View Poll Results: Keep Electoral College or have direct elections?

Voters
107. You may not vote on this poll
  • The Electoral College works, keep it.

    46 42.99%
  • The presidency should be determined by direct national vote.

    49 45.79%
  • IDK/Other

    12 11.21%
Page 17 of 32 FirstFirst ... 7151617181927 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 319

Thread: Time for direct democracy - end electorial college?[W:193]

  1. #161
    Anti political parties
    FreedomFromAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    New Mexico USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,056

    re: Time for direct democracy - end electorial college?[W:193]

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    NO. YOu are absolutely incorrect. Here is a plethora of definitions of DIRECT DEMOCRACY for you. If these are not enough I will try to find a myriad of more definitions:


    As you can see over and over over again in these is the key component of the citizenry passing laws and public policy themselves without the benefit of representatives or officials as any sort of middle man.
    Thats strange I dont remember claiming that direct democracy involved someone other than the people voting. Im not sure why you felt it necessary to point that out.

    It is also strange that you are telling me that I am wrong. Let me give you a simple example: Say there is a vote on something and there are 100 people voting (people not whatever it is that you were trying to say). They go to the polls and vote, in a yer or no format. After counting the votes the results were 75 yeses ans 25 no's. The yeses win because that is what the majority of the 100 people voted for.

    Are you claiming that the minority wins that the 25 votes were the winners? After if I am wrong then you are saying that the majority vote does not win. Perhaps you should have looked up the word vote as well.

    Vote | Define Vote at Dictionary.com


    vote   
    noun
    1.a formal expression of opinion or choice, either positive or negative, made by an individual or body of individuals.
    2.the means by which such expression is made, as a ballot, ticket, etc.
    3.the right to such expression: to give women the vote.
    4.the decision reached by voting, as by a majority of ballots cast: The vote was for the resolution.
    5.a collective expression of will as inferred from a number of votes: the labor vote.


    lol But I think that you are using a different definition for majority rule, most likely the one that insists the the must be a 50% or higher majority to validate a win. I didnt mention the majority in that context and you would do good by making sure of the facts before telling people that they are wrong.

    WHat we are actually talking about though is popular rule. Which still can disenfranchise a minority of the voting public. If those 100 people were voting on taking away the rights of the 25 people who voted no then there was nothing that the 25 people could do.

  2. #162
    Frankernaut peepnklown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    10-16-15 @ 04:01 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    607

    re: Time for direct democracy - end electorial college?[W:193]

    It is truly sad that federalism and republicanism are almost forgotten in modern times. It is all about the separation of powers and checks and balances to diffuse power. The people created the states and then the states created the federal government. The original design of the American Republic was for the Congress to be the dominant branch of government. The people elected/controlled The House and the states elected/controlled The Senate. The president was not meant to be an all-powerful executive nor is an executive of the people per say, the president the limited executive of the federal government. The states created the federal government to mainly manage foreign affairs and very limited domestic affairs. Thus, when it came to the president, the states elected him via the Electoral College…the states would get the opinion of the people via the general election. The EC also helps give power to the small states which would be dominated by the more populous states.
    It’s all about diffusing power. Now if we could eliminate the 17th Amendment and get back to basics.
    'The whole universe is going to die!'

  3. #163
    Sage
    German guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Last Seen
    08-24-17 @ 06:57 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    5,187

    re: Time for direct democracy - end electorial college?[W:193]

    Quote Originally Posted by H. Lee White View Post
    Not sure that you understand this...
    No one's vote counts. No one's. No one has a right to vote for President, and the people do not elect the President.
    Oh, I understand that. I'm just saying I wouldn't be satisfied with that situation if I were American.
    "Not learning from mistakes is worse than committing mistakes. When you don't allow yourself to make mistakes, it is hard to be tolerant of others and it does not allow even God to be merciful."

  4. #164
    Sage
    AliHajiSheik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,390

    Time for direct democracy - end electorial college?

    Quote Originally Posted by German guy View Post
    Oh, I understand that. I'm just saying I wouldn't be satisfied with that situation if I were American.
    How many countries have the people directly elect the Prime Minister? Not any that I know of.
    People in Dubai don't like the Flintstones but people in Abu Dhabi do

  5. #165
    Sage
    German guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Last Seen
    08-24-17 @ 06:57 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    5,187

    re: Time for direct democracy - end electorial college?[W:193]

    Quote Originally Posted by AliHajiSheik View Post
    How many countries have the people directly elect the Prime Minister? Not any that I know of.
    Oh, there are quite a few countries which directly elect the President. For example France and Poland.

    When you are referring to parliamentary systems, you are comparing apples with oranges. America doesn't have a parliamentary, but a presidential system.
    "Not learning from mistakes is worse than committing mistakes. When you don't allow yourself to make mistakes, it is hard to be tolerant of others and it does not allow even God to be merciful."

  6. #166
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    01-22-17 @ 09:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    4,136

    re: Time for direct democracy - end electorial college?[W:193]

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    Direct democracy DOES NOT MEAN majority rule. Never has.
    Only in this country. In countries with proportional representation, it does.

  7. #167
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:22 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    90,061

    re: Time for direct democracy - end electorial college?[W:193]

    Quote Originally Posted by ReformCollege View Post
    Only in this country. In countries with proportional representation, it does.
    We are talking about this country. And what we have in this country is a representative democracy bound by a Constitution.

    We DO NOT have direct democracy. Never have. Majority rule is NOT direct democracy.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  8. #168
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    01-22-17 @ 09:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    4,136

    re: Time for direct democracy - end electorial college?[W:193]

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    We are talking about this country. And what we have in this country is a representative democracy bound by a Constitution.

    We DO NOT have direct democracy. Never have. Majority rule is NOT direct democracy.
    Absolutely we don't. Thank goodness.

  9. #169
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 01:26 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,997

    re: Time for direct democracy - end electorial college?[W:193]

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    First of all, the Senate is part of Congress. To say "in both the Senate and the Congress" is factually incorrect. You could say in the Senate and the House of Representatives. The term CONGRESS takes in both of those parts of the national legislative branch.
    Pedantic. Nothing but a distraction.
    But let me stroke your ego. Yes, you are correct.
    And yet, in common parlance, it is ok to distinguish between the two by doing such.


    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    Secondly, Could you explain to us how that would work exactly? Tell us how the remainder of the American people would tolerate and accept that sort of thing where political representation is given to an area with not one person to politically represent. And tell us who exactly would do that actual representing in Congress in nobody lived in that state to qualify for the ballot? And tell us how those persons would get elected without any votes cast for them?
    Red hearing. Just another distraction.
    I see your red hearing and raise you one of my own.
    Show that the State would remain unpopulated for it to be of any concern.


    Regardless. It doesn't matter. What was previously said was factually correct.



    The Electors represent the State as an entity, not the people.
    Just because a State allows the people to vote on it, doesn't mean they have to (by The Constitution), or even should.
    Which is why the State can choose how they want the Electors to vote.

    The People are represented by The House of Representatives.
    The States were supposed to be represented by the Senate.
    A compromise of Electors was done for the President who represents the Union of the States.


    The biggest problem with this set-up is that most are not educated on the subject and want it to change because they do not know why it was set up in the first place. They do not understand that their state chose to allow them to vote for who the Electors choose.
    And the few who do know and disagree, is because it favors their political belief system and is advantageous to their party.





    Quote Originally Posted by MadLib View Post
    I don't like the idea of some people's vote not counting at ALL because of the Electoral College.

    Which do you think is worse?
    It isn't because of the Electoral College, it is because of the Constitution.
    You don't like the constitution?
    You don't understand that the State as a separate entity needs to be represented also?

  10. #170
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:22 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    90,061

    re: Time for direct democracy - end electorial college?[W:193]

    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post

    Yes, you are correct.
    And yet, in common parlance, it is ok to distinguish between the two by doing such.


    [COLOR="#442244"]Red hearing. Just another distraction.
    I see your red hearing and raise you one of my own.
    Show that the State would remain unpopulated for it to be of any concern.


    Regardless. It doesn't matter. What was previously said was factually correct.


    That is quite a post you have going there. It is not often we see somebody admit that the other side was right about an issue and then in the same post state that they were wrong at the same time on the same issue in a pathetic effort to save face.

    I taught government for 33 years and if a student had provided the answers you did on a test they would have failed because they are factually and materially INCORRECT. And parlance be damned. Things are what they are and that is called reality.

    Lets look at what you did to get yourself painted into this corner:

    Originally Posted by haymarket
    The so called State as an entity is meaningless and irrelevant without the citizens who live in it. As such, they ARE the State.
    Incorrect.
    your reply
    They would still be a State without the people, and would still be represented in both the Senate and Congress.
    Now you ask me to show why a state would be unpopulated and call it a "red hearing" (sic). Just like your basic mistake with what Congress is, you may want to find out what is the difference between crimson aural abilities and a scarlet fish. But beyond that, I have to tell you nothing regarding why a state would remain unpopulated. YOU are the one who made the contention and as such I have no obligation to help you get out of the corner you trapped yourself into.

    That is enough of an answer for you.

    Because I feel magnanimous today I could think of several very practical and possible scenarios why a state could become unpopulated involving nuclear damage or contamination making it uninhabitable, ocean levels rising and leaving it under water or any number of other disasters which would render the area unlivable.

    But again - the empty state was your scenario - not mine.
    The empty state without any people but holding elections or even formulating a process to pick electors was your scenario - not mine.

    I asked you several questions about this empty state with no population which you were unable to give truthful answers to:

    Could you explain to us how that would work exactly?
    your answer:
    The Electors represent the State as an entity, not the people.
    Which ignores the situation you created and to which I responded to: a State without any people cannot have and people to become Electors. Its a perfect Catch 22 of your own making. I did not create the scenario - you did. I did not make the claim about an unpopulated state - you did.

    my question to you about this unpopulated state
    Tell us how the remainder of the American people would tolerate and accept that sort of thing where political representation is given to an area with not one person to politically represent?

    You would not even touch that one with its obvious real world implications. I guess abstract theory is more to your liking?

    my question to you about this unpopulated state
    And tell us who exactly would do that actual representing in Congress in nobody lived in that state to qualify for the ballot?
    You stayed away from that very real world problem also. As you did with the next question posed to you about this unpopulated state

    And tell us how those persons would get elected without any votes cast for them?

    But after all that you still insist

    Regardless. It doesn't matter. What was previously said was factually correct.
    You failed to take one baby step to counter the obstacles raised against your empty state proposition but still insist you are right even though you admitted you were wrong. Amazing.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

Page 17 of 32 FirstFirst ... 7151617181927 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •