The Electorial College

[Cecilie1200]

blaah de blah?? smokescreen? is that what you do when you have no response? i don't think the court would find that very compelling argument. i understand your frustration though. it must be very difficult for you to have to respond to someone who actually knows you're just words...without the slightest bit of knowledge behind them.

I've already told you. The law was and is that the highest court of every state is the final arbiter of their own election law. no one who knows anything is going to argue that. but feel free to research the subject.Dissenting opinions in Bush v. Gore
yes, it's the dissenting opinion in bush v gore, but it is the law at the time and it is now. if bush v gore were correct, the court wouldn't have written the only opinion in its history that it said was of no precedential value.

feel free to read the case citations contained in the dissent. those, i believe are what you are looking for. they are still good law and have never been overturned. and given that bush v gore isn't good law, you have to rely on those cases.

btw, it's ok that you don't know these things. i get paid to. you don't. what's not ok is your absolute certainty that everyone you disagree with is wrong while your UNINFORMED opinion is correct.

Note the part underneath where I identify your post for what it is (a smokescreen with a ton of meaningless blather) which contains my response. Duuhhh.

I will feel free to dismiss this entire post, since I did NOT ask you to cite USA frigging Today. I asked you to cite law and/or precedent. If your next post does not do any better at this request, I will FURTHER feel free to assume that you are admitting that I am correct. YOU may feel free to shove your "do more research" up your ass - right next to the spot you drag your opinions out of, one assumes - until such time as YOU can answer the fucking question.

By the way, it is NOT okay that you don't know these things, especially since you keep prattling to everyone that you get paid to. No one is buying your bullshit, Mensa Girl, except for those people on the board even less able to walk and chew gum at the same time than you are. It's long past time you pony up something real, instead of just "I must be right because I can claim [fill in the blank] job".

Strike one.

I'm wondering if you're intentionally lying of if you're a sociopath. i gave you links to the cases... not to USA today.

i don't make any untrue claims. it wouldn't be worth my time.

like i said... if you had a real response, you'd have come up with one.

epic fail on your part...

I feel kind of sorry for you. you must be feeling very embarrassed right about now.

Your answer is "It's true because I say so" and I have an epic fail? Yeah, right.

So little Miss "I'm a law expert because I can claim to be on the Internet" can't be bothered to cite the actual laws she claims pertain? Big surprise.

Strike two, Chuckles. Score stands at "Cecilie cited Florida election law and the US Constitution, 'Chief Justice' Jillian cited the great legal experts, USA Today". See if you can redeem some shred of dignity and actually cite a real law this time.

 

[Dr Grump]

[


Your answer is "It's true because I say so" and I have an epic fail? Yeah, right.

So little Miss "I'm a law expert because I can claim to be on the Internet" can't be bothered to cite the actual laws she claims pertain? Big surprise.

Strike two, Chuckles. Score stands at "Cecilie cited Florida election law and the US Constitution, 'Chief Justice' Jillian cited the great legal experts, USA Today". See if you can redeem some shred of dignity and actually cite a real law this time.

You didn't even refute her answer, Moron..

...and she is a lawyer..that is fact...not doing a piss-poor impression of King Shit on the internet like somebody else we know...

 

[Cecilie1200]

note how the Cesspit didn't answer your post?

It really is an ignorant slapper ain't it..

It hasn't a clue what it is talking about and going by its response, and I guess to get so humiliatingly hung, drawn and quartered is more than it can bear, and thus does what it does in 99.9 percent of its posts - flame and get personal. Talk about anger management issues....

yeah, i noticed. sad and pathetic, isn't it? i think the word you use for people like that is "munter". fits it to a t.

anger management probably wouldn't work on it anyway. i haven't decided if it's sad or funny to watch it melt down.

I did answer you, Mensa Girl. The answer was, "If you don't answer questions, you don't get to ask them."

I have decided that it's both sad AND funny to watch you trying to play lofty sophisticate with your leg-humper in the hope that it will distract everyone from your complete inability to back up what you say . . . again.

Still waiting on that law citation, Chuckles. See if Dr. G can pry himself away from licking his balls long enough to help you look one up.

 

[Dr Grump]

I did answer you, Mensa Girl. The answer was, "If you don't answer questions, you don't get to ask them."

I have decided that it's both sad AND funny to watch you trying to play lofty sophisticate with your leg-humper in the hope that it will distract everyone from your complete inability to back up what you say . . . again.

Still waiting on that law citation, Chuckles. See if Dr. G can pry himself away from licking his balls long enough to help you look one up.

Well, at least she ain't Densa Girl...like you....

Hey Brains, if you can refute her go ahead....

....and that brown stuff running down your leg? It does stink...don't think it doesn't....

 

[ihopehefails]

Can't trust the people can we?

It has more to do with protecting the people from the federal government since the states themeselves will pick a president that represents their interest and not one that will violate their internal affairs thus protecting the people's freedom from the federal government itself.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

The electoral college is out-dated, un-needed, and never worked like it was intended to work. it should be gotten rid of

 

[American Horse]

The one advantage to the electorial college as it was originally done was that it was the state governments themselves that picked the president. This always made the federal government something that represented the state's interest and was one more thing that kept the state governments in the loop of the entire system.

Discuss...

America’s founders believed in and preferred a republic over a straight democracy. They were not uniting people, but previously existing states, so they were creating a federation of states for the benefits which would accrue to them for that association and in preserving their statehood, which has more or less already been mentioned here. They were not creating a nation-state but a nation of states.

The president is chief executive officer of the states - and the commander-in-chief of the combined armed forces for the defense of the states – he is not the president of the people as such.

Having created a “federal republic,” - and organized as such - the representatives of the states elect the presidential office holder, not the people. Therefor an election of the chief executive officer by all the people was not even considered by the founders. All sorts of good reasons have been postulated regarding this system of electing the chief executive since the beginning of the republic and some of the latest are already listed above.

PERHAPS the best, or at least another reason for keeping the EC is that if an election’s results were very close and therefore open to challenge that it is a better situation to limit the controversy to a single state, rather than to the entire nation’s electorate at large. The votes of the states, each by a declared majority, with all the states electors being clearly, definitively, and totally assigned avoids broadly nationalizing that problem.

A do-over election being staged in the aftermath of a flawed election in which there were grave doubts of fraud or of a stolen election would create a difficult situation, not just in a single state where there can be narrow focus, but a much more chaotic situation with the problem spread nation-wide would destroy the unity of the country. Of course there would be precincts where there would be huge majorities, but there would also be those where results would be very very close.

In the end, when there is a draw in the EC, finally, we have to fall back on the U.S. House of Representatives, the direct representative and electors of the people. But still, this is only a step removed from the present EC process, where the electors are elected by the citizens of the state, almost concurrently with the vote for president. This still embodies a republican process rather than a purely democratic one.

This EC system is not without a model. The Roman Republic used the same exact elective system to elect their chief executive officers. There, instead of “States” the electoral units were “Tribes”. All the votes within each Tribe (like with our states), once tallied, were given, in total as a single Tribe vote to the winner of that vote. Over time, as new Tribes were added to the Republic, there was a complaint that the new “Rural Tribes had more weight to their vote than the “City Tribes,” a situation similar to the present complaints in the U.S. today, with the E.C.
But they never considered going to a direct democracy.

One can imagine, looking back from the vantage point of the present day, the difficulties of a very close election. The sore loser of a very close election would be convinced (or would seek to convince others) that the election had been stolen; problem is that a subsequent re-do of the election would be as suspect, or more so than the first, leading to violence between the supporting factions. With their republican system the Roman Republic lasted over 450 years, with elections annually. The American founders saw that as a viable model for creating their nation of states.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Can't trust the people can we?

No