Something is wrong here.

[The Ressurrected One]

i just think that it's ridiculous that 50% of people don't vote in the presidential elections

and they don't vote because they don't feel it will count at all...like in texas, if you voted democrat, you might as well have smeared your feces all over the ballot...

something has to be done to make people feel that their votes count

will having a popular vote change the outcome of an election if it had been conducted using the electoral college...probably not. but at least people wouldn't waste their time ing (even righteously) about something they can't change.

also i think that presidents shouldn't run on a ticket with their vice-president, the runner-up in the election should be vice-president

I agree.

They can start by rescinding the 17th amendment. And, by the way, would you please find for me -- anywhere in the U.S. Cons ution -- where the people popularly elect a president?

In fact, the U.S. Cons ution states that the States will choose electors in whatever manner they want.

Quick lesson.

The People's representative in the federal government is, just like the name implies, your U.S. House of Representatives. The State's representative, until the 17th amendment was rammed through, were the Senators (read the original language of the Cons ution, pre-17th amendment), and the federal government's executive also called the President was to be chosen by the state's legislatures. That all of the states have chosen to elect their slate of electors by popular vote doesn't mean the founding fathers meant for that to be morphed into a national popular vote.

In fact, there is nothing keeping a state from changing the way it picks its electors -- except public opinion. Why do you think ties are thrown to the House of Representatives instead of a run-off?

[The Ressurrected One]

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under cir stances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief.
--alexander hamilton

"...against this mischief." He was speaking of the mischief of tumult and disorder, not totalitarianism.

[The Ressurrected One]

so in other words, the electoral college provides a voice for the minority? but, you are also opposing the democratic filibusters, which is in principle the same thing(protecting minority rights so the majority doesnt just trample all over). can you say, hypocrite?

Well, considering we're talking about an entire population who was never intended to decide national matters by majority versus our representative body who decides things based on a majority vote...I don't see your point.

But, thanks for changing the subject.

[The Ressurrected One]

Plus it's his precious electoral college that he is defending that grants california and new york more electoral votes combined than like 5 or 6 middle states!

and he also said somewhere "then they'd just focus on winning a few states"

they do do that!

If that were the case, Al Gore would have been President in 2000.

Yeah, right. In your daydreams.

[The Ressurrected One]

ha

Could you finish your thought...I'm not a mind reader.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Well, considering we're talking about an entire population who was never intended to decide national matters by majority versus our representative body who decides things based on a majority vote...I don't see your point.

But, thanks for changing the subject.

See, this is what i meant by thinking for myself in class. You were force fed this in school, but don't you just stop and think, WHY we need a small group of old rich men to decide what is good and what is not for us, when we ourselves can vote and tally those votes and decide what is good and not?

It seems to me like the electoral college is mainly just a built-in anti-civil war device. If everyone in north usa totally voted against bush, yet everyone in south usa voted for, then bush won, i can see north usa getting really pissed and starting , or vice versa.

Electoral college is good in that respect.

But, like pimpo said, its not about hometown prejudices any more. All the information we need to know is right at our fingertips to make an educated, mature decision of who we think the president should be. What value is there to voting so a small group of old men can decide what we meant for our votes or what they THINK we meant by the voting results?

I just can't understand how the true voice of america does not decide the vote, and how this is worse than an indirect voice of america

(unless we're just anti-Dens of Liberalism, in which case you have every right to be anti-vote)

[Cant_Be_Faded]

aint nobody here think we aint right but us

i mean

[jalbre6]

Yoni/TRO,

You posted once that you thought Bush was deserving of a spot on Mount Rushmore.

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthre...light=rushmore

Do you still feel that way, and why/why not? Thanks.

[The Ressurrected One]

See, this is what i meant by thinking for myself in class. You were force fed this in school, but don't you just stop and think, WHY we need a small group of old rich men to decide what is good and what is not for us, when we ourselves can vote and tally those votes and decide what is good and not?

Who says it has to be "old rich men." All politics are local. If we were selecting our federal government the way the founders had intended, the person picking your presidental elector and your U.S. Senator would come from your state representive district...Not your U.S. Congressman but your State Representative.

It seems to me like the electoral college is mainly just a built-in anti-civil war device. If everyone in north usa totally voted against bush, yet everyone in south usa voted for, then bush won, i can see north usa getting really pissed and starting , or vice versa.

Okay, no.

Electoral college is good in that respect.

The Electoral College is good in all respects.

But, like pimpo said, its not about hometown prejudices any more. All the information we need to know is right at our fingertips to make an educated, mature decision of who we think the president should be. What value is there to voting so a small group of old men can decide what we meant for our votes or what they THINK we meant by the voting results?

That's not the point. What part of "you were never intended to directly elect the president" don't you understand. He is an executive "hired" to run the federal government on behalf of the States.

I just can't understand how the true voice of america does not decide the vote, and how this is worse than an indirect voice of america

You do decide. Everytime you vote in a State District election or a U.S. Congressional Election (and now, sadly, a U.S. Senatorial election) you do decide.

The only thing you've lost, as a people, is that your home State no longer has a voice in the federal government.

(unless we're just anti-Dens of Liberalism, in which case you have every right to be anti-vote)

That's right...

[Cant_Be_Faded]

rofl rofl!!!!

[The Ressurrected One]

Yoni/TRO,

You posted once that you thought Bush was deserving of a spot on Mount Rushmore.

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthre...light=rushmore

Do you still feel that way, and why/why not? Thanks.

That's the way Yonivore felt and, yes, I agree.

I think history will judge President Bush as one of the greatest, if not the greatest, President of the last century.

In spite of his detractors, he's waged two successful wars, brought an impending recession under control, brought unemployment to 30 year lows all while a liberal press beat him up at every turn.

Yep, I think he'll end up there -- or at least should end up there -- in time.

[The Ressurrected One]

rofl rofl!!!!

You seem fond of saying that. I'm happy for you.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

so we were never meant to go against any amendments ressurected one?

we are forever locked in place by an amendment that was made in times that make today look like a sci fi movie?

and it is so like you to focus on the "rich white men" part of my opening sentence instead of what i was really trying to say

pwn3t

[Cant_Be_Faded]

because you seriously sound like Joe freaking Scarborough over here

you focus on side comments and never truely attack the main point of others arguments

[jalbre6]

That's the way Yonivore felt and, yes, I agree.

I think history will judge President Bush as one of the greatest, if not the greatest, President of the last century.

In spite of his detractors, he's waged two successful wars, brought an impending recession under control, brought unemployment to 30 year lows all while a liberal press beat him up at every turn.

Yep, I think he'll end up there -- or at least should end up there -- in time.

I don't agree with you much (if ever), but goddamn, you're consistent. And literate to boot. I admire that.

[jalbre6]

i still don't see how the press is 'liberal'

The definition of liberal has morphed from "those favoring reform and progress and tolerance of change" to "those that aren't conservatives and leave burning piles of dog poop on the White House doorstep".

[The Ressurrected One]

i never said the founding fathers intended for their to be a popular vote to elect the president.
the writers of the cons ution never dreamed of being able to disseminate information so quickly, efficiently, and broadly.

They never alluded to the electoral college being due to the slow dissemination of information. There is a wealth of information, from the period, that specifically points to the electoral college being a mechanism to thwart disproportionate representation by any of the colonies.

the electoral college was, in part, designed to protect the people from their own ignorance. this ignorance, they thought, would cause 'tumult and disorder' in the election of the president. they feared that an exceptionally engaging president would be able to take adavantage of ignorant voters and grab wholly their support.

I don't buy the concept but, if true, since this nation is now equally polarized and since we have at least one ethnic/cultural group throwing better than 90% of their vote to one party (in defiance of most statistical logic) -- tells me the population is still ignorant an in need of similar protections from themselves.

I don't know, you decide.

and there's nothing in the cons ution that says it couldn't be changed the writers obviously didn't think so, as soon as they finished the cons ution, they made 10 amendments

Only because the colonies wouldn't have ratified if they hadn't added those 10. Arguably, the remainder of the amendments were either unnecessary or unwarranted -- some, such as the 16th and 17th, may have been fraudulently ratified. But, those are other discussions.

do i think that making/repealing/revising an amendment to replace the electoral college with a popular vote will happen? probably not in my lifetime..but it is possible.

Well, it shouldn't...but, since the 17th amendment was added, there's a possibility.

and it's definitely not un-american to want a change in the cons ution.

As long as the change is needed.

i think that if the writers of the cons ution were aware of how informed the contemporary american public Could be, then they would not oppose a popular vote for the president.

Again, we're highly polarized...so, obviously about half of us aren't that well informed.

[The Ressurrected One]

i still don't see how the press is 'liberal'

I'm shocked! Start a thread and we'll discuss.

[mookie2001]

if GWB's name was John Harper do you think he would have even been considered a canidate for governer?
and you CANNOT say that bush didnt benefit from September 11th, thats the ONLY thing he ran on in 2004

[The Ressurrected One]

if GWB's name was John Harper do you think he would have even been considered a canidate for governer?

If John Harper had the record of business success and political savvy of GWB, yeah, he would have been considered.

and you CANNOT say that bush didnt benefit from September 11th, thats the ONLY thing he ran on in 2004

President Bush benefitted from his response to the September 11th attacks. Just as Franklin Delano Roosevelt benefitted from his response to the December 7, 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor.

If President Bush had fumbled the national response to September 11th, he would have lost in 2004. It's that simple. So, to respond, no September 11 didn't help Bush -- but how he responded did.

[The Ressurrected One]

business success...lol

Yep, he profitted handsomely from every venture in which he became involved. You've done better, I suppose?

I'm always amazed at those who would mock people that have far exceeded their own business accomplishments.

[The Ressurrected One]

lol
bush's business dealings are characteristically Shady

I think that's a characteristically liberal characterization. Give me some proof.

and his 'success' with the rangers was based on how they sucked so hard that someone bought it off them, for a handsome profit, of course

Seems smart to me. If you can buy low and sells high, that's the name of the game. Isn't it?

[mookie2001]

1. he had a pisspoor business record, no he wouldnt have coming close to running or even close to winning, if you dont believe that, then you really would give sean hannity a blowjob
2. he benefited from september 11th. period. he handled it by promising to catch OBL and then he did not. then he took away AMERICANS cons utional rights and has not given them back. then he handled it by invading another country for the wrong reason, then changing the reason, then changing the reason again, way to respond

but if you like unfulfilled promises, losing your cons utional rights and war under false pretenses and still voted for him, like you said most voters did, then you by voting him rewarded him for being president on september 11th 2001 by electing him to 4 more years

[jalbre6]

lol
bush's business dealings are characteristically Shady

and his 'success' with the rangers was based on how they sucked so hard that someone bought it off them, for a handsome profit, of course

Bush made a really cunning business move when purchasing the Rangers, whos value skyrocketed once he and the other owners made the city of Arlington build them a new park. They threatened to move the team first to Irving and then out of the area completely to either Tampa or Washington. The city of Arlington's mayor was an old Republican judge with a lot of money, and he successfully passed a sales tax increase off on the citizens of Arlington.

Bush paid in around $600,000 (most coming from a family loan) and sold out for around $14 million. His smartest move was selling before the team paid the city $7.5 million in their share of the stadium deal.

[The Ressurrected One]

That's one of the biggest problems with the arguments against George W. Bush...

...is that the fundamental article of faith, that he is a bad President, requires that he be both dumb and cunning.