quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

While the current system may or may not be any better than allowing Congress to choose who is the next pres, it does keep people in the country sort of plugged in to what the hell the administration is doing, and gives a feeling of participation in the process. We aren't a democracy.


Let's see...the way it is now five states dictate who is president. If it were by the popular vote then those same five states that had over 50% of the power to appoint the president would now see that go down to 33%. How does this not increase the franchise?

And for fucks sake...puullllleeeeezzzzeeee save me the tedious line of shit about how this is not a democracy

So we are a democracy? Since when?

This is such a tedious exercise. It has been played here over and over again by those like you who wish to make some distinction in the minutia of word nuace. If you wish to play that word game then please do so with someone who enjoys that sort of thing.

From my understanding of things... each one of those members of the electoral college represents a member of congress, which from my memory that number is based on population (and adjusted every 10 years).

Don't get me wrong, I don't like the winner takes all method that most states use for assigning delegates. I think delegates should be appointed based on district (ie whichever candidate wins the popular vote in each), with the 2 extra votes for the Senators going to whoever wins the overall state popular vote. It would better represent the wishes of the voting populace, and still give the smaller states some power in the selection process.

That however, is for each of the states to decide on their own.

Abolish the electoral college...one man one vote.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

While the current system may or may not be any better than allowing Congress to choose who is the next pres, it does keep people in the country sort of plugged in to what the hell the administration is doing, and gives a feeling of participation in the process. We aren't a democracy.


Let's see...the way it is now five states dictate who is president. If it were by the popular vote then those same five states that had over 50% of the power to appoint the president would now see that go down to 33%. How does this not increase the franchise?

And for fucks sake...puullllleeeeezzzzeeee save me the tedious line of shit about how this is not a democracy

So we are a democracy? Since when?

This is such a tedious exercise. It has been played here over and over again by those like you who wish to make some distinction in the minutia of word nuace. If you wish to play that word game then please do so with someone who enjoys that sort of thing.

From my understanding of things... each one of those members of the electoral college represents a member of congress, which from my memory that number is based on population (and adjusted every 10 years).

Don't get me wrong, I don't like the winner takes all method that most states use for assigning delegates. I think delegates should be appointed based on district (ie whichever candidate wins the popular vote in each), with the 2 extra votes for the Senators going to whoever wins the overall state popular vote. It would better represent the wishes of the voting populace, and still give the smaller states some power in the selection process.

That however, is for each of the states to decide on their own.

Abolish the electoral college...one man one vote.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

For a man who tries to appear rational you sometimes talk out of both sides of your mouth.
Here you say that "anyone can play in the system.
When I asked you to provide some evidence of social and economic mobility in the upward direction you were singularly unable to do so.
It is one thing to claim there is upward mobility but something else to prove it.
When you play the word game with democracy you want to make it something it is not. I have not suggested we do away with representative democracy I only suggested we abolish the electoral college. You are not interested in discussion you are just interested in word games and talking points.
I would like to take this opportunity to appologize to you for misreading the numbers in one of the above posts and commenting negatively to you on it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

場合は、便所のふしだらな女 - あなたの膝の上、開始吸う人の足に広がる...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wolf2Bear

Well zephyr...if he says it is then it is!

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Electoral Votes for those states you cited

Cal... 55
Tx... 34
NY... 21
FL... 27
Il.... 20

total 157

To be elected, 270 is required

You state one third lives in those states... Yet those same states possess over half the electorial votes. Now, who is determining the elections?

quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

One third of the people in the US live in just 5 states. CA, 35 mil, TX, 22 mil, NY,17 mil, FL, 16 mil and Il, 13 mil...We never want to have a few states electing the president...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

Just a thought:

The majority of the U.S. population lives in urban areas. Doing away with the electoral college will basically hand the government over to the big cities and diminsh what voice rural areas have.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Electoral Votes for those states you cited

Cal... 55
Tx... 34
NY... 21
FL... 27
Il.... 20

total 157

To be elected, 270 is required

You state one third lives in those states... Yet those same states possess over half the electorial votes. Now, who is determining the elections?

1/3 the population, less than 1/3 of the EVs. Whats your point? Oh...no good one, surprise.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

Just a thought:

The majority of the U.S. population lives in urban areas. Doing away with the electoral college will basically hand the government over to the big cities and diminsh what voice rural areas have.

quote:

It's that way now. It doesn't really pay to campaign in Alabama or Nebreska when a state like Ohio or NY is in play. And if all the big population states aredecided the race is likely over even if a bunch of rural states are still undecided.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Electoral Votes for those states you cited

Cal... 55
Tx... 34
NY... 21
FL... 27
Il.... 20

total 157

To be elected, 270 is required

You state one third lives in those states... Yet those same states possess over half the electorial votes. Now, who is determining the elections?

1/3 the population, less than 1/3 of the EVs. Whats your point? Oh...no good one, surprise.

I made my point. If its not clear to you, that isnt my problem.

I am sick of the slams and put downs from you. The childish attitude, the constant snide remarks and the lack of anything worth while in your posts makes my process much clearer. Welcome to ignore.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl


Simply put, there has never been a controversy over the "natural born" status of a Presidential candidate in the 200 + year history of our republic.

Until of course the Presidential candidate in question was a mixed-race guy with a "muslim" name.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

It's that way now. It doesn't really pay to campaign in Alabama or Nebreska when a state like Ohio or NY is in play. And if all the big population states aredecided the race is likely over even if a bunch of rural states are still undecided.

I would say that it leans that way now. Generaly speaking - the more urban, the further leftwing/liberal/democrat while the more rural the more rightwing/conservative/republican. Suburbia is where you find the greatest mix of the two as well as the moderates (who tend to be liberal on social issues while conservative on fiscal and defense issues) and it is they who are the swing vote than can tip the balance one way or the other.

ETA: a look at a map that shows the election results by county shows this relationship better than one that goes by states. You can see good examples of both HERE.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wolf2Bear

quote:

ORIGINAL: cadenas

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wolf2Bear
Only native-born U.S. citizens (or those born abroad, but only to parents who were both citizens of the U.S.) may be president of the United States

Actually, native-born is generally held to mean "citizen from birth" and already includes those born abroad. So the parenthesis is somewhat redundant.

More importantly "citizenship from birth" usually only requries a single US citizen parent.

If you check the 2 links I provided, that is where that post came from and is NOT my interpretation.