thought out and thought provoking post.
You have done such an admirable job of explaining your position that I fail to understand why anyone would ever dare to disagree with you. The erudition you display can only make one in awe of the English educational system. With such fine young examples of learning one can only wonder how the sun could ever set on the British Empire?
You took a quote out of context. That only refers to the fact that the electoral college form of election was in effect at the time of the presidential election. Whether or not SuperTool disagrees with it or whether I can see the advantages of it at this time did not matter then.
ukDave, Thanks ukDave for that extremely well thought out and thought provoking post.
You have done such an admirable job of explaining your position that I fail to understand why anyone would ever dare to disagree with you. The erudition you display can only make one in awe of the English educational system. With such fine young examples of learning one can only wonder how the sun could ever set on the British Empire?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter