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.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,343 posts, read 54,462,599 times
Reputation: 40756
Quote:
Originally Posted by swagger
Didn't watch the video, eh?
I'm not surprised. I'd have expected nothing more than zero effort from you, burdell.
If you did watch the video (and I'm quite certain you didn't), perhaps you'd like to provide a counter to Whittle's argument against using a popular vote for the President. At least then we'd be able to tell if you actually took the requisite nine minutes required to properly engage in this discussion.
Why should I waste my time watching someone who opposes democracy?
The electoral college is a travesty and an outdated relic of a bygone era.
Can you explain why we have it in the first place, and why it's "a travesty and an outdated relic of a bygone era" today? What's changed? Why is the system that's served us very well for over two hundred years suddenly outdated today?
Here's what I think has changed. People don't understand our political system any more. They don't do a good job of teaching it in schools, and people are too busy with their iPods and the latest episode of Survivor to bother learning it on their own. They've been dumbed down, and require simple explanations for complex ideas. The "popular vote" system is very simple, therefore, it meets that requirement.
Heck, look at all the people in this thread who are commenting on why we should amend our Constitution to radically overhaul the system by which we elect the leader of our country - and they can't even spend less than ten minutes to hear a well formulated argument against that change. They're firing off one-liners that are supposed to qualify as arguments, and we're supposed to... what? Accept that they have even the slightest inkling of the implications of what they're proposing?
I don't think so. The Founders knew what they were doing when they designed our system of government the way they did. If you want to make such a dramatic and fundamental change to the document that defines our system of government, you're going to have to do better than, "One man, one vote." That kind of nonsense only demonstrates that you have no idea what you're talking about.
OK, I watched the entire video. Frankly, it's propaganda masquerading as factual information.
Bill Whittle is either an idiot or a liar. He presented so many misrepresentations in those short nine and a half minutes (less the lead-in and wrap-up by the "Politi-Chicks") that it would take pages of typing to refute what he said.
Why should I waste my time watching someone who opposes democracy?
I'm FOR it, WHY are you against it?
Still haven't watched it, I see.
Sorry, but I'm not going to waste *my* time replying to someone who would have the answers they seek and maybe - no, certainly - learn a thing or two by simply viewing the video that IS the subject of the thread.
OK, I watched the entire video. Frankly, it's propaganda masquerading as factual information.
Bill Whittle is either an idiot or a liar. He presented so many misrepresentations in those short nine and a half minutes (less the lead-in and wrap-up by the "Politi-Chicks") that it would take pages of typing to refute what he said.
Come on, this is supposed to be a serious discussion. I know it's City-Data, but can you at least give it a shot?
I'm genuinely and sincerely interested in knowing exactly what information you consider to be "propaganda" and "so many misrepresentations." This is a discussion forum - please discuss.
Come on, this is supposed to be a serious discussion. I know it's City-Data, but can you at least give it a shot?
I'm genuinely and sincerely interested in knowing exactly what information you consider to be "propaganda" and "so many misrepresentations." This is a discussion forum - please discuss.
OK, pick any one point that Whittle voiced and I'll tell you why he's wrong/lying.
The electoral college is a travesty and an outdated relic of a bygone era. One person, one vote is the only fair way to have an election.
Before it was amended into uselessness, the Electoral College was a most amazing concept.
The indirect nature of the presidential election was the result of the American dislike for the British parliamentarian system - where the executive and legislative branch are combined - and very partisan in the process.
As originally designed, the Executive Branch was NOT to be partisan, as evidenced by the Electoral College. The founders agreed that partisanship in the legislature was acceptable, but after a law was enacted, partisan application was NOT acceptable. After all, the Declaration stated "All men were created equal" before the law. No special status or nobility was to be tolerated.
Their solution was to create the Electoral College. Each district's voters would select someone whose judgment they trusted, to go and convene the College and vote for the two best candidates. This meant that the most popular and his chief rival would hold the top executive positions.
Unfortunately, George Washington hated the anti-partisan consequences of the Electoral College. His Vice President was the second most popular candidate - John Adams - and annoying to say the least. So the Constitution was amended to make electing the offices of President and Vice-President linked together. Enter the world of party politics, for to have two offices elected together required agreement between candidates and thus an organization to select the Electors who pledge their votes BEFORE convening the College... Which reversed the whole nature of selecting someone whose judgment you trusted to select the chief executive officers. Which made the presidential election into a popularity contest - not a sober choice for a capable public servant.
Why was partisanship a problem? The political practice of "winner takes all" meant that a political party in control can bestow lucrative contracts and appointments to their own supporters. If there was no reward for partisans, there would be no partisan politics. In fact, can you imagine what the Executive Branch would have been like if Obama had McCain as his Vice President? (Smackdown !)
With the creation of institutionalized party politics at the very TOP of the servant government, the net result was a system vulnerable to all manner of influence, inducements and bribery.
Today, if the Electoral College was restored to its original function, there would no longer be national campaigns, no need for massive campaign contributions (legal bribery), no incessant soundbite advertisements, and those folks who had no interest in politics could be at peace.
Each district's voters would select their Elector. Then the Electors would be charged with the duty to vet the candidates, examine their credentials, perhaps even hold public hearings to gain more insight into the capability and character of the candidates.
Once elected, the president and his "vice" (pun intended) would not be "leaders" (of their respective partisan parties), but merely the highest ranking public SERVANTS, executing the laws enacted by Congress. Without party affiliation, appointments would no longer be based on tacit corruption and graft. The imperial presidency would be eradicated.
Unfortunately, the restoration of the Electoral College will have to wait till after the collapse of the current United Socialist States of America. There is little political will nor understanding to repair the current mess.
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.
