dfa2c4a2-344a-448b-adea-ed0d9d5ad6a7-image.png
Stanley
-
dont fret dezrtfish, i understood perfectly. of course these damn liberals, spew venom about the electoral college, b/c they blame it for bush winning. and so they cry about it. constantly. they would rather have the states rights and the intention of the founders by the states LETTING themselves be governed by a central government if it keeps to the original contract, thrown away so they can dominate with the populations of shitheads in new york and the douchbag eastcoast and those retarded hippies on the west coast. the oceans must screw with the mind. to much salinity in the air.
the electoral college is there as a function of states rights. this isnt some huge centralized government piece of crap socialist democracy. its a damn good democracy without the socialism. the electoral votes give more sway to states with more population, and that sounds democratic to me. more people, more votes = a little extra voting power for a state. just like the house of reps is their to let more populous states have a little extra clout also. the senate makes all states equal in votes.
the whole setup is a great, fantastic compromise that works well. and will continue to work well. the states if they see themselves getting screwed hardcore by a “new and improved” populous vote system, under the contract as it is, could just walk away. what state would want to get royally screwed over by shitheads. or they could group together and attack blockade and starve into submission those shitheads. liberals just dont like it because they lost to bush,……twice. nuff said.
I’m not surprised you went the “damn liberals” route. The setup is not great. Every person in America could abstain from voting and someone would be elected. I’m sorry, but the electoral college is antiquated. You have given no reason to uphold it, because the MAJORITY of voters got screwed over by shitheads because of the bad system. Explain how that is ok - you can’t. And I was saying this BEFORE Bush got reelected. And this could go against a Republican candidate just the same. It’s about being fair.
you would just make other peoples votes count as nothing but people who you prefer to have their votes count as nothing. like people in small states.
ahh, the hypocracy, “its terrible if it happens to me, but i would love to make it happen to you”
didnt jesus say one of the worst things to be was a hypocrite, maybe right after lazy people with no worth(the fig tree) –(welfare bad?)
You would know about hypocrisy. Following this comment you negate others’ votes because you don’t agree with them. I’m not surprised here either.
-
And your note about minorities is completely off. It’s not the point of democracy. A true democracy would say the minority base needs just as much representation as the majority. There has to be some protection - otherwise, it’s not a democracy but mob rule. Furthermore, depending on what you look at, the minority and majority could be comprised of anyone. Is it by gender? Age? Race? Hardly a way to go. Other things to consider - why should men decide what happens with women, a la abortion? Or the heterosexuals on gay issues? Etc, etc.
First off I wasn’t referring to minorities as a class, I was referring to Minority oppinion on specific issue. If you are out voted you are in the minority on the issue in question. If the issue decided harms the minority then the Judicial branch steps in and over rules. TRUE Democracy IS mob rule that’s why we aren’t a True Demoracy. Thats why the judicial branch of the government is equally as powerfull as the legislative and executive.
Ever heard the quote “Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner.”?
On a side note, men are involved on the issue of abortion because roughly half of the aborted people in the country would have been men. Why don’t we let retarded people vote on whether retarded people should be able to get drivers licences. :roll:
-
having a electoral college without take all policy would be a more democractic process. the small staes would be worth more (still have 3 points) while big sttates woun’t be as importan you can get 14 of the 22 points for the state instead off all 22. that would be better off the smaller states. also dems in the south repulicans in the north etc wont fell like there vote counts as nothing.
thats your quote cyan….
you would have the small states be royally screwed by trying to divy up votes. we all know those new england states are so freaking blue its sick. they are more eurpoean than american, and screw europe, they have no histroy anyone would want. and no, i’ve heard this before, but only by liberals, who are dying, just dying for any extra electoral college vote. forget it, we arent changing our system and liberals will not be helped.
you feel as if the democrats wiuldbe elected to office all the time if this syestem was implmented. thought you belived in dmcracy. you say you dislike israel beacuse it the minnoty ruling over the majority. so what you are saying know would oprres the democratic party so your party could stay in power(which is the minoty) this seem very hypocritical. http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=8032.180
well the dems would not be automatically elected to office. lets look at Californa.(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/elections/2004/ca/) wel bush revived 44% of the votes while John Kerry recived 54%. normally kerry would get all 55 points(which is alot). .4455=24.2; .5455= 29.7 KErry would have gotten 30 points and bush would have gotten 24 points. that puts bush at a differnce of +48 points than what the regular syestem would of had. what you sugest aacutuall throws out like 40% of the nations votes.
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/elections/2004/ma/) MA is in new england “more european than europe” really liberal and where KErry was from . it is worht 12 points and bush won 37% of the votes. thats .37*12=4.44 or 4 points in which bush would have had in Kerry’s home state 4 points that would have went undemocraticaly to JOhn KErry. so New england actually would give some points to the republicans
so i still belieave that a more democratic way of running the elections would to have the electrol syestem but to take the winner take all poilcy away. this will stop 40% of the population from having “worthless votes”
-
doesn’t nebraska already do this?
-
yes sir we do. go huskers.
i think we are the only state to do so. and for the record, the system is good as is. it doesnt need to be changed. hell look at the BCS, as soon as you change something all anyone does is bitch about it.
so i still belieave that a more democratic way of running the elections would to have the electrol syestem but to take the winner take all poilcy away. this will stop 40% of the population from having “worthless votes”
its still up to the states to decide who they want to be president. if you live in a state with worthless votes, your beef is with your own state, not the national process.
-
I have to ask this considering what we are currently discussing…
What in the hell did y’all do with Stanley?
:mrgreen:
-
@ncscswitch:
I have to ask this considering what we are currently discussing…
What in the hell did y’all do with Stanley?
:mrgreen:
cause all the stanlys of america are lossing there vote to the majortiy of the state. think almost one half of all stanlys loss there vote. :)
-
Stanley is not something you can hold a particularly long discussion on
-
Stanley is not something you can hold a particularly long discussion on
I cantalk forever about Stanley http://disney.go.com/disneychannel/playhouse/stanley/ ITs the best show ever its about theis kid a golfish a dog and a cat. they have this big book and have travel to the animals in the book. and you get to learn about elephants …best show ever!! (sacrasm) my little brother and sister used to watch it.
-
Well if you don’t understand the point I am trying to make it’s my fault for being unable to explain clearly enough. I do suggest you do a bit of research on pro=college view points so that perhaps someone else can explain better than I.
Dezrtfish, I am impressed that you know as much as you do about the Electoral College. John Kerry would be amazed to learn how ejumakated our citizen-soldiers are. You did good.
I find it truly ironic that the people arguing for the destruction of the electoral college are the ones who understand it least. You would think that before they try to change something, they would try to understand its function so they can be assured the replacement will be better. Maybe that is just engineer thinking…
For those who actually are interested in how it works, here is a link to a good initial resource.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_CollegeAnd here is a nice starting point in that resource for improving the level of discourse about why we have an electoral college.
The Electoral College dilutes the votes of population centers that might have different concerns from the rest of the country. The system is supposed to require presidential candidates to appeal to many different types of interests, rather than, say, the urban voter. The College enabled the Founding Fathers to deftly incorporate the Connecticut Compromise and three-fifths compromise into the system of choosing the President and Vice President, sparing the convention further acrimony over the issue of state representation.
In the Federalist Papers No. 39, James Madison argued that the Constitution was designed to be a mixture of federal (state-based) and national (population-based) government. The Congress would have two houses, one federal and one national in character, while the President would be elected by a mixture of the two modes, giving some electoral power to the states and some to the people in general. Both the Congress and the President would be elected by mixed federal and national means.
-
Dezrtfish, I am impressed that you know as much as you do about the Electoral College. John Kerry would be amazed to learn how ejumakated our citizen-soldiers are. You did good.
I find it truly ironic that the people arguing for the destruction of the electoral college are the ones who understand it least. You would think that before they try to change something, they would try to understand its function so they can be assured the replacement will be better. Maybe that is just engineer thinking…
lol, The citizen half of me is a draftsman in an engineering dept. I’m not directly supervised by an engineer though, so I guess “systems designer” in a more acurate job discription.
-
Dezrtfish, I am impressed that you know as much as you do about the Electoral College. John Kerry would be amazed to learn how ejumakated our citizen-soldiers are. You did good.
I find it truly ironic that the people arguing for the destruction of the electoral college are the ones who understand it least. You would think that before they try to change something, they would try to understand its function so they can be assured the replacement will be better. Maybe that is just engineer thinking…
lol, The citizen half of me is a draftsman in an engineering dept. I’m not directly supervised by an engineer though, so I guess “systems designer” in a more acurate job discription.
Another ‘engineer’ out there! Good to meet you.
I did my 22+ of active and reserve and retired 11 days ago.
-
Good time to retire. I will have 17 years in may. with my luck just enough time to take one more trip over.
If you ever in Phoenix let me know, we can play a game or just go shooting… :-D
-
Good time to retire. I will have 17 years in may. with my luck just enough time to take one more trip over.
If you ever in Phoenix let me know, we can play a game or just go shooting…Â :-D
My wife and kids thought retirement was a good thing too. It was a hard decision.
I keep you in mind if I’m in Phoenix. I could really enjoy the shooting. Don’t get to do that much here in the land of nuts, fruits and flakes.
Look me up in Monterey if you find yourself in the area.
Suggested Topics
