The Electoral College must go!

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: Zebo
And I'm not sure why people like to quibble over definitions, a constitutional republic is a type of democracy. That it's not a "direct" democracy does'nt change that fact every branch of our government derives it's power from "majority rule" by definition is a democracy.

If every branch derived it's power from "majority rule", then we wouldn't have benefits for the minority. This is a fundamental difference between a republic and a democracy, and is an example of why a reupblic is *not* a form of democracy. They overlap in many ways, but not in this fashion.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: InfectedMushroom

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: JoeFahey
I am not saying this in protest that Bush shouldn't have been elected for his second term. I am saying this because it takes away the purpose of voting. As an example, Al Gore had over half a million more votes than President Bush, this is what should make him president. I know that the reason is so candidates won't be campaigning in big cities, but if thats what they must do, than let them! It's not like the rest of the country is completely isolated. Democracy is a government run by the peoples' ideas, and majority. If the majority of people's ideas/beliefs fall under one candidate for president, than that person should be elected. Popular vote should decide the president....If nothing else, we will be able to get some more sleep on election night!

I'd bet that if you start taking away state's rights by getting rid of the electoral college, there will be a serious move towards secession.

It may sound like a good idea now, but how much food *can* you grow in California, Florida, and New York?

Uh.... California grows tons of food. What are you talking about?

Uh... enough to support everyone else in Flordia and New York? If you believe that, you're silly.

Don't they get their water from other states, too?

uhhhh, you need to do a little reading and research. california grows enough food to feed half the population of the US.
southern california gets a lot of their water from northern califonia.

Pull the plug on the Colorado River and see how much of Southern California can survive.
They need the water to grow food and support their lifestyle.

Also, where does most of their fuel come from (electricity/oil/natural gas).

California may have a large economic impact/base, however it is very dependent on raw materials being imported to it.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: glugglug
I agree - electoral college serves no purpose today (it did 200 years ago when communicating votes across the country was more of an issue). See us libs want the EC to go even when our candidate (officially) doesn't get the majority vote.

Not this lib...

Is there something about the middle/southern US the DNC hates so much that they can't re-work strategies to secure these states?

It's not a liberal / conservative idea - it's a big picture/small picture idea. I don't think everybody gets the big picture.

 

[Fingolfin269]

The EC is fine.

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
It's purpose is to prevent the high density states and urban areas from running roughshod over the little guy.

And it does it very well.

How does changing to a popular vote to elect a President "run roughshod over the little guy"? That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. We're not proposing a popular vote to force you to have steamy man-on-man sex, or forcing your wife to have an abortion. We're proposing it to elect the leader of OUR country (the UNITED States of America).

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee
It's not a liberal / conservative idea - it's a big picture/small picture idea. I don't think everybody gets the big picture.

That the vast middle of the country hates gays?

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee
It's not a liberal / conservative idea - it's a big picture/small picture idea. I don't think everybody gets the big picture.

That the vast middle of the country hates gays?

Huh? What does this have to do with the electoral college?

 

[BunLengthHotDog]

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
It's purpose is to prevent the high density states and urban areas from running roughshod over the little guy.

And it does it very well.

How does changing to a popular vote to elect a President "run roughshod over the little guy"? That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. We're not proposing a popular vote to force you to have steamy man-on-man sex, or forcing your wife to have an abortion. We're proposing it to elect the leader of OUR country (the UNITED States of America).

All it would take is for a candidate to corner a particular section, or sections of the country and that would be it. You mold your campaign to the liking of highly populated areas, and you can essentially buy the presidency. the EC prevents this.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
It's purpose is to prevent the high density states and urban areas from running roughshod over the little guy.

And it does it very well.

How does changing to a popular vote to elect a President "run roughshod over the little guy"? That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. We're not proposing a popular vote to force you to have steamy man-on-man sex, or forcing your wife to have an abortion. We're proposing it to elect the leader of OUR country (the UNITED States of America).

Do you really not understand the issue of State's Rights?

That should be the UNITED STATES of America

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee
It's not a liberal / conservative idea - it's a big picture/small picture idea. I don't think everybody gets the big picture.

That the vast middle of the country hates gays?

Huh? What does this have to do with the electoral college?

I thought you were referring to b0mberman's question as to why the Democrats can't win the middle/southern states.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: Zebo
And I'm not sure why people like to quibble over definitions, a constitutional republic is a type of democracy. That it's not a "direct" democracy does'nt change that fact every branch of our government derives it's power from "majority rule" by definition is a democracy.

If every branch derived it's power from "majority rule", then we wouldn't have benefits for the minority. This is a fundamental difference between a republic and a democracy, and is an example of why a reupblic is *not* a form of democracy. They overlap in many ways, but not in this fashion.

No there are gurantees for the minority but a democracy we are since every branch of government is put in place by majority rule. You are confusing mob rule aka direct democracy with democracy.

de·moc·ra·cy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-mkr-s)
n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies
1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4. Majority rule.
5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: glugglug
I agree - electoral college serves no purpose today (it did 200 years ago when communicating votes across the country was more of an issue). See us libs want the EC to go even when our candidate (officially) doesn't get the majority vote.

Not this lib...

Is there something about the middle/southern US the DNC hates so much that they can't re-work strategies to secure these states?

It's not a liberal / conservative idea - it's a big picture/small picture idea. I don't think everybody gets the big picture.

Yes, the EC is about more than just liberals and conservatives, was created well before the forming of our modern parties; I understand that much.

But I doubt the left would be complaining if there were sprinklings of blue amid the sea of red from the right edge of California clear to the Atlantic.

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee
It's not a liberal / conservative idea - it's a big picture/small picture idea. I don't think everybody gets the big picture.

That the vast middle of the country hates gays?

Yes, that certainly makes it easier for DNC leaders to sleep at night, doesn't it?

"W-W-We're not failures! It's just because those damn flag-waving, homophobic, xenophobes are too stupid to understand that we're right and they're wrong about everything!"

 

[glugglug]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: glugglug
I agree - electoral college serves no purpose today (it did 200 years ago when communicating votes across the country was more of an issue). See us libs want the EC to go even when our candidate (officially) doesn't get the majority vote.

I don't understand how protecting state's rights serves no purpose.

Any benefit of communicating votes is solely a side effect, because that wasn't the purpose of it. Our forefathers actually had a lot of good foresight when they designed the system.

When they designed the system, the votes per state were based on number of people in the house of reps (proportional to population), and the small states bitched because they never had any effect with only 1 electoral vote especially when there used to be more than 2 parties -- all the 1 vote states combined would be less than 1 big state. So they gave all the states 2 more votes to go with the senators, which makes individual votes count more in small states as the "Great Compromise". GOP-like doublespeak name really because it sucks.

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
It's purpose is to prevent the high density states and urban areas from running roughshod over the little guy.

And it does it very well.

How does changing to a popular vote to elect a President "run roughshod over the little guy"? That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. We're not proposing a popular vote to force you to have steamy man-on-man sex, or forcing your wife to have an abortion. We're proposing it to elect the leader of OUR country (the UNITED States of America).

Do you really not understand the issue of State's Rights?

That should be the UNITED STATES of America

Why don't you answer my question about your comment? Is it realistic to think as someone living in Mayretta that there's some scary liberals up north who'll impose all these horrible things upon you and your loved ones?

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Really? They grow everything they need to live there? That's interesting. I guess they don't import any food, then, do they?

Southern Cal. gets a lot of their water from northern Cal., but not all of it - heck, they don't even get enough for their dams to help produce enough energy for the state.

Besides, nobody has figured out what to do for NY and FL. Or is California to go this on it's own?

What's the point of this bickering? You say if CA, NY or FL left the United States right away, they would be majorly screwed. Well, I hate to break it to you but the US economy would collapse without those states. Screwage goes both ways.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: Zebo

No there are gurantees for the minority but a democracy we are since every branch of government is put in place by majority rule. You are confusing mob rule aka direct democracy with democracy.

I'm curious to see how you can directly correlate "gurantees for the minority" with "majority rule". That dog don't hunt.

What's to keep a "majority rule" government from regularly changing every structure of our governemntal system? If the majority does, indeed, rule, there is no "rule" that can stop them.

I respectfully disagree with your opinion.

 

[Feldenak]

Originally posted by: Valvoline6
I like the Electoral College and it's purpose. I am not in favor of changing it.

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: BunLengthHotDog

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
It's purpose is to prevent the high density states and urban areas from running roughshod over the little guy.

And it does it very well.

How does changing to a popular vote to elect a President "run roughshod over the little guy"? That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. We're not proposing a popular vote to force you to have steamy man-on-man sex, or forcing your wife to have an abortion. We're proposing it to elect the leader of OUR country (the UNITED States of America).

All it would take is for a candidate to corner a particular section, or sections of the country and that would be it. You mold your campaign to the liking of highly populated areas, and you can essentially buy the presidency. the EC prevents this.

And how does that differ from the swing state system we have now? What we have now is the candidates running to a select few states (no more than 10) and molding their campaign to the liking of those swing states, and they do essentially buy the presidency. The conservative voice in California and New York isn't heard, and neither is the progressive voice in Texas.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Really? They grow everything they need to live there? That's interesting. I guess they don't import any food, then, do they?

Southern Cal. gets a lot of their water from northern Cal., but not all of it - heck, they don't even get enough for their dams to help produce enough energy for the state.

Besides, nobody has figured out what to do for NY and FL. Or is California to go this on it's own?

What's the point of this bickering? You say if CA, NY or FL left the United States right away, they would be majorly screwed. Well, I hate to break it to you but the US economy would collapse without those states. Screwage goes both ways.

Thanks for proving my point.

By the way, it wouldn't be CA, NY, and FL leaving - it would be the no-longer-represented states. After all, they had no say in the election of the president.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
It's purpose is to prevent the high density states and urban areas from running roughshod over the little guy.

And it does it very well.

How does changing to a popular vote to elect a President "run roughshod over the little guy"? That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. We're not proposing a popular vote to force you to have steamy man-on-man sex, or forcing your wife to have an abortion. We're proposing it to elect the leader of OUR country (the UNITED States of America).

Do you really not understand the issue of State's Rights?

That should be the UNITED STATES of America

Why don't you answer my question about your comment? Is it realistic to think as someone living in Mayretta that there's some scary liberals up north who'll impose all these horrible things upon you and your loved ones?

What, you live in Buckhead or Midtown?

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Why don't you answer my question about your comment? Is it realistic to think as someone living in Mayretta that there's some scary liberals up north who'll impose all these horrible things upon you and your loved ones?

I'd consider your question if you would somehow tell me how it relates to the electoral college, which is the topic of this post.

Thanks for checking out my profile, BTW.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: Zebo

No there are gurantees for the minority but a democracy we are since every branch of government is put in place by majority rule. You are confusing mob rule aka direct democracy with democracy.

I'm curious to see how you can directly correlate "gurantees for the minority" with "majority rule". That dog don't hunt.

What's to keep a "majority rule" government from regularly changing every structure of our governemntal system? If the majority does, indeed, rule, there is no "rule" that can stop them.

I respectfully disagree with your opinion.

Absolutly nothing. Which is why the bill of rights has been watered down to almost nothing, all steming from democracy.

I should have said "supposed guarntees" for the minority since it's harder but not impossible to upsurp peoples rights and consitutional guantees if the people will it..

 

[EagleKeeper]

Each state chooses how they wish to be represented. It is the political parties that set up the winner take all in the state.

Let each state choose how they wish to be represented. If the state allowed proportional representation, then they would be coming close to mirroring the popular vote within the state.

It boils down to states rights on how they wish to participate in the political system of the United States

Each state has its own requirements.

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Why don't you answer my question about your comment? Is it realistic to think as someone living in Mayretta that there's some scary liberals up north who'll impose all these horrible things upon you and your loved ones?

I'd consider your question if you would somehow tell me how it relates to the electoral college, which is the topic of this post.

Thanks for checking out my profile, BTW.

Whoops, I thought you made the "roughshod over the little guys" comment. I think the framers of the Constitution can be wrong. They were wrong about counting black slaves as 3/5 of a person. They were wrong about making the Vice President the guy who lost to the President.

 

[Feldenak]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Each state chooses how they wish to be represented. It is the political parties that set up the winner take all in the state.

Let each state choose how they wish to be represented. If the state allowed proportional representation, then they would be coming close to mirroring the popular vote within the state.

It boils down to states rights on how they wish to participate in the political system of the United States

Each state has its own requirements.

Wasn't it Colorado that just voted against proportional electoral votes?