Total Posts:24|Showing Posts:1-24
Jump to topic:

Electoral process

innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2010 1:24:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I'm fairly certain how this will go, but little by little this is being removed.
We just had our governor sign the bill in Mass, and this is being done in each of the states so that the voting process will go by simple majority. This will generally go down like this: those who are for states rights, and or conservative will probably be in favor of the electoral college, and those who are liberal and are more in favor of federal rights will want to eliminate the college in favor of the straight majority. Yea or nae?

http://www.boston.com...

"Illinois, New Jersey, Hawaii, Maryland, and Washington have already approved the legislation, according to the National Popular Vote campaign's website"

Actually, i think the people of the country should be able to vote on amending the constitution.
Strikeeagle84015
Posts: 867
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2010 1:31:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
So this is how liberty dies, to thunderous applause. -Revenge of the Sith I think this pretty well sums up this bill.

This is an unconstitutional attempt to change the constitution states have rights but they also must follow the constitution congratulations United States the only people that get to vote now are those that live in New York, California, Texas and Florida

Goodbye liberty
: At 8/17/2010 7:17:56 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
: Hey dawg, i herd you like evangelical trolls so we put a bible thumper in yo bible thumper so you can troll while you troll!

Arguing with an atheist about God is very similar to arguing with a blind man about what the Sistine Chapel looks like
Marilyn Poe

Strikeeagle wrote
The only way I will stop believing in God is if he appeared before me and told me that he did not exist.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2010 1:39:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/4/2010 1:31:47 PM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
So this is how liberty dies, to thunderous applause. -Revenge of the Sith I think this pretty well sums up this bill.

This is an unconstitutional attempt to change the constitution states have rights but they also must follow the constitution congratulations United States the only people that get to vote now are those that live in New York, California, Texas and Florida

Goodbye liberty

I'm thinking that it is a constitutional attempt to change the constitution. It will pass too, little by little slow by slow and barely a word spoken about it. Yes, you are right about the mega populated states - good bye Wyoming.
Strikeeagle84015
Posts: 867
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2010 1:41:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
The people that support this bill say that one of the reasons they want to do this because right now candidates just focus on a few key battleground states.

Do they not realize if this is enacted it will cause canidates to pay attention only to a handful of cities.
If this bill is passed a canidate only needs to win 9 states and to hell with the rest of the country
California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Georgia if they can get the popular vote in these 9 states they will have 50.84% of the national popular vote and as such they will become President without ever having to have even traveled to Washington, or Alaska or pretty much any other state.
: At 8/17/2010 7:17:56 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
: Hey dawg, i herd you like evangelical trolls so we put a bible thumper in yo bible thumper so you can troll while you troll!

Arguing with an atheist about God is very similar to arguing with a blind man about what the Sistine Chapel looks like
Marilyn Poe

Strikeeagle wrote
The only way I will stop believing in God is if he appeared before me and told me that he did not exist.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2010 1:48:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I personally find the entire process in the United States unwieldy and cumbersome, and the electoral college a silly remnant of the past. But, I'm also Canadian, so I don't really care all too much.

But, really guys - do you think this actually represents the "killer blow" to your form of the electoral process down there? Popular vote elections are held everywhere in the world without the major problems described by you two. It's not the end of the world to actually have a system that represents what the people think it is. Or do you think Americans actually care about the process of the college and how it actually works? I guarantee most stopped caring or noticing after Florida.
Strikeeagle84015
Posts: 867
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2010 1:51:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/4/2010 1:48:38 PM, Volkov wrote:
I personally find the entire process in the United States unwieldy and cumbersome, and the electoral college a silly remnant of the past. But, I'm also Canadian, so I don't really care all too much.

But, really guys - do you think this actually represents the "killer blow" to your form of the electoral process down there? Popular vote elections are held everywhere in the world without the major problems described by you two. It's not the end of the world to actually have a system that represents what the people think it is. Or do you think Americans actually care about the process of the college and how it actually works? I guarantee most stopped caring or noticing after Florida.

Sure it doesn't seem like a problem until you throw in the fact that many poeple that live in populated areas are liberals, and that the organization formerly known as ACORN is being charged with voter fraud in dozens of states now, were not talking about just a couple hundred extra votes we are talking in the tens of thousands.
: At 8/17/2010 7:17:56 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
: Hey dawg, i herd you like evangelical trolls so we put a bible thumper in yo bible thumper so you can troll while you troll!

Arguing with an atheist about God is very similar to arguing with a blind man about what the Sistine Chapel looks like
Marilyn Poe

Strikeeagle wrote
The only way I will stop believing in God is if he appeared before me and told me that he did not exist.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2010 1:53:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/4/2010 1:51:29 PM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
Sure it doesn't seem like a problem until you throw in the fact that many poeple that live in populated areas are liberals, and that the organization formerly known as ACORN is being charged with voter fraud in dozens of states now, were not talking about just a couple hundred extra votes we are talking in the tens of thousands.

So, the entire reason you want to keep the electoral college is for partisan advantage, not because you want a fair and representative system of electing people the office of the President.

Just making sure.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2010 1:55:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/4/2010 1:48:38 PM, Volkov wrote:
I personally find the entire process in the United States unwieldy and cumbersome, and the electoral college a silly remnant of the past. But, I'm also Canadian, so I don't really care all too much.

But, really guys - do you think this actually represents the "killer blow" to your form of the electoral process down there? Popular vote elections are held everywhere in the world without the major problems described by you two. It's not the end of the world to actually have a system that represents what the people think it is. Or do you think Americans actually care about the process of the college and how it actually works? I guarantee most stopped caring or noticing after Florida.

We aren't the same as everyone all over the world. We aren't America, we are the United States of America, and the dynamics of our federalism is different than most others. There are checks and balances in our country for a variety of reasons, and this is to put a certain measure of balance to the rights of states over other states. It is only a "remnant of the past" in that it was devised when our constitution was composed. That is a poor reason to object to something, simply because it is old. It provides a purpose.
Strikeeagle84015
Posts: 867
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2010 1:55:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/4/2010 1:53:44 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 8/4/2010 1:51:29 PM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
Sure it doesn't seem like a problem until you throw in the fact that many poeple that live in populated areas are liberals, and that the organization formerly known as ACORN is being charged with voter fraud in dozens of states now, were not talking about just a couple hundred extra votes we are talking in the tens of thousands.

So, the entire reason you want to keep the electoral college is for partisan advantage, not because you want a fair and representative system of electing people the office of the President.

Just making sure.

No because it ensures minority rights and prevents the heavy handed iron rule of the majority. In addition this is only going to divide the country further and historically the electoral college has managed to effectively represent the will of the people
: At 8/17/2010 7:17:56 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
: Hey dawg, i herd you like evangelical trolls so we put a bible thumper in yo bible thumper so you can troll while you troll!

Arguing with an atheist about God is very similar to arguing with a blind man about what the Sistine Chapel looks like
Marilyn Poe

Strikeeagle wrote
The only way I will stop believing in God is if he appeared before me and told me that he did not exist.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2010 1:56:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Government positions that preside over all the population should be elected by all the population, not by abstract political entities such as states.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Strikeeagle84015
Posts: 867
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2010 1:57:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/4/2010 1:56:20 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Government positions that preside over all the population should be elected by all the population, not by abstract political entities such as states.

Tell that to the people whose vote no longer counts
: At 8/17/2010 7:17:56 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
: Hey dawg, i herd you like evangelical trolls so we put a bible thumper in yo bible thumper so you can troll while you troll!

Arguing with an atheist about God is very similar to arguing with a blind man about what the Sistine Chapel looks like
Marilyn Poe

Strikeeagle wrote
The only way I will stop believing in God is if he appeared before me and told me that he did not exist.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2010 1:58:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/4/2010 1:56:20 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Government positions that preside over all the population should be elected by all the population, not by abstract political entities such as states.

Though, really, I'm indifferent on this issue.

If enough of the liberal states decide to divide their votes while all the conservative states do not, the conservatives win more elections. Politically, why would the Democrats want to divide Massachusetts' votes?
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2010 1:58:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/4/2010 1:56:20 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Government positions that preside over all the population should be elected by all the population, not by abstract political entities such as states.

Silliness. You would like to be ruled over by the UN if the whole world were to elect the leaders?
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2010 1:59:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/4/2010 1:57:28 PM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
At 8/4/2010 1:56:20 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Government positions that preside over all the population should be elected by all the population, not by abstract political entities such as states.

Tell that to the people whose vote no longer counts
ELECTORAL COLLEGE
If your state votes a different way than you do, your vote not only "doesn't count", but is counted the opposite way than you voted.
DEMOCRACY
Your vote counts regardless of whom you vote for.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2010 2:00:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/4/2010 1:55:42 PM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
No because it ensures minority rights and prevents the heavy handed iron rule of the majority. In addition this is only going to divide the country further and historically the electoral college has managed to effectively represent the will of the people

Except for 2000, which was a big, big thorn in the side of the electoral college. ;)

I also fail to see how it protects "minority rights." What it does is elevate regions that have no power into a position of one, allowing the parties to take advantage of their gifted status over the will of a popular vote. 2000, again, is a clear example of this.

Besides, under the popular vote system, you still would have gotten Presidents like Reagan, Nixon, and possibly even Bush. The same representation with pretty much the same results, with no archaic and tiresome method of counting it!
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2010 2:00:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/4/2010 1:58:31 PM, innomen wrote:
At 8/4/2010 1:56:20 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Government positions that preside over all the population should be elected by all the population, not by abstract political entities such as states.

Silliness. You would like to be ruled over by the UN if the whole world were to elect the leaders?

I stated nothing regarding the creation of such government positions. My statements regarded those positions that already exist.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2010 2:01:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/4/2010 1:55:08 PM, innomen wrote:
We aren't the same as everyone all over the world. We aren't America, we are the United States of America, and the dynamics of our federalism is different than most others. There are checks and balances in our country for a variety of reasons, and this is to put a certain measure of balance to the rights of states over other states. It is only a "remnant of the past" in that it was devised when our constitution was composed. That is a poor reason to object to something, simply because it is old. It provides a purpose.

It lost that purpose years ago, and you know it. The voters don't care or understand the system, and your version of federalism is more centralized than that of socialist Canada's. It's silly.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2010 2:05:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/4/2010 2:00:38 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 8/4/2010 1:55:42 PM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
No because it ensures minority rights and prevents the heavy handed iron rule of the majority. In addition this is only going to divide the country further and historically the electoral college has managed to effectively represent the will of the people

Except for 2000, which was a big, big thorn in the side of the electoral college. ;)

I also fail to see how it protects "minority rights." What it does is elevate regions that have no power into a position of one, allowing the parties to take advantage of their gifted status over the will of a popular vote. 2000, again, is a clear example of this.

Besides, under the popular vote system, you still would have gotten Presidents like Reagan, Nixon, and possibly even Bush. The same representation with pretty much the same results, with no archaic and tiresome method of counting it!

You're not getting it. It's a states rights check and balance. The most populated states will have the greatest power, and the most popular states often have the same concerns as each other. The least populated states will be bulldozed.

"Tiresome meathod of counting", oh so terrible.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2010 2:07:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/4/2010 2:01:50 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 8/4/2010 1:55:08 PM, innomen wrote:
We aren't the same as everyone all over the world. We aren't America, we are the United States of America, and the dynamics of our federalism is different than most others. There are checks and balances in our country for a variety of reasons, and this is to put a certain measure of balance to the rights of states over other states. It is only a "remnant of the past" in that it was devised when our constitution was composed. That is a poor reason to object to something, simply because it is old. It provides a purpose.

It lost that purpose years ago, and you know it. The voters don't care or understand the system, and your version of federalism is more centralized than that of socialist Canada's. It's silly.

I didn't say it is more or less centralized, but it is more complicated. No, it hasn't lost that purpose at all. The most important states for the candidates are New Hampshire and IOWA! Think about that. The fact that we are more centralized makes it even more important.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2010 2:09:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/4/2010 2:05:15 PM, innomen wrote:
You're not getting it. It's a states rights check and balance. The most populated states will have the greatest power, and the most popular states often have the same concerns as each other. The least populated states will be bulldozed.

You're electing a President, not setting up a friggin' constitutional amendment. You guys have a Triple-E Senate for a reason - you just don't seem to know how to use it.

The entire point of the legislature, especially the Senate, is to give the states an equal voice on matters in the Republic. Why do you need the electoral college to elect a federal representative who can easily be countered by the Triple-E Senate, like its supposed to? Sending the delegates means nothing in the actual process - it's entirely pointless. Your system, and your voters, already think its going off of a popular vote system. Might as well take the final step.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2010 2:10:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/4/2010 2:07:56 PM, innomen wrote:
I didn't say it is more or less centralized, but it is more complicated. No, it hasn't lost that purpose at all. The most important states for the candidates are New Hampshire and IOWA! Think about that. The fact that we are more centralized makes it even more important.

Those are in PRIMARIES, which does not have to be tied down to the electoral college.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2010 2:13:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/4/2010 2:10:00 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 8/4/2010 2:07:56 PM, innomen wrote:
I didn't say it is more or less centralized, but it is more complicated. No, it hasn't lost that purpose at all. The most important states for the candidates are New Hampshire and IOWA! Think about that. The fact that we are more centralized makes it even more important.

Those are in PRIMARIES, which does not have to be tied down to the electoral college.

Woops, did i say that. Yikes.
twsurber
Posts: 505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2010 12:52:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I actually have received a call from Congressman Shuler's office on my Student Congress proposal to modify the 12th amendment.

NC has 15 electoral votes. If candidate A wins 67% of the votes, then candidate A should get 10 of the 15 electoral votes. It isn't that much more difficult to tally.

I strongly oppose the all or none system we presently have because constituents' are NOT being adequately represented.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2010 2:22:01 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/16/2010 12:52:06 PM, twsurber wrote:
I actually have received a call from Congressman Shuler's office on my Student Congress proposal to modify the 12th amendment.

NC has 15 electoral votes. If candidate A wins 67% of the votes, then candidate A should get 10 of the 15 electoral votes. It isn't that much more difficult to tally.

I strongly oppose the all or none system we presently have because constituents' are NOT being adequately represented.

I'd be good with that.