Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

LSU TIGERS · 10-15-2009, 03:10 PM

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 is not a true republic as the framework of the Constitution intended. It has become a republic of influence, which is not a republic at all if you think about it. How can we have a republic of 50 states with alleged equal representation when one state has fifty-five representatives and another has only three?

And yes most attorneys (trial or not) oppose the bastardised version of a republic we now have in place. Attorneys have training in government and constitutional theory. Most know that what we have is not what the founding fathers intended when they drafted the Constitution.

LSU TIGERS · 10-15-2009, 03:17 PM

jess Wrote: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.

That's not it at all. MOST states would love to have true equal representation. Unfortunately, the states with the most influence also have the most to lose. A 2/3's majority to correct the constitutional loophole would require the states with the bulk of the votes to GIVE UP all of those extra votes. That's not gonna happen.

Windwatcher · 10-15-2009, 04:19 PM

Katfour Wrote:I thought we already had a minority president, Wind?

electing a minority president (one without the absolute majority of popular votes).

Sorry, guys. Maybe I'm just too simple. (Not "Terry Tyler simple", but just logical-type simple...) But to me, the only truly fair way to elect ANYONE to ANYTHING is by a single vote per single voter, and the winner is the one with the most votes.
I do not know if a third party candidate would have made a difference in the outcome of the last election. But we really didn't have much of a choice in the last election, and I wonder what a really dynamic, fresh, moderate conservative third-party runner would have done. And with no electoral college, would a candidate that was representing the real mainstream America have won? If elected strictly by popular vote?

Katfive · 10-15-2009, 04:27 PM

Windwatcher Wrote:electing a minority president (one without the absolute majority of popular votes).

Sorry, guys. Maybe I'm just too simple. (Not "Terry Tyler simple", but just logical-type simple...) But to me, the only truly fair way to elect ANYONE to ANYTHING is by a single vote per single voter, and the winner is the one with the most votes.
I do not know if a third party candidate would have made a difference in the outcome of the last election. But we really didn't have much of a choice in the last election, and I wonder what a really dynamic, fresh, moderate conservative third-party runner would have done. And with no electoral college, would a candidate that was representing the real mainstream America have won? If elected strictly by popular vote?

Look, let's first get the concrete filled refrigerator thing working to save the levees, then we can work on fixing the electoral college. Wind, reading this headline reminded me, didn't you say you once worked in the cabs of semi-trucks smoking things?

Windwatcher · 10-15-2009, 04:31 PM

Katfour Wrote:Look, let's first get the concrete filled refrigerator thing working to save the levees, then we can work on fixing the electoral college. Wind, reading this headline reminded me, didn't you say you once worked in the cabs of semi-trucks smoking things?

For your information, a national company has contacted me about a patent on my recycle-your-fridge-into-a-brick-for-the-levee idea.

And back to the Canadian smoking in the truck:
This should not be against the law. It is not worthy of being a law to break.
If the guy violated his employer's policy not to smoke in the truck, then let the company reprimand him.
And no, I never was a Lot Lizard. I am the Causeway Cougar, however.

LSU TIGERS · 10-15-2009, 04:35 PM

Windwatcher Wrote:For your information, a national company has contacted me about a patent on my recycle-your-fridge-into-a-brick-for-the-levee idea.

And back to the Canadian smoking in the truck:
This should not be against the law. It is not worthy of being a law to break.
If the guy violated his employer's policy not to smoke in the truck, then let the company reprimand him.
And no, I never was a Lot Lizard. I am the Causeway Cougar, however.

What if it was a gas truck?

Katfive · 10-15-2009, 04:42 PM

Windwatcher Wrote:For your information, a national company has contacted me about a patent on my recycle-your-fridge-into-a-brick-for-the-levee idea.

And back to the Canadian smoking in the truck:
This should not be against the law. It is not worthy of being a law to break.
If the guy violated his employer's policy not to smoke in the truck, then let the company reprimand him.
And no, I never was a Lot Lizard. I am the Causeway Cougar, however.

Yeah, isn't that the same company that has you send them your gold in the mail? So I guess you must really be pissed when they issue those strong Cross Wind advisories on the bridge?

DjBabiuk · 10-15-2009, 04:54 PM

Stormlover Wrote: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.

Umm...this is socialism how?

And for people who bitch about how much the government spends money...you want to hold referendums to decide every single law? You realize that THIS COSTS MONEY don't you? You know, the exact thing that everyone is so pissy about right now?

If this is socialism, so are anti-abortion laws. I don't personally believe that, but by your logic, it fits.

Stormlover · 10-15-2009, 06:51 PM

DjBabiuk Wrote:Umm...this is socialism how?

And for people who bitch about how much the government spends money...you want to hold referendums to decide every single law? You realize that THIS COSTS MONEY don't you? You know, the exact thing that everyone is so pissy about right now?

If this is socialism, so are anti-abortion laws. I don't personally believe that, but by your logic, it fits.

No I had no idea it cost anything when one is held...*Rolleyes..I also never said anything of the sort about having one to decide every single law, you made it up.

DjBabiuk · 10-15-2009, 09:03 PM

Stormlover Wrote:No I had no idea it cost anything when one is held...*Rolleyes..I also never said anything of the sort about having one to decide every single law, you made it up.

"The people should make the laws through referendums"