Eliminate The Electorial College?

[stuckincincy]

So you are afraid urban poor voters might vote more?

 

They already do...vote to grab people's money. Here in Hamilton County, OH, they vote in droves for things. We have something like 7 levies, not to mention that stupid football stadium (far and away the most heavily-subsidized - 95%). Result being that the county's tax burden is twice that of any other OH county save one (Cuyahoga Cty - Cleveland - same boat) - so the tax base disappears, and the folks who pay not a lick demand even more free $$$.

 

Like our homeless advocates, who claim Cincinnati has 80,000+ homeless. We would be tripping over them if that was so. If you press them, they admit they arrive at that figure by counting individual visits to shelters. By their math - one fellow stopping in 15 times a month = 15 homeless. If he keeps it up for a year, they therefore with straight face say that there 180 homeless folks.

[John Adams]

Ask homosexual adults how they feel about their freedoms right now, because of the wisdom of the majority.

 

Your gay crusade is tiring.

[John Adams]

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

 

That's a nice thought. It of course ignores the entire idea behind our federalist system that seeks to limit and curb federal power by balancing it against that of the states. Moving to a pure federal democracy effectively guts the voice in low populations states and would let the cities set the national priorities. So people in say Iowa would be responsible for funding smog-protection and urban development initiatives around the country, while their more rural concerns would go largely ignored.

[/dev/null]

That's a nice thought. It of course ignores the entire idea behind our federalist system that seeks to limit and curb federal power by balancing it against that of the states. Moving to a pure federal democracy effectively guts the voice in low populations states and would let the cities set the national priorities. So people in say Iowa would be responsible for funding smog-protection and urban development initiatives around the country, while their more rural concerns would go largely ignored.

your post is too logical to be taken seriously on PPP

 

might want to expand on it some more and say something about 80% of tax dollars regressing towards some imaginary mean

[/dev/null]

i think the electoral college works as intended and doesn't need to be messed with

 

but for arguments sake, how about splitting up the electoral vote by congressional district and awarding the overall winner in each state with 2 electoral votes (number of senate seats)

[Alaska Darin]

Your gay crusade is tiring.

[John Adams]

i think the electoral college works as intended and doesn't need to be messed with

 

but for arguments sake, how about splitting up the electoral vote by congressional district and awarding the overall winner in each state with 2 electoral votes (number of senate seats)

 

Then you get overrepresentation of rural states. This is why there is a Senate (2 seats per state) and House (seats allocated based on population). Now, assuming you meant to say that the electoral votes get divided the same way as House seats, which is probably what you meant, this makes sense.

[molson_golden2002]

That's a nice thought. 1) It of course ignores the entire idea behind our federalist system that seeks to limit and curb federal power by balancing it against that of the states. 2)Moving to a pure federal democracy effectively guts the voice in low populations states and would let the cities set the national priorities. 3) So people in say Iowa would be responsible for funding smog-protection and urban development initiatives around the country, while their more rural concerns would go largely ignored.

 

1) First off, we have been moving away from the federated system since we dumped the Articles of Confederation, with the Marshall court, the Civil War, Reconstruction and the Civil Rights movement and the world is still turning, and turning rather well. The states have continued to lose power all along. 2) Wrong, it would mean every person's vote counts equally. So instead of a person from say, Idaho, having more voting power than a person from New York, it would all be equal. Seems to square with the Declaration of Independence to me. 3) And this point is the strangest. I would think that moving the power back to the more populated states would redress a grievence the larger states have. My mother lived in WV, owned hundreds of acres and paid no property taxes at all. Why? Federal funding allowed WV to not have to bother with property taxes. Here is a nice site for you to look at and think on.

 

http://bigpicture.typepad.com/writing/2004...tates_feed.html

 

Here is another one if you can stomach the argument and just look at the facts:

 

http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com..._Welfare_Queens

[Wacka]

Setting a national speed limit and a uniform drinking age by threatening to withold federal funds is illegal. Liberal judges allowed the the federal government to take powers that rigtfully belonged to the states. This was done without passing any law.