Post Reply 
Canadian trucker fined for smoking on the job
10-14-2009, 07:23 AM
Post: #11
Canadian trucker fined for smoking on the job
This is such bullsh*t!!!! An individual freedom, his own body is the only thing being harmed, a waste of police time.
It's coming here, America. One freedom at a time, taken away.
Better start looking hard at the Libertarian Party's agenda.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
10-14-2009, 07:55 AM
Post: #12
Canadian trucker fined for smoking on the job
Windwatcher Wrote:This is such bullsh*t!!!! An individual freedom, his own body is the only thing being harmed, a waste of police time.
It's coming here, America. One freedom at a time, taken away.
Better start looking hard at the Libertarian Party's agenda.

I would hope that we (conservatives) learned of the perils of a third party attempt at the presidency from the Ross Perot fiasco.

But/for Perot, the cigar molester would never have been elected.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
10-14-2009, 03:53 PM
Post: #13
Canadian trucker fined for smoking on the job
As long as everyone who deep-down truly feels there is a need for a third party, but keeps thinking it will screw things up, we certainly will continue to have such limited choices. I am sick of having only two "real" candidates to choose from. "Don't waste your vote!"--Remember?
Abolish the electoral votes and have the winner declared by popular vote only. It's the only fair way, really, and the time has come for it with the access to information at everyone's fingertips and instantly.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
10-14-2009, 03:58 PM
Post: #14
Canadian trucker fined for smoking on the job
Windwatcher Wrote:As long as everyone who deep-down truly feels there is a need for a third party, but keeps thinking it will screw things up, we certainly will continue to have such limited choices. I am sick of having only two "real" candidates to choose from. "Don't waste your vote!"--Remember?
Abolish the electoral votes and have the winner declared by popular vote only. It's the only fair way, really, and the time has come for it with the access to information at everyone's fingertips and instantly.

No thinking about it, it WILL screw things up. There is no run-off system in place, so having conservatives split their votes between two candidates guarantees a win for the libs.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
10-14-2009, 04:29 PM
Post: #15
Canadian trucker fined for smoking on the job
Windwatcher Wrote:As long as everyone who deep-down truly feels there is a need for a third party, but keeps thinking it will screw things up, we certainly will continue to have such limited choices. I am sick of having only two "real" candidates to choose from. "Don't waste your vote!"--Remember?
Abolish the electoral votes and have the winner declared by popular vote only. It's the only fair way, really, and the time has come for it with the access to information at everyone's fingertips and instantly.

Sorry Wind, your idea makes too much sense. If it makes sense, it will never work for an election process.

Also, I do think the law is a little too far, but still, it's a law. Just don't break it, and things are fine.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
10-14-2009, 05:47 PM
Post: #16
Canadian trucker fined for smoking on the job
Windwatcher Wrote:Abolish the electoral votes and have the winner declared by popular vote only. It's the only fair way, really, and the time has come for it with the access to information at everyone's fingertips and instantly.

No, do not abolish the Electoral College. That's the only way that rural states can be represented. I do not want all of our national elections decided in the big cities.

Only people with oversized egos believe that mankind has caused global warming.

Scientific Consensus is an Oxymoron
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
10-14-2009, 09:07 PM
Post: #17
Canadian trucker fined for smoking on the job
Those days are over, Moon. "Rural" America is a thing of the past. We have transportation and mass media and internet.
Now, if they don't get out and vote, that's another story.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
10-14-2009, 09:46 PM
Post: #18
Canadian trucker fined for smoking on the job
HarvestMoon Wrote:No, do not abolish the Electoral College. That's the only way that rural states can be represented. I do not want all of our national elections decided in the big cities.
The electoral college is an ancient and rotting method. Having a system where a winner can have fewer votes than the loser is a complete joke.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
10-15-2009, 07:00 AM (This post was last modified: 10-15-2009 07:01 AM by Windwatcher.)
Post: #19
Canadian trucker fined for smoking on the job
Arguments Against the Electoral College

Those who object to the Electoral College system and favor a direct popular election of the president generally do so on four grounds:
the possibility of electing a minority president

the risk of so-called "faithless" Electors,

the possible role of the Electoral College in depressing voter turnout, and

its failure to accurately reflect the national popular will.

Opponents of the Electoral College are disturbed by the possibility of electing a minority president (one without the absolute majority of popular votes). Nor is this concern entirely unfounded since there are three ways in which that could happen.

One way in which a minority president could be elected is if the country were so deeply divided politically that three or more presidential candidates split the electoral votes among them such that no one obtained the necessary majority. This occurred, as noted above, in 1824 and was unsuccessfully attempted in 1948 and again in 1968. Should that happen today, there are two possible resolutions: either one candidate could throw his electoral votes to the support of another (before the meeting of the Electors) or else, absent an absolute majority in the Electoral College, the U.S. House of Representatives would select the president in accordance with the 12th Amendment. Either way, though, the person taking office would not have obtained the absolute majority of the popular vote. Yet it is unclear how a direct election of the president could resolve such a deep national conflict without introducing a presidential run-off election -- a procedure which would add substantially to the time, cost, and effort already devoted to selecting a president and which might well deepen the political divisions while trying to resolve them.

A second way in which a minority president could take office is if, as in 1888, one candidate's popular support were heavily concentrated in a few States while the other candidate maintained a slim popular lead in enough States to win the needed majority of the Electoral College. While the country has occasionally come close to this sort of outcome, the question here is whether the distribution of a candidate's popular support should be taken into account alongside the relative size of it. This issue was mentioned above and is discussed at greater length below.

A third way of electing a minority president is if a third party or candidate, however small, drew enough votes from the top two that no one received over 50% of the national popular total. Far from being unusual, this sort of thing has, in fact, happened 15 times including (in this century) Wilson in both 1912 and 1916, Truman in 1948, Kennedy in 1960, and Nixon in 1968. The only remarkable thing about those outcomes is that few people noticed and even fewer cared. Nor would a direct election have changed those outcomes without a run-off requiring over 50% of the popular vote (an idea which not even proponents of a direct election seem to advocate).

Opponents of the Electoral College system also point to the risk of so-called "faithless" Electors. A "faithless Elector" is one who is pledged to vote for his party's candidate for president but nevertheless votes of another candidate. There have been 7 such Electors in this century and as recently as 1988 when a Democrat Elector in the State of West Virginia cast his votes for Lloyd Bensen for president and Michael Dukakis for vice president instead of the other way around. Faithless Electors have never changed the outcome of an election, though, simply because most often their purpose is to make a statement rather than make a difference. That is to say, when the electoral vote outcome is so obviously going to be for one candidate or the other, an occasional Elector casts a vote for some personal favorite knowing full well that it will not make a difference in the result. Still, if the prospect of a faithless Elector is so fearsome as to warrant a Constitutional amendment, then it is possible to solve the problem without abolishing the Electoral College merely by eliminating the individual Electors in favor of a purely mathematical process (since the individual Electors are no longer essential to its operation).

Opponents of the Electoral College are further concerned about its possible role in depressing voter turnout. Their argument is that, since each State is entitled to the same number of electoral votes regardless of its voter turnout, there is no incentive in the States to encourage voter participation. Indeed, there may even be an incentive to discourage participation (and they often cite the South here) so as to enable a minority of citizens to decide the electoral vote for the whole State. While this argument has a certain surface plausibility, it fails to account for the fact that presidential elections do not occur in a vacuum. States also conduct other elections (for U.S. Senators, U.S. Representatives, State Governors, State legislators, and a host of local officials) in which these same incentives and disincentives are likely to operate, if at all, with an even greater force. It is hard to imagine what counter-incentive would be created by eliminating the Electoral College.

Finally, some opponents of the Electoral College point out, quite correctly, its failure to accurately reflect the national popular will in at least two respects.

First, the distribution of Electoral votes in the College tends to over-represent people in rural States. This is because the number of Electors for each State is determined by the number of members it has in the House (which more or less reflects the State's population size) plus the number of members it has in the Senate (which is always two regardless of the State's population). The result is that in 1988, for example, the combined voting age population (3,119,000) of the seven least populous jurisdiction of Alaska, Delaware, the District of Columbia, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming carried the same voting strength in the Electoral College (21 Electoral votes) as the 9,614,000 persons of voting age in the State of Florida. Each Floridian's potential vote, then, carried about one third the weight of a potential vote in the other States listed.

A second way in which the Electoral College fails to accurately reflect the national popular will stems primarily from the winner-take-all mechanism whereby the presidential candidate who wins the most popular votes in the State wins all the Electoral votes of that State. One effect of this mechanism is to make it extremely difficult for third party or independent candidates ever to make much of a showing in the Electoral College. If, for example, a third party or independent candidate were to win the support of even as many as 25% of the voters nationwide, he might still end up with no Electoral College votes at all unless he won a plurality of votes in at least one State. And even if he managed to win a few States, his support elsewhere would not be reflected. By thus failing to accurately reflect the national popular will, the argument goes, the Electoral College reinforces a two party system, discourages third party or independent candidates, and thereby tends to restrict choices available to the electorate.

In response to these arguments, proponents of the Electoral College point out that is was never intended to reflect the national popular will. As for the first issue, that the Electoral College over-represents rural populations, proponents respond that the United State Senate - with two seats per State regardless of its population - over-represents rural populations far more dramatically. But since there have been no serious proposals to abolish the United States Senate on these grounds, why should such an argument be used to abolish the lesser case of the Electoral College? Because the presidency represents the whole country? But so, as an institution, does the United States Senate.

As for the second issue of the Electoral College's role in reinforcing a two party system, proponents, as we shall see, find this to be a positive virtue.


Obviously, I didn't write this, but thought it was a good summary
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
10-15-2009, 08:02 AM
Post: #20
Canadian trucker fined for smoking on the job
The "national will" is second in line to state's rights. All states aren't major population areas, yet the state may be the producer of a large amount of resources that heavily populated states consume. The heavily populated states shouldn't have the ability to dictate to the less populated if the only reason is they have more people.

It's the United States of America, not the New York and California alliance. Every state has rights and the electoral college helps keep these rights. This is no different than the unalienable rights of the individual. While some states think they should have a greater ability to determine the direction of the United States, they don't and never should.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)