Andrewwhyte 1 #26 September 26, 2008 QuoteOne more thing, the founders were definitely smarter than just about everyone in DC now. If they had wanted to create a pure democracy, they would've done so. Today, those that think we should be that way, take us away from our roots of being a constitutional republic. Changing the constitution to abolish the EC according to the formula set out by those wise men would detract from neither the country's constitutionality nor its republicanism. The constitution is not sacred; that is why it has an amending formula. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #27 September 26, 2008 QuoteQuote I hate the electoral college system. It's 200 years out of date, and should be scrapped in favor of a direct popular vote system. Some people disagree with this, but...they're wrong. No, you're wrong. That's just wrong. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #28 September 26, 2008 QuoteQuoteOne more thing, the founders were definitely smarter than just about everyone in DC now. If they had wanted to create a pure democracy, they would've done so. Today, those that think we should be that way, take us away from our roots of being a constitutional republic. Changing the constitution to abolish the EC according to the formula set out by those wise men would detract from neither the country's constitutionality nor its republicanism. The constitution is not sacred; that is why it has an amending formula. ...and that amending formula has an extremely high standard...something that I think the beltway falls well below of.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #29 September 26, 2008 QuoteProp. 7 Renewable Energy Generation. Initiative Statute. Speaking of Prop. 7, I need to look into that more before the election. It sounds like something you would have already looked into, so do you have any thoughts about it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
misaltas 0 #30 September 26, 2008 QuoteIn 2000, had ONE additional state - JUST ONE - gone to Gore, he would have won the election. Say, Tennessee. US popular vote or not, there's just something not all that right with a candidate who can't win his own state. Would've made Florida moot.Ohne Liebe sind wir nichts Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #31 September 26, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuote....that at least comes close to the principle of directly enfranchising each voter. Yeah, it's just puzzling to me why this system is still in place. No matter what side of the spectrum you stand on you have to feel disenfranchised in certain states (Cali if you're Repub for example). Out of curiousity - if this system was abolished to a true 1 person, 1 vote system - would that open the door for new parties? Seems to me like people would be more likely to vote a certain way if they didn't feel like their vote would be totally discounted since the state would never go in 'their' direction (green/independent/etc). Ian It's not just republicans. It's everybody here in CA. Why bother going to the polls when Obama is going to win this state anyway? So I can say I'm part of the system? It's crap I say. Well this way you can still try to load the Congress full of lovely individuals.... they did such a good job running the country for Bush's 1st 5.5 years. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #32 September 26, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuotehanks Bill. So is there any reason, other than history, that this is still in use? Yeah. It helps give a fair shake to each state in the union. Life styles can be wildly different between each state. For instance, someone from Montana or Oklahoma won't necessarily agree with the choices of someone from California or New York. So going to a popular vote system, those states with the lower population, but are equally important to the welfare of the US would loose a percentage of their now held ability to effect national electoral outcomes. This is even more important as Congress and the Senate have lost (given up) much of their power to the POTUS, which is an unfortunate reality now. That erosion really started with Lincoln and has expanded to a scary situation in the modern era. After having studied the history involved, its obvious to me that the system should stay in place. It prevents any one over populated state from controlling the other 49. I wish we had more constitutionalists in politics. Well, that's not correct, they are in politics, but they aren't widely elected to national posts. The reason is clearly explained in the Federalist Papers (#68) and has nothing whatsoever to do with giving "a fair shake" to anyone. It has to do with the elite of the time distrusting the masses to make a correct decision. The EC guaranteed that the elite would have the say in selecting the president. Yep, they started pretending equality even back then, they're much better pretending now. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #33 September 26, 2008 My state gets to vote for the religious nuts to abolish gay marriage. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #34 September 26, 2008 QuoteQuoteOne more thing, the founders were definitely smarter than just about everyone in DC now. If they had wanted to create a pure democracy, they would've done so. Today, those that think we should be that way, take us away from our roots of being a constitutional republic. Changing the constitution to abolish the EC according to the formula set out by those wise men would detract from neither the country's constitutionality nor its republicanism. The constitution is not sacred; that is why it has an amending formula. Agreed, revering a document that was written by slave owners, rapists and murderers as sacred is nuts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #35 September 26, 2008 QuoteSome people disagree with this, but...they're wrong. Bullshit - we are a representative republic, NOT a straight democracy.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #36 September 26, 2008 QuoteQuoteSome people disagree with this, but...they're wrong. Bullshit - we are a representative republic, NOT a straight democracy. In terms of legislation, yes. (Aside from the occasional binding referendum.) In terms of election of office-holders, though, we're a straight democracy (or, if you will, a straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender one) for virtually every position but President and Vice President. I've always found that galling. Still do, obviously. You and I are no less qualified to directly elect our Presidents than we are to directly elect our states' governors. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,255 #37 September 26, 2008 QuoteQuoteSome people disagree with this, but...they're wrong. Bullshit - we are a representative republic, NOT a straight democracy. Non-sequitur much? No-ones talking about doing away with the representatives or the president!Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #38 September 26, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteSome people disagree with this, but...they're wrong. Bullshit - we are a representative republic, NOT a straight democracy. Non-sequitur much? No-ones talking about doing away with the representatives or the president! It ties in - the system of government and the electoral college were set up to PRECLUDE a straight democracy.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #39 September 26, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteSome people disagree with this, but...they're wrong. Bullshit - we are a representative republic, NOT a straight democracy. Non-sequitur much? No-ones talking about doing away with the representatives or the president! It ties in - the system of government and the electoral college were set up to PRECLUDE a straight democracy. The EC is irrelevant to that. Even with direct voting for Prez the USA would still be a republic. Your statement IS non sequitur. Federalist #68 gives the entire rationale for the EC system, and it's not very flattering. Hamilton was an unrepentant elitist.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #40 September 26, 2008 QuoteHamilton was an unrepentant elitist. Yeah, well, he got his. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #41 September 26, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuote I hate the electoral college system. It's 200 years out of date, and should be scrapped in favor of a direct popular vote system. Some people disagree with this, but...they're wrong. No, you're wrong. What are the attributes of the EC system that make him wrong? it works. It's the longest standing democracy (give or take a pissant nation or two) out there. Wanting a direct election when most of the Western World indirectly elects a PM seems like a grass is greener fantasy, completely ignoring the downsides of the shift. Like fraud. In a tight election, there is now great gains for cheating in non contested states like Illinois (Hello, Daley) or Texas. You could pile on an extra 100k votes without notice. And error. Voting is not accurate to the vote, anything less than .5% is effectively a dead heat. How the hell do you recount 120M votes? And then there are the obvious problems. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #42 September 26, 2008 Each state can decide how they want to apportion their Electoral votes. Let each state decide for themselves. And they can keep their noses out of what the other states want to do. The issue with abolishing it altogether is a few states trying to tell the other states what to do. Which is wrong. And also explains why a couple states won't do it on their own unless the rest follow suit. Those states that want all 50 to do it want that because it would advance their interests over the others. no kidding ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #43 September 26, 2008 So we're all agreed - the EC should be abolished. I'll get started on the Constitutional amendment. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
