I think the Democrats are just trying to find anyway they can to start problems so that it won't be over for them,when it's over. Example:
Mrs. Clinton herself was talking wed. She said something to the effect that Al Gore didnt win the electorial college vote it seemed,but he did win the popular vote. She also said that since he had won the popular vote she hoped the electorial college would make the right decision and put the right man in power when the time came for them to vote, and vote Gore in. A reporter then ask, Mrs. Clinton, do you think the electorial college system should be abandoned and elect on basis of popular vote? She replied," I don't want to comment on that right now...let's just see what happens."
Hmmm, lets see what happens Hillery? I imagine if Gore looses this recount for a 4th,5th or 6th time you WILL think the electorial system needs abandoning. If Gore were to win on 1 of these many recounts and had the electorial college votes then I imagine your in favor of the system agn. So it just depends on which way best fits the democrats current situation it seems like.
By the way...just how many recounts are gonna be enough? ..and for the ignorance in Florida they don't need a revote. 15,000 votes were thrown out in the same precinct in 1996 US Pres election...it didnt make news like this then. If those people had questions before they finalized their vote that Tue...then they should have ask the attendent that is there to help you. If they dont have sense enough to do that,they don't need to decide who's Pres anyway.
This says alot.
Mrs. Clinton herself was talking wed. She said something to the effect that Al Gore didnt win the electorial college vote it seemed,but he did win the popular vote. She also said that since he had won the popular vote she hoped the electorial college would make the right decision and put the right man in power when the time came for them to vote, and vote Gore in. A reporter then ask, Mrs. Clinton, do you think the electorial college system should be abandoned and elect on basis of popular vote? She replied," I don't want to comment on that right now...let's just see what happens."
Hmmm, lets see what happens Hillery? I imagine if Gore looses this recount for a 4th,5th or 6th time you WILL think the electorial system needs abandoning. If Gore were to win on 1 of these many recounts and had the electorial college votes then I imagine your in favor of the system agn. So it just depends on which way best fits the democrats current situation it seems like.
By the way...just how many recounts are gonna be enough? ..and for the ignorance in Florida they don't need a revote. 15,000 votes were thrown out in the same precinct in 1996 US Pres election...it didnt make news like this then. If those people had questions before they finalized their vote that Tue...then they should have ask the attendent that is there to help you. If they dont have sense enough to do that,they don't need to decide who's Pres anyway.
This says alot.
Napalm381 No wonder it sounded so familiar. 
But now that you point that out, if one senator from each state can represent that state's interest and the will of the people there why couldn't sortof the same thing be done in the election of a President? I realize what it would require to bring about this change but I'm curious as to what other people think of the idea. It seems fair and simple to me at this point but I'm sure that's because its such a new idea and I havn't thought about it long enough yet to find the flaws. What are they?
BTW, I assume your comment about the spelling of electoral was to someone else. I couldn't find where I had misspelled it, but, you made me look!
But now that you point that out, if one senator from each state can represent that state's interest and the will of the people there why couldn't sortof the same thing be done in the election of a President? I realize what it would require to bring about this change but I'm curious as to what other people think of the idea. It seems fair and simple to me at this point but I'm sure that's because its such a new idea and I havn't thought about it long enough yet to find the flaws. What are they?BTW, I assume your comment about the spelling of electoral was to someone else. I couldn't find where I had misspelled it, but, you made me look!
Hyp
<< This says alot. >>
Actually, no, it doesn't. Ya need to fix your link. Get rid of the "s" in the https.
<< This says alot. >>
Actually, no, it doesn't. Ya need to fix your link. Get rid of the "s" in the https.
<< Format C: Congratulations, you just did a pretty good job describing the U.S. Senate >>
Very funny
<< By the way...just how many recounts are gonna be enough? ..and for the ignorance in Florida they don't need a revote. 15,000 votes were thrown out in the same precinct in 1996 US Pres election... >>
15,000 votes were not thrown out in 1996, 15,000 ballotswere thrown out because the voter made an error. The voter who made the mistake(s) was given a new ballot and his/her vote was counted. The same exact thing happened this time with the exception that there were 19,120 ballots thrown out(and replaced). I don't believe the "media" has done much to point out this fact. I have yet to find anyone that is aware of this discrepancy.
who are we?
we are the people that have been given the right to say anything we want (within reason, i mean yelling fire inside a crowded movie theatre is illegal) by the constitution.
we are the people that have been given the right to say anything we want (within reason, i mean yelling fire inside a crowded movie theatre is illegal) by the constitution.
Red Dawn, I like the vote-for-two-candidates-and-runoff idea.
About the EC, has anyone considered revamping the EC instead of outright abolishment? You can have a republic-like system that moreso reflects the popular vote. Simply do away with the all-or-nothing method of assigning electoral votes. Many states already do it that way. If you get 40% of a state's votes, then you get 40% of the electoral votes. Makes sense to me. Of course, when an election of this calibre is this close, there will always be controversy, but that's another topic.
About the EC, has anyone considered revamping the EC instead of outright abolishment? You can have a republic-like system that moreso reflects the popular vote. Simply do away with the all-or-nothing method of assigning electoral votes. Many states already do it that way. If you get 40% of a state's votes, then you get 40% of the electoral votes. Makes sense to me. Of course, when an election of this calibre is this close, there will always be controversy, but that's another topic.
<< Right, give the Bible Belet more power. We need to have one person one vote. The EC wasn't created for the purpose of giving smaller less populated states more clout than they deserved. We already have a Constitutional Welfare state as it is with California,the Northwest, the Northeast, the States in the Great Lakes Area and parts of the Southeast carring those states in the Midwest and in the South. Why should we give them more of a say if they aren't even carrying their own wieght in this country? They are fairly represented in the Senate and the House, they do not need to be able to dictate to the rest of the county. >>
I don't understand that attitude at all Red. In fact, you're helping the other side's case in my opinion. If your reasoning is typical of most people supporting the abolishment of the electoral college then I may have to seriously rethink my position. Sounds like you're saying, "Hey! We're California. We've got all the people and we've got all the money and we want all the power too. The rest of you sit down, shut up, and let us rule. WE are America, the rest of you are nothing more than pariahs." I think you may have helped me to begin to understand the reasoning behind the creation of the electoral college in the first place. Frankly, your attitude scares the hell out of me. Maybe its time to form a new union without all the states that are being so unfairly taken advantage of and let them go their own way.
Arghh... I'm starting to like Red Dawn now. Maybe it's because the two opposing sides of a circle are next to each other.
I also think that in order to respect the Founding Fathers original intent we should not count the weaker sex vote. What do they know after all? They probably punched the ballot with their crochet needles...
And how about all those Cubans over there, when did they get their right to vote? Specially the dark skinned ones! That's a mistake I'm sure. We need a strong Attorney General to keep these "people" in order.
United we stand! Sure it makes sense to have the smaller states have more representation. It doesn't matter that the majority of the people in the country don't get their way. Even if they contribute more financially. Nobody said it was supposed to be fair.
Besides, these people in California and NY are all degenerates. Nothing like good ol' values to save'em from hell. Have their kids say a prayer for them every day in school. That should make up for most of their sins. Also if they spend more time praying they won't have time to be making unlegitimate children, or even worse, killin them!
Yep, yep. That's how it's supposed to be. Those with good moral values rulling those without. But please don't push for another vote because this time the people may win.
I also think that in order to respect the Founding Fathers original intent we should not count the weaker sex vote. What do they know after all? They probably punched the ballot with their crochet needles...
And how about all those Cubans over there, when did they get their right to vote? Specially the dark skinned ones! That's a mistake I'm sure. We need a strong Attorney General to keep these "people" in order.
United we stand! Sure it makes sense to have the smaller states have more representation. It doesn't matter that the majority of the people in the country don't get their way. Even if they contribute more financially. Nobody said it was supposed to be fair.
Besides, these people in California and NY are all degenerates. Nothing like good ol' values to save'em from hell. Have their kids say a prayer for them every day in school. That should make up for most of their sins. Also if they spend more time praying they won't have time to be making unlegitimate children, or even worse, killin them!
Yep, yep. That's how it's supposed to be. Those with good moral values rulling those without. But please don't push for another vote because this time the people may win.
This crap about the electoral college helping the mid-western states is rather humorus considering that what it actually encourages is the opposite. Currently the president can be elected simply by focusing his campaign on the 11 most populous states, which is exactly what Gore attemped, and *might* have succeeded depending on what happens in florida.
The college was created as a method of dealing with the poor communication they had. It prevented a local "hero" from getting all the local votes, and it did a good job of helping a largly uninformed populace elect the best president. Now the populace is informed, we know exactly who is running, and we have the ability to chose by ourselves.
The college makes thousands of votes worthless for controlled states such as California. What is the point of voting Republican there, or Democratic in Texas?? Your vote wouldn't mean a thing. Indeed, because of the college, the pollsters were able to tell us exactly who's votes matter. They gave us a list of states and told us which would be won by each cantidate and which were going to decide the election. Anyone living in one of the "decided" states may as well have stayed home, because their vote was cast weeks before election time.
Make your vote matter, disband the electoral college.
The college was created as a method of dealing with the poor communication they had. It prevented a local "hero" from getting all the local votes, and it did a good job of helping a largly uninformed populace elect the best president. Now the populace is informed, we know exactly who is running, and we have the ability to chose by ourselves.
The college makes thousands of votes worthless for controlled states such as California. What is the point of voting Republican there, or Democratic in Texas?? Your vote wouldn't mean a thing. Indeed, because of the college, the pollsters were able to tell us exactly who's votes matter. They gave us a list of states and told us which would be won by each cantidate and which were going to decide the election. Anyone living in one of the "decided" states may as well have stayed home, because their vote was cast weeks before election time.
Make your vote matter, disband the electoral college.
Superwombat That is patently false. Check the population of New Mexico. Compare it to the ratio of electoral votes with California's population/vote. New Mexico and several other states would never see a candidate.
In a state is considered a lock, thousands of people don't even vote because there candidate has no chance.
This seems to be a problem with the EC system. (though I tend to blame those dumb people who don't care about all the other positions and issues on the ballot)
This seems to be a problem with the EC system. (though I tend to blame those dumb people who don't care about all the other positions and issues on the ballot)
If you are a republican living in a largely democratic state or vise versa, your vote doesn't count because of the electoral college. We need every vote to count equally, so the Electoral college has to go. Will it happen? No. The small states have misproportionate representation now, and they will not let it go.
Actually, I think without EC, candidates would visit more states. Dems would campaign in strongly rep. states because there would still be votes that counted there.
Actually, I think without EC, candidates would visit more states. Dems would campaign in strongly rep. states because there would still be votes that counted there.
XeroxMan:
The problem is not with the Electoral College. That issue is a canard. The principal problems are:
1. Antiquated and poorly administered voting procedures;
2. A major loss of civility between and among the political parties;
3. The flight of intelligent, moral and viable political candidates from politics to other endeavors;
4. The extensive, irrational, and unbalanced influence of our media in the business of politics.
Solve those four issues, and the popular vote and Electoral College vote will result in the same winner-the American people.
Let's solve the real problems, not stick a bandaid on something that shows no sign of injury.
I agree that we shouldn't fiddle with the Electoral College. However, the reasons you give are stupid and sophomoric.
Finally, neither Gore nor Bush will govern effectively if elected. From that perspective, this election will be meaningful only as an historical footnote on election procedures. Forget your tax cut, new Supremes, or ambitious Compasssionate Conservative (what an oxymoron!) agenda. Stasis will be the order of the day for the next four years until the American people get their act together.
The problem is not with the Electoral College. That issue is a canard. The principal problems are:
1. Antiquated and poorly administered voting procedures;
2. A major loss of civility between and among the political parties;
3. The flight of intelligent, moral and viable political candidates from politics to other endeavors;
4. The extensive, irrational, and unbalanced influence of our media in the business of politics.
Solve those four issues, and the popular vote and Electoral College vote will result in the same winner-the American people.
Let's solve the real problems, not stick a bandaid on something that shows no sign of injury.
I agree that we shouldn't fiddle with the Electoral College. However, the reasons you give are stupid and sophomoric.
Finally, neither Gore nor Bush will govern effectively if elected. From that perspective, this election will be meaningful only as an historical footnote on election procedures. Forget your tax cut, new Supremes, or ambitious Compasssionate Conservative (what an oxymoron!) agenda. Stasis will be the order of the day for the next four years until the American people get their act together.
chess9...sit down....I agree with you!:Q
I don't think that the Presidential race is such a problem. It is a House and Senate split almost perfectly down the middle that will be the problem. After Bush takes office, he WILL hve all the authority any President has ever had.
I don't think that the Presidential race is such a problem. It is a House and Senate split almost perfectly down the middle that will be the problem. After Bush takes office, he WILL hve all the authority any President has ever had.
The electoral college wasn't a flawed system at the time, but now it has proven to be out of date. The popular vote is what should matter. I read here someone comment that it gives small states more power. Really though, electoral votes are given out by population size of the state, so how does that give small states an advantage over their popular vote? You can speak of following the law to the letter on this one, but really, how often are laws ignored already? To think that the president was decided on some technicality really is disturbing. I believe a straight vote count would be much better than the current electoral system, even though the popular vote is close, is it right for there to be a president that lost the popular vote? Less people voted for him, should he be there? Also there's another factor, if Nader wasn't in the election, most of his supporters would have voted for Gore. Why can't there simply be an election of the two most vote getting candidates after the initial one? Many other countries use this system so people can show their support of candidates who will not likely win. I'm not a fan of either Gore or Bush, so don't take it that I'm just arguing for Gore. I think that Bush may win by some BS out dated system that should've been changed long ago, but Gore is the one that should be the president. The only reason the current system has survived so long is because the popular vote has typically given the same results as the electoral vote, I really hope that if Bush gets Florida that someone has the sense to not pick him and give a vote to Gore.. it's ridiculous to think that anyone should win the presidency with such a technicality as opposed to voter support.
Xerox man, amen brother, amen...these people don't know what they are talking about.
I most definitely don't know much, but at least i got enough smarts to keep my mouth shut about things i can't fully be informed.
I most definitely don't know much, but at least i got enough smarts to keep my mouth shut about things i can't fully be informed.
Red? Bugs eat your crop again? You're certainly welcome to point out flaws with my idea. I DID, afterall, ask for that very thing now didn't I? I DID, afterall, state that I hadn't thought about it very much and stated myself that I knew something had to be wrong with it because it was so simple. Didn't I? You DID read the entire post didn't you? You HAVE read my previous posts stating that I've never agreed with the Electoral College in my whole life, DIDN'T YOU? How you jump from that to "panty waist" and "Al Gore Campaign scare tactics" and the rest of the drivel you posted is totally beyond me.
As far as I could tell, this thread wasn't about the election at all but rather the merits of the Electoral College, which if I'm not mistaken is exactly what I commented upon, NOT the current election fiasco. If you'll look back over my posts in this thread I believe you'll find that I havn't mentioned this election, Gore, Bush, Conservatives, or Liberals even once. You seem to be especially upset with the outcome or lack thereof in this election for some reason and apparently you have a need to interject it into every debate. You seem to have lost all sense of civility, if you ever had any. Or is it just that time of the month for you again? Woops, I forgot, sorry. You're always on a perpetual period so I should know that can't be the reason. Now, would you like to end the personal attacks or shall we continue? The choice is yours.
I posted some thoughts and ideas in a thread about a topic that I've had some great interest in all my life. I threw out some ideas for input and debate, not personal attack. Perhaps you should re-read my post secondary to your comments. If you'll do so then you might notice that I never said the popular vote "scares the hell out of me" as you imply. Quite the contrary, I stated that "your attitude scares the hell out of me", and it does. I also stated WHY it does. Apparently you didn't bother reading past the first sentence so I'll repost it here for you along with your statement that still scares the hell out of me. That is if you've bothered to read this far.
<< We already have a Constitutional Welfare state as it is with California,the Northwest, the Northeast, the States in the Great Lakes Area and parts of the Southeast carring those states in the Midwest and in the South. Why should we give them more of a say if they aren't even carrying their own wieght in this country? >>
<< Sounds like you're saying, "Hey! We're California. We've got all the people and we've got all the money and we want all the power too. The rest of you sit down, shut up, and let us rule. WE are America, the rest of you are nothing more than pariahs." >>
If you can't figure it out Red, what scares me about that tyrannical attitude is that it smacks a great deal of how slave owners felt towards what they considered to be their chattel among many other reasons. As I've stated more than once in posts at this forum, I have never supported the electoral college and have never understood how someone could loose an election while getting the most votes. It has never seemed fair or right to me. The debate on the subject here though has caused me to reflect on whether or not that belief is wise. I've also had to consider the possibility that maybe those old ghosts that had a hand in founding this nation might have known what they were doing after all.
Who wins this election has no bearing whatsoever on the debate about the Electoral College because like it or hate it for the time being it is constitutional law. I happen to believe in The Rule of Law and in right and wrong whether you agree with the law or not. I also believe that the people have the right to affect change in an orderly and civil fashion without resorting to lawlessness and anarchy.
As for the rest of your personal assault, tell ya what, I'll let it all slide this time as I know you must be coming dangerously close to popping a vessel with the enormous amounts of threads here dealing with the election that you must attend to, and I certainly wouldn't want having a hand in your demise on my conscience. If you feel the need to continue to rant and rave then by all means please do so. I'll just watch and pray that you don't do irreparable damage to your health as I hear those bunions you get on your rear from sitting in a chair drooling all day are murderously painful.
As far as I could tell, this thread wasn't about the election at all but rather the merits of the Electoral College, which if I'm not mistaken is exactly what I commented upon, NOT the current election fiasco. If you'll look back over my posts in this thread I believe you'll find that I havn't mentioned this election, Gore, Bush, Conservatives, or Liberals even once. You seem to be especially upset with the outcome or lack thereof in this election for some reason and apparently you have a need to interject it into every debate. You seem to have lost all sense of civility, if you ever had any. Or is it just that time of the month for you again? Woops, I forgot, sorry. You're always on a perpetual period so I should know that can't be the reason. Now, would you like to end the personal attacks or shall we continue? The choice is yours.
I posted some thoughts and ideas in a thread about a topic that I've had some great interest in all my life. I threw out some ideas for input and debate, not personal attack. Perhaps you should re-read my post secondary to your comments. If you'll do so then you might notice that I never said the popular vote "scares the hell out of me" as you imply. Quite the contrary, I stated that "your attitude scares the hell out of me", and it does. I also stated WHY it does. Apparently you didn't bother reading past the first sentence so I'll repost it here for you along with your statement that still scares the hell out of me. That is if you've bothered to read this far.
<< We already have a Constitutional Welfare state as it is with California,the Northwest, the Northeast, the States in the Great Lakes Area and parts of the Southeast carring those states in the Midwest and in the South. Why should we give them more of a say if they aren't even carrying their own wieght in this country? >>
<< Sounds like you're saying, "Hey! We're California. We've got all the people and we've got all the money and we want all the power too. The rest of you sit down, shut up, and let us rule. WE are America, the rest of you are nothing more than pariahs." >>
If you can't figure it out Red, what scares me about that tyrannical attitude is that it smacks a great deal of how slave owners felt towards what they considered to be their chattel among many other reasons. As I've stated more than once in posts at this forum, I have never supported the electoral college and have never understood how someone could loose an election while getting the most votes. It has never seemed fair or right to me. The debate on the subject here though has caused me to reflect on whether or not that belief is wise. I've also had to consider the possibility that maybe those old ghosts that had a hand in founding this nation might have known what they were doing after all.
Who wins this election has no bearing whatsoever on the debate about the Electoral College because like it or hate it for the time being it is constitutional law. I happen to believe in The Rule of Law and in right and wrong whether you agree with the law or not. I also believe that the people have the right to affect change in an orderly and civil fashion without resorting to lawlessness and anarchy.
As for the rest of your personal assault, tell ya what, I'll let it all slide this time as I know you must be coming dangerously close to popping a vessel with the enormous amounts of threads here dealing with the election that you must attend to, and I certainly wouldn't want having a hand in your demise on my conscience. If you feel the need to continue to rant and rave then by all means please do so. I'll just watch and pray that you don't do irreparable damage to your health as I hear those bunions you get on your rear from sitting in a chair drooling all day are murderously painful.
And I would appreciate it if you would lay off the personal attacks. Tit for tat will get us nowhere. If you want to debate the Electoral College then do so. Keep your biased stereotypical opinions and lies about someone else's character and positions to yourself. YOU don't appreciate MY stunt? If I didn't know that you really believed that I'd be laughing. And YES, like it or not, the attitude as expressed in your statement does indeed smack of tyranny and a total disregard for other citizens and states in this supposed union. The South Dakotans, the New Mexicans, the Coloradans, and even those from Utah and Mississippi are as much a member of this nation as you and your beloved holy state and the others that you purport are supporting all the rest of us leeches. I've heard that sentiment many many times before. Only it was never about states but races of people.
Red -- <<...the Federal Coiffures...>>
We have official U.S. Government hair stylists???? Now that is really getting too intrusive in our private lives. :|
I think the word you wanted was coffers.
We have official U.S. Government hair stylists???? Now that is really getting too intrusive in our private lives. :|
I think the word you wanted was coffers.
I've been called a lot of things but I'll have to say that that's a first for politically correct. In case you ain't figured it out yet, I'm NOT defending the Electoral College. I never have believed in it, but now I'm wondering if I'm right to not do so.
As far as taxes go, states with larger populations do indeed pay more. By the same token they get more also. I don't think that I've ever seen an eight lane freeway with multiple interchanges in the middle of a midwestern prairie, nor a subway system in rural Alabama for that matter. I just have never liked the attitude of the haves versus the have nots and which one matters more. The answer is, NEITHER. IF the Electoral College at this time is set up in such a way that it prevents one or a handful of states from dominating national policy then it may be a good idea afterall. I've never supported it because it never seemed right for someone to lose that more people voted for. I don't know what kind of system you could come up with though that would be fair to everyone AND each State.
Maybe I'm not being very clear on what my present concern is and as I said I'm having to re-evaluate whether or not my life-long position on the idea is logical. Is one man one vote as right and fair as it actually seems to be? I don't know, now. I thought I did. I view each State of the union the same as each voter within a county or each county within a State. Each "part" is no less important than any other. The only reason we have a United States is because each individual state saw a need for one central authority to represent the common concerns of each State. We've perverted the hell out that notion since then though. I don't know. How could you do this and yet preserve the sovereignty (sp) of each State? You have to do something that preserves the notion that each State still has a voice and still matters otherwise you may end up with all of the Bible Belters moving to California. Ever thought about that?
As far as taxes go, states with larger populations do indeed pay more. By the same token they get more also. I don't think that I've ever seen an eight lane freeway with multiple interchanges in the middle of a midwestern prairie, nor a subway system in rural Alabama for that matter. I just have never liked the attitude of the haves versus the have nots and which one matters more. The answer is, NEITHER. IF the Electoral College at this time is set up in such a way that it prevents one or a handful of states from dominating national policy then it may be a good idea afterall. I've never supported it because it never seemed right for someone to lose that more people voted for. I don't know what kind of system you could come up with though that would be fair to everyone AND each State.
Maybe I'm not being very clear on what my present concern is and as I said I'm having to re-evaluate whether or not my life-long position on the idea is logical. Is one man one vote as right and fair as it actually seems to be? I don't know, now. I thought I did. I view each State of the union the same as each voter within a county or each county within a State. Each "part" is no less important than any other. The only reason we have a United States is because each individual state saw a need for one central authority to represent the common concerns of each State. We've perverted the hell out that notion since then though. I don't know. How could you do this and yet preserve the sovereignty (sp) of each State? You have to do something that preserves the notion that each State still has a voice and still matters otherwise you may end up with all of the Bible Belters moving to California. Ever thought about that?
Hey I have to agree with the current system. It has stood the test of time and besides we are a group of states that has a federal systemt to tie those together and provide for the good of all the citizens.
That means that the states should be responsible for delivering the opinion of the citizens of that state. It allows a state such as Rhode Island to have a fair and equitable vote just as California. While not equal in total voting power they are equal in votes in proprotion to the number of citizens they represent. I have to believe that if a total majority rules system was instituted than that balance would be offset since a large state would yeild a greater amount of power proportionaly than would a small state.
Just my opinion
That means that the states should be responsible for delivering the opinion of the citizens of that state. It allows a state such as Rhode Island to have a fair and equitable vote just as California. While not equal in total voting power they are equal in votes in proprotion to the number of citizens they represent. I have to believe that if a total majority rules system was instituted than that balance would be offset since a large state would yeild a greater amount of power proportionaly than would a small state.
Just my opinion
"Who are we to decide that the electoral college is a "flawed" system?"
We are The People (as in "we the people...", we can elect representatives, write to our representatives, pointing out that communications and technology are light-years from what the founding fathers had, and that the original reason for the electoral college was already changed by the 12th amendment anyway. We can lobby for a standard electronic voting method, so that everyone uses the same equipment, and can connect through internet or satellite to central vote counting database computers (no paper involved) with federal subsidies for those unable to afford new equipment.
In short, the constitution itself gives us the authority to amend it as times change. The fact that we don't bother anymore and try to do by law, what should be done by amendment to the constitution, is more a sign of our nostalgia for the constitution as a historical document, than a sign that it doesn't need to be amended.
Who we are, are Citizens of the United States of America, with the right to vote for representatives to the Congressional and Executive branches of Government, and the right to demand representation in return for our taxation. I wish I could link the National Anthem to play in the background while you read this!
We are The People (as in "we the people..."
, we can elect representatives, write to our representatives, pointing out that communications and technology are light-years from what the founding fathers had, and that the original reason for the electoral college was already changed by the 12th amendment anyway. We can lobby for a standard electronic voting method, so that everyone uses the same equipment, and can connect through internet or satellite to central vote counting database computers (no paper involved) with federal subsidies for those unable to afford new equipment.In short, the constitution itself gives us the authority to amend it as times change. The fact that we don't bother anymore and try to do by law, what should be done by amendment to the constitution, is more a sign of our nostalgia for the constitution as a historical document, than a sign that it doesn't need to be amended.
Who we are, are Citizens of the United States of America, with the right to vote for representatives to the Congressional and Executive branches of Government, and the right to demand representation in return for our taxation. I wish I could link the National Anthem to play in the background while you read this!
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 Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter