Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ah yes, because the President is the only person with any power in the country. I mean, why else would people blame the sitting president for every problem the country faces?
4\5 of our nation lives in what are called "urban" areas, but those don't constitute only cities like NYC or LA. A bit more than half live in cities with populations of 200,000 or more. A lot of people live in small and midsize towns and cities that aren't the megalopolises which are so callous towards everyone without a highrise apartment.
Right now, the only people that have a voice are the "battleground" states where no majority clearly exists. Instead of having 50 states that a president has to focus on, he has to only convince four.
A popular election guarantees everyone has a voice, which doesn't happen now. It also shows that a president has to campaign in more places than Columbus and its suburbs.
All that states do have it that way.
We're better off with a popular election. The system has changed and the Federal Government no longer rules just the states. It has far-reaching impact on the lives of individuals every day. We need to change our system to realize that we're no longer disconnected. The Electoral college is just one piece of a rapidly aging system.
Look at the rules the EPA has set in place under Obama's appointee, and what they are planning next year, and then tell me how how the president and his cabinet does not have the power to set policies.
Party appointed electors who have no obligation to vote for the popular choice isn't fair, especially considering 48 states have an "all-or-nothing" approach to their voting. If the popular vote was 47\50 between two candidates, ALL the state's votes go the majority candidate. That is hardly a fair system and not at all representative of the American people. We're supposed to elect our leaders and representatives democratically. How do you see the electoral college as being democratic?
Fair is irrelevant and as far as the electrical college being democratic, once you read and study Plato's The Republic, Timaeus, Critias and Crito and Parmenides, and then read and study Marcus Aurelius, and then the Utilitarian crowd (Bentham, Locke et al), you'll have the same understanding the Framer's of the Constitution had.
Note that you live in a representative democracyvis-a-vis a federal republic.
You do not live in a representative democracyvis-a-vis a confederation, or a unitary State.
Remember your 10th Grade Government Class?
What are the three political systems?
Federal
Confederal
Unitary
You tried a unitary system and it failed, ending in rebellion; you tried a confederation which failed in part, because of rebellions; then you tried federal system and it has survived from more than 200 years.
Liberals are pushing you back to a unitary system. How'd that work out for everyone? Not well the first time, and it's failing again here the second time round.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
Ah yes, because the President is the only person with any power in the country. I mean, why else would people blame the sitting president for every problem the country faces?
Because they are stupid and ignorant. All the more reason to have an Electoral College. When people grow up.....assuming they ever will....and assuming that's even possible, then perhaps you can consider dispensing with the Electoral College.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
Right now, the only people that have a voice are the "battleground" states where no majority clearly exists. Instead of having 50 states that a president has to focus on, he has to only convince four.
Not relevant and to the extent that it is, it is a gross display of infantilism, lack of fore-sight and ignorance about things historical.
"Battleground states" shift over time, as does population, and at times, there are no "battleground states."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
A popular election guarantees everyone has a voice, which doesn't happen now.
So?
Prove to me that everyone should or ought to have a voice, because the Framer's of the Constitution didn't think so....which is why you have no right to vote.
Fair is irrelevant and as far as the electrical college being democratic, once you read and study Plato's The Republic, Timaeus, Critias and Crito and Parmenides, and then read and study Marcus Aurelius, and then the Utilitarian crowd (Bentham, Locke et al), you'll have the same understanding the Framer's of the Constitution had.
Note that you live in a representative democracyvis-a-vis a federal republic.
You do not live in a representative democracyvis-a-vis a confederation, or a unitary State.
Remember your 10th Grade Government Class?
What are the three political systems?
Federal
Confederal
Unitary
You tried a unitary system and it failed, ending in rebellion; you tried a confederation which failed in part, because of rebellions; then you tried federal system and it has survived from more than 200 years.
And yet most nations have no problem functioning under a Unitary form of government. This isn't the 1800s. We have instantaneous communication and unprecedented access to information. More so, no one is demanding the federal government be the only government, but denying that the incredible changes in both society and our government is--narrow minded to say the least.
Quote:
Liberals are pushing you back to a unitary system. How'd that work out for everyone?
Pretty well as it turns out. Last time I checked, it isn't the proverbial Dark Ages (not matter how much you want it to be).
Quote:
Not well the first time, and it's failing again here the second time round.
Because they are stupid and ignorant. All the more reason to have an Electoral College. When people grow up.....assuming they ever will....and assuming that's even possible, then perhaps you can consider dispensing with the Electoral College.
Clearly you see how rhetorical that is which would by why you said it.
Quote:
Not relevant and to the extent that it is, it is a gross display of infantilism, lack of fore-sight and ignorance about things historical.
"Battleground states" shift over time, as does population, and at times, there are no "battleground states."
There shouldn't ever be "battleground" states, regardless if they shift or evaporate for periods of times. A president should have to win over the majority of the population, not just a few states. Right now, all the president has to do is rely on political parties to pick their Electorates and win a few states that come close in popular voting.
Quote:
So?
Prove to me that everyone should or ought to have a voice, because the Framer's of the Constitution didn't think so....which is why you have no right to vote.
Electorally...
Mircea
We've already established the individuals right to vote at least twice in the Amendments, and once in the Bill of Rights. What makes you think people don't have the right to vote?
Romney wins the popular vote, but loses the election, Republicans will suddenly be on board, watch.
This Republican won't. Our country was built with checks and balances and those checks and balances are the biggest reason our nation has lasted so long and is still an acceptable place to live. Better leave them in place.
The biggest problem we have right now is that this president ignores anything he does not like in the constitution. He is just so much smarter than everyone else that we all need to listen to him and throw everything else out. This is why I am not voting for him.
This Republican won't. Our country was built with checks and balances and those checks and balances are the biggest reason our nation has lasted so long and is still an acceptable place to live. Better leave them in place.
Under that guise, we should have never changed anything at all! No freedom of speech, no right to bear arms, no right to vote for women, no ban (and unban) of alcohol. No amendment should have ever made it onto the constitution--it is clearly a perfect document.
Or perhaps, our founding fathers were well aware that the constitution isn't a stale piece of paper, and as such wrote in a means to change government as needed.
Quote:
The biggest problem we have right now is that this president ignores anything he does not like in the constitution.
Please be specific.
Quote:
He is just so much smarter than everyone else that we all need to listen to him and throw everything else out. This is why I am not voting for him.
If you feel like the president isn't smarter than you, it might be because he is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NCN
We are a Republic. Not Democratic. NCN No changes needed.
We democratically elect our representatives and members of government all throughout the levels of government. That is functionally different from a pure democracy which you appear to think is what I said, and isn't. We don't (and shouldn't) democratically vote on decisions of leaders--like when to go to war, what to spend our tax dollars on, or who and who does not, have rights. Our representatives are there not to represent the individual Point of view, but to lead the country. Those are fundamentally different concepts as well.
This Republican won't. Our country was built with checks and balances and those checks and balances are the biggest reason our nation has lasted so long and is still an acceptable place to live. Better leave them in place.
The biggest problem we have right now is that this president ignores anything he does not like in the constitution. He is just so much smarter than everyone else that we all need to listen to him and throw everything else out. This is why I am not voting for him.
The senate was what was built to protect the smaller states from the big ones. It was their firewall against populisim.
Romney wins the popular vote, but loses the election, Republicans will suddenly be on board, watch.
Correct.
But this is not an Obama/ Romney issue, as much as a long term US issue. The convoluted system we have today, does not serve the country anymore. Sure, rural areas and small towns should get representation and they get that with 2 senators each.
However, as a first step, I would suggest eliminating winner takes all. That could be a workable compromise before changing the system entirely.
The senate was what was built to protect the smaller states from the big ones. It was their firewall against populisim.
Not the electoral college.
Have you ever thought that maybe both the senate and the electoral college work together to do that? I also like that each state gets to decide how its state votes in the electoral college. We have a very complicated and interesting government.
There are many checks and balances in our government. These are just two of them. I believe most of our problems have been caused by one or another branch of our government either not doing their jobs or stepping over their bounds in doing their jobs.
I come from one of the states that insisted on the Bill of Rights. They joined before RI but at first they refused to be in the United States before the Bill of Rights was added.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
