04-29-2004, 07:50 PM
What is the alternative to the electoral college without stepping on states rights?
04-29-2004, 07:50 PM
What is the alternative to the electoral college without stepping on states rights?
04-29-2004, 07:50 PM
Kerry is doing ok,
and he needs to announce a Veep. He is getting hammered on all sides right now. Republican's have the white house and congress, and are using the bully pulpit well against him. The RNC manufactures smear stories, Conservative Talk Radio reads the talking points, it gets picked up by the Washington times and Faux news, and lately the "liberal" media is simply running the stories hot off the RNC press without any sort of fact checking. if Kerry tries to run a campaign without passion and sticking only to issues, he will be steam rolled.
04-29-2004, 07:52 PM
what do states rights have to do with a federal election?
<center><img src="http://resized.filevend.com/anon/6d4hOYr3.gif"></center>
04-29-2004, 07:58 PM
the electoral college negates the freedoms and liberties we have in this country?
HUH?
04-29-2004, 08:02 PM
For one, he cannot simply run on the environment. While one of the great things I admire about Kerry is his stance on the environment, the culture in this country is such that, I believe, only a 1/3 actually consider it a major issue. I don't have a source on that at the moment, so it might not be true, but the culture of this country is oriented very much about focusing on the now, and not worrying about the later. We are all about consumption, all about expending more energy than necessary, and totally shut out from alternative, renewable energies. The conservatives, of all people, should know that you do not put your eggs in one basket. The major cities, like New York, in this country that are sucessful have diversified sources of economy, and if one industry bombs, there are others to support until that industry gains strength again. Former major cities, like Buffalo, centralized their industry in steel and grain, and we know what happened with steel after WWII, and the interstate highway systems, and better modes of transport killed off the grain industry. What's left is a city hungover for a half-century, totally lost and dependent on the rest of the state for money. If we maintain our stance on oil usage, what happens if one day, boom, oil manufacturers in Middle East are bombed, and production drops to zero. That's not just an economic crisis, that's a national security threat when we all go insane and start killing one another for oil to heat our homes and drive our cars? We have absolutely no alternatives in place to deal with that, and what's most upsetting is that corporations have bought up all the patents for any new technology, and totally limited the market of the US to begin manufacturing of such necessary things.
I find it to be a very big issue, but, more than likely, the next two guys you ask could really give a shit.
04-29-2004, 08:06 PM
Ken'sPen Wrote:the electoral college negates the freedoms and liberties we have in this country?doesn't negate them but it limits them. it's an archaic system that was started because the government didn't trust the common man to elect a president. you should be as much a supporter as anyone of getting rid of it, since your boy Gore won the popular vote in 2000.
<center><img src="http://resized.filevend.com/anon/6d4hOYr3.gif"></center>
04-29-2004, 08:09 PM
because this country is not a democracy, it is a representative republic. the powers that be will be damned if that is gonna change, you think they want you to take that power away from them? good luck.
04-29-2004, 08:21 PM
The Sleeper Wrote:what do states rights have to do with a federal election?<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.fec.gov/pages/ecworks.htm">http://www.fec.gov/pages/ecworks.htm</a><!-- m --> Quote:The current workings of the Electoral College are the result of both design and experience. As it now operates: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf">http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf</a><!-- m --> Quote:One idea was to have the Congress choose the president. This idea
04-29-2004, 08:26 PM
Keyser Soze Wrote:because this country is not a democracy, it is a representative republic. the powers that be will be damned if that is gonna change, you think they want you to take that power away from them? good luck.If we were a democracy, first, we would need a new constitution. And then about 300 million people have to ratify it.
04-29-2004, 09:00 PM
Quote:A third idea was to have the president elected by a direct popular vote. Direct election was rejected not because the Framers of the Constitution doubted public intelligence but rather because they feared that without sufficient information about candidates from outside their State, people would naturally vote for a "favorite son" from their own State or region. At worst, no president would emerge with a popular majority sufficient to govern the whole country. At best, the choice of president would always be decided by the largest, most populous States with little regard for the smaller ones. I do believe that in the age of cable and internet, we have sufficient information to choose a president. and I don't get how the most populous states would decide elections when each persons vote is weighted equally.
<center><img src="http://resized.filevend.com/anon/6d4hOYr3.gif"></center>
04-29-2004, 09:11 PM
If we were to have direct election, first of all, there would need to be an amendment to the Constitution, which would never be accepted by a majority of the states, and even if so, would be found unconstiutional by the Supreme Court. But, say the amendment went through. At that point, you can eliminate the party system, because how would you nominate candidates? State primaries would no longer be necessary, because you have removed the ability for a state to choose presidents. So, now you have a large list of candidates, from all over the country, and the one who gets their message out to the most people wins. If you are a canidate from North Dakota, you are not going to go to NYC and win votes, because they probably have a candidate just as qualified, and supports the same issues, except he's from NYC. And the NYC canidate isn't going to beat the candidate in LA. You will have a bunch of candidates from populus areas of the country, and no vote in any state other than California, Illinois, New York, Texas, and Massachusettes matters.
04-29-2004, 09:25 PM
I'm all for eliminating the party system
<center><img src="http://resized.filevend.com/anon/6d4hOYr3.gif"></center>
04-29-2004, 09:27 PM
How bout we start a new thread where we all have to get together to come up with a new government?
04-29-2004, 11:48 PM
Bush is leading in the polls because he has a message whether you agree with it or not.
Kerry is a yes man to everyone and anyone who will listen. I like to think the American people can see through it. Maybe not foreign leaders but I'm not concerned with them.
04-30-2004, 04:23 AM
The Jays Wrote:How bout we start a new thread where we all have to get together to come up with a new government?sounds like a great idea
04-30-2004, 06:02 AM
The Jays Wrote:But, say the amendment went through. At that point, you can eliminate the party system, because how would you nominate candidates? State primaries would no longer be necessary, because you have removed the ability for a state to choose presidents.why couldn't there just be a national primary for each party? and i'm not sure on this, but i think not every state gets a primary, so how is that fair? the only way for every vote to be counted equally is if every vote is counted and the result is who gets elected. period. and as far as your claim that people would vote for the local guy, wouldn't al sharpton have won new york then?
04-30-2004, 06:53 AM
States reserve the right to develop their own system of how candidates are selected.
04-30-2004, 07:03 AM
well, that's fine and good for local elections. but if it's a national election shouldn't it be governed by the nation and not the states. i thought that was the whole difference between state and federal government.
04-30-2004, 07:09 AM
yup, I don't get why states rights should have so much influence in something that effects each state exactly the same. plus I don't see what's so unconstitutional about a popular vote. you can leave the process of picking candidates the way it is and make the final vote a popular vote. how is this not fair?
<center><img src="http://resized.filevend.com/anon/6d4hOYr3.gif"></center>
04-30-2004, 08:17 AM
Quote:n The manner of choosing the Electors was left to the individual State legislatures, thereby pacifying States suspicious of a central national government. Quote: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 be because the physical and demographic circumstances of the country had not changed that much in a dozen or so years. Or it may be because the excesses of the recent French revolution (and its fairly rapid degeneration into dictatorship) had given the populists some pause to reflect on the wisdom of too direct a democracy. Quote:yup, I don't get why states rights should have so much influence in something that effects each state exactly the same. Quote:At worst, no president would emerge with a popular majority sufficient to govern the whole country. At best, the choice of president would always be decided by the largest, most populous States with little regard for the smaller ones. A canidate wouldn't have to do anything in Delaware, because he only needs to suck up to people in New York. Basically, the people of New York are more important than the people in Delaware because there are so many people in one general area. |
|