Let's get rid of the Electoral College

Come on George. Set has been doing what FoW says he does to me for four years off and on.

He has me on Ignore. He can't read my stuff anymore. He casts aspersions on my style and knowledge as the excuse but it doesn't wash with me.

He won't, like the rest of the anti-ID bunch, which I thought you were opposed to, answer the question of whether he thinks there is a psychosomatic realm or not. Nor whether emotional states can affect cell functioning. Which proves he's a flapdoodle merchant. He said our system had flaws without the botheration of saying what they are. That can only be that he doesn't know what they are, it just "has flaws", or he doesn't wish to say what they are in case he gets rings run round him again.

He makes fancy sounding statements all around the houses which are mainly uneducated drivel and he insults people at the drop of a hat and often in quite vituperative language.

Which is not to say that I agree with everything FoW says. Which view did she express that you think has merit?

** I assumed FoW chose her username in an ironic feminine mode.

You're the one who is avoiding debate. All you need do is read the thread, and you will find the position i've laid out. You've shown nothing about my statements, because you haven't read them.

You have added nothing to the topic under discussion, it takes no great skills in prognostication to know that this is what i will say, i've told you as much. Unless and until you respond intelligently and logically to the position i've outlined, i will continue to point out that you only come here to insult people for merely being American. You're too lazy to actually do the work of reading, understanding and debating, you only want to sling insults at other members. No surprises there.

If the Electoral College is done away with on your advice rab what would you suggest in its place?

This is a so called answer to my accusation that you lack a knowledge of our politicel system. I dont put anyone on ignore but I do pass over posts that mean nothing which I will do to your future posts.

Majority vote for president. Who ever gets the most votes is president. Lets do away with politicians electing a president.

If he didn't, he sure could have but it may well have been the only truthful thing he ever said, except for the patriotic part. The type of scummy actions that Reagan/North and company took part in have nothing to do with patriotism.

I feel the opposite about that election's outcome but don't think my personal political leanings are evidence in the question of keeping the electoral college or not.

How, for example, was a Gore victory an example of tyranny of the majority? The way you seem to be using it seems lose enough to be whenever a majority wins but there is real political meaning to this term, and merely illustrating an example of the electoral college giving the victory to the candidate with fewer popular votes doesn't illustrate such a concept. It's merely an example of the system in play, upon what basis would you say Gore represented an example of a tyranny of the majority that Obama, which the same system elected, does not represent.



What regional or state interests? You just mean political ideology right? No actual competing regional interests?



You already established that you think it's appropriate, but where is the tyranny of the majority.

Look, tyranny of the majority doesn't just mean that the majority wins an election. It requires exploitation of the minority or some kind of subjugation.

Not having your candidate win is simply not tyranny. Roger gave a good example of tyranny of the majority earlier with this example:



That is an example of such a tyranny, and there are numerous protections against tyranny of the majority in the US political system that I do support.

So just pointing out that the minority got a winner through the system is not enough to demonstrate that it averted tyranny of the majority, you'd have to demonstrate that without this some kind of regional exploitation would have taken place and would have done to to a degree making it tyrannical.


I know, and like all others who I've heard say so you can't seem to give me any good examples though. I understand the concept well and a good example of how this provides such protection would be very convincing to me.



I think it reduces the motivation of far more people than it motivates, but I don't see this as being a compelling argument either way.



I've not advocated the abolition of States Okie.

Are you suggesting Bob that no regional exploitation takes place?

Repeating your idiotic standpoint does not validate it,or you.

No, I'm suggesting that the electoral college does not protect against any regional exploitation that would qualify as tyrannical.

Now we are getting somewhere: I think that is a more useful question. To suggest it can't be improved suggests it is perfect.
The system is 232 years old. Lets add a bit of pace. A year is too long. Britain does the election and change of government in 6 weeks. (As a guideline) .
I'm in favour of the one person one vote kind of Democracy.
I dont believe in queuing to vote: people dont queue at that other American institution MacDonalds
I can't believe I'm becoming more Anti American. They don't like discussion or debate. Its all noise and big I am stuff.
I think explaining irony to Americans will prove to be to difficult. Lets start with simple concepts like debating without abuse.
Set is classic bully boy stuff, Probably from deep rooted feelings of inadequacy. I predicted he wasn't capable of making a logical argument and I was right.
His approach is to google some irrelevant answer, then fail to argue it. I bet he doesnt understand what he writes.

What is worse, is he got away with it.

That trouble is, democracy is an absolute, no one has the right decide who can vote on which issues, and why. You have to trust people in the end. A personal exmample is this, I've sat on a jury, the discussion was responsible and caring: I will always elect to be tried by jury.

You never made that accusation: you spouted idiocy: each state elects a number of delegates,proportional to its population. these are pledged to the candidate that gets the highest popular vote in that state. Basically the mid west goes republican. NY and Calif go Democrat. The election is decided in Florida and Michigan, the rest doesnt matter. You are stupid. Say something about the british system. Like all americans you know nothing and shout it loudly. Why say I know nothing about the rubbish American system. I'll tell you why. Because you dont know how to debate.

What have you done FoW?

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.

That is what you said. No content. No intelligence.No debate. Pathetic.

I was the jury foreman: not on trial.

What arrangement are you suggesting that would protect against it if we take differential infant mortality as an example of regional exploitation?

Continuing to throw out insults, while failing to address the specific points on this topic which i have made in this thread does not validate your drivel, or you.