Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted September 23, 2004 Posted September 23, 2004 Without the Electoral College, eight or nine states would call the shots. A Presidential election would eventually consist of candidates telling the citizenry of those States how much money they would extract from citizens of the other states, if only they vote for me. The Union would break up. 43337[/snapback] No, because the other 41 states would MORE THAN crush the other states by sum of population, hence my comment about the smaller states. Who CARES where the population is... we are ALL Americans, whether we live in Washington, Maine, Florida, or Arizona, etc!!!
DC Tom Posted September 23, 2004 Posted September 23, 2004 Hey, I try!!! We would have really been sucking if Edison had given up on his filament search for the light bulb... but I'm no Edison, and this board isn't THAT world-changing... JUST KIDDING! 43210[/snapback] Yeah...and then I post lucid and common-sense points, and you ignore me.
Adam Posted September 23, 2004 Posted September 23, 2004 There are a myriad of reasons why the Electoral College was created and why its still relevant today, the primary one being so that every vote DOES count and so that candidates are forced to pay attention to not just NY, FL the more populated states. Read up on the subject and then get back to us. 42643[/snapback] Republican votes will not count in New York, and Democratic votes will not count in Tennessee. Independent votes carry no weight. Only selected votes count in Florida.
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted September 23, 2004 Posted September 23, 2004 Yeah...and then I post lucid and common-sense points, and you ignore me. 43365[/snapback] Sorry if I did... I will pay closer attention, I promise. I am a very reasonable person, I assure you
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted September 23, 2004 Posted September 23, 2004 Republican votes will not count in New York, and Democratic votes will not count in Tennessee. Independent votes carry no weight. Only selected votes count in Florida. 43373[/snapback] I have been trying to defend that until I am blue in the face, but I have turned purple!
stuckincincy Posted September 23, 2004 Posted September 23, 2004 No, because the other 41 states would MORE THAN crush the other states by sum of population, hence my comment about the smaller states. Who CARES where the population is... we are ALL Americans, whether we live in Washington, Maine, Florida, or Arizona, etc!!! 43358[/snapback] No, not in the short term. In the other nine states, there will be people choosing one party's candidate or the other. You assume a unanamity that belies human nature. Over time, the population of 41 States will be sufficiently ticked off over the dominance of the nine as their tax dollor increasingly flow out-of-state, they will act as one voice, the break-up will occur. It would take a few Presidential cycles, but things would boil up eventually. Resentment by the citizens of the so-called "donor" states already exists...and I have been an advocate of a break-up of the Union for a long time. Grow your own corn and mine your own coal and defend your own state. EDIT: Just for fun, I add this...but it could happen. We have a State Militia provision. AFAIK, no Federal law exists to prevent its invocation, and even so, if it came time to invoke our State Constitution in this matter, Federal law will be the least of our worries. The Ohio Constitution: Article IX 1 Who shall perform military duty. All citizens, residents of this state, being seventeen years of age, and under the age of sixty-seven years, shall be subject to enrollment in the militia and the performance of military duty, in such manner, not incompatible with the Constitution and laws of the United States, as may be prescribed by law. (As amended Nov. 7, 1961.) The Ohio Revised Code: 5923.01 Composition and organization of state militia; definitions; troop limitation. (A) The Ohio organized militia consist of all citizens of the state who are not permanently handicapped, as handicapped is defined in section 4112.01 of the Revised Code, who are more than seventeen years, and not more than sixty-seven years, of age unless exempted as provided in section 5923.02 of the Revised Code, and who are members of one of the following: (1) The Ohio national guard; (2) The Ohio naval militia; (3) The Ohio military reserve. (4) The Ohio national guard, including both the Ohio air national guard and the Ohio army national guard, the Ohio naval militia, and the Ohio military reserve are known collectively as the Ohio organized militia. The Ohio naval militia and the Ohio military reserve are known collectively as the state defense forces. (D) The unorganized militia consists of those citizens of the state as described in division (A) of this section who are not members of the Ohio organized militia. (E) No troops shall be maintained in time of peace other than as authorized and prescribed under the "Act of August 10, 1956," 70A Stat. 596, 32 U.S.C.A. 101 to 716. This limitation does not affect the right of the state to the use of its organized militia within its borders in time of peace as prescribed by the laws of this state. This section does not prevent the organization and maintenance of police.
erynthered Posted September 23, 2004 Posted September 23, 2004 A good point to remember while we try to nurse secular democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq where the vast majority of the people are not interested in either a secular government or democracy. 43110[/snapback] You dont't see the irony in that statement? Any democratic government that consistently permits a minority to hold sway over a majority is a system that contains the seeds of its own destruction. Like maybe in our Country?
DC Tom Posted September 23, 2004 Posted September 23, 2004 A good point to remember while we try to nurse secular democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq where the vast majority of the people are not interested in either a secular government or democracy. 43110[/snapback] Actually, in Afghanistan the vast majority of people aren't interested in a centralized government, period. The people against the US-installed government are the same ones against the Taleban (which, by the way, was disliked by the majority of Afghanis) are the same ones against the Soviets...and so on back to the British occupation. They're not anti-democracy or anti-secularism so much as wedded to their traditional tribal organization.
Alaska Darin Posted September 23, 2004 Posted September 23, 2004 Actually, in Afghanistan the vast majority of people aren't interested in a centralized government, period. The people against the US-installed government are the same ones against the Taleban (which, by the way, was disliked by the majority of Afghanis) are the same ones against the Soviets...and so on back to the British occupation. They're not anti-democracy or anti-secularism so much as wedded to their traditional tribal organization. 43513[/snapback] C'mon Tom. Everybody loves Democracy!
MichFan Posted September 23, 2004 Posted September 23, 2004 Republican votes will not count in New York, and Democratic votes will not count in Tennessee. Independent votes carry no weight. Only selected votes count in Florida. Using your and Rabid's rationale, if we had a direct election system my vote for Bush would not have counted in 2000 (since Gore won the popular vote). Someone's going to win and someone's going to lose no matter what system we have. Why aren't you guys complaining about every state having two Senators? That leads to the greatest imbalance of power based on population. At least the electoral college is proportional.
DC Tom Posted September 23, 2004 Posted September 23, 2004 C'mon Tom. Everybody loves Democracy! 43531[/snapback] Entirely NOT my point. My point was that, despite Mickey's beliefs to the contrary, Afghanistan is not even remotely a homogenous society. Hell, from a sociological standpoint Afghanistan is barely a real country, for as much as the nomadic tribes pay attention to the borders...
Alaska Darin Posted September 23, 2004 Posted September 23, 2004 Entirely NOT my point. My point was that, despite Mickey's beliefs to the contrary, Afghanistan is not even remotely a homogenous society. Hell, from a sociological standpoint Afghanistan is barely a real country, for as much as the nomadic tribes pay attention to the borders... 43564[/snapback] I knew that. Is this thing on?
DC Tom Posted September 23, 2004 Posted September 23, 2004 I knew that. Is this thing on? 43580[/snapback] Yeah...you knew it, I knew it...how many of the monkeys here knew it? Don't confuse 'em...
stuckincincy Posted September 23, 2004 Posted September 23, 2004 Using your and Rabid's rationale, if we had a direct election system my vote for Bush would not have counted in 2000 (since Gore won the popular vote). Someone's going to win and someone's going to lose no matter what system we have. Why aren't you guys complaining about every state having two Senators? That leads to the greatest imbalance of power based on population. At least the electoral college is proportional. 43539[/snapback] That there is no complaint does not surprise me in the least. The 17th Amendement allowing the popular election of the Senate took away in large measure, the power of the states, communities, and local venues of the citizenry and subjected them to political influence and machinations from far away and divorced them from issues important to them. It created a defacto aristocracy that gave support and rise to power concentration in Washington, with the Federal government taking primacy, eventually, in even the most mundane of local issues. As an example, one now has the Federal government prescribing what is orthodox and what is not in your local community's schools. That is your decision, as a parent. And your voting for or against your local candidates, or your State representatives you choose to elect. That a Senator from another State can affect my predilictions and wishes offends me. The Federal government is not our Daddy.
MichFan Posted September 23, 2004 Posted September 23, 2004 Cincy -- I'm a little confused by the two responses, maybe delete one? The point I was making re: the Senate is that the least populous and most populous states are evenly represented, so the balance of power is highly disproportionate to the population. Our founding fathers designed it that way and I understand why they did it, but if someone is going to complain about representation based on population, the Senate is a much bigger target than the Electoral College.
stuckincincy Posted September 23, 2004 Posted September 23, 2004 Cincy -- I'm a little confused by the two responses, maybe delete one? The point I was making re: the Senate is that the least populous and most populous states are evenly represented, so the balance of power is highly disproportionate to the population. Our founding fathers designed it that way and I understand why they did it, but if someone is going to complain about representation based on population, the Senate is a much bigger target than the Electoral College. 43686[/snapback] Yes, a double post. Pilot error on my part. I am not complaining about disproportionate representation - quite the contrary. The Fathers expressly opted for a representive scheme knowing something about popular passions and mob ruile, and of course the Constituion never would have been ratified if it contained an overrreaching Federal government. I am not in opposition of all Federal laws, by any means. National manufacturing standards, smooth flow of commerce between the States, medical initiatives, etc. are a valid venue. It is the social engineering (and that has nothing to do with race, ethnicity etc. in case an observer is so inclined to raise those points) aspects and the uneven extraction of monetary assets from one State to the benefit of another State that irks me. EDIT:\ But when I posted this, I did not answer what you posited. Time presses, and if you will allow, I'd like to revisit this thread tomorrow.
Adam Posted September 23, 2004 Posted September 23, 2004 Using your and Rabid's rationale, if we had a direct election system my vote for Bush would not have counted in 2000 (since Gore won the popular vote). Someone's going to win and someone's going to lose no matter what system we have. Why aren't you guys complaining about every state having two Senators? That leads to the greatest imbalance of power based on population. At least the electoral college is proportional. 43539[/snapback] Congress represents the states, and the president should represent the people. Unfortunately, this is the 2nd straight election with no viable candidate- there actually are people in here that I'd feel much better about having in the white house.
DC Tom Posted September 23, 2004 Posted September 23, 2004 the president should represent the people43765[/snapback] Why? Isn't the guiding principle supposed to be that the STATES represent the people at the federal level?
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 24, 2004 Posted September 24, 2004 Yeah...you knew it, I knew it...how many of the monkeys here knew it? Don't confuse 'em... 43624[/snapback] Wow! While you guys whack off patting each on the back, don't sprain your hand!
erynthered Posted September 24, 2004 Posted September 24, 2004 Wow! While you guys whack off patting each on the back, don't sprain your hand! 43927[/snapback] Go back to your cage. Banana's at 11Pm.
Recommended Posts