Post Reply 
Canadian trucker fined for smoking on the job
10-15-2009, 08:20 AM
Post: #21
Canadian trucker fined for smoking on the job
I thought we already had a minority president, Wind?
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
10-15-2009, 08:48 AM
Post: #22
Canadian trucker fined for smoking on the job
DjBabiuk Wrote: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.
That's socialism for you. The government makes assinne laws and we the peasants are supposed to just cowtail down to whatever it is that takes away basic rights. BS. The people should make the laws through referendums, and by voting out people that put in laws as dumb as this one. The government should work for the people, not the other way around.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
10-15-2009, 08:49 AM
Post: #23
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.
Voting for the third party WILL waste your vote. Don't waste your vote...be a realist.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
10-15-2009, 10:02 AM
Post: #24
Canadian trucker fined for smoking on the job
Daniel294 Wrote: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.

And it completely defeats its stated purpose. If you live in a sparsely populated state, your vote is hugely discounted. The four most populated states practically comprise a majority all by themselves.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
10-15-2009, 10:53 AM
Post: #25
Canadian trucker fined for smoking on the job
Even a scarcly populated state still has full control of electorates. In a mob rule system, this power would be removed and the state would lose self-determination. This defeats the original intent of a cooperation of seperate states which use their resources to provide a common defense and unimpeded commerce.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
10-15-2009, 11:30 AM (This post was last modified: 10-15-2009 11:32 AM by LSU TIGERS.)
Post: #26
Canadian trucker fined for smoking on the job
jess Wrote:Even a scarcly populated state still has full control of electorates. In a mob rule system, this power would be removed and the state would lose self-determination. This defeats the original intent of a cooperation of seperate states which use their resources to provide a common defense and unimpeded commerce.

Seven states have just three electoral votes each for a total of 21. California all by itself has 55. Soooo if you live, let's say, in South Dakota your vote has just 6% of the value of someone living in California under the current "republic" electoral method.

You can't have it both ways. Either one vote is worth one vote OR, if you favor a republic method of electing your president, each STATE gets one vote. One state getting 55 votes while another gets just 3 is contrary to the stated objective of the electoral college.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
10-15-2009, 12:30 PM
Post: #27
Canadian trucker fined for smoking on the job
LSU TIGERS Wrote:Seven states have just three electoral votes each for a total of 21. California all by itself has 55. Soooo if you live, let's say, in South Dakota your vote has just 6% of the value of someone living in California under the current "republic" electoral method.

You can't have it both ways. Either one vote is worth one vote OR, if you favor a republic method of electing your president, each STATE gets one vote. One state getting 55 votes while another gets just 3 is contrary to the stated objective of the electoral college.

It's not perfect, but it's still better than mob rule. If a simple majority is allowed, the states with a small population would have no representation.

I like the one vote per state idea. Every state would be a battleground state and the aspiring President would have to make his campaign schedule give each state the same amount of focus. Maybe the future Presidents would learn more about the U.S. with this system.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
10-15-2009, 01:28 PM
Post: #28
Canadian trucker fined for smoking on the job
jess Wrote:It's not perfect, but it's still better than mob rule. If a simple majority is allowed, the states with a small population would have no representation.

I like the one vote per state idea. Every state would be a battleground state and the aspiring President would have to make his campaign schedule give each state the same amount of focus. Maybe the future Presidents would learn more about the U.S. with this system.

Alright I need a Civics lesson here: How do we determine the amount of electorial votes each state gets. Is based on the percentage of the state population to the population of the country?

If we got ride of the electorial college then we would be a mob ruled Democracy, not a Republic. I prefer staying the Republic of America.

Trained Weather Spotter
CoCoRaHS Volunteer
https://www.instagram.com/bostickjm
https://twitter.com/BostickJM
http://www.livechasers.com/JonathanBostick
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
10-15-2009, 01:40 PM
Post: #29
Canadian trucker fined for smoking on the job
Joe-Nathan Wrote:Alright I need a Civics lesson here: How do we determine the amount of electorial votes each state gets. Is based on the percentage of the state population to the population of the country?

If we got ride of the electorial college then we would be a mob ruled Democracy, not a Republic. I prefer staying the Republic of America.

It's equal to the number of congressional seats your state has, which in turn, is based on population that can change every 10 years following the census.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
10-15-2009, 01:47 PM
Post: #30
Canadian trucker fined for smoking on the job
Alink.

The main thing is that it's mandated by the Constitution. All of the tooth gnashing and complaining won't change the system unless there is an amendment, which means ratification by 3/4 of all states, and 2/3 of Congress. I don't think the majority of states will want to lose what little representation they have.

Another thing to remember is that majority of trial lawyers don't like the electoral system. That alone convinces me to leave it alone.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


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