PDA

View Full Version : Now they want to abolish the Electoral College!



MagicMtnDan
08-30-2004, 08:31 AM
The Democrats new agenda is to abolish the Electoral College. Why do they want to do that?
Because 9 states have 50% of the US Population! If they can win those states or most of them then they can win the election. It lets the Democrats focus all their attention on those few states and makes it easier for them to run the country while ignoring what America's heartland really believes in.
The states are: California (Democratic state), New York (Democratic state), New Jersey (Democratic state), Texas (Republican state), Ohio (Republican state), Michigan (Democratic state), Florida (can go either way), Pennsylvania (can go either way), and Illinois (Democratic state).
And who is leading the charge on this? Why it's The New York Times, the newspaper that long ago left journalistic integrity in favor of a very left-leaning agenda to re-make America. :mad:

BUSTI
08-30-2004, 09:49 AM
Why aren't we surprised? This was suggested by Billary Clinton earlier this year.

1978 Rogers
08-30-2004, 09:55 AM
Gore should be backing this one. Boo Hoo.

572Daytona
08-30-2004, 09:56 AM
Yeah I read that article and couldn't disagree more. Less populous states need the electoral college so that their interests can be represented in government. One of the examples that the NY times used was that the candidates were spending time debating the nuclear waste dump in NV and how that was a waste of time because New York has more people and therefore more pressing concerns they should worry about. That is exaclty why we need the electoral system because without adequate representation, the less populous states will become nothing more than dumping grounds for New York and LA.

summerlove
08-30-2004, 09:59 AM
And who is leading the charge on this? Why it's The New York Times, the newspaper that long ago left journalistic integrity in favor of a very left-leaning agenda to re-make America. :mad:
post the article. I'd like to read it.

Dr. Eagle
08-30-2004, 10:01 AM
The Electoral College is a brilliant system... our founders were amazing. I am against abolishing it for the reasons you all cited... :eat:

572Daytona
08-30-2004, 10:02 AM
Here is a link to the article that I read:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040829/pl_nm/campaign_college_dc_3

OMEGA_BUBBLE_JET
08-30-2004, 10:04 AM
a true democracy would lead to communism in very short order. Our govt. was set up as a republic for a reason. a very good reason. it is amazing the fore sight our founding fathers had.
A true democracy would be the final blow to this country and pray that day never comes.
Omega

summerlove
08-30-2004, 10:17 AM
Here's the article. Thanks for the link. As a dem (no kidding!), I have wondered what the other party would have done if the tables had been turned four years ago. What is Gore won the electoral and Bush the popular? Would the editorial have said the same thing or would it have been different? Would Fox News and Rush be promoting this if the 2000 election had gone against their party? Personally, I do not think the EC should be abolished and in fact support it. However, the fact that california and many other states are being ignored this year is because of the "Battleground" states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan are getting all the attention because of the EC and the weight it has. Would the abolishment of the EC force the candidates to run thier campaigns to the nation instead of to just a few key states? Food for thought....anyway, here's the article.
Scrap Electoral College, Says New York Times
Sat Aug 28, 9:52 PM ET Add Politics to My Yahoo!
NEW YORK (Reuters) - The United States should abolish its electoral college because it creates the possibility that the president will be a candidate who loses the popular vote, the New York Times said on Sunday.
The electoral college "thwarts the will of the majority, distorts presidential campaigning and has the potential to produce a true constitutional crisis," the paper said in an editorial.
In the last presidential election in 2000, Republican George W. Bush won the presidency despite losing the popular vote to Democrat Al Gore (news - web sites) by more than 500,000 votes.
"Most people realized then for the first time that we have a system in which the president is chosen not by the voters themselves, but by 538 electors," the editorial said. "It's a ridiculous setup."
The paper, one of the most respected in the United States, said "there should be a bipartisan movement for direct election of the president."
"The main problem with the electoral college is that it builds into every election the possibility, which has been a reality three times since the Civil War, that the president will be a candidate who lost the popular vote," the editorial said.
It said the system unfairly favored small states, which were awarded a minimum of three electoral votes regardless of how many residents they had.
"The majority does not rule, and every vote is not equal -- those are reasons enough to scrap the system," the Times said.
It cited other factors: "A few swing states take on oversized importance, leading candidates to focus their attention, money and promises on a small slice of the electorate.
"We are hearing far more this year about the issue of storing hazardous waste at Yucca Mountain, an important one for Nevada's 2.2 million residents, than about securing ports against terrorism, a vital concern for 19.2 million New Yorkers."

OGShocker
08-30-2004, 10:37 AM
Hey SL,
How about one county/one vote? :idea:
http://www.bushcountry.org/bushcountry-store/images/bc_poster.jpg
Sounds good to me. :D

MagicMtnDan
08-30-2004, 10:37 AM
However, the fact that california and many other states are being ignored this year is because of the "Battleground" states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan are getting all the attention because of the EC and the weight it has. Would the abolishment of the EC force the candidates to run thier campaigns to the nation instead of to just a few key states? Food for thought....
Hey SL, good to hear you're in favor of the EC - we agree on something! :cool:
I know people think that the battleground states are getting all the attention but the fact of the matter is that the candidates cannot afford to ignore other states nor can they afford to take them for granted. Every state is important and their messages must be delivered in each one in order to hold on to their constituents. It's all BECAUSE of the Electoral College that politicians cannot take any state for granted.
Battleground states are the states that are hotly contested and currently are the ones up-for-grabs. But no state can be ignored - all it takes is one slip up by a candidate and there will be a lot more votes in play so their messages must make it to every registered voter.

Kilrtoy
08-30-2004, 10:38 AM
WOW, what next

OGShocker
08-30-2004, 10:39 AM
WOW, what next
You should not be allowed to post without pictures.. :D :D IMHO

summerlove
08-30-2004, 10:48 AM
Hey SL,
How about one county/one vote? :idea:
http://www.bushcountry.org/bushcountry-store/images/bc_poster.jpg
Sounds good to me. :D
nice picture - but...90% of the population is located in the BLUE!
Oh, and to Kilrtoy - agree with OG!

OGShocker
08-30-2004, 10:53 AM
agree with OG!
:D :D :D

eliminatedsprinter
08-30-2004, 11:57 AM
As authoritarians the Democrats will always oppose those things that dilute or weaken their power. They also oppose it, because by spreading out the electoral power, it makes it a little harder to fix elections.

Havasu Cig
08-30-2004, 12:03 PM
That's an interesting picture. Notice how California is split between north and south.

Dr. Eagle
08-30-2004, 12:16 PM
That's an interesting picture. Notice how California is split between north and south.
Yes and how the blue goes in as far as Davis up north too... The Valley and more rural areas of california are in the red area. And no SL 90% of the population isn't in the blue. A high percentage... perhaps. San Francisco is so close to marxism that maybe it counts 4x...

OGShocker
08-30-2004, 12:20 PM
Sorry for the C&P but, this is from a Democrat and DEAD ON!.
By MICHAEL J. COPPS
Washington — As a Democratic commissioner on the Federal Communications Commission, I may not agree with many positions taken by speakers this week at the Republican National Convention. Even so, I believe our broadcast media owe us more coverage of an event that remains an important component of the presidential campaign. Yet tonight, if people around the country tune in to the commercial broadcast TV networks, most will not see any live convention coverage. That's not right.
Let's remember that American citizens own the public airwaves, not TV executives. We give broadcasters the right to use these airwaves for free in exchange for their agreement to broadcast in the public interest. They earn huge profits using this public resource. During this campaign season broadcasters will receive nearly $1.5 billion from political advertising.
What do we get in return for granting TV stations free use of our airwaves? Unfortunately, when it comes to coverage of issues important to our nation, the answer is less and less. Coverage of the 2000 presidential election on the network evening news dropped by a third compared to reporting on the 1996 election. During the last election cycle we heard directly from presidential candidates for an average of 9 seconds a night on the news. Local races? Forget it. In 2002 - the most recent midterm elections - more than half of local newscasts contained no campaign coverage at all. Local coverage has diminished to the point that campaign ads outnumber campaign stories by four to one. What coverage there is focuses inordinately on polls and handicapping the horse race.
TV executives tell us that the convention and campaign coverage provided by the cable channels is sufficient. I don't think so. Around 35 million Americans don't get cable, often because they cannot afford it. To put it in perspective, that's more than the combined populations of Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota. Furthermore, broadcasters legally undertake to serve the public interest themselves in exchange for free spectrum - their licenses don't allow them to pass the buck to cable. Remember also that the vast majority of cable channels are national, not local. So don't look for local campaign coverage on cable, except in the few towns where local cable news exists. Most Americans still must look to their local broadcaster for news of local campaigns and issues.
The F.C.C. is doing nothing to help as the situation deteriorates. It has weakened almost every explicit duty stations once had for serving the public interest, like ensuring that stations cover local issues and offer viewers a diversity of opinion. Just as bad, the commission eliminated protections against media consolidation last year, even though critics warned that this would result in even less local coverage. Luckily, a federal court rejected this decision, so we have another chance to save these rules.
The F.C.C. has also failed to set guidelines for how broadcasters will meet their public interest responsibilities when digital TV and multicasting become more widespread. To make matters worse, the F.C.C. now practically rubber-stamps TV license renewals, usually without auditing station records to determine whether licensees are fulfilling their public interest responsibilities or checking with communities to ensure that stations are meeting local needs.
Whether we are Democrats, Republicans or independents, we all can agree that democracy depends on well-informed citizens. So as you flip through the channels tonight while the convention is largely ignored, consider whether TV broadcasters, sustained by free access to the public airwaves in exchange for programming in the public interest, are holding up their end of the deal.
Michael J. Copps is a commissioner on the Federal Communications Commission.

Dave C
08-30-2004, 12:39 PM
I know, please send help. :yuk: :cry:
davec<--- behind enemy lines.
That's an interesting picture. Notice how California is split between north and south.
Yes and how the blue goes in as far as Davis up north too... The Valley and more rural areas of california are in the red area. And no SL 90% of the population isn't in the blue. A high percentage... perhaps. San Francisco is so close to marxism that maybe it counts 4x...

Dave C
08-30-2004, 12:41 PM
I disagree with those that say California does not count.
If it wasn't for California and NY, Kerry would have no chance of winning. Kerry just needs to fool.... opps, I mean, convince more people to win the EC.

Dr. Eagle
08-30-2004, 01:17 PM
I know, please send help. :yuk: :cry:
davec<--- behind enemy lines.
Dr. E <----------------------on the front lines when I'm home... otherwise also behind enemy liness

Dave C
08-30-2004, 02:43 PM
WHEN (not if) they take away our guns.... we are screwed.
BTW don't get on any railroad cars... :skull: :sqeyes:
Dr. E <----------------------on the front lines when I'm home... otherwise also behind enemy liness

AzDon
08-30-2004, 05:46 PM
The only problem I have with the Scheme is that I don't believe that any contested state's EC votes should be awarded. If a state is so close as to be in a "state of confusion", that state should be declared "deadlocked" (or a tie!) and that state's ec votes set aside. It would be fair to both candidates because neither would be awarded the ec votes.

RacerX
08-30-2004, 05:58 PM
Hey SL,
How about one county/one vote? :idea:
http://www.bushcountry.org/bushcountry-store/images/bc_poster.jpg
Sounds good to me. :D
Speaking only for the graphic of California....notice how most of the blue is where all the people who are either in this country illegally live or live "alternative" lifestyles?
Things that make you go hmmmmm........

Dr. Eagle
08-30-2004, 07:26 PM
WHEN (not if) they take away our guns.... we are screwed.
BTW don't get on any railroad cars... :skull: :sqeyes:
Yeah, they'll take away my guns when........ well you know the rest! :devil:

Sleek-Jet
08-30-2004, 08:05 PM
Yes and how the blue goes in as far as Davis up north too... The Valley and more rural areas of california are in the red area. And no SL 90% of the population isn't in the blue. A high percentage... perhaps. San Francisco is so close to marxism that maybe it counts 4x...
You can locate every major university and large metropolitan area with that map. Nothin like the old Red or Blue American argument (for the record I woud be a "red" American).
The EC does give the smaller states an equal voice. Who thought a state like New Mexico would be a swing state in a national election (a state that ranks last or close to it in education, health care, and other democratic ideals, but at the top on little things like drunk driving, domestic violence, ect...)??

Dr. Eagle
08-30-2004, 08:07 PM
You can locate every major university and large metropolitan area with that map. Nothin like the old Red or Blue American argument (for the record I woud be a "red" American).
The EC does give the smaller states an equal voice. Who thought a state like New Mexico would be a swing state in a national election (a state that ranks last or close to it in education, health care, and other democratic ideals, but at the top on little things like drunk driving, domestic violence, ect...)??
Kind of equalizes like the senate does, two from each state no matter population...

Essex502
08-31-2004, 06:07 AM
Yeah I read that article and couldn't disagree more. Less populous states need the electoral college so that their interests can be represented in government.
That's why there is the Senate - where every state has at least 2 reprentatives regardless of their population. House of Representatives has more representatives from a particular state as the population grows.
One of the examples that the NY times used was that the candidates were spending time debating the nuclear waste dump in NV and how that was a waste of time because New York has more people and therefore more pressing concerns they should worry about. That is exaclty why we need the electoral system because without adequate representation, the less populous states will become nothing more than dumping grounds for New York and LA.
I disagree as there are more than enough avenues to prevent the so-called dumping on the less popular states.
The will of the people should be just that - a majority of the voters should elect the President. Not gerrymandered "zones" where some votes count more than others.

Essex502
08-31-2004, 06:16 AM
Sorry for the C&P but, this is from a Democrat and DEAD ON!.
By MICHAEL J. COPPS
Washington — As a Democratic commissioner on the Federal Communications Commission, I may not agree with many positions taken by speakers this week at the Republican National Convention. Even so, I believe our broadcast media owe us more coverage of an event that remains an important component of the presidential campaign. Yet tonight, if people around the country tune in to the commercial broadcast TV networks, most will not see any live convention coverage. That's not right.
Let's remember that American citizens own the public airwaves, not TV executives. We give broadcasters the right to use these airwaves for free in exchange for their agreement to broadcast in the public interest. They earn huge profits using this public resource. During this campaign season broadcasters will receive nearly $1.5 billion from political advertising.
What do we get in return for granting TV stations free use of our airwaves? Unfortunately, when it comes to coverage of issues important to our nation, the answer is less and less. Coverage of the 2000 presidential election on the network evening news dropped by a third compared to reporting on the 1996 election. During the last election cycle we heard directly from presidential candidates for an average of 9 seconds a night on the news. Local races? Forget it. In 2002 - the most recent midterm elections - more than half of local newscasts contained no campaign coverage at all. Local coverage has diminished to the point that campaign ads outnumber campaign stories by four to one. What coverage there is focuses inordinately on polls and handicapping the horse race.
TV executives tell us that the convention and campaign coverage provided by the cable channels is sufficient. I don't think so. Around 35 million Americans don't get cable, often because they cannot afford it. To put it in perspective, that's more than the combined populations of Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota. Furthermore, broadcasters legally undertake to serve the public interest themselves in exchange for free spectrum - their licenses don't allow them to pass the buck to cable. Remember also that the vast majority of cable channels are national, not local. So don't look for local campaign coverage on cable, except in the few towns where local cable news exists. Most Americans still must look to their local broadcaster for news of local campaigns and issues.
The F.C.C. is doing nothing to help as the situation deteriorates. It has weakened almost every explicit duty stations once had for serving the public interest, like ensuring that stations cover local issues and offer viewers a diversity of opinion. Just as bad, the commission eliminated protections against media consolidation last year, even though critics warned that this would result in even less local coverage. Luckily, a federal court rejected this decision, so we have another chance to save these rules.
The F.C.C. has also failed to set guidelines for how broadcasters will meet their public interest responsibilities when digital TV and multicasting become more widespread. To make matters worse, the F.C.C. now practically rubber-stamps TV license renewals, usually without auditing station records to determine whether licensees are fulfilling their public interest responsibilities or checking with communities to ensure that stations are meeting local needs.
Whether we are Democrats, Republicans or independents, we all can agree that democracy depends on well-informed citizens. So as you flip through the channels tonight while the convention is largely ignored, consider whether TV broadcasters, sustained by free access to the public airwaves in exchange for programming in the public interest, are holding up their end of the deal.
Michael J. Copps is a commissioner on the Federal Communications Commission.
---snip---snip---snip---
Just out of curiosity...how many members of the FCC are Democrat versus Republican?

OMEGA_BUBBLE_JET
08-31-2004, 08:09 AM
can someone point out where the word 'democracy' is used in our constitution or it's amendments? or maybe even the bill of rights? I'll go out on a limb here and include the declaration of independence........
Omega

OGShocker
08-31-2004, 08:26 AM
=Essex502Just out of curiosity...how many members of the FCC are Democrat versus Republican?
The FCC is directed by five Commissioners appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate for 5-year terms, except when filling an unexpired term. The President designates one of the Commissioners to serve as Chairperson. Only three Commissioners may be members of the same political party. None of them can have a financial interest in any Commission-related business.

Essex502
08-31-2004, 10:35 AM
Who are today's commissioners and what is their political affiliation? Who appointed the present commissioners?
Bush appointed the following current commissioners:
Kathleen Q. Abernathy
Michael J. Copps
Kevin J. Martin
Jonathon S. Adelstein
Only the Chairman of the Commission was appointed by someone other than George W. Bush - Michael K Powell and he's a Republican.
I guess you could say that Bush's administration controls the F.C.C., huh? 4 appointees and elevation of a Clinton appointee to Chairman...do ya' think any of the 5 are beholden to the President?

OGShocker
08-31-2004, 10:43 AM
Who are today's commissioners and what is their political affiliation? Who appointed the present commissioners?
Kathleen Q. Abernathy:Rep
Michael J. Copps: Dem
Kevin J. Martin: Rep
Jonathon S. Adelstein: Dem

waterslinger
08-31-2004, 11:12 AM
One man one vote. The prez needs to be elected by the people.

Dr. Eagle
08-31-2004, 11:17 AM
One man one vote. The prez needs to be elected by the people.
I guess the Framers of the Constitution didn't feel that way.....

Essex502
08-31-2004, 12:15 PM
I guess the Framers of the Constitution didn't feel that way.....
No...they didn't but technology and education has changed the way the world and the United States operates. At the time of the writing of the constitution there was no practical way for every citizen to vote and hav their vote tallied. Also, remember that the original people who could vote were white, male landholders. These limitations were NOT in the Constitution but left up to the states to decide who could or could not vote. Women, for instance, didn't have the right to vote until 1920.

OGShocker
08-31-2004, 12:25 PM
Women, for instance, didn't have the right to vote until 1920.
First the vote then they found orgasims and the World has never been the same! :sqeyes:
The Constitution is not a fluid document. The framers were full of foresight, not s**t.

572Daytona
08-31-2004, 12:33 PM
I've never really been into politics but I'm curious how other countries do this. Do most countries have something similar to the electoral system or is it strictly a majority vote of the entire populous? If it were a majority vote I really don't see how the rural areas would get their interest represented by the president, the campaign trail would be New York to Chicago to LA to Miami and back to NY again, and the issues that the candidates would be talking about would be big city urban issues only. Who cares what the farmers, etc think.

Essex502
08-31-2004, 12:35 PM
First the vote then they found orgasims and the World has never been the same! :sqeyes:
The Constitution is not a fluid document. The framers were full of foresight, not s**t.
You should check again...the Constitution is in fact a fluid document that may be changed via the amendment process.
The original framers of the Constitution seemed to go out of their way to make the election of a President NOT a democratic process. The process in use today is quite different than planned by the founding fathers.
orgasm = orgasim?

OGShocker
08-31-2004, 12:42 PM
orgasm = orgasim?
OK, last time I had one they spelled it that way. :squiggle: :D
Next, this is good reading...Really! (http://www.fec.gov/pages/ecworks.htm)

Essex502
09-01-2004, 06:08 AM
Next, this is good reading...Really! (http://www.fec.gov/pages/ecworks.htm)
Try this site as well: Electoral College (http://www.maitreg.com/politics/articles/electoralcollege.asp)

OGShocker
09-01-2004, 06:11 AM
Try this site as well: Electoral College (http://www.maitreg.com/politics/articles/electoralcollege.asp)
Thank's, I will.
This thread will be moved to the PR forum. I guess HB needs to justify his job. :hammerhea

Essex502
09-01-2004, 06:17 AM
Yeah...he missed this one.

OMEGA_BUBBLE_JET
09-01-2004, 06:44 AM
One man one vote. The prez needs to be elected by the people.
a couple quotes from V.I. Lenin "Democracy is essential to socialism" & "Socialism leads to communism"
you my friend are a socialist and only one stepping stone away from a communist. DEMOCRACY does not work. Read your history books folks! Our founding fathers set our govt. up as a republic 'if we could keep it'. that is straight from the constitution of the United States of America. What do you think they meant by that????
Omega

MagicMtnDan
09-01-2004, 06:57 AM
If the Electoral College is abolished then 9 states will represent about 50% of the population. That means that about 41 states will have US citizens that will essentially be disenfranchised (their votes could become meaningless).
Why do any of you feel that the current process that has served us well for all of this country's years is no longer worth keeping?

MagicMtnDan
09-01-2004, 06:59 AM
Yeah...he missed this one.
Somebody probably thinks that "Electoral College" is a school on the East Coast :D
And since somebody isn't reading these threads to find out they're politically charged then maybe that explains why he/she is so eager to send the political threads to Hot Boat Forum hell. :angry2:

Dave C
09-01-2004, 08:19 AM
because they can't win under the current system. ;)
Why do any of you feel that the current process that has served us well for all of this country's years is no longer worth keeping?

Essex502
09-01-2004, 08:22 AM
If the Electoral College is abolished then 9 states will represent about 50% of the population. That means that about 41 states will have US citizens that will essentially be disenfranchised (their votes could become meaningless).
I disagree with your assessment that those folks are "disenfranchised" as they are only the minority in the democratic process.
Why do any of you feel that the current process that has served us well for all of this country's years is no longer worth keeping?
If you look at the history of the Presidential elections, the process has been moving towards a more democratic vote over the centuries.

Essex502
09-01-2004, 08:24 AM
a couple quotes from V.I. Lenin "Democracy is essential to socialism" & "Socialism leads to communism"
you my friend are a socialist and only one stepping stone away from a communist. DEMOCRACY does not work. Read your history books folks! Our founding fathers set our govt. up as a republic 'if we could keep it'. that is straight from the constitution of the United States of America. What do you think they meant by that????
Omega
Only from the view of V.I.Lenin does your logic approach fact. If you believe Lenin was correct maybe YOU are the socialist?

HCS
09-01-2004, 08:26 AM
I herd something interesting the other day.
The poles show practically a dead heat for president. Florida is too close to
call. And no president has ever one an election without winning Arizona. :mix:

OMEGA_BUBBLE_JET
09-01-2004, 10:01 AM
Only from the view of V.I.Lenin does your logic approach fact. If you believe Lenin was correct maybe YOU are the socialist?
my question stills stands........find the word 'democracy' in the United States Constitution or any of it's amendments. our govt. rapidly approaches a true democracy which in my opinion will with out a doubt lead to a socialist govt. I don't understand how you could view this opinion as me being a socialist but okay :rolleyes:
Omega

mirvin
09-01-2004, 10:18 AM
The sandbar is now being regulated by the political police. Please stop this annoying and rediculous conversation or your tongues will be cut out!!
The sandbar is for certain liesurely topics only!!
mirvin :idea:

Essex502
09-01-2004, 12:05 PM
my question stills stands........find the word 'democracy' in the United States Constitution or any of it's amendments. our govt. rapidly approaches a true democracy which in my opinion will with out a doubt lead to a socialist govt. I don't understand how you could view this opinion as me being a socialist but okay :rolleyes:
Omega
Your belief in the writings of V.I. Lenin as being truth and not his warped theory is what leads me to believe in your status as a closet socialist. Otherwise...why believe anything he said? :D

ROZ
09-01-2004, 10:32 PM
If you look at the history of the Presidential elections, the process has been moving towards a more democratic vote over the centuries.
Yes, this is correct. We are becomming a more socialized country. We're going backward.

ROZ
09-01-2004, 10:52 PM
Only from the view of V.I.Lenin does your logic approach fact. If you believe Lenin was correct maybe YOU are the socialist? Attempting to understand and believing is different as apples are to oranges. Your mistake would be the assumption that he believes and that Lenin is the only person who believed his ideology. I say "would be" because you start your sentence with the preposition "if".

ROZ
09-01-2004, 10:57 PM
is what leads me to believe in your status as a closet socialist. :D
Takes one to know one :D
There's that "believe" word again :yuk: :D

OMEGA_BUBBLE_JET
09-02-2004, 04:51 AM
Your belief in the writings of V.I. Lenin as being truth and not his warped theory is what leads me to believe in your status as a closet socialist. Otherwise...why believe anything he said? :D
I do not 'believe' in V.I.Lenin. I simply quoted him to spark attention. I promise you I am far from being a socialist. I BELIEVE in our govt. as it was setup by our constitution and not what is rapidly becoming and will digress to.
I notice you are quick to point the finger at me and label me as a SOCIALIST but I challenge you to answer the other questions I posed. I will post them here for you again......
Our founding fathers set our govt. up as a republic 'if we could keep it'. that is straight from the constitution of the United States of America. What do you think they meant by that????
my question stills stands........find the word 'democracy' in the United States Constitution or any of it's amendments.
I will eagerly await your answer to these 2 questions.......I'll give you a hint. Article 4 section 4
Omega

Jeanyus
09-02-2004, 06:36 AM
I live in a rural part of America. Rural America is the heart of this country.
If the electoral colledge is abolished, Then our president will be elected by a bunch of people with multicolored mohawks, and nails or fish hooks through thier skin. Most of them claim to be socialists and none of them have a job.
It's not my fault that people who live in cities, don't have the time to raise thier children, and just allow them to run amuck. I dont want the insane parents or thier wierdo kids choosing who runs our country. These people can't even run a family.

Essex502
09-02-2004, 10:16 AM
Takes one to know one :D
There's that "believe" word again :yuk: :D
Boy or boy could that statement be farther from the truth.... hahahaha, good one...I'm for open discourse only...my only socialist leaning is "get a job a$$hole" as a social program.

Essex502
09-02-2004, 10:25 AM
Our founding fathers set our govt. up as a republic 'if we could keep it'. that is straight from the constitution of the United States of America. What do you think they meant by that????
I will eagerly await your answer to these 2 questions.......I'll give you a hint. Article 4 section 4
You must be reading a different Constitution than I as I cannot find the sequence of words in the U.S. Constitution
Article 4, Section 4:
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."
my question stills stands........find the word 'democracy' in the United States Constitution or any of it's amendments.
I fail to recognize when I claimed the word "democracy" was ever in the Constitution.
"de·moc·ra·cy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-mkr-s)
n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies
Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
A political or social unit that has such a government.
The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
Majority rule.
The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.
The Constitution establishes a federal democratic republic form of government. That is, we have an indivisible union of 50 sovereign States. It is a democracy because people govern themselves. It is representative because people choose elected officials by free and secret ballot. It is a republic because the Government derives its power from the people.

Essex502
09-02-2004, 10:28 AM
Omega...the U.S. also condoned slavery when the Constitution was written...are you saying we should roll backwards to that as well?

Essex502
09-02-2004, 10:30 AM
I live in a rural part of America. Rural America is the heart of this country.
If the electoral colledge is abolished, Then our president will be elected by a bunch of people with multicolored mohawks, and nails or fish hooks through thier skin. Most of them claim to be socialists and none of them have a job.
It's not my fault that people who live in cities, don't have the time to raise thier children, and just allow them to run amuck. I dont want the insane parents or thier wierdo kids choosing who runs our country. These people can't even run a family.
Jeanie - those pathetic excuses for human beings crying for attention don't vote anyway. Pretty big indictment of us city dwellers. :D God damn rednecks...sheesh! :D Have you mown your lawn recently...ya' might find a motor! :D

OMEGA_BUBBLE_JET
09-02-2004, 11:33 AM
You must be reading a different Constitution than I as I cannot find the sequence of words in the U.S. Constitution
Article 4, Section 4:
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."
I fail to recognize when I claimed the word "democracy" was ever in the Constitution.
"de·moc·ra·cy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-mkr-s)
n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies
Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
A political or social unit that has such a government.
The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
Majority rule.
The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.
The Constitution establishes a federal democratic republic form of government. That is, we have an indivisible union of 50 sovereign States. It is a democracy because people govern themselves. It is representative because people choose elected officials by free and secret ballot. It is a republic because the Government derives its power from the people.
I am sorry I should have been more clear, the quote 'our govt. is a republic if we can keep it' was actually from Benjamin Franklin. the article 4 section 4 was simply in reference to what type of govt we have and I think it clearly states we are a republican govt.
a democratic govt. only requires 51% of the vote. :rolleyes: if we were a democratic govt. we would be discussing who Gore is running against this year. :hammer2:
Omega

Jeanyus
09-02-2004, 04:43 PM
I haven't mowed the lawn in 6 years. But I know I won't find any motors. I have my motors safely stored in the bathtub.
I wasn't insinuating, that all city dwellers are bad parents with blue haired children.
There are no blue haired children around here so I just assumed they lived in the cities.
Here is a thought I had. The concentration of people who are benifiting from social services, are in the citys. Colledge students, who benifit from student loans, government grants, and are greatly influenced by liberal teachers, live in the citys. The majority of government jobs are in the citys. Seems to me the city dwellers would be inclined to vote the party that hands out the most money. Looks like the democrats have figured out a way to buy votes, with taxpayer money. If you take away the handouts, then I say one man one vote,but the only way to make things fair, right now is with the electoral college.

Squirtin Thunder
09-02-2004, 07:17 PM
Ronny,
The last time I was in downtown Auburn I saw fish hooks and code blue hair but that was only a few out casts. Oh shit sorry that was Holloween last year.
Jim

Essex502
09-03-2004, 07:13 AM
I haven't mowed the lawn in 6 years. But I know I won't find any motors. I have my motors safely stored in the bathtub.
I wasn't insinuating, that all city dwellers are bad parents with blue haired children.
There are no blue haired children around here so I just assumed they lived in the cities.
Here is a thought I had. The concentration of people who are benifiting from social services, are in the citys. Colledge students, who benifit from student loans, government grants, and are greatly influenced by liberal teachers, live in the citys. The majority of government jobs are in the citys. Seems to me the city dwellers would be inclined to vote the party that hands out the most money. Looks like the democrats have figured out a way to buy votes, with taxpayer money. If you take away the handouts, then I say one man one vote,but the only way to make things fair, right now is with the electoral college.
Big city dwellers also work for the big companies and tend to be more pro-Republican platform as well since what's good (usually) for the larger companies is good for its employees.

Dave C
09-03-2004, 07:51 AM
they are?.... where?....not around here. show me some? ;) most of them are pissed they have to work for the "man"
Big city dwellers also work for the big companies and tend to be more pro-Republican platform as well since what's good (usually) for the larger companies is good for its employees.

Essex502
09-03-2004, 03:13 PM
they are?.... where?....not around here. show me some? ;) most of them are pissed they have to work for the "man"
San Mateo...is that near San Francisco? Figures. Explains a lot of things.

Jeanyus
09-04-2004, 07:36 AM
Big city dwellers also work for the big companies and tend to be more pro-Republican platform as well since what's good (usually) for the larger companies is good for its employees.
I find it a little queer, that people who own business or have a job, tend to be Bush supporters.
I'd like to take a moment to identify Kerry supporters, he gets the vote from all people collecting unemployment. (I call unemployment, paid vacation) I think Kerry gets 100% of the welfare vote, he will get all of the gay votes ( there goes the rest of my reputation points, last time I said something about gays I lost 5 points), he probably gets all the blue haired pierced faced votes, all anarchists will vote for Kerry.
The ultra rich,who were born with huge trust funds , and never had to work a day in thier life, will vote for Kerry. He gets the vote from everyone who hates the christian religion.
Interesting crowd he has attracted, I guess birds of a feather flock together.

Essex502
09-07-2004, 07:11 AM
I find it a little queer, that people who own business or have a job, tend to be Bush supporters.
I'd like to take a moment to identify Kerry supporters, he gets the vote from all people collecting unemployment. (I call unemployment, paid vacation) I think Kerry gets 100% of the welfare vote, he will get all of the gay votes ( there goes the rest of my reputation points, last time I said something about gays I lost 5 points), he probably gets all the blue haired pierced faced votes, all anarchists will vote for Kerry.
The ultra rich,who were born with huge trust funds , and never had to work a day in thier life, will vote for Kerry. He gets the vote from everyone who hates the christian religion.
Interesting crowd he has attracted, I guess birds of a feather flock together.
Kerry not a Christian? What are Catholics? Atheists?

Jeanyus
09-07-2004, 08:04 AM
I thought Kerry was a Catholic Jew, or was it a Jewish Catholic. Or maybe he's just riding the fence on the religion.

OGShocker
09-07-2004, 08:13 AM
Kerry not a Christian? What are Catholics? Atheists?
Kerry is not sure, his father was jewish and he was raised catholic. He is what he is depending on WHERE he is. His ying only yangs according to the polls. :chi: ;)

Dave C
09-07-2004, 08:23 AM
yes..... I think the BOS in SF voted to "outlaw" big companies. ;)
San Mateo...is that near San Francisco? Figures. Explains a lot of things.

Dave C
09-07-2004, 08:24 AM
OR maybe he voted for Jesus before he voted against Jesus! ;)
I thought Kerry was a Catholic Jew, or was it a Jewish Catholic. Or maybe he's just riding the fence on the religion.

napabob
09-09-2004, 04:18 PM
The Electoral College
by Timothy A. Cantrell
When the Founding Fathers designed a system for electing Presidents they had no idea how crazy the system would become. It was generally thought that most elections would be decided in the House of Representatives. Only prominent people like some of the heroes among the Founding Fathers were expected to win an election in the Electoral College.
The Electoral College was a way in which the states would have a voice in the election of a President. States are represented in the Electoral College according to their total number of representatives in the legislative branch. In other words, a state like Kentucky has six Representatives and two Senators; this means that Kentucky has eight electoral votes.
This system was designed before political parties originated. It was also before very many people had the right to vote. Until the 1820's most states chose their electors in the state legislatures. In the 1820's and 1830's, a political reform movement swept the country and led to several changes in how we nominated and elected a President. The most important of these changes were the extension of the right to vote to the common man and the national convention system of nominating candidates for President.
Since the Electoral College did not work in 1824 (John Quincy Adams was elected by the House), the supporters of Andrew Jackson went to work on the state level and got the vote extended to the common man and they also got most states to allow the Electors to be elected by popular vote. Most states made the rule which still exists in nearly every state. This rule says that whichever candidate gets a plurality of the vote in a state gets all of the electoral vote of that state.
The second Jacksonian reform of the Presidential election system was the National Convention to nominate a candidate. Starting in 1836, both major parties started having national conventions. (This idea was stolen from the Anti-Mason Party.) The political parties were allowed to choose their own method of selecting delegates to the National Convention. Usually Party regulators and elected public officials dominated the conventions in each party. This method continued throughout the Nineteenth Century.
In the early Twentieth Century, during the Progressive period, a new system of selecting Convention delegates emerged. While it was only established in a few states, this method would eventually become the dominant method by the 1970's. This new method was the Presidential Primary. Today, the overwhelming majority of the delegates to both party conventions are chosen by this method. Hubert Humphrey, in 1968, was the last nominee of either party to win the nomination without entering the primaries. It is this long and drawn out primary system that has made the U.S. Presidential contest the longest and most confusing in the Western World. Add the Electoral College system to this and this gives us a system few people in the general population will ever completely comprehend.
It is now time to include an Electoral College map followed by a detailed explanation of how the system works. Explanation of the Electoral College: The number of representatives are determined by the total number of representatives that state has in Congress (Senate and House). For example, KY has 6 Representatives and 2 Senators; therefore 8 electoral votes.
http://www.uky.edu/LCC/HIS/101/elecol.gif
The presidential election should be viewed as 51 separate elections for electoral votes. (50 States and D.C.) The key to victory is to win enough votes to total 270 (a majority of the total of 538) electoral votes. The candidate who wins the most votes in a state gets all the electoral votes of that state.
Electoral College Calendar
Spring of election year: Each political party chooses electors and alternates in each state according to the number of electors for that state. This is usually done at a state convention.
November (1st Tuesday after the first Monday): Popular vote in each state to determine which party's electors go to the Electoral College.
December: Electoral College meets in each State Capital and in D.C. to cast votes.
January: When Congress opens, the electoral votes are counted and the election is official if both the presidential and the vice-presidential candidate have 270 votes. If no presidential candidate gets the needed 270 votes, the election is decided in the House of Representatives with each state delegation having one vote. (26 votes to win) The Senators, voting individually, will elect the vice-president.
Note: Many would like to change this system, but since it gives small states a larger voice per population, change is very unlikely.

napabob
09-10-2004, 03:15 PM
The Democrats new agenda is to abolish the Electoral College
Republicans and Democrates have tried to change the 'Electoral College"
http://www.fairvote.org/op_eds/electoral_college.htm
"So what can be done? Over the years, leading national political figures like Strom Thurmond, Orrin Hatch, Ted Kennedy, Kweisi Mfume and John McCain have supported approaches to amend, reform or scrap the Electoral College. The time has come to institute a national direct election".
http://www.hotboatpics.com/pics/data/500/6782AWOL_sm.jpg