PDA

View Full Version : I don't post much political stuff, but this was pretty good



Muck
05-20-2004, 11:27 PM
I agree with the sentiment here.

http://miller.senate.gov/press/2004/05-13-04prison.html

ohall
05-20-2004, 11:30 PM
I agree with the sentiment here.

http://miller.senate.gov/press/2004/05-13-04prison.html

I agree, it's getting out of hand. The way the ELITE liberal media is constantly harping on this issue makes me sick. However IMO it's the Presidents fault because of how he handled it. Bush better wake up or he's going to lose this election.

Oliver...

Section126
05-24-2004, 03:56 PM
We hold our soldiers to very high standards, and it should be that way.......The apology to the prisoners was appropriate. Now throw them back in that rat hole we are keeping them.

As for the media.....they blow everything out of proportion and like the Nazi's and the Democratici Party.....They believe that if you repeat a lie often enough........the people will end up believing it.

The media is in a frenzy and they hate Bush......an awful combination.

GWB's saving grace is that the Dems have an absolutely inept and moronic candidate in John Kerry. And for that.....God Bless the Democratic Party.

DeDolfan
05-25-2004, 10:02 AM
I never really understood all the uproar myself. Let's face it, POWs are expected to be treated in a manner unlike alot of our stateside "country club" prisons. Most of the prisoners were hooded and are we certain that they are in fact iraqis to begin with? Anyway, interrogation often requires some kinds of methods that may not be "acceptable" to those of weak stomachs. These prisoners did not appear to have been starved or mistreated in any other way other than the reported nude pics with hoods on, leashed by a female, "frightened" by dogs and the like. To my knowledge, the dogs didn't actually attack them or were raped by the female soldier or were "bodily harmed" by the hooded photos, etc. Point is, that there are alot worse treated POWs in other wars/conflicts that have never been given a second thought about it. It is hard for me to believe that it was the low level enlisted guard/s that is/are being jailed and that the higher ups didn't know perhaps what was going on. There is a chain of command in the military that is strictly followed and that knowledge of all this had to have been known by higher ups as well.
Anyway, i think that this mess is nothing but bull schidt, just stinking up the joint. If it has been made public simply for political gain/causes, then it is wrong. I don't think it is proper to harm the country's integrity simply for political gain. This is one issue that I go pretty far to the right on.

Marino1983
05-29-2004, 10:04 AM
http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2004/05/4_1_72-2.gif



GWB's saving grace is that the Dems have an absolutely inyept and moronic candidate in John Kerry.


Sorta like the "pot calling the kettle black" 126 ....

:rolleyes2


Marino1983

The_Philster
05-31-2004, 06:49 AM
http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2004/05/4_1_72-1.gif





Sorta like the "pot calling the kettle black" 126 ....

:rolleyes2


Marino1983
No kidding :roflmao:
This (http://www.timesleader.com/mld/timesleader/8778306.htm) makes Bush out to be pretty stupid as well if he actually expects to get re-elected.

ohall
05-31-2004, 07:50 AM
http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2004/05/4_1_72-1.gif





Sorta like the "pot calling the kettle black" 126 ....

:rolleyes2


Marino1983

That's just the thing, if that were true Al Gore would have totally rolled over W. Now that didn't exactly happen now did it.

I hope Kerry thinks W is as stupid as obviously Gore did.

Oliver...

DeDolfan
05-31-2004, 11:02 AM
No kidding :roflmao:
This (http://www.timesleader.com/mld/timesleader/8778306.htm) makes Bush out to be pretty stupid as well if he actually expects to get re-elected.

And not to mention how the right was busting Clinton's assss big time for using Air Foce one so much for politicking. They were on him BIG time about that! but you won't hear ONE F-ing word from them now since Boy George has has now far exceeded the Clinton milelage for that same purpose now. Hell, no, not ONE word !! But that's OK, Boy George needs all the "help" he can get anyway! :lol: He's running scared as hell or else he wouldn't be hitting it so hard so early and often!! ;)

Marino1983
05-31-2004, 11:54 AM
That's just the thing, if that were true Al Gore would have totally rolled over W. Now that didn't exactly happen now did it.

I hope Kerry thinks W is as stupid as obviously Gore did.

Oliver...



:confused:

So you think that W was elected because of his supreme intelligence Oliver ??

:roflmao:

You only have to look at the conservative side of the Supreme Court to see why your guy was PLACED in office !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Certainly the Bush presidency has NOTHING to do with his :laughat:--> political prowess !!!!!!!

Marino1983

Marino1983
05-31-2004, 12:06 PM
And not to mention how the right was busting Clinton's assss big time for using Air Foce one so much for politicking. They were on him BIG time about that! but you won't hear ONE F-ing word from them now since Boy George has has now far exceeded the Clinton milelage for that same purpose now. Hell, no, not ONE word !! But that's OK, Boy George needs all the "help" he can get anyway! :lol: He's running scared as hell or else he wouldn't be hitting it so hard so early and often!! ;)


:up:

This is what is sooooooo laugable about the republicans responses...

It is wrong to question (this administrations) some of the most idiotic, self absorbed moves that a president has invoked since R Nixon...

But when the GOP was turning over ROCKS looking for negative press to charge B Clinton,, that was fine !!! :goof: :fire:

The right wing better get it through their - yacht owning, tax evading heads that they cannot have it both ways !!!!!

Welcome to the real world GOP ......

Marino1983

ohall
05-31-2004, 01:57 PM
:up:

This is what is sooooooo laugable about the republicans responses...

It is wrong to question (this administrations) some of the most idiotic, self absorbed moves that a president has invoked since R Nixon...

But when the GOP was turning over ROCKS looking for negative press to charge B Clinton,, that was fine !!! :goof: :fire:

The right wing better get it through their - yacht owning, tax evading heads that they cannot have it both ways !!!!!

Welcome to the real world GOP ......

Marino1983

Simply not true! The REP's wanted the special prosecutor to be a thing of the past but the DEM's and specifically Clinton voted it back in. Basically Clinton and his political party shot themselves when it comes to Clinton and lying under oath. When the REP's took over the congress in the late 90's the special prosecutor became history, something they wanted to be history since the late 80's.

As far as Bush #43 spending early and often, of course he is, the DEM's went after him with the whole AWOL thing early so he had no choice but to start early. Running scared? No running smart. Bush #43 learned from his fathers mistakes and how he handled Clinton in '92. You and DD seem to want to make it seem like the only bad or dirty politicians are in the REP party. I wonder when the TWO of you are going to wake up and understand politics period is a dirty game?

DEM's own yacht's, evade taxes just as much as REP's do. I just cannot believe you actually think REP's are some how the only ppl who do things like that.

Oliver...

TerryTate
05-31-2004, 02:45 PM
That's just the thing, if that were true Al Gore would have totally rolled over W. Now that didn't exactly happen now did it.

I hope Kerry thinks W is as stupid as obviously Gore did.

Oliver...

You're forgetting that most of the registered voters voted for Gore, our stupid Electoral College got Dubya into office...

He wasnt the popular choice......the one that shouldve counted.

ohall
05-31-2004, 04:02 PM
You're forgetting that most of the registered voters voted for Gore, our stupid Electoral College got Dubya into office...

He wasnt the popular choice......the one that shouldve counted.

It's not a popularity vote. If it was Bush would have obviously ran a dif type of campaign. It's not a stupid system, it's a system that has served this country and their states well. There are 50 states, and it would be unfair to make it an over all popular vote. States like California and NY would ruin the balance of this country.

He had the most electorial votes and that's why he's the President. If you don't like the system write your congress person.

Oliver...

DeDolfan
05-31-2004, 04:36 PM
Simply not true! The REP's wanted the special prosecutor to be a thing of the past but the DEM's and specifically Clinton voted it back in. Basically Clinton and his political party shot themselves when it comes to Clinton and lying under oath. When the REP's took over the congress in the late 90's the special prosecutor became history, something they wanted to be history since the late 80's.

As far as Bush #43 spending early and often, of course he is, the DEM's went after him with the whole AWOL thing early so he had no choice but to start early. Running scared? No running smart. Bush #43 learned from his fathers mistakes and how he handled Clinton in '92. You and DD seem to want to make it seem like the only bad or dirty politicians are in the REP party. I wonder when the TWO of you are going to wake up and understand politics period is a dirty game?

DEM's own yacht's, evade taxes just as much as REP's do. I just cannot believe you actually think REP's are some how the only ppl who do things like that.

Oliver...

Oliver, if the Reps REALLY wanted the special prosecutore to be history, then why was it that they jumped right on it against Clinton with such a trivial matter, ie., trivial as far "serious" stuff goes. The point is that they wanted to nail Clinton for something and apparently couldn't do it until the "blow job" scandal which was nobody's business at all except fot him, his family and ML, herself. Last I recalled, "lying" about a blow job has never gotten anyone killed, as far as I'm aware of.

I do agree with your last paragragh 100%! I'm not above admitting that there are "dirty" politicians on both sides. I sincerely hope that I'll live long enough to at least see the day that all political parties actually work together for the common good and campaign on their own behalf instead of all the dirty ads, etc., like they used to be. Unfortunately, for that day to happen, I'll likely to be the oldest living human being ever!! ;) :D

Section126
05-31-2004, 07:24 PM
:confused:

So you think that W was elected because of his supreme intelligence Oliver ??

:roflmao:

You only have to look at the conservative side of the Supreme Court to see why your guy was PLACED in office !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Certainly the Bush presidency has NOTHING to do with his :laughat:--> political prowess !!!!!!!

Marino1983

No, it has to do with Democratic Party Idiocy.

TerryTate
05-31-2004, 10:59 PM
Electoral COllege is an old system that was in place because there were less states way back in the day, and other states did not want 1 or 2 states to have control of the government, now there are 50 STATES! not 13, not 15, not 20.....50!!!!

Electoral College should be disbanded, it has no value, other than screwing up elections....and if Bush was on the wrong end of it, conservative would have the same argument....I just want to make it clear that I vote based on issues, not political party so I consider this unfair and im not a liberal....

Section126
05-31-2004, 11:58 PM
Electoral COllege is an old system that was in place because there were less states way back in the day, and other states did not want 1 or 2 states to have control of the government, now there are 50 STATES! not 13, not 15, not 20.....50!!!!

Electoral College should be disbanded, it has no value, other than screwing up elections....and if Bush was on the wrong end of it, conservative would have the same argument....I just want to make it clear that I vote based on issues, not political party so I consider this unfair and im not a liberal....

WRONG!

The Electoral College is there to protect all the states....if not we should change the name of the country to The United States of New York and California.

Because there are 50 states is precisely the reason we NEED a electoral college, The Founding Fathers designed it that way because they did not want one state to rule over others and for others to not have a say. With this system....EVERY state has POWER.

Sorry Terry, but that was a HORRIBLE argument.

ohall
06-01-2004, 12:03 AM
Electoral COllege is an old system that was in place because there were less states way back in the day, and other states did not want 1 or 2 states to have control of the government, now there are 50 STATES! not 13, not 15, not 20.....50!!!!

Electoral College should be disbanded, it has no value, other than screwing up elections....and if Bush was on the wrong end of it, conservative would have the same argument....I just want to make it clear that I vote based on issues, not political party so I consider this unfair and im not a liberal....

Sorry man you couldn't be more wrong here IMO. The electoral college showed just how valid it was in 2000. If Gore won with winning so few states, he couldn't even win his home state by the way, then the electoral college should have been disolved then.

IMO they should have 51 states, each state has 1 vote and which ever canidate wins the most states should be President. I say we add Puerto Rico as the 51st state.

Oliver...

TerryTate
06-01-2004, 02:10 AM
thats absolutely ridiculous, no way should a puerto rico in your example have the same representation as California...are you freakin kidding me???

TerryTate
06-01-2004, 02:21 AM
Equal state represenation can be depicted just fine in the senate, thats the senate's purpose....it only makes sense to look at our population as a whole and see what the majority of the country wants, thats what a democracy is all about.

The_Philster
06-01-2004, 04:14 AM
We won't have a true democracy until the out-dated Electoral college is gone. No one or two states can control things anymore so there's no need for it.

Fin_Fanatic
06-01-2004, 05:58 AM
Is the electoral college really undemocratic? i think its democratic enough. more bluntly, i believe that it accomplishes its goals without achieving an extreme form of democracy. lets face it the common citizen doesnt know crap about politics, so why put the vote in the ignorant voters hands? the only problem i find with the election process is that the third parties get slim to no chance. the fact of the matter is most voters are not the extreme republican or democrat. that being said i think the third party organizations that exist now are inept.

of course, i also voted for G Dubya:D

also i'm new here, hell of a forum yall got running here:rocker:

ohall
06-01-2004, 08:48 AM
thats absolutely ridiculous, no way should a puerto rico in your example have the same representation as California...are you freakin kidding me???

It's was just a thought. There are 50 states, one would think whoever wins the majority of states should be the Pres. Obviously with 50 states a canidate could get 25 and the other could get 25, so I was simply trying to figure out a tie breaking type of situation.

It's nice to see you now understand why our election for President cannot be a popularity contest. Whoever would win California and/or NY would more than likely win every time. If that were the case we would rarely have a REP President and God knows this country would be in some serious trouble!

Oliver...

ohall
06-01-2004, 08:51 AM
We won't have a true democracy until the out-dated Electoral college is gone. No one or two states can control things anymore so there's no need for it.

Of course it would be unfair. California and NY would run this country and everyone in the middle of this country would be run over. This is a very scary idea some of you are pushing.

What you would have is a vote that totally removes the states from the equation. If that happend why would we continue to have states? We would simply have a federal type of government with no real state representation. You guys are scaring me man!

Oliver...

ohall
06-01-2004, 08:53 AM
Is the electoral college really undemocratic? i think its democratic enough. more bluntly, i believe that it accomplishes its goals without achieving an extreme form of democracy. lets face it the common citizen doesnt know crap about politics, so why put the vote in the ignorant voters hands? the only problem i find with the election process is that the third parties get slim to no chance. the fact of the matter is most voters are not the extreme republican or democrat. that being said i think the third party organizations that exist now are inept.

of course, i also voted for G Dubya:D

also i'm new here, hell of a forum yall got running here:rocker:


Welcome aboard, you can never have enough REP's on a MBoard! :D

Oliver...

DeDolfan
06-01-2004, 09:09 AM
Of course it would be unfair. California and NY would run this country and everyone in the middle of this country would be run over. This is a very scary idea some of you are pushing.

What you would have is a vote that totally removes the states from the equation. If that happend why would we continue to have states? We would simply have a federal type of government with no real state representation. You guys are scaring me man!

Oliver...

Actually, the state's representation comes in the form of congressman and senators, yes? The prez [should] represent all the states and the people therein and not only certain parts of the population.

Section126
06-01-2004, 09:50 AM
BTW,

Bush won 31 States in 2000.

The Elctoral College is the most important part of our system of government.

Just think about it.......If New York and California ran the country......every time they needed to dump waste or get rid of their garbage, they would just dump it everywhere else.....

All your tax dollars paid in Iowa, Michigan, FLORIDA, and everywhere else would be spent in California and New York......

iceblizzard69
06-01-2004, 10:05 AM
If the electoral college was gone, each vote would count the same. Some votes count more then others in the current system, and it doesn't matter how much you win a state by. The only reason you people want the electoral college gone is because then people in this country would get what they want. Bush didn't even get the most votes and he is president. I bet if you guys didn't like Bush, you wouldn't feel this way.

The reason why you guys are speaking out against California and New York is because they typically go to the Democrats. Why should their vote count less then a vote in Georgia or Alabama?

In this country, the majority should elect the president. If you get the most votes, you should win. These Bush supporters apparently don't believe that the country should get what they want.

And for those complaining about California and New York, Texas has more electoral votes then New York and always goes Republican. Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, etc. still have a lot of people and their votes would still count in an election. Getting rid of the electoral college would make every vote count the same. The electoral college is stupid.

PhinPhan1227
06-01-2004, 11:00 AM
We won't have a true democracy until the out-dated Electoral college is gone. No one or two states can control things anymore so there's no need for it.


We've never had a true Democracy and never will. True Democracy can't exist above the tribal level...too many people. We've got a Representative Republic. It works because it's flexible and it acknowledges the fact that 99.999% of the country doesn't want to make decsions, they just want the lights to work and to feel secure. The funny thing is, a true Democracy is the ultimate expression of Mob Rule. In a true Democracy you couldn't have a Bill of Rights, because if 51% of the population decided slavery was a good idea...POOF...we have slavery again. As for the Electoral College, it DOES protect the smaller states. It also protects against Regionalism. Can you honestly tell me that most New Englanders would still be screaming liberals if they were raised somewhere else? The Electoral College allows the COUNTRY to elect a President, not just a few regions of the country. Of course California has more influence than North Dakota, as it should. But does that mean that during an election the citizens of North Dakota should feel that their votes aren't important? Yeah, THAT'S what we need...people feeling even LESS secure in the value of their vote.

TerryTate
06-01-2004, 12:04 PM
To make it clear, the United States is a Representative Democracy

And by the way, the individual vote counts with no electoral college, it DOESNT count as much if there is an electoral college....take this for example...

Bush vs. Kerry....

Lets say a citizen in California votes for Bush...

California blew away Bush as it would always blow away a Republican...however, if there was no Electoral college this citizen's vote would go into a big pile and add to the popular vote number, the only one that would count....

So yes, votes would count without the electoral college...would this vote count if we were doing electoral college? NO, because all the electoral college votes would go to kerry and then his vote basically didnt count....

PhinPhan1227
06-01-2004, 12:29 PM
Actually, a Representative Republic. It's semantics, but Republic is the proper term because the heart of a Republic is it's representative nature. And the last time I checked, We don't have too many town hall meetings to determine what percentage of the Federal budget is going to defense spending. As for the Electoral College, it DOES allow the smaller states to have a larger voice...which is to balance the fact that without the Electoral College, those smaller states would be completely ignored by the candidates. Think of it as an electoral Affirmative Action program.


To make it clear, the United States is a Representative Democracy

And by the way, the individual vote counts with no electoral college, it DOESNT count as much if there is an electoral college....take this for example...

Bush vs. Kerry....

Lets say a citizen in California votes for Bush...

California blew away Bush as it would always blow away a Republican...however, if there was no Electoral college this citizen's vote would go into a big pile and add to the popular vote number, the only one that would count....

So yes, votes would count without the electoral college...would this vote count if we were doing electoral college? NO, because all the electoral college votes would go to kerry and then his vote basically didnt count....

DolFan31
06-01-2004, 01:37 PM
But we are a country that is for the people, by the people, we the people which means a DEMOCRACY. The Electoral College system was developed, IMO, to be a temporary system because back then our Founding Fathers assumed people wouldn't vote because democracy was fairly new and they didnt think people would get it. Its an outdated system thats rigged for two parties, and thats unamerican.

PhinPhan1227
06-01-2004, 02:14 PM
Sigh...again, you can drop platitudes all you like, but it's still a Representative Republic. That's how it was designed, and that's how it runs. Until someone asks for your vote on Bill 91123, you are in a Representative Republic. And AGAIN, the Electoral College provides for more representation as a NATION. It also helps preserve our divers culture. Lastly, it helps preserve states rights, as mandated by the Constitution.




But we are a country that is for the people, by the people, we the people which means a DEMOCRACY. The Electoral College system was developed, IMO, to be a temporary system because back then our Founding Fathers assumed people wouldn't vote because democracy was fairly new and they didnt think people would get it. Its an outdated system thats rigged for two parties, and thats unamerican.

DolFan31
06-01-2004, 02:44 PM
Sigh...again, you can drop platitudes all you like, but it's still a Representative Republic. That's how it was designed, and that's how it runs. Until someone asks for your vote on Bill 91123, you are in a Representative Republic. And AGAIN, the Electoral College provides for more representation as a NATION. It also helps preserve our divers culture. Lastly, it helps preserve states rights, as mandated by the Constitution.

Then why do we promote democracy when we dont even have it here? :dunno: No wonder why the Iraqis are pissed.

BigFinFan
06-01-2004, 03:40 PM
You guys are pissing and moaning about "the individual vote". Fewer than half of us even bother to vote in national elections. The turnout for local elections is even more dismal.

The "individual vote:" does count - it is used to determine who wins the "Electoral College" for each state. On Election Day, voters are actually voting for Electoral College members who promise to vote for the candidates of their respective political parties.

In order to win, the candidate must receive 270 votes, one more than half of the total of 538 electoral votes. If no ticket has 270 votes, then the House of Representatives decides the election.

BigFinFan
06-01-2004, 03:44 PM
Then why do we promote democracy when we dont even have it here? :dunno: No wonder why the Iraqis are pissed.

de•moc•ra•cy
1 a)government by the people; esp : rule of the majority. b)a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usu. involving periodically held free elections
2 a political unit that has a democratic government
3 the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the U.S.
4 the common people esp. when constituting the source of political authority
5 the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges

DolFan31
06-01-2004, 03:59 PM
You guys are pissing and moaning about "the individual vote". Fewer than half of us even bother to vote in national elections. The turnout for local elections is even more dismal.

You know why people dont vote? Its because of the electoral college system! People dont feel confident enough that the members of the electoral college will vote for the majority. If that were the case Al Gore would have won. The 2000 election gave people more reason not to vote if anything. The turnout for local elections is low because most of those local elections deal with local issues most people dont really care much about, but thats nothing to do with the electoral college.

Section126
06-01-2004, 04:07 PM
People dont feel confident enough that the members of the electoral college will vote for the majority. If that were the case Al Gore would have won.


:confused: :confused: :confused:

Hello?

Bush won Florida.

The Florida members of the electoral college voted their electoral votes to Bush. Bush won.

So, you would have wanted the members to vote their votes to Al Gore even though he had not won? :confused:

I would like to know HOW ON EARTH you decided to post the above.

BTW, the Electoral College votes its votes for the majority winner in each state...you do know that do you?

BigFinFan
06-01-2004, 04:12 PM
It's not a "secret ballot". The Electoral College Representative votes for the majority - in each state!

That is the way it should be!

DolFan31
06-01-2004, 04:20 PM
:confused: :confused: :confused:

Hello?

Bush won Florida.

The Florida members of the electoral college voted their electoral votes to Bush. Bush won.

So, you would have wanted the members to vote their votes to Al Gore even though he had not won? :confused:

I would like to know HOW ON EARTH you decided to post the above.

BTW, the Electoral College votes its votes for the majority winner in each state...you do know that do you?

Before you begin to attack me Id like to say that I was saying that if it truly went by majority, then the popular vote, which really does represent the majority vote, indicated that Gore had won the general election. But because the electoral college went against the majority of the people(and because of a conservative lop-sided ideology-driven Supreme Court), Bush "won". How the hell can you trust electoral college members with your vote? You know that if Al Gore came out of that election the way Bush did, you'd be saying the same things. I would too, even though I would have voted for Gore, because I truly believe in fairness in elections, and the electoral college doesnt allow that.

Section126
06-01-2004, 04:41 PM
Before you begin to attack me Id like to say that I was saying that if it truly went by majority, then the popular vote, which really does represent the majority vote, indicated that Gore had won the general election. But because the electoral college went against the majority of the people(and because of a conservative lop-sided ideology-driven Supreme Court), Bush "won". How the hell can you trust electoral college members with your vote? You know that if Al Gore came out of that election the way Bush did, you'd be saying the same things. I would too, even though I would have voted for Gore, because I truly believe in fairness in elections, and the electoral college doesnt allow that.


Dude, are you serious?

You don't even know what the Electoral College is.... :confused:

Let me explain this to you:

The Elctoral College has nothing to do with the majority of votes cast in the NATION.

It has to do with the majority of votes cast IN EACH STATE.

BUSH WON 31 out of 50 STATES.

Each State has a certain amount of Electoral Votes.

In the 31 States that Bush WON, the Electoral Votes added up to surpase the number you need to win the election.

I always thought that you had to know what the Electoral College was before you argued about it.

Section126
06-01-2004, 04:42 PM
BEFORE you reply......

PLEASE remember this....The Electoral College deals with the majority in EACH STATE.

Repeat that line over and over again until you realize that you should delete your last post.

DolFan31
06-01-2004, 04:54 PM
BEFORE you reply......

PLEASE remember this....The Electoral College deals with the majority in EACH STATE.

Repeat that line over and over again until you realize that you should delete your last post.

Why do conservatives always resort to attacking instead of simply debating?

Anyway, I do know it deals with the majority in each state.

Let me ask you something, what is wrong with the opular vote? What is so bad about a majority of the people, each vote counting equally, to pick their president? Why is it that some do not trust the judgement of the people? I find it rather insulting. Its insulting that the government wants to make decisions for you, ex: drug laws. I dont want the government to decide for me whats bad for me. The same way I dont want the government to decide for me who the president should be, which is sorta like the electoral college members. The electoral college just makes our vote an influence, but it shows that the government doesnt have enough faith in the American people to decide by majority who the president should be. I find that very insulting. You do know that if Al Gore was the one who "won" this election, you would be saying the same exact things I am, you know it and I know it.

PhinPhan1227
06-01-2004, 05:07 PM
Why do conservatives always resort to attacking instead of simply debating?

Anyway, I do know it deals with the majority in each state.

Let me ask you something, what is wrong with the opular vote? What is so bad about a majority of the people, each vote counting equally, to pick their president? Why is it that some do not trust the judgement of the people? I find it rather insulting. Its insulting that the government wants to make decisions for you, ex: drug laws. I dont want the government to decide for me whats bad for me. The same way I dont want the government to decide for me who the president should be, which is sorta like the electoral college members. The electoral college just makes our vote an influence, but it shows that the government doesnt have enough faith in the American people to decide by majority who the president should be. I find that very insulting. You do know that if Al Gore was the one who "won" this election, you would be saying the same exact things I am, you know it and I know it.

What you fail to understand is that the States that make up the United States have power in and of themselves. The Electoral College is in part designed to maintain that power. It's also designed to protect the small states from the overwhelming infulence of the larger states. Think of it as an electoral Bill of Rights. It exists to protect the minority states from the will of majority states. In a true democracy if 51% of the country decided that every blue eyed, blond haired person should be shot on sight, that would be the law of the land. You couldn't have a Bill of Rights, because that Bill restricts the majority will. One other thing...the WAY the Electoral College works is DETERMINED by each state. Two states divide their votes by the percentage of voters. They don't have the "winner takes all" set up of the other 48 states. So again, it's not the Federal Gov you should be bitching about, it's YOUR state government. Bottom line, votors still decide the election. But we don't live in a true Democracy, so there are rules the majority needs to live by.

P.S.-I find it hysterical that someone who supports Gore and Kerry would make the statement "I dont want the government to decide for me whats bad for me". Apparently you do. You support the current Social Security system which says that the Government knows how to take care of your retirement better than you. You also support the current tax and welfare system which says that you can't take care of yourself, you need the government to do it for you. It's an argument a little kid makes..."I'm an adult...I can make my own decisions...oops...DAD!! bail me out of the trouble I just got in!!!"... :yell:

Section126
06-01-2004, 05:12 PM
Why do conservatives always resort to attacking instead of simply debating?

Anyway, I do know it deals with the majority in each state.

Let me ask you something, what is wrong with the opular vote? What is so bad about a majority of the people, each vote counting equally, to pick their president? Why is it that some do not trust the judgement of the people? I find it rather insulting. Its insulting that the government wants to make decisions for you, ex: drug laws. I dont want the government to decide for me whats bad for me. The same way I dont want the government to decide for me who the president should be, which is sorta like the electoral college members. The electoral college just makes our vote an influence, but it shows that the government doesnt have enough faith in the American people to decide by majority who the president should be. I find that very insulting. You do know that if Al Gore was the one who "won" this election, you would be saying the same exact things I am, you know it and I know it.


You still don't get it.

This is the last time I will explain this.

When you vote for president, you are voting in an individual state, if your candidate wins the MAJORITY of the votes in that particular state, he then gets the electoral College votes of that STATE.

Bush won 31 states by getting more votes than Gore in those 31 States, Gore won 19 States by getting more votes than Bush in those 19 States.

Bush got the Electoral College votes of the 31 States he won.

Gore got the Electoral College Votes of the 19 States he won.

BUSH WON.

Certain States have more Electoral Votes than others.

When you added up the votes, Bush won.

Come'on, it is not that hard.

For example, Gore won California, California has 54 Electoral Votes. Bush won Florida that has 25 Electoral Votes. Since Bush won 31 states his total was higher than Al Goron.

Do you get it now?

DolFan31
06-01-2004, 05:50 PM
P.S.-I find it hysterical that someone who supports Gore and Kerry would make the statement "I dont want the government to decide for me whats bad for me". Apparently you do. You support the current Social Security system which says that the Government knows how to take care of your retirement better than you. You also support the current tax and welfare system which says that you can't take care of yourself, you need the government to do it for you. It's an argument a little kid makes..."I'm an adult...I can make my own decisions...oops...DAD!! bail me out of the trouble I just got in!!!"... :yell:

Im sure there are many things about Bush you dont support but you support him anyway. Its the same thing.

I do not always agree with Democrats the same way you dont always agree with Republicans. Social Security was created in case of economically bad times like in the Depression. Whether or not you think the government does a good job its your opinion. The welfare system is by CHOICE. I adopt the conservative ideology that praises those who work hard by themselves with no help, but some people do need help. But it is different, the argument you're trying to make, because I said I dont want to government to decide whats bad for me, not whats right for me. There is a difference. I dont want them telling me what to eat, drink, who to have sex with, smoke or not, what to watch on tv or what video games I should play, all that stuff. I do however support federal economic relief programs that are by choice if you feel you need help. I dont think the government should force anyone to apply for welfare and all that, but I think if its by choice then its ok. The government though forces us(through law enforcement) to make decisions they feel we're not intelligent enough to make(this goes to Dems and Repugs), such as drugs and such. I feel that your body is belongs to you, not the state nor anyone or anything else once you become a legal adult. How would you feel, if the government made tobacco, alcohol, FIREARMS, pornography and such illegal just because they deemed you were too stupid enough to make the decisions yourself that they are wrong, unmoral, or unhealthy or dangerous. It works the same way. Its something Ive had a problem with and will continue to until something is done.

DolFan31
06-01-2004, 05:54 PM
You still don't get it.

This is the last time I will explain this.

When you vote for president, you are voting in an individual state, if your candidate wins the MAJORITY of the votes in that particular state, he then gets the electoral College votes of that STATE.

Bush won 31 states by getting more votes than Gore in those 31 States, Gore won 19 States by getting more votes than Bush in those 19 States.

Bush got the Electoral College votes of the 31 States he won.

Gore got the Electoral College Votes of the 19 States he won.

BUSH WON.

Certain States have more Electoral Votes than others.

When you added up the votes, Bush won.

Come'on, it is not that hard.

For example, Gore won California, California has 54 Electoral Votes. Bush won Florida that has 25 Electoral Votes. Since Bush won 31 states his total was higher than Al Goron.

Do you get it now?

Look, its not that I dont get it, I just think its wrong. Why cant we be a true democracy? Why not let the people decide the president through the popular vote? Thats what Im asking here. I do not think its going to be the doom and gloom many of you think it will be. I think this way you will have a larger voter turnout this way. No matter how you feel or what you think the Electoral College is or how effective it is, you still have a majority of Americans(I wish I could have some real proof here but Im kinda tied up at the office here) who feel as if their vote doesnt count. Maybe this will encourage many to do their part and vote.

Lets just give it a try at least. If it doesnt work, we can always reinstall the old system.

Section126
06-01-2004, 05:56 PM
Look, its not that I dont get it, I just think its wrong. Why cant we be a true democracy? Why not let the people decide the president through the popular vote? Thats what Im asking here. I do not think its going to be the doom and gloom many of you think it will be. I think this way you will have a larger voter turnout this way. No matter how you feel or what you think the Electoral College is or how effective it is, you still have a majority of Americans(I wish I could have some real proof here but Im kinda tied up at the office here) who feel as if their vote doesnt count. Maybe this will encourage many to do their part and vote.

Lets just give it a try at least. If it doesnt work, we can always install the old system.

Let's not try it.

PhinPhan1227
06-01-2004, 06:32 PM
Im sure there are many things about Bush you dont support but you support him anyway. Its the same thing.

I do not always agree with Democrats the same way you dont always agree with Republicans. Social Security was created in case of economically bad times like in the Depression. Whether or not you think the government does a good job its your opinion. The welfare system is by CHOICE.


Social Security is not a choice...it's the Government telling me they know what's good for me...which is EXACTLY the same as them telling me what's bad for me. It's called taking AWAY the choice, and taking AWAY personal responsability.

DolFan31
06-01-2004, 06:37 PM
Social Security is not a choice...it's the Government telling me they know what's good for me...which is EXACTLY the same as them telling me what's bad for me. It's called taking AWAY the choice, and taking AWAY personal responsability.

I didnt say social security was a choice. I think it should be however because I dont really like the idea that the government takes money out of social security and medicare.

I agree with conservatives that think one of the problems in this country these days is the lack of personal responsability.

And I apologize about my spelling lately. :lol:

DolFan31
06-01-2004, 06:39 PM
Let's not try it.

Why not?

Section126
06-01-2004, 10:14 PM
Why not?

I don't want the country run by New York and California.

DeDolfan
06-01-2004, 11:34 PM
Sigh...again, you can drop platitudes all you like, but it's still a Representative Republic. That's how it was designed, and that's how it runs. Until someone asks for your vote on Bill 91123, you are in a Representative Republic. And AGAIN, the Electoral College provides for more representation as a NATION. It also helps preserve our divers culture. Lastly, it helps preserve states rights, as mandated by the Constitution.

Now just how does the electoral college provide representation at all? It only elects the president, not the congress or senators.

iceblizzard69
06-02-2004, 09:55 AM
I don't want the country run by New York and California.

It's not like California and New York would count for more then any other state. You should add the word "Texas" in there since it is the second most populated state in the country.

The reason why the Bush supporters are against having a popular vote decide the election is because it would mean that Bush doesn't get elected. The electoral college is stupid, it causes votes to not be equal.

A vote in New York or California should count the same as a vote in Alabama or Florida. If a President is elected by popular vote, each vote will be equal. New York, Texas, and California will not determine who wins the election, it will just count the amount it should because they are part of the United States and votes there should count the same there as they do everywhere else.

PhinPhan1227
06-02-2004, 10:18 AM
Now just how does the electoral college provide representation at all? It only elects the president, not the congress or senators.


It provides representation in the Presidential election because it insures that the candidates devote time to the smaller states. It also allows the citizens of those states to not become marginalized.

PhinPhan1227
06-02-2004, 10:21 AM
It's not like California and New York would count for more then any other state. You should add the word "Texas" in there since it is the second most populated state in the country.

The reason why the Bush supporters are against having a popular vote decide the election is because it would mean that Bush doesn't get elected. The electoral college is stupid, it causes votes to not be equal.

A vote in New York or California should count the same as a vote in Alabama or Florida. If a President is elected by popular vote, each vote will be equal. New York, Texas, and California will not determine who wins the election, it will just count the amount it should because they are part of the United States and votes there should count the same there as they do everywhere else.

Bottom line Ice...if you don't like the EC, do something about it. There are two states that allow their EC votes to be split up, therefore giving each voter in their state that "one voice". If you don't like Florida maintaining the "winner take all" status...work to change it. That's how this country works...if you don't like something you write your Congressman, or you volunteer with a group who is working for that change. Heck, do a Google search...I can almost promise you there is either a Florida or National group that is already lobbying for that change, and you can join them. But it's a state problem, not a Federal one.

BigFinFan
06-02-2004, 12:18 PM
In a formal federal structure, important political powers are reserved to the component States. In the United States, the House of Representatives was designed to represent the States according to the size of their population. The States are even responsible for drawing the district lines for their House seats. The Senate was designed to represent each State equally regardless of its population. And the Electoral College was designed to represent each State's choice for the presidency (with the number of each State's electoral votes being the number of its Senators plus the number of its Representatives). To abolish the Electoral College in favor of a nationwide popular election for president would strike at the very heart of the federal structure laid out in our Constitution and would lead to the nationalization of our central government -- to the detriment of the States.

Indeed, if we become obsessed with government by popular majority as the only consideration, should we not then abolish the Senate which represents States regardless of population? Should we not correct the minor distortions in the House (caused by districting and by guaranteeing each State at least one Representative) by changing it to a system of proportional representation? This would accomplish "government by popular majority" and guarantee the representation of minority parties, but it would also demolish our federal system of government. If there are reasons to maintain State representation in the Senate and House as they exist today, then surely these same reasons apply to the choice of president. Why, then, apply a sentimental attachment to popular majorities only to the Electoral College?

The fact is that the original design of our federal system of government was thoroughly and wisely debated by the Founding Fathers. State viewpoints, they decided, are more important than political minority viewpoints. And the collective opinion of the individual State populations is more important than the opinion of the national population taken as a whole. Nor should we tamper with the careful balance of power between the national and State governments which the Founding Fathers intended and which is reflected in the Electoral College. To do so would fundamentally alter the nature of our government and might well bring about consequences that even the reformers would come to regret.

DolFan31
06-02-2004, 12:35 PM
In a formal federal structure, important political powers are reserved to the component States. In the United States, the House of Representatives was designed to represent the States according to the size of their population. The States are even responsible for drawing the district lines for their House seats. The Senate was designed to represent each State equally regardless of its population. And the Electoral College was designed to represent each State's choice for the presidency (with the number of each State's electoral votes being the number of its Senators plus the number of its Representatives). To abolish the Electoral College in favor of a nationwide popular election for president would strike at the very heart of the federal structure laid out in our Constitution and would lead to the nationalization of our central government -- to the detriment of the States.

Indeed, if we become obsessed with government by popular majority as the only consideration, should we not then abolish the Senate which represents States regardless of population? Should we not correct the minor distortions in the House (caused by districting and by guaranteeing each State at least one Representative) by changing it to a system of proportional representation? This would accomplish "government by popular majority" and guarantee the representation of minority parties, but it would also demolish our federal system of government. If there are reasons to maintain State representation in the Senate and House as they exist today, then surely these same reasons apply to the choice of president. Why, then, apply a sentimental attachment to popular majorities only to the Electoral College?

The fact is that the original design of our federal system of government was thoroughly and wisely debated by the Founding Fathers. State viewpoints, they decided, are more important than political minority viewpoints. And the collective opinion of the individual State populations is more important than the opinion of the national population taken as a whole. Nor should we tamper with the careful balance of power between the national and State governments which the Founding Fathers intended and which is reflected in the Electoral College. To do so would fundamentally alter the nature of our government and might well bring about consequences that even the reformers would come to regret.

Then we can simply go back to EC if popular vote doesnt work out.

PhinPhan1227
06-02-2004, 12:51 PM
Then we can simply go back to EC if popular vote doesnt work out.

Again...take it up with your state legistlature. Since the EC is a state issue, I don't think the Fed could do away with it if it wanted to.

DolFan31
06-02-2004, 01:14 PM
Again...take it up with your state legistlature. Since the EC is a state issue, I don't think the Fed could do away with it if it wanted to.

Im working on it :cool:

Bodzilla29
06-21-2004, 01:59 AM
hypothetically if New york and California had 95% of the population why shouldn't they get a bigger say in who is president?

The senate can protect each state, ideally, but the president should be a popular vote. If 20 million people vote for candidate 'A'(2 states), and 5 million vote for candidate 'B'(48 states) why should those 48 other states get to elect candidate 'B' as the president?

The system is laughable. Majority vote for president, and a solid infastructure to protect each state is what is needed.

Super_Duper85
06-21-2004, 07:09 AM
I love it when people call the media "liberal." HA! Maybe we should all tune in to Rush Limbaugh... After all he is the "truth police." :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:

PhinPhan1227
06-21-2004, 09:18 AM
hypothetically if New york and California had 95% of the population why shouldn't they get a bigger say in who is president?

The senate can protect each state, ideally, but the president should be a popular vote. If 20 million people vote for candidate 'A'(2 states), and 5 million vote for candidate 'B'(48 states) why should those 48 other states get to elect candidate 'B' as the president?

The system is laughable. Majority vote for president, and a solid infastructure to protect each state is what is needed.


All you have to do is change your state Constitution. There's nothing in the US Constitution about the EC votes being a "winner takes all", that's determined at the state level.

iceblizzard69
06-21-2004, 09:32 AM
I love it when people call the media "liberal." HA! Maybe we should all tune in to Rush Limbaugh... After all he is the "truth police." :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:

Or we could watch FOX News, which is "Fair and Balanced." :roflmao: :lol:

The_Philster
06-21-2004, 04:41 PM
I love it when people call the media "liberal." HA! Maybe we should all tune in to Rush Limbaugh... After all he is the "truth police." :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:
Exactly...there's always a bias...the conservatives who claim the only bias is to the left are just lying to themselves. :shakeno:

ohall
06-21-2004, 05:03 PM
Exactly...there's always a bias...the conservatives who claim the only bias is to the left are just lying to themselves. :shakeno:

There is a left bias within most of the press, anyone that says that's not true is simply lying to themself.

Oliver...

DeDolfan
06-21-2004, 05:52 PM
There is a left bias within most of the press, anyone that says that's not true is simply lying to themself.

Oliver...


Oliver, maybe there's a valid reason for it. Who knows!!

The_Philster
06-21-2004, 08:01 PM
There is a left bias within most of the press, anyone that says that's not true is simply lying to themself.

Oliver...
maybe that's true...but there is a right wing bias in some media sources...that's the point I'm trying to make. Besides, considering how the right wing views look thanks to the neo-cons, can you really blame people for going more to the left? I was raised as a Republican...but got tired of the way the right wing views seem to be taking away our freedoms and turning the world against us. :shakeno:

ohall
06-21-2004, 10:00 PM
maybe that's true...but there is a right wing bias in some media sources...that's the point I'm trying to make. Besides, considering how the right wing views look thanks to the neo-cons, can you really blame people for going more to the left? I was raised as a Republican...but got tired of the way the right wing views seem to be taking away our freedoms and turning the world against us. :shakeno:

It is far less reaching than the left bias. The conservatives control talk radio to a point, and the most popular domestic cable news channel FNC. The rest however are CNN, NBC, CBS and ABC are all left leaning and they reach a much wider amount of Americans on a daily basis than all the right leaning news sources combined.

It's a good thing Bush has raised nearly 220 million dollars to campaign. He needs that $ to compete with the FREE daily positive coverage Kerry will receive on a daily basis from those TV networks I mentioned.

I won't even go into how the print news is almost 100% controlled by the left.

Oliver...

PhinPhan1227
06-22-2004, 10:20 AM
maybe that's true...but there is a right wing bias in some media sources...that's the point I'm trying to make. Besides, considering how the right wing views look thanks to the neo-cons, can you really blame people for going more to the left? I was raised as a Republican...but got tired of the way the right wing views seem to be taking away our freedoms and turning the world against us. :shakeno:


#1-Which freedoms were you born with that you no longer have? Actually, which freedom has ANY American been born with that he no longer has? Other than freedom from massive overtaxation...that one went away a while ago.

#2-Care to take a look at what the far left has brought you? All the time you're working from January to May is just to pay your income tax. Our schools have become so over administered that we can't afford to pay teachers a decent salary. When we are attacked we respond with cruise missiles which only ecourages our enemies. And lastly, we have a welfare/medicare/Social Security system that ONLY works for those people who abuse it or steal it.

themole
06-22-2004, 11:03 AM
We won't have a true democracy until the out-dated Electoral college is gone. No one or two states can control things anymore so there's no need for it.


It's " To the Republic for which it stands" not "to the democracy for which it stands" Philster..think about that one bro.

PhinPhan1227
06-22-2004, 11:18 AM
It's " To the Republic for which it stands" not "to the democracy for which it stands" Philster..think about that one bro.


And all that aside, it's still a non-issue. The states aren't required to give all their votes to one candidate. If the people of Florida, or Georgia, or wherever want to change it, they are free to do so.

themole
06-22-2004, 01:46 PM
And all that aside, it's still a non-issue. The states aren't required to give all their votes to one candidate. If the people of Florida, or Georgia, or wherever want to change it, they are free to do so.

Wasn't there a threat of that happening last election 1227? I don't believe it has ever been done though.

DeDolfan
06-22-2004, 04:15 PM
#1-Which freedoms were you born with that you no longer have? Actually, which freedom has ANY American been born with that he no longer has? Other than freedom from massive overtaxation...that one went away a while ago.

#2-Care to take a look at what the far left has brought you? All the time you're working from January to May is just to pay your income tax. Our schools have become so over administered that we can't afford to pay teachers a decent salary. When we are attacked we respond with cruise missiles which only ecourages our enemies. And lastly, we have a welfare/medicare/Social Security system that ONLY works for those people who abuse it or steal it.


The left always seems to get blamed for tax increases, ok, that's cool. The right gets a chance to "cut income taxes", that's cool also. However, after the taxes are "cut", the Fed turns around and cuts alot of $$$ that goes to the state, i guess to remain "solvent" of some sort. Then your local and state taxes have to go up to make up for that difference so in reality it is only a "paper tax cut" in that you get a bigger pay check and then turn around and give that back and more in other taxes. Our tax cut of last summer was eaten up in a small jump in gas prices before this big price fiasco we have now. So, actually, we're more in the hole now than last year considering the huge gas increase and additional state/local taxes. I don't see any progress in that regard.

BigFinFan
06-22-2004, 04:20 PM
I have the solution!

If you are unhappy - Move!

themole
06-22-2004, 04:24 PM
But we are a country that is for the people, by the people, we the people which means a DEMOCRACY. The Electoral College system was developed, IMO, to be a temporary system because back then our Founding Fathers assumed people wouldn't vote because democracy was fairly new and they didnt think people would get it. Its an outdated system thats rigged for two parties, and thats unamerican.


Here's a little more food for thought:

Why have an Electoral College?
Bertel M. Sparks

This article is an uncle's response to a lad's question shortly after the presidential election of 1968.

At the time of the original publication, Bertel M. Sparks, the uncle, worked his way out of "poverty stricken" Appalachia through law school and two graduate degrees in law. He served on the faculty of New York University School of Law for eighteen years and is now professor of law at Duke University. He is the author of two books and numerous articles in legal periodicals.

Dear Philip:

In reply to your question about my opinion of the Electoral College, I am in favor of retaining it. Before abolishing any institution that has been with us for such a long period, we should take time to ask why it came into existence in the first place, how it has worked in the past, and what substitute we have to offer. It is my opinion that a careful consideration of these questions will lead to the conclusion that the Electoral College is not so bad after all.

It seems that when our Founding Fathers were about the task of writing our Constitution they were almost unanimous on two basic ideas. They wanted a government strong enough to keep the peace and they feared any such government that was that strong. They had learned from their experience under King George that unlimited power in human hands was a dangerous thing. Being a highly educated group, their knowledge and understanding of history had taught them that tyrannical power was not confined to any one form of government. It could exist whether its form was that of a monarchy, aristocracy, theocracy, or even a democracy. Their experience under the Articles of Confederation had also taught them that a government without adequate power could not protect its citizens in the exercise of their commercial and social relations with each other. It was a recognition of these diverse and somewhat conflicting policy goals that led them to the establishment of a form of government that made possible the greatest exercise of personal freedom and the development of the highest level of material well-being that has ever been known anywhere else on the earth before or since. How did they do it?

The scheme agreed upon by that little group of men gathered in Philadelphia in 1787 was not a democracy but a republic, characterized by a separation of powers and a division of authority. To them this meant much more than a separation of the legislative, executive, and judicial departments of government. Regardless of what separation of the departments could be achieved, the men who were laying our foundation feared the consequences of having all three concentrated in one central government. That much had been tried before in various parts of the world, and under such arrangements tyranny had often been the ultimate result even where the election of the officials imposing the tyranny had been by popular choice. The added feature was a federal system where the local units of government, the states, were made independent entities and not just instrumentalities of the central power and the central government was made one of strictly limited powers.

The exercise of even such limited powers was carefully circumscribed. The Senate was to represent the states, with all states being equal for this purpose, and the House was to represent the people. The chief executive was not to be chosen by the legislative body, as is the custom in many countries of the world, but was made independent of them. Yet the power he could exercise without their approval was strictly confined. Although the judges were to be appointed by the President, they could not be removed by him and therefore it was highly unlikely that the judiciary would ever be dominated by any one President. It was no accident that the Representatives and Senators were given terms of different lengths and the election of Senators was so arranged that not more than one-third of them could be hanging at any one time. And the President's term was made of different duration from that of either House or Senate. This somewhat awkward staggering of terms was to avoid the instability that could result from having the whole government change, even by popular vote, at a moment of great emotional upheaval.

The Electoral College was invented as a part, although maybe only a small part, of this general scheme of separation of powers and division of authority. It was a scheme for letting the people choose but at the same time avoiding some of the dangers inherent in a direct choice. Not the least of the dangers they had in mind was that in a time of national turbulence, such as we might be approaching at the present time, sufficient emotional excitement might 'be generated to elect a popular and glamorous personality such as a Julius Caesar or a Napoleon Bonaparte. Of course, these dangers exist under any system of government. The important question is under what system can the extent of the dangers be diminished?

Any present-day student of the American government knows that this system of separation and division of powers with each department and each political unit serving as a check on every other did not work out exactly as intended by the Founding Fathers. None of the three branches of the central government has ever behaved exactly as the founders anticipated, and the powers and responsibilities of the state governments have declined to a degree that would probably frighten any delegate to the Constitutional Convention out of his wits. The Senate was never an impartial body of wise men serving to check the popular passions likely to be present in the House. Both the chief executive and the courts quickly developed into something that would probably be unrecognizable by any but the most discerning of the Fathers. And it is doubtful if any of them anticipated the emergence of either political parties or the extensive administrative machinery that now plagues the central government. The Electoral College never became the uninstructed gathering of superior and sober men calmly deciding upon a suitable citizen to serve as the Chief Executive for the coming four years.

But the fact that the formal expectations of the Fathers were never realized should not blind us to the fact that the basic framework which they established has served us well for almost 200 years. The central core of the tradition they established is still with us and it is now our tradition. The Electoral College is part of that tradition. While it is not the representative body exercising an independent judgment as was originally intended, it does have a function to perform. It is at least an accounting device registering a summation of the will of the people on a state-by-state basis. Being on a state-by-state basis, and that not strictly according to population, it has some tendency to decrease the likelihood of a President winning primarily through an emotional appeal giving him an overwhelming advantage in one section but probably making him obnoxious to a majority of the voters in other parts of the country. It also makes it a little more difficult for one social or economic unit to become dominant. What is even more important in my mind, it continues to remind us that we are a federal republic whose separate political units still have vitality.

And after all these years is anyone in a position to say the Electoral College has produced any bad results? There have been a few instances when the electoral majority did not coincide with the popular majority and also two instances when the electors failed to elect anybody and the question was thrown into the House of Representatives. But can anyone rightly say that any of these instances have produced bad results? I believe not. And in each instance the matter was handled peacefully and without any substantial amount of public excitement. That within itself is no small accomplishment when it is remembered how frequently a change of administrations is accompanied by varying degrees of disorder in many foreign countries. It might even be pointed out that the two Presidents who were chosen by the House of Representatives, Thomas Jefferson and John Q. Adams, are regarded by many as being among our more able Presidents.

Much has been made of the unfortunate things that could happen under our present system. But in view of the fact that none of the feared disasters has ever happened, I wonder if the danger isn't more imaginary than real. I find it hard to argue against almost 200 years of uninterrupted success! Even if no candidate had received an electoral majority in 1968, is there any reason to believe a peaceful and satisfactory solution could not have been reached? Let's explore the possibilities.

First of all, the electors, except in a few states, are not legally bound to vote with the party that elected them. It is possible that if no candidate had won a majority on November 5, enough electors would have switched their allegiance to give somebody a majority when the electoral votes were cast. If that had been done, is there any reason to believe the result would not have been a reasonable one or that it would not have been accepted by the public? If the electors had stood by the candidates for which they had been chosen and nobody had received a majority, is there any reason to believe the House of Representatives would not have acted in a responsible fashion?

Even if the House had acted so irresponsibly as to fail to choose anyone, there is still another route to follow. In such a case the Vice-President is to serve as if he were President. The election of the Vice-President would be by the Senate. Would the Senate be so irresponsible as to fail to choose a Vice-President?

So it seems that in order for us to end up without a lawfully chosen President, the Electoral College, the House of Representatives, and the Senate would all have to act in an irrational and irresponsible way. And as we moved from one of these bodies to the other the failure of each would place that much more moral pressure upon the next and would dramatize to the public the seriousness of the occasion. The period of uncertainty during which the matter was being resolved would tend to be a period of sober reflection. Tempers would cool a bit and the danger of rebellion would be lessened rather than increased. With so many safeguards in operation, it is unlikely that we would ever find ourselves without a lawfully chosen and reasonably acceptable Chief Executive. At least I haven't heard any other system proposed that holds greater promise of permanence and stability than has been demonstrated by the one we have.

Your Uncle, Bert

Reprinted with permission from The Freeman, a publication of The Foundation for Economic Education, Inc., April 1969, Vol. 19, No. 4.

PhinPhan1227
06-22-2004, 05:55 PM
Wasn't there a threat of that happening last election 1227? I don't believe it has ever been done though.


There are currently two states I beleive which divided thier votes in proportion to how many votes each cand recieved. I'd have to look it up to see which ones they are.

PhinPhan1227
06-22-2004, 05:57 PM
The left always seems to get blamed for tax increases, ok, that's cool. The right gets a chance to "cut income taxes", that's cool also. However, after the taxes are "cut", the Fed turns around and cuts alot of $$$ that goes to the state, i guess to remain "solvent" of some sort. Then your local and state taxes have to go up to make up for that difference so in reality it is only a "paper tax cut" in that you get a bigger pay check and then turn around and give that back and more in other taxes. Our tax cut of last summer was eaten up in a small jump in gas prices before this big price fiasco we have now. So, actually, we're more in the hole now than last year considering the huge gas increase and additional state/local taxes. I don't see any progress in that regard.


Neither Florida nor Texas have state income taxes. And the gas prices are a totally seperate issue from taxes. If states recieve less money from taxes, they can either spend less, or ask their citizens for more money. In some cases they actually(shock of shocks) spend less.

themole
06-22-2004, 06:55 PM
The left always seems to get blamed for tax increases, ok, that's cool. The right gets a chance to "cut income taxes", that's cool also. However, after the taxes are "cut", the Fed turns around and cuts alot of $$$ that goes to the state, i guess to remain "solvent" of some sort. Then your local and state taxes have to go up to make up for that difference so in reality it is only a "paper tax cut" in that you get a bigger pay check and then turn around and give that back and more in other taxes. Our tax cut of last summer was eaten up in a small jump in gas prices before this big price fiasco we have now. So, actually, we're more in the hole now than last year considering the huge gas increase and additional state/local taxes. I don't see any progress in that regard.


Who Pays Taxes and How
Lemuel R. Boulware

EVERYONE is demanding a rapidly rising level of living. And most citizens expect their take to mount much faster than their contribution . . . with government paying the difference.

They seem vaguely to assume that government will recover most of its costs from a very few individuals or from the owners of business or from future generations or from some magic source. Public servants in both parties, as the price of getting and staying in office, are forced to appear to be getting a lot done, and trying to get a lot more done, in this direction demanded by the majority. But most citizens - including most college graduates -seem not to know where the money is to come from.

Government can and does get money in only two ways. The first is from current taxes assessed as taxes. The second is from what appears to be borrowing against future taxes. But most all such borrowing now turns promptly into the very current tax of inflation.

Government collects this money through both direct and indirect taxes. Both kinds wind up being paid almost entirely by consumers. But taxing consumers directly and visibly is unpopular and very bad politics. The electorate keeps forcing government to minimize direct taxes and collect its major revenue indirectly through taxes hidden in prices and collected from consumers in two ways.

The first is through the levies oil business which are erroneously believed by most citizens to be levies on the owners. These taxes are not and cannot be paid by the owners in any business that survives. They are merely collected for government by business in prices which have had to be increased enough to cover the hidden indirect tax.

The second way government collects money indirectly through consumer prices is by inflation which, historically and now, is simply a tax of the most deceitful, most brutal, and most debilitating kind. How it comes about is this:

Government does not dare tax to equal expenditures, because that would require disillusioning the majority of voters who believe something-for-nothing can be obtained for the many through government or other gang force.

So government borrows. If it can borrow from individuals with a proven history of paying back loans-this would not normally be inflationary since the arrangement is self-correcting. But government quickly finds it cannot borrow enough from individuals since they know government is on an inflationary course and will not pay back as much value as it borrows.

So government is forced to borrow from the banks. The money is put on deposit. This results in creation of new money to match the amount of the borrowing but not matched by any new supply of goods. This is politely called, "monetizing debt." Actually, it is just printing worthless money which is added to the existing supply and dilutes the value of existing dollars by just that much. The consumer pays his part of this as a hidden tax in every purchase thereafter.

So, who pays taxes? Everybody does. No few do or could supply the enormous sums which government is spending and which long since exceeded the total income of everybody west of the Mississippi.

Such huge taxes cannot be supplied from any few considered wealthy. Even the best-off 10 per cent of all families - down to include the $1,000 a month level pay only 28 per cent of the nation's tax bill. The rest has to come from the remaining 90 per cent of the population. These 180 million persons - while as a group receiving 85 per cent of benefits to individuals - have generally no idea they are themselves supplying 72 per cent of everything government spends.

The further down the income, savings, and even the relief scale a citizen is - that is, the poorer he is - the greater is the relative impact oil him of the taxes levied on business and of the tax of inflation levied on him through government cheapening his money.

Consumer tax and price problems are not solved by what appears to be a shift of the burden to business. Borrowing hardly delays at all their impact to the consumer. The only remedy to stop inflation is at its source. The best way to start is to cut out the futile and wasteful part of the government spending and to tax openly to match the remaining expenditures. Public servants will do this once they become convinced that a majority of their constitutents knows the facts and wants it done.

At the time of the original publication, Mr. Boulware, now retired is noted for his educational approach to industrial relations at General Electric. This article is excerpted by permission from The Truth About Boulwarism.

Reprinted with permission from The Freeman, a publication of the Foundation for Economic Education, Inc., December 1969, Vol. 19, No. 12.

ohall
06-22-2004, 07:17 PM
Oliver, maybe there's a valid reason for it. Who knows!!

There's a good reason for them lying to themself or for a left bias?

Oliver...

ltfinfan
06-23-2004, 10:18 AM
we have so many freedoms that we have time to log onto a message board and complain about all the freedoms we have lost :roflmao: