Let's get rid of the Electoral College

List of minority Presidents at Infoplease-dot-com.

Note that Abraham Lincoln did ont even poll 40% of the popular vote.

0 Replies

Seriously...why keep it all about State to State and let the real people's votes count. The real vote would be about votes.,,and NOT about the Electoral College.

First of all..it's outdated and dumb..and besides that..it's time this country got to vote on it's own where every vote counts...OUR votes..and not wasting them on some stupid state to state crap.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

The Electoral College was created to prevent smaller states from having no relevance in national elections. Without the Electoral College, the most populated states would always elect the president -- the other states might as well not even vote. For example, Rhode Island would just not bother voting for president.

The Electoral College, like two Senators per state regardless of population were specifically to prevent democracy. The founders saw what democracy was doing to France and decided that "mob rule" (democracy) was not such a good idea afterall. They knew that a democracy would destroy individual rights. The mob could decide you don't have any rights, for example. Giving each of us specific protection against larger groups is the single greatest and most unique concept of this nation.

I believe without this concept, gay rights would've never become a movement. The mob would've made it illegal before it got started. I think the "individual rights concept" forced other nations to give in more to individual rights as well. Afterall, individual rights has not exactly been a tradition in human history...

2 Replies

@Garystampa,

Garystampa wrote:

The Electoral College was created to prevent smaller states from having no relevance in national elections. Without the Electoral College, the most populated states would always elect the president -- the other states might as well not even vote. For example, Rhode Island would just not bother voting for president.

The Electoral College, like two Senators per state regardless of population were specifically to prevent democracy. The founders saw what democracy was doing to France and decided that "mob rule" (democracy) was not such a good idea afterall. They knew that a democracy would destroy individual rights. The mob could decide you don't have any rights, for example. Giving each of us specific protection against larger groups is the single greatest and most unique concept of this nation.

I believe without this concept, gay rights would've never become a movement. The mob would've made it illegal before it got started. I think the "individual rights concept" forced other nations to give in more to individual rights as well. Afterall, individual rights has not exactly been a tradition in human history...

I believe you had better brush up on your history. If "the founders" who wrote the Constitution "saw what democracy was doing to France", they were prescient indeed since the French revolution didn't occur until several years in the future. The founding father were staunch adherents of democracy and a democratic way of life. The trouble with you conservatives is that you simply don't like the word "democracy" because you don't like the Democrat Party. But one has nothing to do with the other.

0 Replies

@Garystampa,

Quote:

The mob could decide you don't have any rights, for example.

Various mobs in the US have decided that for a number of groups a number of times. The result has been millions murdered at the hands of the US and its citizenry

Currently you have your government acting as the mob, laughing at you sheeple who actually think that you have some rights.

2 Replies

@JTT,

Every government on the planet is guilty of this.

1 Reply

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

Various mobs in the US have decided that for a number of groups a number of times. The result has been millions murdered at the hands of the US and its citizenry

Gary's got a point, JTT. Why single out the US in particular for criticism as "murderous"?

1 Reply

@Garystampa,

Quote:

Every government on the planet is guilty of this.

No, every government is not guilty of this. But that's not the issue. The ones that are guilty of these war crimes, of this unrelenting terrorism should be held to account.

That is the US. From its origins to this day. Do a wee bit of research, Gary, and you'll find that there is no modern nation that has had as long and as vicious a past as the US.

What is especially bad is that the US has been such a liar about it all, making a grand, but completely false pretense that it maintains the highest levels as regards human rights. Totally false.

The US has always pretended to hold to this position as a savior of the oppressed. Again, a complete falsehood.

Quote:

If we can cultivate in the world the idea that aggressive war-making is the way to the prisoner's dock rather than the way to honors, we will have accomplished something toward making the peace more secure.

Robert H Jackson - Opening Address to the International Military Tribunal at the Nuremberg Trials (November 10, 1945).

Quote:

We must never forget that the record on which we judge these defendants is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow. To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well.

Robert H Jackson - Nuremberg Tribunal.
Opening Address to the International Military Tribunal at the Nuremberg Trials (November 10, 1945).

0 Replies

@Kolyo,

Quote:

Gary's got a point, JTT.

That's not a point, Kolyo, that's a terribly, and common, lame excuse to make apologies for war criminals and terrorists.

Quote:

Why single out the US in particular for criticism as "murderous"?

The facts.

1 Reply

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

Quote:
Why single out the US in particular for criticism as "murderous"?

The facts.

Evasion after evasion after evasion, and roger is somehow the dodger here?

I get that we've killed people. So have other empires. What makes us so special that we require all your attention?

1 Reply

@Kolyo,

Quote:

I get that we've killed people. So have other empires.

You don't have the foggiest notion, Kolyo, because you are more than content to remain ignorant.

Typical of the bullshit that is the daily fare of the US. This is the crap that y'all have been fed your whole lives. And it's all a gigantic lie.

But I get that you are more than comfortable supporting war criminals and terrorists.

Quote:

Today, America speaks anew to the peoples of the world: All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you. Democratic reformers facing repression, prison, or exile can know: America sees you for who you are: the future leaders of your free country.

Combined, the speech used the words "free," "freedom," and "liberty" 49 times.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_inauguration_of_George_W._Bush

1 Reply

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

But I get that you are more than comfortable supporting war criminals and terrorists.

False conclusion. Private citizens cannot support anything, since we have no say in where out taxes go. And, ascribing "comfort" to anyone on the forum is just specious rhetoric. Get some intellectual honesty in your diatribes, puhleaze Master Wise One.

0 Replies

@katie3699,

Do you feel the same way about the senate where a majority vote amounts to 60 votes rather than 51 votes. The whole system is screwed up and done so by both parties.

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

Either you don't understand how the Senate works, or you're being disingenuous. The 60% vote to which you refer is a procedural rule of the Senate for cloture--it's just goofy to say that "a majority vote amounts to 60 votes rather than 51." It's perfectly constitutional. Article One, Section Five, second paragraph reads: Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member. A simple majority of a quorum is decisive except in those cases in which the constitution calls for a greater vote, or the procedural rules of the house does.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

I understand perfectly how the senate works. It takes 60 votes to consider some laws rather than 51 which is another way for the parties to slow down the passage of laws they dont like. Both parties play this game. This is one of the reasons our government is so screwed up. Also the fact that one (1) senator can put a hold on a law or some part of a law. You may think this is ok but I believe it is more of the game of politics that both parties play to the detriment of the rest of us.

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

Apparently, you don't understand it at all. The sixty votes you continue to refer to only applies when the entire Senate is in session. A simple majority constitutes a quorum, which is also mandated by the constitution. The sixty percent vote of a quorum does not apply to the passage of any law. It applies to a cloture vote, and only to a cloture vote.

You need to go back to school.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

You need to go back to school.

That would do the whole bunch of you a lot of good, Set. Y'all got royally misled in history and English.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

But without a cloture vote a law cannot be passed even if a 51% majority want it. You seem to love making excuses for bad government and insulting people who want better gov. Are you by any chance a politician of the senate?

0 Replies

@JTT,

Quote:

Y'all got royally misled in history and English.

There are some who sure don't like to hear the facts.

0 Replies

I've not been able to find a better source for this, sorry. But, it is an interesting take on why we have the Electoral College. Maybe someone else can fish up a better source.

https://www.facebook.com/TexasRickGreen/videos/10153695050959472/

0 Replies

Let's get rid of the Electoral College

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know