A few not so great things about America..

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote:

ChrissMari wrote:

404 error wrote:

ChrissMari wrote:

Shellshocker wrote:

404 error wrote: Their weird electoral system which seems to give disproportionate influence to low population density states (which are usually conservative states).

The electoral system here sucks! It was basically insituted because the founding fathers didn't quite trust the masses, so they gave themselves a loophole in cases the masses did something stupid, so the electors could give the votes that actually count to the "right man". Worst of all, if we had a popular vote instead of an electoral vote, Bush would not have won in 2000!!

and if it was the popular vote rather than a well proportioned system the president would only represent the most populated areas of the countries foresaking all others, because you'd only need the population of like 6 large cities to win.

See, I think that would a perfectly good system. I mean, its entirely up to you Yanks what system you use, but this 'proportioned' system seems rather like the daft system the EU uses, where one Luxembourger vote is worth six Germans or Five Brits - I don't like that system at all, and if I were a Californian or a New Yorker I wouldn't like your system either. At least the EU can say its giving extra weight to actual nations with their own languages and cultures, not just states.

I prefer one person one vote, all of equal worth. True that would give big power to the big cities, but what's wrong with that? [warning: over-the-top rant ahead] What have low population density rural areas given the world? The Taliban, the electoral base of the German Nazis, the Khmer Rouge, the killers of Srebrenica, the Countryside Alliance and the US religious right. While the cities produced most of the opposition to those movements.

It doesn't end up one person one vote with that kind of population dispersal though. It winds up more power to popular areas and people who were born somewhere by accident of birth don't get really represented.

And in the current system, those people are overrepresented. All you have to do is be some inbred halfwit living in a state with more livestock than people, and you have more representation than people who, by accident of birth, live in a city. Yeah, that makes sense.

When you're on meth.

Interesting how when minority populations don't go in the direction of your thinking, how you want them discredited. With that thought why give gays, blacks, Jews, or any minority for that matter any rights? Hypocritical thinking me thinks.

JHC

68Pontiac wrote:

Interesting how when minority populations don't go in the direction of your thinking, how you want them discredited. With that thought why give gays, blacks, Jews, or any minority for that matter any rights? Hypocritical thinking me thinks.

JHC

What rational basis is there for saying that just because some guy lives out in the middle of nowhere, his vote should count for more than my vote?

68Pontiac wrote: Interesting how when minority populations don't go in the direction of your thinking, how you want them discredited. With that thought why give gays, blacks, Jews, or any minority for that matter any rights? Hypocritical thinking me thinks.

JHC

Or, if you'd like, let's try a different experiment. Since we're so concerned about empowering voters who would otherwise be outvoted by the majority, let's make each black vote worth ten white votes. That should help make sure the black voter gets heard.

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote:

68Pontiac wrote: Interesting how when minority populations don't go in the direction of your thinking, how you want them discredited. With that thought why give gays, blacks, Jews, or any minority for that matter any rights? Hypocritical thinking me thinks.

JHC

Or, if you'd like, let's try a different experiment. Since we're so concerned about empowering voters who would otherwise be outvoted by the majority, let's make each black vote worth ten white votes. That should help make sure the black voter gets heard.

Comrade,

Reread my last write up and it sounded a little more on the attack that intented. . .sorry.

Actually this does happen, but not through votes, but through the court system. Votes that have a majority vote and made law can be reversed by a minority of people in the supreme courts.

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote: What rational basis is there for saying that just because some guy lives out in the middle of nowhere, his vote should count for more than my vote?

Let's say the crazy green peace extremists in California say that tractors are a growing concern for the enviroment. They don't use tractors in the city, so they don't see a need for them. So they vote into law that all tractors are illegal to use.

What effects on the economy would this have on the midwest where the farming takes place and don't have enough people to vote against a city?

JHC

68Pontiac wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote:

68Pontiac wrote: Interesting how when minority populations don't go in the direction of your thinking, how you want them discredited. With that thought why give gays, blacks, Jews, or any minority for that matter any rights? Hypocritical thinking me thinks.

JHC

Or, if you'd like, let's try a different experiment. Since we're so concerned about empowering voters who would otherwise be outvoted by the majority, let's make each black vote worth ten white votes. That should help make sure the black voter gets heard.

Comrade,

Reread my last write up and it sounded a little more on the attack that intented. . .sorry.

Actually this does happen, but not through votes, but through the court system. Votes that have a majority vote and made law can be reversed by a minority of people in the supreme courts.

JHC

If a law is unconstitutional, it is reversed, and should be. There are procedures for amending the Constitution-- passing a statute by majority vote isn't one of them.

Now, once you get a law into Court, whether it's unconstitutional or not often depends on the political philosophy of the Justices hearing the case. And that's true whether the Justices are Democrats or Republicans. It's why we have 5-4 splits on the Suprem Court now.

68Pontiac wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote: What rational basis is there for saying that just because some guy lives out in the middle of nowhere, his vote should count for more than my vote?

Let's say the crazy green peace extremists in California say that tractors are a growing concern for the enviroment. They don't use tractors in the city, so they don't see a need for them. So they vote into law that all tractors are illegal to use.

What effects on the economy would this have on the midwest where the farming takes place and don't have enough people to vote against a city?

JHC

Well.... Can't happen, because the people don't vote, their Representatives do. But let's say the California delegation decides to outlaw tractors, despite the fact that vast areas of California are agricultural. They'd still have to convince enough Representatives from other states to approve the leislation.

But that's not really what's at issue. What's at issue is whether some guy who votes for President should have his vote count for more than my vote. And if his vote for President should count for more than my vote for President, what is the rational basis for that?

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote: the people don't vote, their Representatives do.

how true...

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote:

68Pontiac wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote: What rational basis is there for saying that just because some guy lives out in the middle of nowhere, his vote should count for more than my vote?

Let's say the crazy green peace extremists in California say that tractors are a growing concern for the enviroment. They don't use tractors in the city, so they don't see a need for them. So they vote into law that all tractors are illegal to use.

What effects on the economy would this have on the midwest where the farming takes place and don't have enough people to vote against a city?

JHC

Well.... Can't happen, because the people don't vote, their Representatives do. But let's say the California delegation decides to outlaw tractors, despite the fact that vast areas of California are agricultural. They'd still have to convince enough Representatives from other states to approve the leislation.

But that's not really what's at issue. What's at issue is whether some guy who votes for President should have his vote count for more than my vote. And if his vote for President should count for more than my vote for President, what is the rational basis for that?

Comrade, First, the idea was an example. Maybe a better example is: I don't see how someone in, let's say, Pennsylvania has the same say for issues over the border as due those in Arizona. Now Penn's say is important, as it impacts the Nation. However choices directly impact Arizona.

The Representatives vote on what the majority of their constituents vote for. . .if they don't they run the risk of not being reelected.

The large, most populated States already have a strangle hold on the country. It only takes a few of the large States to dominate an election. If it were left to polular vote, Presidential candidates would only be concerned over these few States (California, Pennsylvania, Texas, Ohio, New York, Illinios, and maybe a handful of others). Other issues that impact the "lesser states" would go completely unnoticed (Oregon being one of them).

With the Electoral College, the smaller States still have an impact on a "wild card" issue, so the candidates have to be concerned over their issues as well. (But if there is a landslide issue, see how many visit North Dakota, probably none)

The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing when they set up the Electoral College. . .it makes sure that no one gets ignored.

JHC

68Pontiac wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote:

68Pontiac wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote: What rational basis is there for saying that just because some guy lives out in the middle of nowhere, his vote should count for more than my vote?

Let's say the crazy green peace extremists in California say that tractors are a growing concern for the enviroment. They don't use tractors in the city, so they don't see a need for them. So they vote into law that all tractors are illegal to use.

What effects on the economy would this have on the midwest where the farming takes place and don't have enough people to vote against a city?

JHC

Well.... Can't happen, because the people don't vote, their Representatives do. But let's say the California delegation decides to outlaw tractors, despite the fact that vast areas of California are agricultural. They'd still have to convince enough Representatives from other states to approve the leislation.

But that's not really what's at issue. What's at issue is whether some guy who votes for President should have his vote count for more than my vote. And if his vote for President should count for more than my vote for President, what is the rational basis for that?

Comrade, First, the idea was an example. Maybe a better example is: I don't see how someone in, let's say, Pennsylvania has the same say for issues over the border as due those in Arizona. Now Penn's say is important, as it impacts the Nation. However choices directly impact Arizona.

The Representatives vote on what the majority of their constituents vote for. . .if they don't they run the risk of not being reelected.

The large, most populated States already have a strangle hold on the country. It only takes a few of the large States to dominate an election. If it were left to polular vote, Presidential candidates would only be concerned over these few States (California, Pennsylvania, Texas, Ohio, New York, Illinios, and maybe a handful of others). Other issues that impact the "lesser states" would go completely unnoticed (Oregon being one of them).

With the Electoral College, the smaller States still have an impact on a "wild card" issue, so the candidates have to be concerned over their issues as well. (But if there is a landslide issue, see how many visit North Dakota, probably none)

The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing when they set up the Electoral College. . .it makes sure that no one gets ignored.

JHC

I see your points, but even the deputy director of the electoral college states in his history of the electoral college states "The original idea was for the most knowledgeable and informed individuals from each state to select the president based solely on merit and without regard to State of origin or political party." He also states "It is noteworthy in passing that the idea of electing the president by direct popular vote was not widely promoted as an alternative to redesigning the Electoral College. This may...or it may be because the excesses of the recent French revolution (and its fairly rapid disintegration into dictatorship) had given the populists some pause to reflect the wisdom of too direct a democracy." Both quotes, from the Electoral College, mind you, support my original claim that the Electoral College was instituted because the Founding Fathers didn't trust the masses. There are some other reasons for the Electoral College, and apologists will point to these, but the bottom line is that they didn't trust "the people". This was probably wise at the time, with the US being and infant and unstable democracy, but these days it is incredibly archaic and almost embarrassing.

Shellshocker wrote:

I see your points, but even the deputy director of the electoral college states in his history of the electoral college states "The original idea was for the most knowledgeable and informed individuals from each state to select the president based solely on merit and without regard to State of origin or political party." He also states "It is noteworthy in passing that the idea of electing the president by direct popular vote was not widely promoted as an alternative to redesigning the Electoral College. This may...or it may be because the excesses of the recent French revolution (and its fairly rapid disintegration into dictatorship) had given the populists some pause to reflect the wisdom of too direct a democracy." Both quotes, from the Electoral College, mind you, support my original claim that the Electoral College was instituted because the Founding Fathers didn't trust the masses. There are some other reasons for the Electoral College, and apologists will point to these, but the bottom line is that they didn't trust "the people". This was probably wise at the time, with the US being and infant and unstable democracy, but these days it is incredibly archaic and almost embarrassing.

Not sure how this equates to not trusting "the people".

The electoral college is done in small areas of the State. The constituents vote, and the the majority of the vote in that area decides the vote of the representative for that area. They vote and the State then votes the popular vote of the representatives. There have been a few instances where representatives have voted different than what the popular vote has been in the area, but they usually get strung up, and happens quite rarely.

Why vote representatives at all then?

Because he/she is the expert on the issues. The populace gets sold on advertisements and press, that can confuse the average voter. They vote for a representative to do the research and to have the knowledge so that they are not fooled by such political ploys. The key is to vote for a representative you think has your point of view.
Basically a stock brocker is going to understand more about the stock market than your average indiviual -or- it's like going to court with a lawyer instead of representing yourself. . .so is the same with the representative of the electoral college.

A point that shows that the electoral college isn't archaic, is with recent events. I know that people are complaining that a popular vote would have chosen a different president. However, the difference between the popular vote and the electoral vote was minimal. In both cases Gore or Kerry would have barely won, if popular vote was used.
If the electoral college had chosen one candidate and popular vote had a landslide for another, then I would say it needs replacement. . .however, the difference was minimal. Also votes this close where popular vote and electoral college choose different candidates rarely happens.

The electoral college is a protection FOR the people; not to keep the people "in check"; and it keeps candidates interested in the "lesser" States issues (which would be ignored if popular vote was in place).

JHC

68Pontiac wrote:

Shellshocker wrote:

I see your points, but even the deputy director of the electoral college states in his history of the electoral college states "The original idea was for the most knowledgeable and informed individuals from each state to select the president based solely on merit and without regard to State of origin or political party." He also states "It is noteworthy in passing that the idea of electing the president by direct popular vote was not widely promoted as an alternative to redesigning the Electoral College. This may...or it may be because the excesses of the recent French revolution (and its fairly rapid disintegration into dictatorship) had given the populists some pause to reflect the wisdom of too direct a democracy." Both quotes, from the Electoral College, mind you, support my original claim that the Electoral College was instituted because the Founding Fathers didn't trust the masses. There are some other reasons for the Electoral College, and apologists will point to these, but the bottom line is that they didn't trust "the people". This was probably wise at the time, with the US being and infant and unstable democracy, but these days it is incredibly archaic and almost embarrassing.

Not sure how this equates to not trusting "the people".

JHC

The first quote states that "knowledgeable and informed individuals" are to vote for the president. In other words, not the common people.
The second quote ("...had given the populists some pause to reflect the wisdom of too direct a democracy") I don't know how to put it much more directly than that, but they're saying that they wanted a safety net to "protect" them from the direct popular vote of the people. If the people voted for another Robespierre, the "knowledgeable and informed individuals" would vote for the right man, instead. As I said, there are other valid reasons for the Elecrotal College, and people who support it will point to them, but I still believe that the underlying original reason for it is to keep the common people from being able to directly vote for whomever they want to.

Shellshocker wrote:

The first quote states that "knowledgeable and informed individuals" are to vote for the president. In other words, not the common people.
The second quote ("...had given the populists some pause to reflect the wisdom of too direct a democracy") I don't know how to put it much more directly than that, but they're saying that they wanted a safety net to "protect" them from the direct popular vote of the people. If the people voted for another Robespierre, the "knowledgeable and informed individuals" would vote for the right man, instead. As I said, there are other valid reasons for the Elecrotal College, and people who support it will point to them, but I still believe that the underlying original reason for it is to keep the common people from being able to directly vote for whomever they want to.

SS, Somehow you missed the rest of my thread? With that thought it would be saying that people need lawyers in the courtroom because they can't be trusted to defend themselves.. . . .which is not the reason lawyers are in the courtroom. You are completely misinterpreting the quote. Read the rest of my last thread and you'll understand what I'm talking about.

JHC

68Pontiac wrote:

Shellshocker wrote:

The first quote states that "knowledgeable and informed individuals" are to vote for the president. In other words, not the common people.
The second quote ("...had given the populists some pause to reflect the wisdom of too direct a democracy") I don't know how to put it much more directly than that, but they're saying that they wanted a safety net to "protect" them from the direct popular vote of the people. If the people voted for another Robespierre, the "knowledgeable and informed individuals" would vote for the right man, instead. As I said, there are other valid reasons for the Elecrotal College, and people who support it will point to them, but I still believe that the underlying original reason for it is to keep the common people from being able to directly vote for whomever they want to.

SS, Somehow you missed the rest of my thread? With that thought it would be saying that people need lawyers in the courtroom because they can't be trusted to defend themselves.. . . .which is not the reason lawyers are in the courtroom. You are completely misinterpreting the quote. Read the rest of my last thread and you'll understand what I'm talking about.

JHC

I saw it, and I still disagree. What difference does it make if a candidate won by a little or a lot? Majority is supposed to win in a true democracy, doesn't need to be 65.25% or some "huge majority".

However, you make a very good point about the small states' issues getting notice whereas they otherwise wouldn't. My main point, however, it that the main (not the only) impetus towards the electoral system was the Founding Fathers' fear of anarchy, or something like it.

Also, the lawyer analogy is inappropriate. People need lawyers because the law is very complicated and most people haven't had three years of law school and don't understand it well enough to defend themselves. People are not legally required to have lawyers, but it would be foolish not to.

68Pontiac wrote:

Shellshocker wrote:

The first quote states that "knowledgeable and informed individuals" are to vote for the president. In other words, not the common people.
The second quote ("...had given the populists some pause to reflect the wisdom of too direct a democracy") I don't know how to put it much more directly than that, but they're saying that they wanted a safety net to "protect" them from the direct popular vote of the people. If the people voted for another Robespierre, the "knowledgeable and informed individuals" would vote for the right man, instead. As I said, there are other valid reasons for the Elecrotal College, and people who support it will point to them, but I still believe that the underlying original reason for it is to keep the common people from being able to directly vote for whomever they want to.

SS, Somehow you missed the rest of my thread? With that thought it would be saying that people need lawyers in the courtroom because they can't be trusted to defend themselves.. . . .which is not the reason lawyers are in the courtroom. You are completely misinterpreting the quote. Read the rest of my last thread and you'll understand what I'm talking about.

JHC

I don't know what you mean by "You are completely misinterpreting the quote." Can you explain? The quotes seem pretty straightforward to me. Finally, while it's obvious (to me anyway) that historians have said that the electoral college was set up at least in part as a safety measure against "the people" doing something crazy, it's only my theory (so far as I know) that that is the (or a) main reason it was done. I could very well be wrong there. However, I do know that the Founding Fathers admired the Spartan oligarchy rather than the Athenian true democracy, which could help explain things.

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote:

68Pontiac wrote: Interesting how when minority populations don't go in the direction of your thinking, how you want them discredited. With that thought why give gays, blacks, Jews, or any minority for that matter any rights? Hypocritical thinking me thinks.

JHC

Or, if you'd like, let's try a different experiment. Since we're so concerned about empowering voters who would otherwise be outvoted by the majority, let's make each black vote worth ten white votes. That should help make sure the black voter gets heard.

What he's saying is that the typical liberal point of view is this person is underrepresented in society we need to give them special rights (in the form of hate crimes legislation, government Afirmative Action programs, etc) so that they can have proportional representation, but when we talk about giving a person who lives in a less populous state more proportional representation in picking the President they get mad and are against the electoral college.

BTW, the electorial college gives the same amount of voters per population in each state. A state gets one votes for each of it's senators and a vote for each of it's congressional districts. That's one vote per 630,000 people, no matter which state your in plus your two votes for the senators. It's not like people in nebraska get 2 votes per congressional district.....

This is because of some backwards idea that it favors conservatives. Listen, George Bush is NOT president because of a faulty electoral college system. He's president because some fuckers decided to fuck with the votes in Florida. The electoral college is not the reason behind the conservative acendency in this country. This has been going on well before President Bush became President Bush.

If we as liberals believe that someone deserves more justice because their attacker called them a nigger when they were getting dragged by chains to the back of a truck, then we should believe that everyone deserves a place at the table.

It's the fucking corner stone of the democratic party--EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY

ChrissMari wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote:

68Pontiac wrote: Interesting how when minority populations don't go in the direction of your thinking, how you want them discredited. With that thought why give gays, blacks, Jews, or any minority for that matter any rights? Hypocritical thinking me thinks.

JHC

Or, if you'd like, let's try a different experiment. Since we're so concerned about empowering voters who would otherwise be outvoted by the majority, let's make each black vote worth ten white votes. That should help make sure the black voter gets heard.

What he's saying is that the typical liberal point of view is this person is underrepresented in society we need to give them special rights (in the form of hate crimes legislation, government Afirmative Action programs, etc) so that they can have proportional representation, but when we talk about giving a person who lives in a less populous state more proportional representation in picking the President they get mad and are against the electoral college.

BTW, the electorial college gives the same amount of voters per population in each state. A state gets one votes for each of it's senators and a vote for each of it's congressional districts. That's one vote per 630,000 people, no matter which state your in plus your two votes for the senators. It's not like people in nebraska get 2 votes per congressional district.....

This is because of some backwards idea that it favors conservatives. Listen, George Bush is NOT president because of a faulty electoral college system. He's president because some fuckers decided to fuck with the votes in Florida. The electoral college is not the reason behind the conservative acendency in this country. This has been going on well before President Bush became President Bush.

If we as liberals believe that someone deserves more justice because their attacker called them a nigger when they were getting dragged by chains to the back of a truck, then we should believe that everyone deserves a place at the table.

It's the fucking corner stone of the democratic party--EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY

George Bush is president because some of the high-powered republicans within the christian right managed to absolutely demonize liberals in the eyes of the american public (would it be wrong for me to call them evil geniuses?). I'm a liberal who lives in the most republican voting district in the country (at least in the top five), and there are honestly people among my neighbors who believe that because I vote democrat I favor not only equal marriage rights, but actually making the "traditional american family" illegal. Put simply, the "us and them" thing isn't only big in our idiotic foreign policy, it is HUGE in internal debate, and that's scary.

68Pontiac wrote:

Shellshocker wrote:

I see your points, but even the deputy director of the electoral college states in his history of the electoral college states "The original idea was for the most knowledgeable and informed individuals from each state to select the president based solely on merit and without regard to State of origin or political party." He also states "It is noteworthy in passing that the idea of electing the president by direct popular vote was not widely promoted as an alternative to redesigning the Electoral College. This may...or it may be because the excesses of the recent French revolution (and its fairly rapid disintegration into dictatorship) had given the populists some pause to reflect the wisdom of too direct a democracy." Both quotes, from the Electoral College, mind you, support my original claim that the Electoral College was instituted because the Founding Fathers didn't trust the masses. There are some other reasons for the Electoral College, and apologists will point to these, but the bottom line is that they didn't trust "the people". This was probably wise at the time, with the US being and infant and unstable democracy, but these days it is incredibly archaic and almost embarrassing.

Why vote representatives at all then?

Because he/she is the expert on the issues. The populace gets sold on advertisements and press, that can confuse the average voter. They vote for a representative to do the research and to have the knowledge so that they are not fooled by such political ploys. The key is to vote for a representative you think has your point of view.
Basically a stock brocker is going to understand more about the stock market than your average indiviual -or- it's like going to court with a lawyer instead of representing yourself. . .so is the same with the representative of the electoral college.

Bollox.

When you vote for President, you're not voting for the candidate, you're voting for a slate of party members who are pledged to vote for that candidate. The only qualification required to be an elector is that you're a loyal member of your party.

How does "party loyalty" make any of the elctors "experts"?

The electoral college is a protection FOR the people;

More bollox. The electoral college was established for precisely the reasons Shellshocker has put forth.

ChrissMari wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote:

68Pontiac wrote: Interesting how when minority populations don't go in the direction of your thinking, how you want them discredited. With that thought why give gays, blacks, Jews, or any minority for that matter any rights? Hypocritical thinking me thinks.

JHC

Or, if you'd like, let's try a different experiment. Since we're so concerned about empowering voters who would otherwise be outvoted by the majority, let's make each black vote worth ten white votes. That should help make sure the black voter gets heard.

What he's saying is that the typical liberal point of view is this person is underrepresented in society we need to give them special rights (in the form of hate crimes legislation, government Afirmative Action programs, etc) so that they can have proportional representation, but when we talk about giving a person who lives in a less populous state more proportional representation in picking the President they get mad and are against the electoral college.

BTW, the electorial college gives the same amount of voters per population in each state. A state gets one votes for each of it's senators and a vote for each of it's congressional districts. That's one vote per 630,000 people, no matter which state your in plus your two votes for the senators. It's not like people in nebraska get 2 votes per congressional district.....

This is because of some backwards idea that it favors conservatives. Listen, George Bush is NOT president because of a faulty electoral college system. He's president because some fuckers decided to fuck with the votes in Florida. The electoral college is not the reason behind the conservative acendency in this country. This has been going on well before President Bush became President Bush.

If we as liberals believe that someone deserves more justice because their attacker called them a nigger when they were getting dragged by chains to the back of a truck, then we should believe that everyone deserves a place at the table.

It's the fucking corner stone of the democratic party--EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY

Eveyone does get a place at the table, when they cast their votes.

I think the real problem we've been discussing here is winner takes all. If you look at a political map of the U.S., the majority of the land mass is "red state." That's deceiving, because that land mass doesn't represent the majority of the population. But, with winner take all, a state that votes say, 48% Democrat and 52% Republican ends up as a "red state," and ALL of the state's electoral votes go to the Republican candidate. The reality in that situation is that 48% of the voters in that state have their votes thrown out. Not even counted in the Presidential election, which is held by the electoral college. And what rational basis is there for throwing out those minority votes? Because otherwise the state wouldn't be represented by the President?

By the way, keep an eye on California, because the Republicans have decided that if they can't actually win a Presidential election there, they're going to change the ground rules by eliminating the "winner take all" rules. If the Republicans enact their wet dream, California will vote proportionally in the electoral college. Now that seems fair, even to me, EXCEPT that other states will still be winner take all. So the Republicans will still have all the electoral votes in the red states, plus proportional electoral votes in California, because there's NO proposal on the table to make elections proportional across the United States.

Has anyone heard of the 3/5 ths rule?

[magenta]shedmonite61[/magenta] wrote: Has anyone heard of the 3/5 ths rule?

Yeah, that was to make elections fair as well.

Because all those poor slave-owning southern aristocrats would have been underrepresented in Congress if there non-voting slaves weren't counted in the population for purposes of Congressional representation. So slaves were counted as 3/5 of a white man, giving those poor slave-owning aristocrats representation in Congress that was greater than their numbers. It means that northern city-dwellers had less representation than southerners, but that's how it goes in a rigged "democracy."

What I am noticing is not so much an anger towards the electoral college but a sniveling of "they stole the election" that still exists today.

Erase whether or not you or I like Bush. The main reason that Democrates have not won the presidential election is because of the people they are choosing as their primary. Gore was only chosen as they thought people wanted the "Clinton years" to extend another 4 years; not because HE was a strong candidate. The one person that killed Gore, wasn't Bush, it was Nader. He took much of the Liberal vote from the Democrates. . .enough that would have pushed it towards Gore's favor.

Kerry was a poor choice. period. Half the population was ready to go to the polls and vote for anyone, as long as it wasn't Bush. The Democrates put on a poor show, and the election should not have been close at all. All they had to do was get someone that the people "liked more than Bush". . .but that didn't happen.

The problem the democrates have is they do NOT have a unified front. Look at the stand in the Senate and the house on the "time-period for pulling out of Iraq" being debated right now. The Republicans have a strong front that we should stay the course. . .only a few minor Republicans disagree. The Democratic party is all over the map, you have Kerry who wants to pull out everybody by next year, you have others that want a hard deadline (but longer than 1 year) and yet others that share the same veiw as the Republicans. The Democrates will loose again, until they get a unified front.

JHC

68Pontiac wrote: What I am noticing is not so much an anger towards the electoral college but a sniveling of "they stole the election" that still exists today.

Erase whether or not you or I like Bush. The main reason that Democrates have not won the presidential election is because of the people they are choosing as their primary. Gore was only chosen as they thought people wanted the "Clinton years" to extend another 4 years; not because HE was a strong candidate. The one person that killed Gore, wasn't Bush, it was Nader. He took much of the Liberal vote from the Democrates. . .enough that would have pushed it towards Gore's favor.

Kerry was a poor choice. period. Half the population was ready to go to the polls and vote for anyone, as long as it wasn't Bush. The Democrates put on a poor show, and the election should not have been close at all. All they had to do was get someone that the people "liked more than Bush". . .but that didn't happen.

The problem the democrates have is they do NOT have a unified front. Look at the stand in the Senate and the house on the "time-period for pulling out of Iraq" being debated right now. The Republicans have a strong front that we should stay the course. . .only a few minor Republicans disagree. The Democratic party is all over the map, you have Kerry who wants to pull out everybody by next year, you have others that want a hard deadline (but longer than 1 year) and yet others that share the same veiw as the Republicans. The Democrates will loose again, until they get a unified front.

JHC

Bollox again.

The problem the Democrats had, and still have, is that the Republicans steal elctions because they can't win a fair election.

All I see leads me to think that ruling politicians are the same everywhere... They cheat without shame to stay in power... I wonder how they dare say us to behave when they act with such total impunity...

And, from the country which likes to show to the rest of the world how an efficient Democracy (the top in matters of democracy) should run, well... as it is said in the subject, it is not so great...

Bomb the French senate. It is a gathering of mafiosi... These are the only ones we do not elect directly. Being there, they cannot be charged with anything. Chirac changed the law in order to make a former President a senator till the last day of his life... and he knew what he did for he is the most unpopular President since 1958...I can tell you that the senators were not the ones who voted against the end of death penalty... but all they deserve is the guillotine...

That said by a very tolerant person who is strictly against the use of this item...

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote:

68Pontiac wrote: What I am noticing is not so much an anger towards the electoral college but a sniveling of "they stole the election" that still exists today.

Erase whether or not you or I like Bush. The main reason that Democrates have not won the presidential election is because of the people they are choosing as their primary. Gore was only chosen as they thought people wanted the "Clinton years" to extend another 4 years; not because HE was a strong candidate. The one person that killed Gore, wasn't Bush, it was Nader. He took much of the Liberal vote from the Democrates. . .enough that would have pushed it towards Gore's favor.

Kerry was a poor choice. period. Half the population was ready to go to the polls and vote for anyone, as long as it wasn't Bush. The Democrates put on a poor show, and the election should not have been close at all. All they had to do was get someone that the people "liked more than Bush". . .but that didn't happen.

The problem the democrates have is they do NOT have a unified front. Look at the stand in the Senate and the house on the "time-period for pulling out of Iraq" being debated right now. The Republicans have a strong front that we should stay the course. . .only a few minor Republicans disagree. The Democratic party is all over the map, you have Kerry who wants to pull out everybody by next year, you have others that want a hard deadline (but longer than 1 year) and yet others that share the same veiw as the Republicans. The Democrates will loose again, until they get a unified front.

JHC

Bollox again.

The problem the Democrats had, and still have, is that the Republicans steal elctions because they can't win a fair election.

ummmm.. . . Comrade. . . .have you been watching any news talk shows (CNN , Fox, etc.)? The "unified front' or lack there of in the Democratic party has been noted quite substantially by those in the Democratic party. It has also been talked quite alot on the philosophies of the two parties:

Democrates - attack the opposing candidates weak points as much as they can. . .try to gloss over thier candidates weak points,and emphasize their strong points.

Republicans - attack the opposing candidates strong points as much as they can. . .try to empower their candidates weak points with morality.

This has been discussed quite thouroghly, and how the Democrates need to change their philosophy if they are to win the upcoming election.

JHC

68Pontiac wrote: Democrates - attack the opposing candidates weak points as much as they can. . .try to gloss over thier candidates weak points,and emphasize their strong points.

Republicans - attack the opposing candidates strong points as much as they can. . .try to empower their candidates weak points with morality.

This is the same shit everywhere. Instead of that and hijacking our intelligence, they should propose alternatives for a living...

They behave like kids in kindergarten but with complicated words in order to make you feel that they are the elite of the country and that they do not belong to the same world than you and me...

In my opinion, that is why they endlessly try to lower cultural knowledge of the masses...

And I fear political systems with only two major parties like it was the "good" and the "bad". We should have the choice between at least six or eight different movements... I like the difference between UK and US English which is stand (UK) and run (US) for elections. From outside, the duality of the Democrats and Republicans seems to be a thing where nothing moves (so why the use of the verb "run" ?), just like an endlessly war within tranchées.

Yes, I agree. The way politics are in America it's like kindegarten. Wait scratch that, junior high.

Free Radical wrote:

I'm a liberal who lives in the most republican voting district in the country (at least in the top five), and there are honestly people among my neighbors who believe that because I vote democrat I favor not only equal marriage rights, but actually making the "traditional american family" illegal. Put simply, the "us and them" thing isn't only big in our idiotic foreign policy, it is HUGE in internal debate, and that's scary.

You need to move, dude!

68Pontiac wrote: What I am noticing is not so much an anger towards the electoral college but a sniveling of "they stole the election" that still exists today.

Erase whether or not you or I like Bush. The main reason that Democrates have not won the presidential election is because of the people they are choosing as their primary. Gore was only chosen as they thought people wanted the "Clinton years" to extend another 4 years; not because HE was a strong candidate. The one person that killed Gore, wasn't Bush, it was Nader. He took much of the Liberal vote from the Democrates. . .enough that would have pushed it towards Gore's favor.

Kerry was a poor choice. period. Half the population was ready to go to the polls and vote for anyone, as long as it wasn't Bush. The Democrates put on a poor show, and the election should not have been close at all. All they had to do was get someone that the people "liked more than Bush". . .but that didn't happen.

The problem the democrates have is they do NOT have a unified front. Look at the stand in the Senate and the house on the "time-period for pulling out of Iraq" being debated right now. The Republicans have a strong front that we should stay the course. . .only a few minor Republicans disagree. The Democratic party is all over the map, you have Kerry who wants to pull out everybody by next year, you have others that want a hard deadline (but longer than 1 year) and yet others that share the same veiw as the Republicans. The Democrates will loose again, until they get a unified front.

JHC

Huh??? "What I am noticing is not so much an anger towards the electoral college but a sniveling of "they stole the election" that still exists today." No. For instance, as Comrade says, 48% of people in any given state have their votes thrown out when the person they voted for doesn't get the majority of votes in their state. I live in NY, which voted overwhelmingly for Kerry in the last election. One of my coworkers voted for Bush and complained that he wasted his vote. This is because he knew that Kerry was going to win NY and take ALL of NY's electoral votes. Thus, my friend was essentially correct.

"Kerry was a poor choice. period." Kerry GOT MORE VOTES than Bush!! Hardly sounds like a poor choice to me.