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.
Technically perhaps, but talk about what I feel is a most elitist attitude to state it in such a manner. Sure sounds to me like "hey, remember who's really the boss here and it ain't necessarily what the majority of the people want. And the attitude of "hey, it's just the rules, don't blame me!".
So in the end, it appears to me the voters could very well be wasting their time in a game of scripted reality of voting in a primary. If this is the case/the "rules", why not just cut to the chase and save the voters their time in playing what sounds like an unnecessary game?
If only our founding fathers could see what it has all become.....
Your founding fathers never intended for you to have the right to determine a particular party's candidate for president. That goes along with that pesky "right of association" that everyone likes to ignore. They weren't 100% sure they wanted you to be able to actually vote for president, just in case you weren't bright enough to make the right choice - hence, the electoral college where you have delegates make the choice for you.
If they could see this election they would probably be saying "We were right about that electoral college thing."
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
Technically perhaps, but talk about what I feel is a most elitist attitude to state it in such a manner. Sure sounds to me like "hey, remember who's really the boss here and it ain't necessarily what the majority of the people want. And the attitude of "hey, it's just the rules, don't blame me!".
So in the end, it appears to me the voters could very well be wasting their time in a game of scripted reality of voting in a primary. If this is the case/the "rules", why not just cut to the chase and save the voters their time in playing what sounds like an unnecessary game?
If only our founding fathers could see what it has all become.....
Did you actually read what he said? There are 112 delegates who are not bound by state elections and can vote how they like. State delegates would accurately represent the people here in ND by not supporting Trump one bit. I also agree that the rules are outdated and need changing.
Your founding fathers never intended for you to have the right to determine a particular party's candidate for president. That goes along with that pesky "right of association" that everyone likes to ignore. They weren't 100% sure they wanted you to be able to actually vote for president, just in case you weren't bright enough to make the right choice - hence, the electoral college where you have delegates make the choice for you.
If they could see this election they would probably be saying "We were right about that electoral college thing."
I think it's laughable what the intention was and what it all has morphed into:
"Hamilton and the other founders believed that the electors would be able to insure that only a qualified person becomes President. They believed that with the Electoral College no one would be able to manipulate the citizenry."
Wow, I think most would say "major fail!"
With a far bigger population than the founding fathers dealt with, reading these words, it seems in this day in age we have it all backwards and that is I trust a bunch of citizens selecting a candidate would have far less manipulation potential that the process we have now. I don't think our founding fathers would have guessed the "insiders" would be so manipulative/power hungry/$ driven. They missed big time on that one in my view.
In any case, given the way it is, I think it is useless for people to vote if the "insiders" pick someone other than who's a clear overwhelmingly favorite of the people. Perhaps with trump or sanders(less likely with sanders I think), we might get a chance to see something that has never happened before....ignoring/overriding the larger voice of the people. That doesn't sound at all right to me if that ever comes to pass.
"Hamilton and the other founders believed that the electors would be able to insure that only a qualified person becomes President. They believed that with the Electoral College no one would be able to manipulate the citizenry."
Wow, I think most would say "major fail!"
With a far bigger population than the founding fathers dealt with, reading these words, it seems in this day in age we have it all backwards and that is I trust a bunch of citizens selecting a candidate would have far less manipulation potential that the process we have now. I don't think our founding fathers would have guessed the "insiders" would be so manipulative/power hungry/$ driven. They missed big time on that one in my view.
In any case, given the way it is, I think it is useless for people to vote if the "insiders" pick someone other than who's a clear overwhelmingly favorite of the people. Perhaps with trump or sanders(less likely with sanders I think), we might get a chance to see something that has never happened before....ignoring/overriding the larger voice of the people. That doesn't sound at all right to me if that ever comes to pass.
What's interesting is that a majority of people here who read the bolded language above will reach the exact opposite conclusion. . . . that the Electoral College is working as it should. Interesting, isn't it?
If only our founding fathers could see what it has all become.....
Yes.
If only the Founders - who lived in a nation where the Founders (the delegates to the Constitutional Convention, the legislators who ratified that document) in every state limited the vote to white male Christian landowners who were at least 21 years old, who weren't allowed to vote for the Senate, and only voted for President indirectly through unbound (unlike today's bound) electors.
They'd be appalled, all right - completely and totally appalled at how much liberty is extended to virtually everyone who is at least 18 to vote directly.
"The media has created the perception that the voters choose the nomination. That's the conflict here," Curly Haugland, an unbound GOP delegate from North Dakota, told CNBC's "Squawk Box" on Wednesday. He even questioned why primaries and caucuses are held.
What's interesting is that a majority of people here who read the bolded language above will reach the exact opposite conclusion. . . . that the Electoral College is working as it should. Interesting, isn't it?
Mick
Working as it "should", perhaps up until now, in regards to a primary. But with the rumblings going on in the republican party, it may no longer be "working as it should" if the lead delegate candidate doesn't get the nomination and that's the end result from a contested/brokered convention. We may be in uncharted waters given the "back room deal/$" nature of what I believe politics has largely become that I bet the founding fathers thought would never happen. On a similar thought process, John Adam's was aware of the dangers of a 2 party system/talked about the evils of it but I'd be willing to bet he never thought it would happen, especially with all the $ influence involved we have today. If he/others thought it would happen and had such fear of it, I'm guessing they would have put some safeguards into place. But they were human, not perfect, none of us was there, so it appears to me they were either naive or never in their wildest dreams thought humans would be so greedy and figured it wouldn't be necessary to address. Same for the potential misuse in the selection process of a party candidate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unsettomati
Yes.
If only the Founders - who lived in a nation where the Founders (the delegates to the Constitutional Convention, the legislators who ratified that document) in every state limited the vote to white male Christian landowners who were at least 21 years old, who weren't allowed to vote for the Senate, and only voted for President indirectly through unbound (unlike today's bound) electors.
They'd be appalled, all right - completely and totally appalled at how much liberty is extended to virtually everyone who is at least 18 to vote directly.
Learn some history.
Your history lesson is irrelevant to the point I was making. Perhaps a question to you on the matter/the point to make it more simple......if there's a contested convention in either party, and the person who has the vast majority of delegates doesn't win, you think this is right? The few can and should override the will of the majority, especially considering all the nonsense going on in politics these days? You really trust the system to be fair and square? And remember, everyone can vote today so no history lesson on "what was" is necessary, thank you . Let's say for the democrats, bernie had the vast majority of the popular vote/delegates, but the power of the super delegates elect clinton instead. You think this is fair and you feel this is what our forefathers would want to see/intended? I highly doubt they would think this is fair and any rational fair minded person would feel the same.
Last edited by stevek64; 03-16-2016 at 06:59 PM..
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.
GOP: We Choose the Nominee, Not the Voters
. Let's say for the democrats, bernie had the vast majority of the popular vote/delegates, but the power of the super delegates elect clinton instead. You think this is fair and you feel this is what our forefathers would want to see/intended? I highly doubt they would think this is fair and any rational fair minded person would feel the same.
