Let's get rid of the Electoral College

You fail to understand rhetoric, irony, and sarcasm: hardly suprising

Nonsense. You haven't employed any argument on the topic of this discussion which rises to the dignity of irony, and sarcasm is a skill which toddlers are able to master shortly after developing coherent speech.

Your series of accusations about what i might or might not lack in the way of a position on this topic is an argument from ignorance. If you bothered to actually read the thread, you'd have what i've written to argue against. But you're too damned lazy. You just want a venue to vent your spleen against Americans, and you can't be bothered to actually argue logically against someone else's position, because that would oblige you to read and consider what they've written, and to inform yourself about the institution which is the subject of this discussion.

You have nothing to contribute to this discussion. If you seriously were interested in the topic, and what others have said about it, you'd inform yourself about the electoral college, and you'd then read what people have written, and attempt to cogently respond to what they've actually written, as opposed to taking cheap shots at them based on their nationality and erecting straw men for the simple-minded pleasure of knocking them down.

At such point as you actually quote what i've written, and offer a plausible and reasonably considered response, and a response not derived from ignorance, i might feel it worth my while to respond. Until such time, i'll simply continue to point out the stupid game you're playing here.

As I thought: you are incapable of making any reasonable points: You lack the intelligence to make a reasoned argument backed with example fact.
You repeat boorish abuse.
I have given you many opportunities to answer my points, you neglect these. If you have nothing to say why haunt this site.

I have explained my position on this topic in detail. Obviously, you are too lazy and to addicted to merely abusing the other members to read what i've written on this subject, and not simply in this thread but in others on the subject of the Electoral College. Unless and until you respond reasonably, logically and intelligently to the position i've clearly laid out, there is no reason for me to do anything but take note of the stupidity of your "contribution" to this thread. I have no problem doing that, it is mildly entertaining.

I don t believe that he SAID that.





David

A difference in philosophy, Gentel. You keep calling for examples, there are plenty, the last one being Bush over Gore. The electoral college saved us from a disaster, Al Gore. There was enough of the representation of regional or state interests expressed by the voters from various states that it trumped the simple popular vote that is obviously very highly weighted by urban interests and thinking. Of course there is a balance of both, and in most cases the popular vote expresses the same choice as the electoral college, but where the split is so narrowly equal, the influence of state interests can tip the balance, and I contend that it is highly proper and appropriate. We have instituted into the system something called "checks and balances," and I think the electoral college is one of those.

As mentioned before, it also is very important in regard to symbolic purposes, and I think it motivates alot of voters from individual states to vote. To sum it up, it is better to a small fish in a small pond of several ponds, than a small fish in a huge sea. The feeling of that small fish in a huge sea is one of helplessness and lack of identity and power. States give us a better sense of identity and motivates us to participate more than we might otherwise. It is in keeping with the philosophical basis on which the United States exists, a group of states that are bound together by a common bond and constitution, but we are still states.

You have not. You said there were flaws in the British system. That explains nothing.

And you have ignored the fact that Electors were chosen from each state to vote on their behalf for a president because the voters did not know who the candidates were or anything much about them due to the state of communications at that time. And that situation no longer exists.

You have also ignored the fact that a prime consideration at the time the suggestion from Connecticut for an Electoral College was adopted after other and quite different methods were considered was to prevent a Monarchy developing and nowadays there are signs that certain dynasties are providing more presidents than was the case then. Caroline Kennedy is seeking Mrs Clinton's senate seat on the basis of her name. There was talk of Jeb Bush running in the last face off. The magic of the Clinton name propelled the gutsy broad into the limelight. Without the intervention of assassins there could well be now a King Kennedy.

You have failed to take into account corruption and gerrymandering.

A system like our's in the US would be unmanageable and a system like that of the US here would be daft because we have a Monarch who appoints the Big Cheese on the advice of those deemed fit to offer it. Otherwise David Beckham would be PM or Elton John if the south-east won the fight. We have one MP for each "area" with about 80,000 in it. And we have a Boundaries Commission which decides, after considerable wrangling, where each of the 600 odd areas are to be. I'm not sure who it is responsible to. But it is an expert in nifty footwork and magical incantations which are read out on the News in a flat monotone which can send Jumping Jack Flash to sleep in less time than it takes me to relight this stogie which had gone out due to me concentrating so hard on this paragraph.

If at any time the Monarch "lets it be known" that someone new is necessary, which almost happened with Mrs Thatcher, "two cats in a sack" was what I read it described as once, no metaphor intended, most of those involved start getting on the boat to the promised land. They don't wish to be the subject of scurrilous inuendo in the sheets from some of those expert snides in what is loosely known as The Establishment. They refine every jest they have heard at nice parties or in the field into acidic lightning.

So we are all looking forward to Mrs Obama versus Mrs Clinton with Mrs Palin mocking from "voices off." Weeeeell-- All the world's a stage, the maestro said. Each with an entourage of spitting and snarling on the make ladies. Mrs Bush will enjoy it as well I imagine.

You couldn't explain the position on this Set. You're too set in your ways--chortle chortly.

That is a terrible comparison okie. How you can put yourself in the place of a fish deciding where it is best to be? Supposing there's a pike in the pond. It's hilariously terrible.

I was paraphrasing: he never denying supplying weapons to terrorists: just wrapped himself in the flag.

You believe you are coming across as intelligent by avoiding debate. Your only statements have been shown to be idiotic and uneducated. In fact the reverse is true: you have no views: you have no argument; You can string an argument together. Here is my prediction: your next post will like all the rest add nothing to debate:

He seems to think that behaving like an ass makes him important. You notice how he avoids making any statement: so he can't be shown up for the clown he is.

You really must have really set the bar low for the concept of "disaster" Okie. What does that make the present regime,? Using your nomenclature Id call the Bush years "A major extinction event"

Gore woud have been a disaster
in that he 'd have pulled American to the left,
rendering extinct too much of our personal freedom.
W was bad, but Gore n Kerry woud have been much worse.

However, u will now get your wish with oboy.

Only in your mind and the minds of libs and the msm, fm, the Bushs bring some class to the presidency, yes, class, the word the Clintons never even knew the meaning of, let alone achieve. Crooks from the word, go. From the party run like the mafia, and we will be reminded of that every day for the next 4 years. Enter, Chicago Politics.

Fountofwisdom,

If you will permit -- your discourse here is quite the opposite of what is implied in the name you have given yourself. You are very judgemental of others and usually fail to acknowledge your own vulnerability to the accusations and insults you so liberally cast on them, or the hypocrisy that involves. Moreover, you appear to characteristically lack a broad historical understanding of the very issues about which you are the most judgemental.

Neither of these habits does much to give others any impression of the wisdom you so earnestly claim for yourself.

There is some merit in the viewpoints you suggest, but you would be far more effective in expressing it if you would show just a little of the wisdom, understanding and restraint that you so liberally claim for yourself.

Setanta can be a bit cranky and argumentative. However he is very knowledgable, and he thinks and expresses himself very clearly. We don't always agree, but I find discussions with him challenging, informative and enjoyable. He doesn't deserve the labels you have cast on him.

I am against the electoral college and think it should be done away with, but your so called arguements wouldent sway any one to this idea. What does come to the fore in your posts is your obivious hatred of anything U.S. and the lack of knowledge of our politicel system.

I would scarcely be interested in even reading the posts by someone naming themselves "Fount of Wisdom." Talk about an oxymoron.

You are just another person who feels abuse is debate: I point out that the American educational system is viewed as a world joke: it produces people who can't string an argument together.Again you add nothing to the debate.
You notice the only person putting together anything intelligent is another Brit, Spendius. I don't agree with all he says, but he makes clear points, and tries to illustrate them with examples: The Americans feel that bullying is a sign of strength, rather than the pathetic posturing of the inadequate.

Setanta has not shown himself to be knowledgeable, I accept some of your criticisms, but the level of debate has been largely idiotic name calling. It is hard to debate with people who do not debate.
I feel Set is what is known as a troll: he adds nothing, makes only laughably false statements and abuses others.

Au contraire, I love American culture, Sesame St. and Mickey Mouse are a fine legacy to the world. Colonel Sanders is finger licking good!!!