IcyPatriot

I need some help understanding a few things about the democrats ... perhaps some here will offer their help. For the last 8 years I have read and heard (especially here) about the republicans and Bush being control freaks, fascists, denying rights of our Constitution, not following our Constitution ... and all the rest ... you know how that theme goes.

So now we see Hillary (who btw is the candidate I like of the 3) staying in the race because she believes, or already knows ... that she can wil the primary if she can gather enough superdelegates. You know, the party elite that can vote however they choose ... in spite of the will of the people, they can and might vote as they choose.

Is that democratic I ask?

Is that much different than what the republicans/Bush are accused of all the time?

Hey ... I don't blame Hillary one bit ... I mean she feels she is the better candidate of the two ... I agree with her. However, what does it say of a general election when one candidate was chosen by the people and the other was chosen by the "Democrat Elites".

She bagged Murtha ... huge bag that is for him ... and his 3 amigos today. Does Murtha not care what the people are saying? Or perhaps because it's mostly blacks and young mush heads ... they are only voting for Obama because he is black? and young? or black and young?

It's a fair question.

So a bunch of young (all races) people and African-American people want Obama but he can posibly be denied by a bunch of mainly white party elitist people.

How is this different than what Bush is accused of ... I don't understand?

In any case ... Go Hillary!!!

Stokes

NEM what is obsolete about the electoral college? It was designed to ensure all states had a more balanced representation in electing a President, that still needs to be true today. If we went to a popular vote you'd be taking away the ability of smaller states to have any say in election of the President. The idea of ensuring power of states to decide federal government beyond simply being represented in proportion to population is a founding principle of our country. It was something the founders thought long and hard about, and the idea behind it is the reason we have a Senate instead of just a house of representatives. To change that changes the very basics of this country's governance.

At any rate I don't think there could ever be an amendment to change it to popular vote, I don't think enough states would support that. Also the idea that states could collaborate to set up their own popular vote-based system I think is in violation of the Constitution as well, so like it or not I think we're keeping the electoral college for a while yet.

wistahpatsfan

That doesn't ring right to me...there's a huge difference between the Presidential election and representation in the Legislature. How does the vote of ten people in Vermont differ from ten people in California? There's no compelling interest that Rhode Island has that would be threatened by the voting power of California. Doesn't Northern California have vastly different interests than Southern California? Why not split the electoral votes for those disparate regions? Same goes for coastal Maine and the rest of Maine. It's one man holding the office, not a political bloc.

I favor a straight-up vote for the POTUS. It works for the election for the governor of California. California has a larger population than the entire 13 Original States did. I don't like this anti-representative process at all.

patsfan13

The electorial college was to give the smaller states a larger representation in the presidential election. The US was formed as a collection of states who were far more powerful that the states we see today (at least in terms of their power relative to the federal government). Other wise no would care about RI WYO AK or other states with small populations.

__________________
"Some guys play in all-star games, some guys don't. I don't know who picks all those all-star teams. In all honesty, I don't know who picks the combine, for that matter," Belichick said. "How does (Miami-Ohio offensive lineman Brandon) Brooks not get invited to the combine? How did Vollmer not get invited to the combine? I don't know. We can't really worry about that. We just have to try to evaluate them the best we can."

patsfan13

The logical conclusion is to do away with the states altogether. I like the idea of a republic rather than a pure democracy.

__________________
"Some guys play in all-star games, some guys don't. I don't know who picks all those all-star teams. In all honesty, I don't know who picks the combine, for that matter," Belichick said. "How does (Miami-Ohio offensive lineman Brandon) Brooks not get invited to the combine? How did Vollmer not get invited to the combine? I don't know. We can't really worry about that. We just have to try to evaluate them the best we can."

Real World

See Below.

Bingo.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."
Leo Tolstoy, 1897

Real World

I'm curious what democrats will be saying if/when Obama wins the most delegates, yet Hillary wins the popular vote.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."
Leo Tolstoy, 1897

Harry Boy

__________________
Harry Boy (Genius)

In The Absence Of Law And Order Society Will Surely Destroy Itself

STFarmy

OOOH snap, electoral college discussion. I'm with Stokes and RW on this one (shocker, I know), but it needs to be kept. Besides the representation issue, it solidifies a very important principle of the framers of the Constitution: that direct democracy is a bad thing. As most of you here know, the rhetoric thrown out by politicians about our "democracy" is just crap. We technically live in a constitutional republic, with democratic principles. Their aversion to direct democracies comes from the Classical Greek and Roman education, which contained lots and lots of philosophers who condemned direct democracy (Aristotle and Plato notably). Athens, with their direct democracy, had problems governing themselves and fell into tyranny numerous times. This is what they were scared of - they didn't want the minds of the people to be swayed by a charismatic, yet nefarious, figure. Caesar was their greatest example. He gained the adoration of the public through his massive appeal and military conquests in Gaul. The Roman people loved him. And what did he do? He took over and became a tyrant. So tossing out the Electoral College, I think, would be bad. Sure, we face different issues, but this system has worked pretty well despite the gripes about it.

The Federalist Papers SHOULD be a required reading for every citizen, as it will give you a coherent thought process of how the Constitution was developed and why it was put that way. But of course, they'd rather focus on other things in public school, and then have a nation of idiots. I'm pretty libertarian, but that's one of the few things I can think of that I would force people to do.

wistahpatsfan

Oh really?
Then please explain why Alaska has 3 electoral votes and California has 55!

Do your research before you contradict the master!

http://www.fec.gov/pages/elecvote.htm