Welcome to Political Fever - The Political Debate Forums.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest with limited access. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. You can also take part in our Private Debates where you can test your skills against an opponent. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us. After you Register the advertisements will disappear on the site!

Go Back   Political Fever - The Political Debate Forums > Political Central > American Politics

American Politics This is the main forum of political fever. This forum can be used for anything political, from the 08 election to the war in Iraq!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41 (permalink)  
Old 10-16-2008, 02:40 PM
BoneDaddy's Avatar
Constitutional Militant
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Userid: 199
Posts: 2,099
Rep Power: 5
BoneDaddy has a spectacular aura aboutBoneDaddy has a spectacular aura about
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumara View Post
The way it is currently run, the Electoral College disenfranchises the people AND gives a greater voice to Texas and California. So how can this be considered equitable?
I agree...but the solution is not to get rid of the electoral system, which the small states would oppose. It would be a dead issue and has been tried ever since the founding of the consitution itself.

I think it would be much easer simply to bar the 'winner take all' practice of the individual states, which would open up the system to other challengers. The other amendments (XIIth and XXth) would come into play.

Reasoning....

The winner take all system broke the electoral college and the system of voting for president (i.e. from five, to three, to a final conclusion with each state having one vote.) It is almost similar to IRV, but forces a 'majority' one way or another.

Could there be a better method? Perhaps. However, unless the 'winner take all' system were eliminated, it would still provide us with very skewed results.
__________________
The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it! The law, I say, not only turned from its proper purpose but made to follow an entirely contrary purpose! The law become the weapon of every kind of greed! Instead of checking crime, the law itself guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish! - Frederick Bastiat
Reply With Quote
  #42 (permalink)  
Old 10-16-2008, 02:51 PM
Lumara's Avatar
Dubbed Queen Bee by Annie
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Userid: 26
Location: A holler in Tennessee
Posts: 5,742
Rep Power: 8
Lumara has a spectacular aura aboutLumara has a spectacular aura about
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chan View Post
Why do they campaign so hard during the primaries for places like Iowa and New Hampshire?
Because those states have early primaries and the candidates hope that a win in those states will set the tone for the remainder of their campaigns. They're certainly not doing it for the dinky number of electoral votes those states have.

Quote:
But that's because of all this popular vote nonsense.
It's not nonsense. Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000 and look at the mess we inherited from his unpopular opponent.

Quote:
If states had stuck with letting the legislatures choose the electors...
Then the people would be even more disenfranchised and there would be even less accountability than now.

Quote:
Notice what the article you linked said: Adherents argue that the Electoral College is an important and distinguishing feature of the federal system, and protects the rights of smaller states.
I still haven't seen any evidence to prove how the rights of smaller states are actually protected..

Quote:
Here's a reasonable compromise: give each state three electors and have the electors meet together (as set forth in the Constitution) to vote for the President. All political parties would have automatic access to the ballot from which the electors would make their choice.
That's a lousy idea. That would still mean our choices would be governed by others and the people still wouldn't any control over who appears on the ballot.
__________________


"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty." Thomas Jefferson

Walter Mondale: "George Bush doesn't have the manhood to apologize." George Bush: "Well, on the manhood thing, I'll put mine up against his any time."
Reply With Quote
  #43 (permalink)  
Old 10-16-2008, 03:17 PM
malrenalds's Avatar
Advisor
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Userid: 73
Location: Springfield
Posts: 3,066
Rep Power: 6
malrenalds is a jewel in the roughmalrenalds is a jewel in the rough
Default

Of course campaign events in smaller states have become somewhat of a moot point. Most people who show up are decided voters. With the technology we have now you can get loads more information online then any campaign event would give you.
__________________
===Quote of the day===
"The enemy of my enemy, can kiss my a$$ too."
Lilah from 'Angel'

Reply With Quote
  #44 (permalink)  
Old 10-18-2008, 04:28 PM
malrenalds's Avatar
Advisor
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Userid: 73
Location: Springfield
Posts: 3,066
Rep Power: 6
malrenalds is a jewel in the roughmalrenalds is a jewel in the rough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chan View Post
Modern definitions of words often come about because people have misused words over a period of time and the people who create dictionaries decide to go with the flow as it were. That doesn't change the FACT that the United States of America is not, and has never been, a democracy.
Great tactic don't like the facts say they were invented by idiots. Democracy comes from Greek. Meaning rule by common people. Where in people decide who rules them. The definition has not change. It means what it is Common Elections empower rules, rulers or representatives.


Quote:
The devolution is from what the founding fathers gave us. Again, I challenge you: Tell me how a big government interventionist nanny state is an improvement over a constitutional republic.
Because we have power and internet in in the rural areas of America. Something the Market did not want to do so they had to be forced to. Phone lines in the 40's It has happened over and over. Real equality had to be forced because the People could not take care of these things themselves. And the Idea that we would even still exist under the "Original Intent" Is naive at best.
__________________
===Quote of the day===
"The enemy of my enemy, can kiss my a$$ too."
Lilah from 'Angel'

Reply With Quote
Reply



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On






     Top Political Sites  
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:02 AM.
Political Fever 2007/2008
   Word Search   |   Family Friendly   |   AdSense Forum   |   Game Cheats   |   Coupon Codes   |   Spore Game   |   Xcode Forum   |   Political Forums   |   Internet Marketing   |   Social Networking    |   Sudoku   |   Mobile Marketing   |   Web Forms   |   Articles & News   |   Loans & Credit Repair   |   Online Coupon Codes   |   Loans   |   Sudoku Puzzles   |   Map Games   |   Spore Screenshots   |   Acai Berry