Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital
Oh really? Then please explain why 9% of my state didn't vote for Nader on the Federal level?Aeolus wrote:The president is elected by the states not the people (except by proxie) Everyones vote counts in the election for the electors. We live in a FEDERAL system. That is not going to change.
No, you don't understand. At WORST removing the college will mean SOME smaller states won't see canadites more often. How the hell can it drone out their voices when EVERY vote is counted? My vote was already drowned out last election. How can things get any worse for me? Instead removal of the college would GIVE ME A VOICE. It would give EVERYONE a voice, not just the sole winner of that state.Aeolus wrote:You really don't understand how the electoral college gives the small states more power do you? It's been explained several times. Elimination of the college would not increase the voice of the small states...it would drowned out their voices entirely
Doesn't hurt us? My vote wasn't fucking counted last election thanks to the college. How does that HELP me?CelesKnight wrote:The popular vote winner typically wins the electoral college, and AFAIK the only times they haven't is when it's been really, really close. Unless that changes, the electoral college doesn't hurt us.
Boo Hoo Hoo. It's worked for over 227 years just fine. I say it worksAlyeska wrote: Doesn't hurt us? My vote wasn't fucking counted last election thanks to the college. How does that HELP me?
You voted for Nader he got 9% of the votes in your state. You were not voting for president. You were voting for how your state should vote. If you don't like the outcome, Campaign to change how YOUR state votes for electors. If enough people agree with you it will change. That is the only way to reform the college. The state will never approve of an amendment to force them to give up what little power they have.Alyeska wrote:Oh really? Then please explain why 9% of my state didn't vote for Nader on the Federal level?Aeolus wrote:The president is elected by the states not the people (except by proxie) Everyones vote counts in the election for the electors. We live in a FEDERAL system. That is not going to change.
The current system is set up to screw the minority group and it prevents the will of the people to be herd.
Because the voters in a single large city with URBAN desires neutralize every single voter in YOUR ENTIRE stateAlyeska wrote:No, you don't understand. At WORST removing the college will mean SOME smaller states won't see canadites more often. How the hell can it drone out their voices when EVERY vote is counted? My vote was already drowned out last election. How can things get any worse for me? Instead removal of the college would GIVE ME A VOICE. It would give EVERYONE a voice, not just the sole winner of that state.Aeolus wrote:You really don't understand how the electoral college gives the small states more power do you? It's been explained several times. Elimination of the college would not increase the voice of the small states...it would drowned out their voices entirely
You seem to be upset because Nader lost. He would have lost in a direct election also. He never had the slightest chance. The college helps your state as a whole, not necessarily you in particular.Alyeska wrote:Doesn't hurt us? My vote wasn't fucking counted last election thanks to the college. How does that HELP me?CelesKnight wrote:The popular vote winner typically wins the electoral college, and AFAIK the only times they haven't is when it's been really, really close. Unless that changes, the electoral college doesn't hurt us.
I am not upset that he lost. I didn't want him to win. I am upset my vote didn't count. I wanted to deny my vote to Bush and Gore and it didn't fucking count because Bush got the whole state.Aeolus wrote:You seem to be upset because Nader lost. He would have lost in a direct election also. He never had the slightest chance. The college helps your state as a whole, not necessarily you in particular.Alyeska wrote:Doesn't hurt us? My vote wasn't fucking counted last election thanks to the college. How does that HELP me?CelesKnight wrote:The popular vote winner typically wins the electoral college, and AFAIK the only times they haven't is when it's been really, really close. Unless that changes, the electoral college doesn't hurt us.
Are you fucking stupid or something? Right now the larger states COMPLETELY neutralize AND outstrip a smaller state. Removing the Electoral College means that they can NOT neutralize the small states because those who vote contrary to the majority of the state STILL get their votes counted.Aeolus wrote:Because the voters in a single large city with URBAN desires neutralize every single voter in YOUR ENTIRE state
But your vote did count..in the STATE election for electors. You don't actually vote for president.Alyeska wrote:I am not upset that he lost. I didn't want him to win. I am upset my vote didn't count. I wanted to deny my vote to Bush and Gore and it didn't fucking count because Bush got the whole state.Aeolus wrote:You seem to be upset because Nader lost. He would have lost in a direct election also. He never had the slightest chance. The college helps your state as a whole, not necessarily you in particular.Alyeska wrote: Doesn't hurt us? My vote wasn't fucking counted last election thanks to the college. How does that HELP me?
It counted where I did not care for it to count. I was voting for a predintial canadit, not some fucking stupid system.Aeolus wrote:But your vote did count..in the STATE election for electors. You don't actually vote for president.
Well that's how the constitution is written. It's worked well enough for over 200 years. It was and is a marvelous compromise between the rights of Big states and the small. If you do not approve it is your right to try and change it. But realistically it is impossible to force such an amendment down the throats of the small states. becauce as has been said several times already, it would take away what little power the small states have.Alyeska wrote:It counted where I did not care for it to count. I was voting for a predintial canadit, not some fucking stupid system.Aeolus wrote:But your vote did count..in the STATE election for electors. You don't actually vote for president.
What little power? The states don't need power, they should be giving it back to the people. Removing the Electoral College would give the people more power.Aeolus wrote:Well that's how the constitution is written. It's worked well enough for over 200 years. It was and is a marvelous compromise between the rights of Big states and the small. If you do not approve it is your right to try and change it. But realistically it is impossible to force such an amendment down the throats of the small states. becauce as has been said several times already, it would take away what little power the small states have.
1st. We are a FEDERAL UNIONAlyeska wrote:What little power? The states don't need power, they should be giving it back to the people. Removing the Electoral College would give the people more power.Aeolus wrote:Well that's how the constitution is written. It's worked well enough for over 200 years. It was and is a marvelous compromise between the rights of Big states and the small. If you do not approve it is your right to try and change it. But realistically it is impossible to force such an amendment down the throats of the small states. becauce as has been said several times already, it would take away what little power the small states have.
If that's the case, there's no point treating the states as anything other than administrative units of the national government.What little power? The states don't need power, they should be giving it back to the people. Removing the Electoral College would give the people more power.
I've thought for a while now that we should get rid of the ridiculous illusion that states are sovereign entities. It's been basically untrue since the Civil War, when it was decided that the states should do whatever the fuck the federal government tells them to do. We should just consolidate the damn things and call them "provinces" just like everyone else.Durran Korr wrote:If that's the case, there's no point treating the states as anything other than administrative units of the national government.What little power? The states don't need power, they should be giving it back to the people. Removing the Electoral College would give the people more power.
But they don't do everything the government tells them to do. If they did then there would not be a system of states. It would evidently collapse from useless activity. I don't understand why we should rename them to be anything. There's nothing wrong with the current system.Andrew J. wrote:I've thought for a while now that we should get rid of the ridiculous illusion that states are sovereign entities. It's been basically untrue since the Civil War, when it was decided that the states should do whatever the fuck the federal government tells them to do. We should just consolidate the damn things and call them "provinces" just like everyone else.Durran Korr wrote:If that's the case, there's no point treating the states as anything other than administrative units of the national government.What little power? The states don't need power, they should be giving it back to the people. Removing the Electoral College would give the people more power.
Then we would no longer be a republic but an empire.Andrew J. wrote:I've thought for a while now that we should get rid of the ridiculous illusion that states are sovereign entities. It's been basically untrue since the Civil War, when it was decided that the states should do whatever the fuck the federal government tells them to do. We should just consolidate the damn things and call them "provinces" just like everyone else.Durran Korr wrote:If that's the case, there's no point treating the states as anything other than administrative units of the national government.What little power? The states don't need power, they should be giving it back to the people. Removing the Electoral College would give the people more power.
Great idea. Because as we all know, the United States is exactly the same from coast to coast, and the people in California should have a say in, say, criminal law in Nebraska, or the speed limit in New Hampshire. There's exactly one right way to do everything, and Washington is the best place to decide how everyone in the country does it.Andrew J. wrote:I've thought for a while now that we should get rid of the ridiculous illusion that states are sovereign entities. It's been basically untrue since the Civil War, when it was decided that the states should do whatever the fuck the federal government tells them to do. We should just consolidate the damn things and call them "provinces" just like everyone else.Durran Korr wrote:If that's the case, there's no point treating the states as anything other than administrative units of the national government.What little power? The states don't need power, they should be giving it back to the people. Removing the Electoral College would give the people more power.
No one wants to eliminate the soverignty of states. We just want to poplace to have more say in the election of the president, and a creation of a fairer system for presidential election. Everything else about our Federal system can remain the exactly the same.z020898 wrote:Alyeska, I could be misunderstanding you but to me your primary point seems to be that the president is the head of the country and therefore should be directly elected by the people because that is the meaning of democracy. Thus the president is the equivalent of the Governor of New Hampshire and should be elected in the same manner over the area he represents.
This is a good argument if you accept the premise that the U.S. is unified in the same way that New Hampshire is unified. The problem with this precedent is that the states are not equivalent to counties on the state level. They are rather semi-sovereign entities who have given a certain amount of power to the government but can act on there own without its permission. This status as semi-sovereign is the reason for formalities like the extradition request when a person is arrested in one state and is wanted in another state for trial. This is why the constitution sets up the Electoral College instead of calling for the direct election of the president.
If you object to this view of the U.S. as a collection of semi-sovereign bodies and for this reason object to the Electoral College you are not arguing for a minor change in U.S. electoral law but a massive change in how the U.S. government operates and is viewed by its people. If you think the federal government should not have the right to decide, how your children are educated, what the punishment in your town is for shoplifting, or rather three felonies means you spend the rest of your life in jail then this interpretation of how the U.S. government works is good. If you do not think the federal government should be involved in every aspect of your life then you want the U.S. as a group of semi-sovereign states and need a better rational for your opposition to the Electoral Collage.
But if you take away the right of the states to choose how they pick electors you undermine the whole concept of federalismLord MJ wrote:No one wants to eliminate the soverignty of states. We just want to poplace to have more say in the election of the president, and a creation of a fairer system for presidential election. Everything else about our Federal system can remain the exactly the same.z020898 wrote:Alyeska, I could be misunderstanding you but to me your primary point seems to be that the president is the head of the country and therefore should be directly elected by the people because that is the meaning of democracy. Thus the president is the equivalent of the Governor of New Hampshire and should be elected in the same manner over the area he represents.
This is a good argument if you accept the premise that the U.S. is unified in the same way that New Hampshire is unified. The problem with this precedent is that the states are not equivalent to counties on the state level. They are rather semi-sovereign entities who have given a certain amount of power to the government but can act on there own without its permission. This status as semi-sovereign is the reason for formalities like the extradition request when a person is arrested in one state and is wanted in another state for trial. This is why the constitution sets up the Electoral College instead of calling for the direct election of the president.
If you object to this view of the U.S. as a collection of semi-sovereign bodies and for this reason object to the Electoral College you are not arguing for a minor change in U.S. electoral law but a massive change in how the U.S. government operates and is viewed by its people. If you think the federal government should not have the right to decide, how your children are educated, what the punishment in your town is for shoplifting, or rather three felonies means you spend the rest of your life in jail then this interpretation of how the U.S. government works is good. If you do not think the federal government should be involved in every aspect of your life then you want the U.S. as a group of semi-sovereign states and need a better rational for your opposition to the Electoral Collage.
Umm no, because electors are not essential to concept of Federalism.Aeolus wrote:But if you take away the right of the states to choose how they pick electors you undermine the whole concept of federalismLord MJ wrote:No one wants to eliminate the soverignty of states. We just want to poplace to have more say in the election of the president, and a creation of a fairer system for presidential election. Everything else about our Federal system can remain the exactly the same.z020898 wrote:Alyeska, I could be misunderstanding you but to me your primary point seems to be that the president is the head of the country and therefore should be directly elected by the people because that is the meaning of democracy. Thus the president is the equivalent of the Governor of New Hampshire and should be elected in the same manner over the area he represents.
This is a good argument if you accept the premise that the U.S. is unified in the same way that New Hampshire is unified. The problem with this precedent is that the states are not equivalent to counties on the state level. They are rather semi-sovereign entities who have given a certain amount of power to the government but can act on there own without its permission. This status as semi-sovereign is the reason for formalities like the extradition request when a person is arrested in one state and is wanted in another state for trial. This is why the constitution sets up the Electoral College instead of calling for the direct election of the president.
If you object to this view of the U.S. as a collection of semi-sovereign bodies and for this reason object to the Electoral College you are not arguing for a minor change in U.S. electoral law but a massive change in how the U.S. government operates and is viewed by its people. If you think the federal government should not have the right to decide, how your children are educated, what the punishment in your town is for shoplifting, or rather three felonies means you spend the rest of your life in jail then this interpretation of how the U.S. government works is good. If you do not think the federal government should be involved in every aspect of your life then you want the U.S. as a group of semi-sovereign states and need a better rational for your opposition to the Electoral Collage.
I would say they were rather integral to the concept. The President is elected by a vote of all the states. The states vote based on the electors, the electors are choosen by the people. If you take away the right of the states to choose how they pick thier electorsyou are weakening the states power over the executive branch..and therefore the courts. Then all they would have left would be the Senate.Lord MJ wrote:Umm no, because electors are not essential to concept of Federalism.Aeolus wrote:But if you take away the right of the states to choose how they pick electors you undermine the whole concept of federalismLord MJ wrote: No one wants to eliminate the soverignty of states. We just want to poplace to have more say in the election of the president, and a creation of a fairer system for presidential election. Everything else about our Federal system can remain the exactly the same.
