molson_golden2002 Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070116/ap_on_..._popular_vote_2 Because its the right thing to do.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnTheRocks Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070116/ap_on_..._popular_vote_2 Because its the right thing to do.... Yeah right...so the libs can focus on their metropolitan areas and forget about the rest of America? No thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 The most recent elections prove just how smart the Framers were for imposing the Electoral College in the first place. Nothing better than eliminating the lemmings and frankenstinian mobs. Thanks for another "intellectual" and "progressive" link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted January 16, 2007 Author Share Posted January 16, 2007 Yeah right...so the libs can focus on their metropolitan areas and forget about the rest of America? No thanks! So you are afraid urban poor voters might vote more? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted January 16, 2007 Author Share Posted January 16, 2007 Thanks for another "intellectual" and "progressive" link. Yahoo! is a progressive source? And you are welcome Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 So you are afraid urban poor voters might vote more? Only if the Dems increase the payola. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted January 16, 2007 Author Share Posted January 16, 2007 Only if the Dems increase the payola. Ya, I figured the opposition to change would be all partisan. There are a lot of good arguments for and against, actually, but no one really cares about all that, its just about who is going to make out best. No surprise really Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070116/ap_on_..._popular_vote_2 Because its the right thing to do.... I wouldn't particularly care if the Electoral College itself was scrapped but the idea behind it shouldn't be. For example, it would make sense that each state gets a certain number of electoral votes and all those votes just get cast to the candidate who wins the state. No need for a college of electors--that system is a bit archaic. Still, the idea behind it--that candidates must solicit votes from the entirety of the country and not just city-centers--makes too much sense to dismantle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted January 16, 2007 Author Share Posted January 16, 2007 I wouldn't particularly care if the Electoral College itself was scrapped but the idea behind it shouldn't be. For example, it would make sense that each state gets a certain number of electoral votes and all those votes just get cast to the candidate who wins the state. No need for a college of electors--that system is a bit archaic. Still, the idea behind it--that candidates must solicit votes from the entirety of the country and not just city-centers--makes too much sense to dismantle. Nice post. I notice you have a Lincoln quote there. He was actually afraid that the college of electors wouldn't certify his election after the South began seceeding from the Union in 1860. As to the city centers dominating the election, I don't know. I just feel that the will of the majority should be deciding factor. Not that that will solve all the world's problems, but whatever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 Nice post. I notice you have a Lincoln quote there. He was actually afraid that the college of electors wouldn't certify his election after the South began seceeding from the Union in 1860. As to the city centers dominating the election, I don't know. I just feel that the will of the majority should be deciding factor. Not that that will solve all the world's problems, but whatever The name of our country is The United States of America. Does this not imply that the conecept of a State is important and should carry some weight? Might not each individual State have interests that vary? The system is set up to give that bit of extra power (if you will) to each State. What is the compelling reason to change? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnTheRocks Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 Yahoo! is a progressive source? And you are welcome i haven't been in the PPP for a while since BiB passed, so I don't know you. I am guessing you are either RCow or Brevin Seattle-What's his name...whatever your alias is....I don't know. but thanks for clarifying that you don't live in reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 As to the city centers dominating the election, I don't know. What don't you know? You don't have an idea what the facts are, but you blindly support it? Way to lemming along. I just feel that the will of the majority should be deciding factor. Not that that will solve all the world's problems, but whatever Really? So if the majority of people think you're a douchebag who should have his head cut off, we should be allowed to do it? What about if the majority believes that one segment of society should be eliminated, like the Nazi's did with their minorities? That's the reason the Electoral College was established in the first place. Majority rule all but guarantees that the freedom for the minority will be trampled. The rationale goes something to the effect of: Individual people are smart, but the wisdom of the masses is inversely proportional to the size of the grouping. Ask homosexual adults how they feel about their freedoms right now, because of the wisdom of the majority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 My opinion is that there should be no such position as an unbound elector - who the !@#$ are these people. The system of electoral weight for each state based on population should remain, however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted January 17, 2007 Author Share Posted January 17, 2007 What don't you know? You don't have an idea what the facts are, but you blindly support it? Way to lemming along. Really? So if the majority of people think you're a douchebag who should have his head cut off, we should be allowed to do it? What about if the majority believes that one segment of society should be eliminated, like the Nazi's did with their minorities? That's the reason the Electoral College was established in the first place. Majority rule all but guarantees that the freedom for the minority will be trampled. The rationale goes something to the effect of: Individual people are smart, but the wisdom of the masses is inversely proportional to the size of the grouping. Ask homosexual adults how they feel about their freedoms right now, because of the wisdom of the majority. I think you are way off base and this post borders on the hysterical. I'm sure you know what Churchill said about democracy, right? Majority is suppose to be balanced by the rule of law, where the minority is protected. Not a perfect system at all, but seeing how humans are involved you can't expect perfection. You bring up gays. I agree, an ignorant, hateful population will not allow gays or other minorities to have their full rights, but we have seen progress on all fronts. Has the Electorial college stopped oppression of minorities? No. And really, the EC's strongest supporters were Southers who benefited from the system that allowed them, to have more power in getting the Presidency. That obviously no longer applies, but it was hardley a Progressive system to begin with as you suggested earlier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted January 17, 2007 Author Share Posted January 17, 2007 i haven't been in the PPP for a while since BiB passed, so I don't know you. I am guessing you are either RCow or Brevin Seattle-What's his name...whatever your alias is....I don't know. but thanks for clarifying that you don't live in reality. One the first point you are wrong, as to me not living realty....whatever. How come you never post any thoughts of your own? You just shoot off some nonesense and move on. Contribute something thoughtful, like why the Yahoo! question was silly to you. Can you put together more than two sentances as to why you think that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnTheRocks Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 One the first point you are wrong, as to me not living realty....whatever. How come you never post any thoughts of your own? You just shoot off some nonesense and move on. Contribute something thoughtful, like why the Yahoo! question was silly to you. Can you put together more than two sentances as to why you think that? Sentence One: The reply I was making wasn't directed to the Yahoo comment as much as it was directed in general at a few other posts I saw from you today. Sentecne Two: I have no interest in trying to convince you or anyone else to accept and agree with my personal convictions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 I think you are way off base and this post borders on the hysterical. I'm sure you know what Churchill said about democracy, right? Majority is suppose to be balanced by the rule of law, where the minority is protected. Not a perfect system at all, but seeing how humans are involved you can't expect perfection. The one who expects perfection is you. That's why you and your ilk turn to some faceless entity to solve all your problems, not at all understanding the future ramifications of those decisions. Instead, you point at the very things that are bankrupting our society as "progress" while the infrastructure continues to decay. You bring up gays. I agree, an ignorant, hateful population will not allow gays or other minorities to have their full rights, but we have seen progress on all fronts. Has the Electorial college stopped oppression of minorities? Has peanut butter ever been the answer to 2+2? Thanks for again completely missing the point. No. And really, the EC's strongest supporters were Southers who benefited from the system that allowed them, to have more power in getting the Presidency. That obviously no longer applies, but it was hardley a Progressive system to begin with as you suggested earlier Perhaps it's because the supporters actually understand what the Electoral College actually does. Great societies finally fail when the populous starts realizing that they can vote things for themselves. You do understand that's exactly what you're advocating, right? Why not just get rid of our "Representative Republic" and go to a true democracy? Then you idiots can quickly Darwin yourselves to death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnTheRocks Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 The one who expects perfection is you. That's why you and your ilk turn to some faceless entity to solve all your problems, not at all understanding the future ramifications of those decisions. Instead, you point at the very things that are bankrupting our society as "progress" while the infrastructure continues to decay. i lke that quote. that's pretty good AD....did you come up with that yourself? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetbaboo Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 i lke that quote.that's pretty good AD....did you come up with that yourself? that's what you like? personally, i prefer this one Why not just get rid of our "Representative Republic" and go to a true democracy? Then you idiots can quickly Darwin yourselves to death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted January 17, 2007 Author Share Posted January 17, 2007 Perhaps it's because the supporters actually understand what the Electoral College actually does. Great societies finally fail when the populous starts realizing that they can vote things for themselves. You do understand that's exactly what you're advocating, right? Why not just get rid of our "Representative Republic" and go to a true democracy? Then you idiots can quickly Darwin yourselves to death. Snicker, ah no, they understood that with the 3/5 Compromise provision that the slaves would count in electing the president. Jefferson, for instance, would never have been "elected' in 1800 and the South really dominated the government up to 1860, largely because of the advantage they had with the 3/5 clause and electoral college. True democracy wouldn't work, of course. This thread really sent you guys over the edge. Its really no big deal. The end of the EC wouldn't be a revolutionary act or lead us straight to Nazism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts