murra Posted November 4, 2008 Posted November 4, 2008 Because it isn't going to change, so why bring up a moot point. But given a choice I would prefer popular vote over electoral college. So given what we have, we can only hope that all the popular votes that determine the electoral college get counted. I never understood why people have issues with the electoral college.
stuckincincy Posted November 4, 2008 Posted November 4, 2008 Because it isn't going to change, so why bring up a moot point. But given a choice I would prefer popular vote over electoral college. So given what we have, we can only hope that all the popular votes that determine the electoral college get counted. The wisdom of the Electoral College is that it gives all the States, and their populations a say. It's been discussed endlessly - without it, the Presidential election would be decided by the selfish interests of the residents of large cities, large populations. And then no candidate would not ever have to broaden his views to accommodate the view of the Americans in the smaller towns, the rural Americans and so on. They would be ignored. The President would be elected by the residents of the large-population States. The Founding Fathers penned the Electoral College into the Constitution as a check&balance, to guard against a tyranny of the majority. There was a deadlock - the Hayes - Tilden contest of 1876. The deadlock was ended with the election of the Republican, Rutherford Hayes...the compromise the Democrats extracted was the cessation of Reconstruction, and then began the implementation of the Jim Crow laws throughout the South.
PastaJoe Posted November 4, 2008 Author Posted November 4, 2008 The wisdom of the Electoral College is that it gives all the States, and their populations a say. It's been discussed endlessly - without it, the Presidential election would be decided by the selfish interests of the residents of large cities, large populations. And then no candidate would not ever have to broaden his views to accommodate the view of the Americans in the smaller towns, the rural Americans and so on. They would be ignored. The President would be elected by the residents of the large-population States. The Founding Fathers penned the Electoral College into the Constitution as a check&balance, to guard against a tyranny of the majority. There was a deadlock - the Hayes - Tilden contest of 1876. The deadlock was ended with the election of the Republican, Rutherford Hayes...the compromise the Democrats extracted was the cessation of Reconstruction, and then began the implementation of the Jim Crow laws throughout the South. The country is much more homogenous and integrated than when the EC was enacted. It currently has the effect of not counting the votes of the minority parties in many states, such as Republicans in NY or Democrats in Texas. Using a popular vote instead of the EC would mean that every single person that voted would have an effect on the result.
Cornerville Posted November 4, 2008 Posted November 4, 2008 I never understood why people have issues with the electoral college. Because libs want Liberafornia and Liberal York to count more then the other 48 states.
jimshiz Posted November 4, 2008 Posted November 4, 2008 The person with the most correct/closest predictions will be the PPP Premier Political Prognosticator.1. Who wins, and what is the electoral college vote total for each candidate? 269-269 http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ma...3-3-1-3-1-3-1-3
stuckincincy Posted November 4, 2008 Posted November 4, 2008 The country is much more homogenous and integrated than when the EC was enacted. It currently has the effect of not counting the votes of the minority parties in many states, such as Republicans in NY or Democrats in Texas. Using a popular vote instead of the EC would mean that every single person that voted would have an effect on the result. People most always vote with an eye to whatever will enrich their own pocketbook. If it screws the other guy, saps ther nation in general...so what? It is truly the "It's All About Me" era. Whatever a mob thinks is right, it isn't necessarily so. Sad fact - a quarter of US high school students drop out, school attendance is horrible in the cities nationwide, parents stop raising their kids and demand that schools and governments do the job, a majority of citizens can name tv stars but are stymied if you ask them what their State capitol is, who their legislators are, wouldn't read a nutrition label to save their life, and so on. Please don't try to twist this into "you want to oppress the will of the majority" or "you are an elitist" or some such. We live in a time where actually taking a bit of time and registering to vote sometime in the year preceding an election has been pounded into many heads as an attempt to deny the right to vote - and unless you move, it's a one-time effort. When spending one hour in a day out of the year to go show up and vote is an intolerable hardship. And the exploitation of youth for political purposes. This weekend, my school district had the clout to close a major thoroughfare for a parade for a property tax increase levy. The last increase, they spent on a new football stadium after months of sob stories about better educating the students in their (poorly performing) school system. The teachers cry about their sad (civil service, paid health care, state pension plan, months off) life. But AFAIK, they never quit for better fields. I am sensitive to their concerns about getting beat up by students, and disrespect and sass from same, though. The little darlings, just 'spressin themselves, eh? That afternoon, my wife and me were doing some yard work, Twice, an organized motorcade of cars and trucks, orbited my street. Kids shouting "Give us money! Give us money!". How craven of these adults, using children as pawns. The kids are getting quite an education...
Bill from NYC Posted November 4, 2008 Posted November 4, 2008 There was nothing wrong with the old one (or my primary statements), but I can be bipartisan to keep the peace. No, that was offensive and vulgar as were your racial slurs. Joe, if you are gonna be a slimeball you should just own up to it. Don't slither away from your filth and bigotry.
Robert Paulson Posted November 4, 2008 Posted November 4, 2008 Best Case Obama 432 Senate 58 Dem/Caucus Surprise States NB 1 district, GA, AZ, GA, AR, SD, SC, ND Worst Case Obama 318 Senate 57 Dem/Caucus
SJ Bills backer Posted November 4, 2008 Posted November 4, 2008 Best CaseWorst Case Obama I like the way you think. And impressed: "His name is Robert Paulson" BTW - Ted Nugent called - he wants his suit back
PastaJoe Posted November 4, 2008 Author Posted November 4, 2008 No, that was offensive and vulgar as were your racial slurs. Joe, if you are gonna be a slimeball you should just own up to it. Don't slither away from your filth and bigotry. You seem to have an obsession with falsely accusing me of racism. I don't know what warped background you have that would make you believe that, but you are a sad person who should get some professional help.
DC Tom Posted November 4, 2008 Posted November 4, 2008 I never understood why people have issues with the electoral college. Because they don't understand what it means to be living in a democratic republic.
PastaJoe Posted November 4, 2008 Author Posted November 4, 2008 Because they don't understand what it means to be living in a democratic republic. They understand, they just don't agree that it is the best method to represent the will of the voters. It would make it easier for a third party candidate to have a realistic chance to compete.
Taro T Posted November 4, 2008 Posted November 4, 2008 The country is much more homogenous and integrated than when the EC was enacted. It currently has the effect of not counting the votes of the minority parties in many states, such as Republicans in NY or Democrats in Texas. Using a popular vote instead of the EC would mean that every single person that voted would have an effect on the result. Not necessarily. I'd expect that it would actually have the opposite effect as fraud in a relatively few high population areas could now turn the overall election rather than turn just the particular state in which the fraud occurs. It also could very likely have the effect described by SiC, where candidates would concentrate their efforts on winning high population density areas and more or less completely ignoring WY, SD, ND, ID, MT, etc., etc..
Taro T Posted November 4, 2008 Posted November 4, 2008 They understand, they just don't agree that it is the best method to represent the will of the voters. It would make it easier for a third party candidate to have a realistic chance to compete. How would moving away from the EC possibly give a 3rd party Presidential candidate "a realistic chance to compete" that they don't currently have? The game would still be rigged against them in a straight vote total race.
John Adams Posted November 4, 2008 Posted November 4, 2008 You seem to have an obsession with falsely accusing me of racism. I don't know what warped background you have that would make you believe that, but you are a sad person who should get some professional help. He's not the only one accusing you. You were not quite under a white hood when Hillary was still in the race but you showed your colors then. You're a racist whether you own up to it or not.
PastaJoe Posted November 4, 2008 Author Posted November 4, 2008 He's not the only one accusing you. You were not quite under a white hood when Hillary was still in the race but you showed your colors then. You're a racist whether you own up to it or not. F all you who keep pushing this bull.
PastaJoe Posted November 4, 2008 Author Posted November 4, 2008 Not necessarily. I'd expect that it would actually have the opposite effect as fraud in a relatively few high population areas could now turn the overall election rather than turn just the particular state in which the fraud occurs. It also could very likely have the effect described by SiC, where candidates would concentrate their efforts on winning high population density areas and more or less completely ignoring WY, SD, ND, ID, MT, etc., etc.. You're assuming that fraud is inevitable. How is it any less fraudulant to have someone win because the fraudulant vote in one state resulted in a candidate winning it's electoral votes, and therefore reaching 270 in a close election? And a candidate who represented the views of the less populated states (i.e. agriculture, rural values) could get support across the multiple states to offset the urban voters, which plays into the other issue of a 3rd party candidate, who could win a 3-way race with a broad cross-country alliance of rural voters.
justnzane Posted November 4, 2008 Posted November 4, 2008 Obama 327 Dems 57 senate 280 house Suprise state: Arizona to Obama
John Adams Posted November 4, 2008 Posted November 4, 2008 F all you who keep pushing this bull. Bill in NYC and I are not exactly always on the same page, as has been well-covered on this board. We reached that conclusion about you independently (not even sure how he arrived there). I'll stop piling on so as not to turn this into a campaign, but you need to take a hard look at yourself on race.
Recommended Posts