Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Hey Two Thumbs..
Check above.
Do we need it anymore? Gallup polls have show than the American people prefer Direct Elections for President over the indirect Electoral College.
It used to be necessary, back when we couldn't talk to each other by picking up a phone and we didn't have nationwide 24/7 news coverage.
California just became the latest state to vote to give all their electoral votes to the candidate that wins the popular vote, joining seven other states that have done so.
Is this the beginning of the end for the EC?
Not unless the less populace states want to become fly over states for Presidential candidates?
There is a reason for the electoral college--and it's one our forefathers saw way in advance. What may thrill large population centers--(metropolitan cities) may not be good for rural areas.
I don't think we really want New York and L.A. to pick our Presidents.
Not unless the less populace states want to become fly over states for Presidential candidates?
There is a reason for the electoral college--and it's one our forefathers saw way in advance. What may thrill large population centers--(metropolitan cities) may not be good for rural areas.
I don't think we really want New York and L.A. to pick our Presidents.
Which begs the question.
When you guys are talking about the majority of Americans..do you mean in real numbers? Or do you mean the majority of Americans that think just like you do?
The EC has nothing to do with denying the will of the majority in general, it just skews the election of the president to a majority based on a state by state wieghted average. The government has a direct population based process in the house of representatives. Most states are also majority rule for thier house and often the executive. The presidental position is unique because that was the compromise that allowed for the consitution to pass.
Which begs the question.
When you guys are talking about the majority of Americans..do you mean in real numbers? Or do you mean the majority of Americans that think just like you do?
The EC has nothing to do with denying the will of the majority in general, it just skews the election of the president to a majority based on a state by state wieghted average. The government has a direct population based process in the house of representatives. Most states are also majority rule for thier house and often the executive. The presidental position is unique because that was the compromise that allowed for the consitution to pass.
Ah..so the government has to have 2 branches with "weighted" majorities and one with true majorities.
Gotcha.
The only way to prevent voting money in your pocket would be to prevent people who get government payments from voting. That would have to include government workers, government contractors, and welfare/FS recipients, if you go with its purest form. Also each state would have to go for it as your franchise comes from your state. I really do not want to go down that path, it is too reminiscent of property requirments to vote.
My solution to this would be to get the feds out the welfare business entirely, leaving it to the states to implement. At that point those being taxed at the state level can decide "with thier feet" if they want to support a massive welfare state, and we can really see if it is supported by the masses or not.
I agree with this, and disagree with it at the same time lol. As far as the preventing people who work for the government from voting, I disagree. The people who work for the government are receiving compensation for their work. That is not the same as voting yourself money from someone elses pocket. Welfare recipients, I agree wholeheartedly. Furthermore, I do think that we should get the federal government out of the welfare business entirely.
Mike
The problem with the buracracy at all levels of government becoming self sustaining is just as bad as the problem with the welfare class becoming self sustaining. Worse, the two classes will vote together, so even if both of them beocme the majority they can write all the checks they want.
I don't want to remove the vote from anybody. What I want to do is remove the role of welfare from the federal level down to the state level, thus giving those in a given state a choice of funding it or not.
The states have the same problem, but I feel the states should have the right to run themselves as they please as long as they do not violate the federal consitutuiton.
The EC has nothing to do with denying the will of the majority in general, it just skews the election of the president to a majority based on a state by state wieghted average. The government has a direct population based process in the house of representatives. Most states are also majority rule for thier house and often the executive. The presidental position is unique because that was the compromise that allowed for the consitution to pass.
Ah..so the government has to have 2 branches with "weighted" majorities and one with true majorities.
Gotcha.
Actually 1 branch is split between direct proportional representation and set representate. . Look at the senate. the senate is based on states only, regardless of how many people are in a given state. Rhode island has the same pull as california in the senate. The house is set up as the direct proportional representative branch.
The office of the president was set up to represent the people of the states, not the people of the nation. That they are one and the same is not part of the system. The system was setup to reduce the impact of high land/population states and increase that of smaller states, by setting the electors as senators + representatives, not in the use of electors itself.
One has to remember the different compromises that were proposed before this system was reached. the plans varied from direct presidential election to vote by state, with the state legislatures deciding who they would vote for.
Hey Two Thumbs..
Check above.
This may come as a shock to you, but the EC is in the Constitution.
Thus killing the drowning part, since I'm the only conservative in this thread that supports ending it.
The last attempt to get rid of it was just after Nixon beat Humphreys[?]
Basically, talk is cheap, the dems pols want to keep it as much as the rep pols.
Ah..so the government has to have 2 branches with "weighted" majorities and one with true majorities.
Gotcha.
Actually 1 branch is split between direct proportional representation and set representate. . Look at the senate. the senate is based on states only, regardless of how many people are in a given state. Rhode island has the same pull as california in the senate. The house is set up as the direct proportional representative branch.
The office of the president was set up to represent the people of the states, not the people of the nation. That they are one and the same is not part of the system. The system was setup to reduce the impact of high land/population states and increase that of smaller states, by setting the electors as senators + representatives, not in the use of electors itself.
One has to remember the different compromises that were proposed before this system was reached. the plans varied from direct presidential election to vote by state, with the state legislatures deciding who they would vote for.
Can we please repeal the 17th amendment.
Mike
Actually 1 branch is split between direct proportional representation and set representate. . Look at the senate. the senate is based on states only, regardless of how many people are in a given state. Rhode island has the same pull as california in the senate. The house is set up as the direct proportional representative branch.
The office of the president was set up to represent the people of the states, not the people of the nation. That they are one and the same is not part of the system. The system was setup to reduce the impact of high land/population states and increase that of smaller states, by setting the electors as senators + representatives, not in the use of electors itself.
One has to remember the different compromises that were proposed before this system was reached. the plans varied from direct presidential election to vote by state, with the state legislatures deciding who they would vote for.
Can we please repeal the 17th amendment.
Mike
Repeal.....hummm...annul is more like it. States can NOT be denied suffrage in Congress without their consent.
Congress proposed the Seventeenth Amendment on May 13, 1912 and the following states ratified the amendment:[8]
Massachusetts (May 22, 1912)
Arizona (June 3, 1912)
Minnesota (June 10, 1912)
New York (January 15, 1913)
Kansas (January 17, 1913)
Oregon (January 23, 1913)
North Carolina (January 25, 1913)
California (January 28, 1913)
Michigan (January 28, 1913)
Iowa (January 30, 1913)
Montana (January 30, 1913)
Idaho (January 31, 1913)
West Virginia (February 4, 1913)
Colorado (February 5, 1913)
Nevada (February 6, 1913)
Texas (February 7, 1913)
Washington (February 7, 1913)
Wyoming (February 8, 1913)
Arkansas (February 11, 1913)
Maine (February 11, 1913)
Illinois (February 13, 1913)
North Dakota (February 14, 1913)
Wisconsin (February 18, 1913)
Indiana (February 19, 1913)
New Hampshire (February 19, 1913)
Vermont (February 19, 1913)
South Dakota (February 19, 1913)
Oklahoma (February 24, 1913)
Ohio (February 25, 1913)
Missouri (March 7, 1913)
New Mexico (March 13, 1913)
Nebraska (March 14, 1913)
New Jersey (March 17, 1913)
Tennessee (April 1, 1913)
Pennsylvania (April 2, 1913)
Connecticut (April 8, 1913)
With Connecticut's ratification, three-fourths of the states had ratified and so the amendment was adopted. The amendment was subsequently ratified by the following states:
Louisiana (June 11, 1913)
Delaware (June 25, 2010)[9]
The following state rejected the amendment:
Utah (February 26, 1913)
The following states did not ratify the amendment:
Alabama
Kentucky
Mississippi
Virginia
South Carolina
Georgia
Maryland
Rhode Island
Florida
.
Except it's in the constitution. You do realize that, yes?1 person 1 vote
The EC is as about as unconstitutional as you can get.
The idea of a state handing out all thier "points" to the popular vote getter is just as dumb.
We live in a computerised age. And besides, the election is in Nov but the winner isn't seated until Jan, so it's not like there's a big hurry.
The Electoral College consists of the electors appointed by each state who formally elect the President and Vice President of the United States. Since 1964, there have been 538 electors in each presidential election.[1] Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution specifies how many electors each state is entitled to have and that each state's legislature decides how its electors are to be chosen. U.S. territories are not represented in the Electoral College. The Electoral College is an example of an indirect election, as opposed to a direct election by United States citizens.
Except it's in the constitution. You do realize that, yes?1 person 1 vote
The EC is as about as unconstitutional as you can get.
The idea of a state handing out all thier "points" to the popular vote getter is just as dumb.
We live in a computerised age. And besides, the election is in Nov but the winner isn't seated until Jan, so it's not like there's a big hurry.
The Electoral College consists of the electors appointed by each state who formally elect the President and Vice President of the United States. Since 1964, there have been 538 electors in each presidential election.[1] Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution specifies how many electors each state is entitled to have and that each state's legislature decides how its electors are to be chosen. U.S. territories are not represented in the Electoral College. The Electoral College is an example of an indirect election, as opposed to a direct election by United States citizens.
Our founding fathers are smarter than pretty much every politician we have today, and created this check and balance against mob rule or domination by only a few states by population.
The instant you start going strictly by a popular vote, you eliminate the influence of smaller states by allowing the population of more populous states to set the agenda by the overflow of how big a state goes for one candidate or another. It's a brilliant tool.
If you want this nation to be strictly dominated by urban areas, go ahead, get rid of the electoral college who can post victory margins greater than the entire populations of more rural states. You want this nation ruled by the state concerns of the urban areas of CA, TX, FL, OH, PA, IL and NY while the rest of the US is told to stick it?
That is the danger. That is the reason it's been checked.
How? How are minority rights protected by the Electoral College in Presidential Elections?
This, for once is not about minorities, it's about population. Not fair the biggest and most populous cities get to decide elections.
Well, I believe one person, one vote is fair. The electoral college circumvents that.
copycat possuer.Hey Two Thumbs..
Check above.
This may come as a shock to you, but the EC is in the Constitution.
Thus killing the drowning part, since I'm the only conservative in this thread that supports ending it.
The last attempt to get rid of it was just after Nixon beat Humphreys[?]
Basically, talk is cheap, the dems pols want to keep it as much as the rep pols.
Um...if you're talking about ending the EC, I agree, so there's at least 2 of us in here.
This, for once is not about minorities, it's about population. Not fair the biggest and most populous cities get to decide elections.
Well, I believe one person, one vote is fair. The electoral college circumvents that.
I agree. The argument I see often for the Electoral College is that it isn't fair that heavily populated areas would decide the election. My counter to that is to ask why it's fair that typically three states decide who the nominees are (Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina) and maybe 3 states decide who the winner is (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania). I'll take the populated areas over the swing states any day of the week.
It is also an office dominated by two party politics, precisely because of the Electoral College. As it is, a third party candidate can make a big splash in the election and end up with ZERO electoral votes easily.Well, I believe one person, one vote is fair. The electoral college circumvents that.
I agree. The argument I see often for the Electoral College is that it isn't fair that heavily populated areas would decide the election. My counter to that is to ask why it's fair that typically three states decide who the nominees are (Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina) and maybe 3 states decide who the winner is (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania). I'll take the populated areas over the swing states any day of the week.
Remember that we are still only talking about one office out of hundreds. It is a very powerful one, but it is just one. Everyone gets thier proportional representation at the federal level in the House, and at the state level in at least one branch of the state legislature, and usually from the election for governor.
1 person 1 vote
The EC is as about as unconstitutional as you can get.
The idea of a state handing out all thier "points" to the popular vote getter is just as dumb.
We live in a computerised age. And besides, the election is in Nov but the winner isn't seated until Jan, so it's not like there's a big hurry.
Not really big on the study of history I see.
Mike
Except it's in the constitution. You do realize that, yes?1 person 1 vote
The EC is as about as unconstitutional as you can get.
The idea of a state handing out all thier "points" to the popular vote getter is just as dumb.
We live in a computerised age. And besides, the election is in Nov but the winner isn't seated until Jan, so it's not like there's a big hurry.
The Electoral College consists of the electors appointed by each state who formally elect the President and Vice President of the United States. Since 1964, there have been 538 electors in each presidential election.[1] Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution specifies how many electors each state is entitled to have and that each state's legislature decides how its electors are to be chosen. U.S. territories are not represented in the Electoral College. The Electoral College is an example of an indirect election, as opposed to a direct election by United States citizens.
Our founding fathers are smarter than pretty much every politician we have today, and created this check and balance against mob rule or domination by only a few states by population.
The instant you start going strictly by a popular vote, you eliminate the influence of smaller states by allowing the population of more populous states to set the agenda by the overflow of how big a state goes for one candidate or another. It's a brilliant tool.
If you want this nation to be strictly dominated by urban areas, go ahead, get rid of the electoral college who can post victory margins greater than the entire populations of more rural states. You want this nation ruled by the state concerns of the urban areas of CA, TX, FL, OH, PA, IL and NY while the rest of the US is told to stick it?
That is the danger. That is the reason it's been checked.
Yes, I know it's in the Constitution starting int he 12th Amendment.
7 pages and you're the fist to notice.
But I still disagree with it. 1 man 1 vote. I'll be like that to the day I die.
Yes, well past time. In fact the federal government needs to be more accountable to the people. Ever since the Civil war it has assumed powers that go well beyond the constitution. We need some kind of way to hold national referendums in order to keep those in the Federal government honest.
