Why Does the Right Hate Obama?

[del]

Again.. it is not a nation-wide count popular vote.. Bush won on all aspects of the criteria of election... it was Gore that was attempting to thwart the system with a selective recount... Bush won Florida.. Bush won Florida's electoral votes... those electoral votes secured his necessary number to win... simple enough

If you cannot understand that the checks and balances between the ways that the different branches of government are chosen, then I would suggest finally going back and finishing grade school, where the rest of us learned such things

I understand how the system worked.

You claim it is a system of checks and balances. What was "checked" by the way Bush got into office when he lost the popular vote by over a million votes?

The only thing that was "checked" that I can see was the will of the majority of the American people.

Again you liberal fucktard... the President of the US is not and should not be elected by nationwide popular vote.. we have a branch of government that is elected by popular vote, and that is the legislative branch

if mr gore had been popular in his home state of tennessee, florida would have been moot. funny how no one seems to remember that.

 

[Iriemon]

Again.. it is not a nation-wide count popular vote.. Bush won on all aspects of the criteria of election... it was Gore that was attempting to thwart the system with a selective recount... Bush won Florida.. Bush won Florida's electoral votes... those electoral votes secured his necessary number to win... simple enough

If you cannot understand that the checks and balances between the ways that the different branches of government are chosen, then I would suggest finally going back and finishing grade school, where the rest of us learned such things

I understand how the system worked.

You claim it is a system of checks and balances. What was "checked" by the way Bush got into office when he lost the popular vote by over a million votes?

The only thing that was "checked" that I can see was the will of the majority of the American people.

... liberal fucktard...

I'll decline discussing the topic with someone who both has to resort to infantile name calling and can't logically put a rational response together. If you want to discuss it without the juvenile flaming that's fine.

I'll be happy to discuss with anyone else whether the electoral system provides any meaningful "checks" in the election process.

 

[Iriemon]

I understand how the system worked.

You claim it is a system of checks and balances. What was "checked" by the way Bush got into office when he lost the popular vote by over a million votes?

The only thing that was "checked" that I can see was the will of the majority of the American people.

Again you liberal fucktard... the President of the US is not and should not be elected by nationwide popular vote.. we have a branch of government that is elected by popular vote, and that is the legislative branch

if mr gore had been popular in his home state of tennessee, florida would have been moot. funny how no one seems to remember that.

No doubt.

But the question I had is what meaningful "check" is provided by the electoral system when what it "checks" is that the majority of Americans are denied their choice of president.

Seems to me the only thing being "checked" is the will of the majority of the people.

 

[DiamondDave]

Again... you simply seem to not have the cognitive ability to understand that the selection of the executive branch is not about popular vote.. that is the election process for the legislative branch....

majority will is for the legislative... voice of the states is for the executive... and executive nomination with electorate approval is for the judicial... the checks and balances within the branches.. ensuring that not every branch of the government is purely on nationwide vote count... so that all actions and voices are not drowned out purely by popular whim

 

[Iriemon]

Again... you simply seem to not have the cognitive ability to understand that the selection of the executive branch is not about popular vote.. that is the election process for the legislative branch....

majority will is for the legislative... voice of the states is for the executive... and executive nomination with electorate approval is for the judicial... the checks and balances within the branches.. ensuring that not every branch of the government is purely on nationwide vote count... so that all actions and voices are not drowned out purely by popular whim

Again, maybe my posts aren't clear, but I understand how the electoral system works. Though most states now choose delegates in one form or another via a popular vote; I understand that the president isn't elected by popular vote but by a vote of delegates.

Obviously, or Gore would have been elected and history would have been far, far different over the past 8 years.

My question is not how the system workes, but how this system provides checks and balances as you stated, and what is it "checking"? Why do we need an electoral system? What is it "checking" against? It seems to me that the only thing it checks against is that the majority of Americans didn't get their choice of president. Why do we need a "check" against the president being elected by the majority of Americans?

 

[DiamondDave]

Again... you simply seem to not have the cognitive ability to understand that the selection of the executive branch is not about popular vote.. that is the election process for the legislative branch....

majority will is for the legislative... voice of the states is for the executive... and executive nomination with electorate approval is for the judicial... the checks and balances within the branches.. ensuring that not every branch of the government is purely on nationwide vote count... so that all actions and voices are not drowned out purely by popular whim

Again, maybe my posts aren't clear, but I understand how the electoral system works. Though most states now choose delegates in one form or another via a popular vote; I understand that the president isn't elected by popular vote but by a vote of delegates.

Obviously, or Gore would have been elected and history would have been far, far different over the past 8 years.

My question is not how the system workes, but how this system provides checks and balances as you stated, and what is it "checking"? Why do we need an electoral system? What is it "checking" against? It seems to me that the only thing it checks against is that the majority of Americans didn't get their choice of president. Why do we need a "check" against the president being elected by the majority of Americans?

It has the check and balance because of the differences in how the officials from each branch are elected... a government that was totally selected by popular vote would be subject only to the popular whim... this is not the case, nor should it be the case

Why do we need the check against a popularly voted President? So that the voices of the states (an important part of our union/country) are not drowned out by the masses... So the voices of the smaller areas such as Utah, Alaska, Idaho, etc are actually heard.. instead of being drowned out by the masses in New York, California, and Texas

The popular vote does get it's voice in the legislative branch... for each representative and senator is selected purely on the popular vote/whim of the constituents

The electoral college was put in to be a check against the tyranny of the masses... so the states are not a powerless part of this governmental system... so that we have selections by the populous, the states, and the selection and confirmation processes

 

[Iriemon]

Again... you simply seem to not have the cognitive ability to understand that the selection of the executive branch is not about popular vote.. that is the election process for the legislative branch....

majority will is for the legislative... voice of the states is for the executive... and executive nomination with electorate approval is for the judicial... the checks and balances within the branches.. ensuring that not every branch of the government is purely on nationwide vote count... so that all actions and voices are not drowned out purely by popular whim

Again, maybe my posts aren't clear, but I understand how the electoral system works. Though most states now choose delegates in one form or another via a popular vote; I understand that the president isn't elected by popular vote but by a vote of delegates.

Obviously, or Gore would have been elected and history would have been far, far different over the past 8 years.

My question is not how the system workes, but how this system provides checks and balances as you stated, and what is it "checking"? Why do we need an electoral system? What is it "checking" against? It seems to me that the only thing it checks against is that the majority of Americans didn't get their choice of president. Why do we need a "check" against the president being elected by the majority of Americans?

It has the check and balance because of the differences in how the officials from each branch are elected... a government that was totally selected by popular vote would be subject only to the popular whim... this is not the case, nor should it be the case

Why do we need the check against a popularly voted President? So that the voices of the states (an important part of our union/country) are not drowned out by the masses... So the voices of the smaller areas such as Utah, Alaska, Idaho, etc are actually heard.. instead of being drowned out by the masses in New York, California, and Texas

The popular vote does get it's voice in the legislative branch... for each representative and senator is selected purely on the popular vote/whim of the constituents

The electoral college was put in to be a check against the tyranny of the masses... so the states are not a powerless part of this governmental system... so that we have selections by the populous, the states, and the selection and confirmation processes

So in a sense, we got Bush in 2000 as a "check" against the popular will of the people to preserve the power of the states.

Seems like a pretty weak check against the power of the federal goverment, and more of an anachronism from why popular voting methods were less practical.

Scrap it would be my vote. Let the American people decide.

 

[DiamondDave]

Again, maybe my posts aren't clear, but I understand how the electoral system works. Though most states now choose delegates in one form or another via a popular vote; I understand that the president isn't elected by popular vote but by a vote of delegates.

Obviously, or Gore would have been elected and history would have been far, far different over the past 8 years.

My question is not how the system workes, but how this system provides checks and balances as you stated, and what is it "checking"? Why do we need an electoral system? What is it "checking" against? It seems to me that the only thing it checks against is that the majority of Americans didn't get their choice of president. Why do we need a "check" against the president being elected by the majority of Americans?

It has the check and balance because of the differences in how the officials from each branch are elected... a government that was totally selected by popular vote would be subject only to the popular whim... this is not the case, nor should it be the case

Why do we need the check against a popularly voted President? So that the voices of the states (an important part of our union/country) are not drowned out by the masses... So the voices of the smaller areas such as Utah, Alaska, Idaho, etc are actually heard.. instead of being drowned out by the masses in New York, California, and Texas

The popular vote does get it's voice in the legislative branch... for each representative and senator is selected purely on the popular vote/whim of the constituents

The electoral college was put in to be a check against the tyranny of the masses... so the states are not a powerless part of this governmental system... so that we have selections by the populous, the states, and the selection and confirmation processes

So in a sense, we got Bush in 2000 as a "check" against the popular will of the people to preserve the power of the states.

Seems like a pretty weak check against the power of the federal goverment, and more of an anachronism from why popular voting methods were less practical.

Scrap it would be my vote. Let the American people decide.

I would not.. because as stated.... we have a branch elected by popular vote.. this is not a popular whim democracy, nor should it be.. we are a republic that needs the checks and balances and differences in placement of political office... as stated, the people in small populous states and areas would never be heard or have 1 thought given to them in a system of all country-wide popular vote selection... in this way, if a state like new Mexico thinks/chooses 1 way and wished to be heard, they are heard, instead of being washed away in the tide of the will of the high populous areas... even if it means little because of only a few electoral votes, at least they are heard and recognized for where they stand.. and that IS important in our Republic


It is far from anarchism...

 

[Iriemon]

It has the check and balance because of the differences in how the officials from each branch are elected... a government that was totally selected by popular vote would be subject only to the popular whim... this is not the case, nor should it be the case

Why do we need the check against a popularly voted President? So that the voices of the states (an important part of our union/country) are not drowned out by the masses... So the voices of the smaller areas such as Utah, Alaska, Idaho, etc are actually heard.. instead of being drowned out by the masses in New York, California, and Texas

The popular vote does get it's voice in the legislative branch... for each representative and senator is selected purely on the popular vote/whim of the constituents

The electoral college was put in to be a check against the tyranny of the masses... so the states are not a powerless part of this governmental system... so that we have selections by the populous, the states, and the selection and confirmation processes

So in a sense, we got Bush in 2000 as a "check" against the popular will of the people to preserve the power of the states.

Seems like a pretty weak check against the power of the federal goverment, and more of an anachronism from why popular voting methods were less practical.

Scrap it would be my vote. Let the American people decide.

I would not.. because as stated.... we have a branch elected by popular vote.. this is not a popular whim democracy, nor should it be.. we are a republic that needs the checks and balances and differences in placement of political office... as stated, the people in small populous states and areas would never be heard or have 1 thought given to them in a system of all country-wide popular vote selection... in this way, if a state like new Mexico thinks/chooses 1 way and wished to be heard, they are heard, instead of being washed away in the tide of the will of the high populous areas... even if it means little because of only a few electoral votes, at least they are heard and recognized for where they stand.. and that IS important in our Republic

It is far from anarchism...

Small states get disproportionate representation in the Senate, I'm not suggesting change to that.

However, election of the American leader of the federal Government should be by the American people, IMO.

I agree that the delegate system gives smaller states a slightly more disproporationate representation in the election of the President. But the fact that the president is elected by delegates representing states doesn't increase the power of the states vis-a-vis the federal government in any significant way that I can fathom; nor does it significantly increase the power of the small states relative to the larger states.

All it does is provide for anomolies whereby if 300 people more vote for one candidate in one state than the other, it skews the value of clear majorities in other states, and thus thwarts the will of the American people to choose their American president.

We do have a republican form of government. Our voices are represented in government by representatives; we don't vote on legislation directly. I'm fine with that. IMO there's no particulary good reason to continue carrying that concept in how we choose presidents.

In 1789 it made sense. It wasn't practical to carry out a nation wide popular vote for the president. Now it we can.

 

[DiamondDave]

It is not about the power, but the voice... Alaska's 2 electoral votes will probably not sway the outcome, but their voices are heard.. .unlike what they would be in the pure nation-wide popular vote...

And that voice makes it VERY practical now... you want a popularly elected president.. give up popularly elected representatives and senators

What you propose puts the decisions of the Executive branch selection purely on the highest population areas... The States are still to be heard and are still an important part of our Republic....

The local populous and popular vote is heard in the Representatives and Senators.. The state populous and the state as a whole is heard thru the electoral college selection of the President... and the Elected officials are heard thru the selection and approval of the Judicial

 

[Meister]

So in a sense, we got Bush in 2000 as a "check" against the popular will of the people to preserve the power of the states.

Seems like a pretty weak check against the power of the federal goverment, and more of an anachronism from why popular voting methods were less practical.

Scrap it would be my vote. Let the American people decide.

I would not.. because as stated.... we have a branch elected by popular vote.. this is not a popular whim democracy, nor should it be.. we are a republic that needs the checks and balances and differences in placement of political office... as stated, the people in small populous states and areas would never be heard or have 1 thought given to them in a system of all country-wide popular vote selection... in this way, if a state like new Mexico thinks/chooses 1 way and wished to be heard, they are heard, instead of being washed away in the tide of the will of the high populous areas... even if it means little because of only a few electoral votes, at least they are heard and recognized for where they stand.. and that IS important in our Republic

It is far from anarchism...

Small states get disproportionate representation in the Senate, I'm not suggesting change to that.

However, election of the American leader of the federal Government should be by the American people, IMO.

I agree that the delegate system gives smaller states a slightly more disproporationate representation in the election of the President. But the fact that the president is elected by delegates representing states doesn't increase the power of the states vis-a-vis the federal government in any significant way that I can fathom; nor does it significantly increase the power of the small states relative to the larger states.

All it does is provide for anomolies whereby if 300 people more vote for one candidate in one state than the other, it skews the value of clear majorities in other states, and thus thwarts the will of the American people to choose their American president.

We do have a republican form of government. Our voices are represented in government by representatives; we don't vote on legislation directly. I'm fine with that. IMO there's no particulary good reason to continue carrying that concept in how we choose presidents.

In 1789 it made sense. It wasn't practical to carry out a nation wide popular vote for the president. Now it we can.

With Ca., Tx. NY, Fl., and Pa. could elect a president. Just 5 states can elect a president, and the rest of the nation has no representation, this is what you want????

 

[Iriemon]

I would not.. because as stated.... we have a branch elected by popular vote.. this is not a popular whim democracy, nor should it be.. we are a republic that needs the checks and balances and differences in placement of political office... as stated, the people in small populous states and areas would never be heard or have 1 thought given to them in a system of all country-wide popular vote selection... in this way, if a state like new Mexico thinks/chooses 1 way and wished to be heard, they are heard, instead of being washed away in the tide of the will of the high populous areas... even if it means little because of only a few electoral votes, at least they are heard and recognized for where they stand.. and that IS important in our Republic

It is far from anarchism...

Small states get disproportionate representation in the Senate, I'm not suggesting change to that.

However, election of the American leader of the federal Government should be by the American people, IMO.

I agree that the delegate system gives smaller states a slightly more disproporationate representation in the election of the President. But the fact that the president is elected by delegates representing states doesn't increase the power of the states vis-a-vis the federal government in any significant way that I can fathom; nor does it significantly increase the power of the small states relative to the larger states.

All it does is provide for anomolies whereby if 300 people more vote for one candidate in one state than the other, it skews the value of clear majorities in other states, and thus thwarts the will of the American people to choose their American president.

We do have a republican form of government. Our voices are represented in government by representatives; we don't vote on legislation directly. I'm fine with that. IMO there's no particulary good reason to continue carrying that concept in how we choose presidents.

In 1789 it made sense. It wasn't practical to carry out a nation wide popular vote for the president. Now it we can.

With Ca., Tx. NY, Fl., and Pa. could elect a president. Just 5 states can elect a president, and the rest of the nation has no representation, this is what you want????

No just the opposite.

Taking an extreme hypothetical, if 51% of the voters in each of those states voted for A, and 100% in all other states voted for B, under the electoral system A would win, even tho B got about 75% of the votes.

With a popular vote, it doesn't matter what the voters in a particular state do, it matters what Americans do. Which is how it should be to elect the American president, IMO.

 

[Iriemon]

It is not about the power, but the voice... Alaska's 2 electoral votes will probably not sway the outcome, but their voices are heard.. .unlike what they would be in the pure nation-wide popular vote...

And that voice makes it VERY practical now... you want a popularly elected president.. give up popularly elected representatives and senators

No, I don't want to give up popularly elected congressmen, the only thing we're talking about is the prez.

What you propose puts the decisions of the Executive branch selection purely on the highest population areas... The States are still to be heard and are still an important part of our Republic....

And wil remain so because each state's representatives will still be in Congress.

[qutoe]
The local populous and popular vote is heard in the Representatives and Senators.. The state populous and the state as a whole is heard thru the electoral college selection of the President... and the Elected officials are heard thru the selection and approval of the Judicial[/QUOTE]

But actually it is each state that sends reps and senators to Congress. And with few exceptions, the delegates are chosen by popular vote also. IMO its not necessary to follow that protocol for the president. The president (and his admin) is the only elected person who represents all the people. He should be chosen by the popular will of the people.

 

[Meister]

Small states get disproportionate representation in the Senate, I'm not suggesting change to that.

However, election of the American leader of the federal Government should be by the American people, IMO.

I agree that the delegate system gives smaller states a slightly more disproporationate representation in the election of the President. But the fact that the president is elected by delegates representing states doesn't increase the power of the states vis-a-vis the federal government in any significant way that I can fathom; nor does it significantly increase the power of the small states relative to the larger states.

All it does is provide for anomolies whereby if 300 people more vote for one candidate in one state than the other, it skews the value of clear majorities in other states, and thus thwarts the will of the American people to choose their American president.

We do have a republican form of government. Our voices are represented in government by representatives; we don't vote on legislation directly. I'm fine with that. IMO there's no particulary good reason to continue carrying that concept in how we choose presidents.

In 1789 it made sense. It wasn't practical to carry out a nation wide popular vote for the president. Now it we can.

With Ca., Tx. NY, Fl., and Pa. could elect a president. Just 5 states can elect a president, and the rest of the nation has no representation, this is what you want????

No just the opposite.

Taking an extreme hypothetical, if 51% of the voters in each of those states voted for A, and 100% in all other states voted for B, under the electoral system A would win, even tho B got about 75% of the votes.

With a popular vote, it doesn't matter what the voters in a particular state do, it matters what Americans do. Which is how it should be to elect the American president, IMO.

Sorry to disagree with you. Candidates would only have to campaign in certain states....and you could bet the farm, that Id., Mt, Wy. would never see a campaign, and would never be represented.
If 95% of those voters in the big 5 states voted for A, it doesn't make a bit of difference what the rest of the country voted for. Hypthetically speaking.

 

[DiamondDave]

It is not about the power, but the voice... Alaska's 2 electoral votes will probably not sway the outcome, but their voices are heard.. .unlike what they would be in the pure nation-wide popular vote...

And that voice makes it VERY practical now... you want a popularly elected president.. give up popularly elected representatives and senators

No, I don't want to give up popularly elected congressmen, the only thing we're talking about is the prez.

What you propose puts the decisions of the Executive branch selection purely on the highest population areas... The States are still to be heard and are still an important part of our Republic....

And wil remain so because each state's representatives will still be in Congress.

The local populous and popular vote is heard in the Representatives and Senators.. The state populous and the state as a whole is heard thru the electoral college selection of the President... and the Elected officials are heard thru the selection and approval of the Judicial

But actually it is each state that sends reps and senators to Congress. And with few exceptions, the delegates are chosen by popular vote also. IMO its not necessary to follow that protocol for the president. The president (and his admin) is the only elected person who represents all the people. He should be chosen by the popular will of the people.

No.. he/she represents the country, which is a collection of 50 states and a couple other territories that contains the populace....

The electoral college ENSURES the voices of the states, and hence the populations of said states, are heard... otherwise the smaller populous states would not be heard PERIOD...

Again.. there is separation in how different officials are chosen to ensure there is not just the tyranny of the masses.. the states ARE important entities within our governmental system... and EACH state, and the populace of each state, deserves to be heard in the choosing of the supreme executive

Just as in congress we do not just have a # of officials based on the populous of the state.. We have the senate with equal representation from each state to counter balance the house... the electoral college system creates balance as well.. .MUCH NEEDED balance

I'm sorry.. but to me and other supporters of different selection methods for each branch, value the voices of Delaware, Idaho, New Mexico, Hawaii, etc... and wish for those voices to be heard in the selection process

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Why Does the Right Hate Obama?

By THIS time.....they're recognizing.....​

.....1996.....all-OVER, AGAIN!!!!!​

.

.

. . . . . . ​

 

[Avatar4321]

Why on earth did you resurrect this thread to add absolutely nothing to it?