Hehe.
I wrote in another thread last week, that if Gore won the college and Bush the popular vote...that Bush should be the President.
Aint gonna happen...but I stick to that philosophy.
Maybe some of the electoral voters will do the right thing in December....but I doubt it.
I wrote in another thread last week, that if Gore won the college and Bush the popular vote...that Bush should be the President.
Aint gonna happen...but I stick to that philosophy.
Maybe some of the electoral voters will do the right thing in December....but I doubt it.
The electoral college will never be repealed.
Mind you that I'm not arguing about whether it should or not. Just That it won't. Why?
It takes a 2/3 vote of the states to amend the constitution.
However, the small states would have to give up power if they went to a popular vote system.
Al least 1/3 of the small states would not vote to give up their power.
Mind you that I'm not arguing about whether it should or not. Just That it won't. Why?
It takes a 2/3 vote of the states to amend the constitution.
However, the small states would have to give up power if they went to a popular vote system.
Al least 1/3 of the small states would not vote to give up their power.
Yes!! Kill it so that we can have more than 2 parties to vote for and they'll all have a decent chance to win!!
BOORDA COUNT! BOORDA COUNT!!
amish
BOORDA COUNT! BOORDA COUNT!!
amish
This is about the fifth EC thread.
It takes an Amendment to the Constitution and the small states will have none of it.
Plus, we live in a Republic not a Democracy.(Actually a mix of the two)
Ancient Athens was a Democracy, we are not.
It takes an Amendment to the Constitution and the small states will have none of it.
Plus, we live in a Republic not a Democracy.(Actually a mix of the two)
Ancient Athens was a Democracy, we are not.
the electoral college was instituted because our forefathers did not believe that the average joe had the political knowledge or care about who was president...they didn't know the issues and couldn't find them out
people are still this way...only 25% of the population votes..and most are old...other people just don't care..and don't have the knowledge about the issues
i agree that the electoral college is a bit messed up..but i dont feel that everyone pays enough attention to the politics to care
people are still this way...only 25% of the population votes..and most are old...other people just don't care..and don't have the knowledge about the issues
i agree that the electoral college is a bit messed up..but i dont feel that everyone pays enough attention to the politics to care
AudioBitch,
The establishment of the Electoral College had absolutely nothing to do with the Founding Father's opinion of the "average Joe". What history class did you attend?
Russ, NCNE
The establishment of the Electoral College had absolutely nothing to do with the Founding Father's opinion of the "average Joe". What history class did you attend?
Russ, NCNE
Russ:
<<The establishment of the Electoral College had absolutely nothing to do with the Founding Father's opinion of the "average Joe". What history class did you attend?>>
I have a very good friend who is a Political Scientist/Harvard Social Studies Professor and he has told me time and time again how the founding fathers had no trust for the "average joe" to decide the presidency. I never thought it mattered until this election, but, apparently that's what it's come down to.
<<The establishment of the Electoral College had absolutely nothing to do with the Founding Father's opinion of the "average Joe". What history class did you attend?>>
I have a very good friend who is a Political Scientist/Harvard Social Studies Professor and he has told me time and time again how the founding fathers had no trust for the "average joe" to decide the presidency. I never thought it mattered until this election, but, apparently that's what it's come down to.
Russ,
I must say that it's not the first time I've heard that argument. I feel even if true, that takes a back seat to the balance of power between large states and small states.
I must say that it's not the first time I've heard that argument. I feel even if true, that takes a back seat to the balance of power between large states and small states.
If Bush trusts the people so much, let the peoples vote determine the next President.
That ain't gunna happen,is it?
That ain't gunna happen,is it?
fdiskboy,
It is the balance of power that was the reasoning behind the EC, not the perceived stupidity of the "average Joe".
Russ, NCNE
It is the balance of power that was the reasoning behind the EC, not the perceived stupidity of the "average Joe".
Russ, NCNE
The founders of our country instituted the Electoral College for two seperate reasons.
1) They wanted to make sure that the elected President was a President of the nation not just the largest states.
2) The founders wanted to control radicalism. Radicals create instability and one of the keys to our government is its stability. Our government can change with the times but, it is very difficult and very time consuming to do so.
Electoral College is not an affront to average citizens intelligence as some here would have you believe; it's is just another "check and balance".
Keep railing against it if you like but, it won't be going anywhere in a million years.
KingHam
1) They wanted to make sure that the elected President was a President of the nation not just the largest states.
2) The founders wanted to control radicalism. Radicals create instability and one of the keys to our government is its stability. Our government can change with the times but, it is very difficult and very time consuming to do so.
Electoral College is not an affront to average citizens intelligence as some here would have you believe; it's is just another "check and balance".
Keep railing against it if you like but, it won't be going anywhere in a million years.
KingHam
YOUR type of radicalism is what the founding fathers wanted to prevent. The radicalism of arrogance and closed-mindedness. You can't see that there ARE flaws in this system. They made our country the way it is so that things COULD change, they didn't think that in 200 years we would still be using the archaic practices of then.
We cannot get rid of the EC without having some other system in place. It is there so that every state has a voice in who chooses the president of this country.
I got to thinking about it, and while it seems unfair that a candidate can lose an election eventhough he recieved the most popular vote, it would be even more unfair to discount 90% of the union simply because their states don't have the population infrastructure that Texas, California, New York, Florida have.
I got to thinking about it, and while it seems unfair that a candidate can lose an election eventhough he recieved the most popular vote, it would be even more unfair to discount 90% of the union simply because their states don't have the population infrastructure that Texas, California, New York, Florida have.
Why are we counting the vote in terms of the states? That's what I don't understand. Whoever said the states deserve equal say in the union? More tax dollars come from California, name just about any Federal program and more of it goes to the big states. So who's to say that they don't deserve more of a say? If you ask me every person, no matter where they live, should have equal vote.
I vote that we rebuild the whole system so that there is no question whether it is fair or not. This years election just goes to show how backwards our system really is, and I am not just talking the latter part of the campain.
Here are some statistics for those of you who agree with the electoral college. These are all very real statistics.
It is possible for a candidate to get 180million votes and his opponent get 50million votes with the electoral college and the person with the 50million could actually take the election. Thats WITHOUT the appointed electors who cast the votes changing their votes to what they want. In other words they would have to give all the electoral votes to whoever got the majority of votes in a STATE. Think about that. You can actually loose the election even though you triple your opponents popular vote according to this college bullshit. I heard these statistics on the radio.
It is possible for a candidate to get 180million votes and his opponent get 50million votes with the electoral college and the person with the 50million could actually take the election. Thats WITHOUT the appointed electors who cast the votes changing their votes to what they want. In other words they would have to give all the electoral votes to whoever got the majority of votes in a STATE. Think about that. You can actually loose the election even though you triple your opponents popular vote according to this college bullshit. I heard these statistics on the radio.
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,100
- 5,640
- 126
I'm a damned foreigner and until last night I didn't even know what the EC was. Wow, that's really messed up! What I don't get is that people claim that the popular vote would be unfair to smaller states. If you consider how the EC works(larger states have more votes)it seems to already render that arguement moot. Add to that that the Electors have the ability to change their votes and I'm quite perplexed.
To all those worried about "morons", umm those "morons" have the same rights, priviledges, and responsibilies as you. Whose to say, those "morons" could be you, depending on how the Electors view things.
and until last night I didn't even know what the EC was. Wow, that's really messed up! What I don't get is that people claim that the popular vote would be unfair to smaller states. If you consider how the EC works(larger states have more votes)it seems to already render that arguement moot. Add to that that the Electors have the ability to change their votes and I'm quite perplexed.To all those worried about "morons", umm those "morons" have the same rights, priviledges, and responsibilies as you. Whose to say, those "morons" could be you, depending on how the Electors view things.
konichiwa,
<< YOUR type of radicalism is what the founding fathers wanted to prevent. The radicalism of arrogance and closed-mindedness. >>
Your outburst belies your ignorance of the Constitution and of the Founding Father's intentions.
<< You can't see that there ARE flaws in this system. >>
When did I say that the system was perfect? Electoral College isn't perfect but, it's the best that we have and it has worked just as it was intended for well over 200 years.
<< They made our country the way it is so that things COULD change, they didn't think that in 200 years we would still be using the archaic practices of then. >>
But, they made it extremely difficult to change. There is a reason that the Constitution has only been ammended 26 times in the last 200+ years. It's very difficult to get 2/3 of the people and 75% of states to agree on anything. There must be overwhelming support for change and in this issue there is not.
<< Why are we counting the vote in terms of the states? That's what I don't understand. Whoever said the states deserve equal say in the union? More tax dollars come from California, name just about any Federal program and more of it goes to the big states. So who's to say that they don't deserve more of a say? If you ask me every person, no matter where they live, should have equal vote. >>
Time to go over "checks and balances" one more time. The Constitution mandates that the number of electors be based on state population. The number of electors in each state is redetermined every 10 years via a national census. Thus states with more people get more electors. For example, California has 54 electors. In order to make sure that the President represents all states; each state has at least 3 electors. Mathematically speaking everyone's voice is heard equally.
veryape,
<< It is possible for a candidate to get 180million votes and his opponent get 50million votes with the electoral college and the person with the 50million could actually take the election. Thats WITHOUT the appointed electors who cast the votes changing their votes to what they want. In other words they would have to give all the electoral votes to whoever got the majority of votes in a STATE. Think about that. You can actually loose the election even though you triple your opponents popular vote according to this college bullshit. I heard these statistics on the radio. >>
No these are not very real statistics. This is a possible scenario and one that is not at all likely. It's merely an attempt by a local yokel to rile people up and increase his ratings.
KingHam
<< YOUR type of radicalism is what the founding fathers wanted to prevent. The radicalism of arrogance and closed-mindedness. >>
Your outburst belies your ignorance of the Constitution and of the Founding Father's intentions.
<< You can't see that there ARE flaws in this system. >>
When did I say that the system was perfect? Electoral College isn't perfect but, it's the best that we have and it has worked just as it was intended for well over 200 years.
<< They made our country the way it is so that things COULD change, they didn't think that in 200 years we would still be using the archaic practices of then. >>
But, they made it extremely difficult to change. There is a reason that the Constitution has only been ammended 26 times in the last 200+ years. It's very difficult to get 2/3 of the people and 75% of states to agree on anything. There must be overwhelming support for change and in this issue there is not.
<< Why are we counting the vote in terms of the states? That's what I don't understand. Whoever said the states deserve equal say in the union? More tax dollars come from California, name just about any Federal program and more of it goes to the big states. So who's to say that they don't deserve more of a say? If you ask me every person, no matter where they live, should have equal vote. >>
Time to go over "checks and balances" one more time. The Constitution mandates that the number of electors be based on state population. The number of electors in each state is redetermined every 10 years via a national census. Thus states with more people get more electors. For example, California has 54 electors. In order to make sure that the President represents all states; each state has at least 3 electors. Mathematically speaking everyone's voice is heard equally.
veryape,
<< It is possible for a candidate to get 180million votes and his opponent get 50million votes with the electoral college and the person with the 50million could actually take the election. Thats WITHOUT the appointed electors who cast the votes changing their votes to what they want. In other words they would have to give all the electoral votes to whoever got the majority of votes in a STATE. Think about that. You can actually loose the election even though you triple your opponents popular vote according to this college bullshit. I heard these statistics on the radio. >>
No these are not very real statistics. This is a possible scenario and one that is not at all likely. It's merely an attempt by a local yokel to rile people up and increase his ratings.
KingHam
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 9K
-
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
Facebook
Twitter