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 25 of 32 FirstFirst ... 152324252627 ... LastLast
Results 241 to 250 of 319

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

  1. #241
    Educator / Liar Champion ab9924's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Sharing time between UK and US.
    Last Seen
    11-19-12 @ 10:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    904

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    What the heck? Like it isn't already controlled by certain groups? Individual votes would mean a lot more if we got rid of the electorals. Voting would be super-important, and everyone would realize that. I am of the belief that there are SO MANY different "groups" out there with so many different beliefs, that this would not be a problem.

    What do you mean by "I am afraid that a majority status is never permanent, and that includes us too." Who is "us?"

    As to the rest of your post, I'm not sure what you're talking about. It has nothing to do with the rest of the world.
    So do you mean that if you were born in Rhode Island or Montana you would still not appreciate that the Electoral College elevates your votes before the much more populous Californians and New Yorkers vote you down constantly? Without the Electoral College, Bush would never have become president, for example.

    By "never permanent", I mean that every populous majority is permanent only within its world. But globalization keeps expanding everything, so the new players will "kill" them off. For example Austria-Hungary had the German-Hungarian majority, until globalization flooded them with Slavs and Romanians, today that country doesn't even exist. Or for another example, the Native American Comancheros(?) were a solid long term majority Texas group, but the white settler group eliminated them. We introduced the Chinese Exclusion Act to "defend" our group 100 years ago, but now there is nothing to stop that either.

    We white Americans may contain many political groups, yes, but now globalization have extended over us too, and external groups (e.g. the Chinese) can potentially make us history like the others above. Then, protecting group rights generally, and specifically the rights of the American identity against an international (Chinese?) majority will be the key for our survival.

    Does this logic work?

  2. #242
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    07-16-14 @ 01:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    47,571

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

    [QUOTE=ab9924;1061076933]
    So do you mean that if you were born in Rhode Island or Montana you would still not appreciate that the Electoral College elevates your votes before the much more populous Californians and New Yorkers vote you down constantly? Without the Electoral College, Bush would never have become president, for example.
    I am specifically talking about for presidential elections here, so I think that everybody is voting as an individual then it wouldn't really make much difference about the size and population of a state.

    By "never permanent", I mean that every populous majority is permanent only within its world. But globalization keeps expanding everything, so the new players will "kill" them off. For example Austria-Hungary had the German-Hungarian majority, until globalization flooded them with Slavs and Romanians, today that country doesn't even exist. Or for another example, the Native American Comancheros(?) were a solid long term majority Texas group, but the white settler group eliminated them. We introduced the Chinese Exclusion Act to "defend" our group 100 years ago, but now there is nothing to stop that either.
    That isn't globalization. That is immigration.

    We white Americans may contain many political groups, yes, but now globalization have extended over us too, and external groups (e.g. the Chinese) can potentially make us history like the others above. Then, protecting group rights generally, and specifically the rights of the American identity against an international (Chinese?) majority will be the key for our survival.
    I completely disagree with your above assessment, and how would you know if I am a white American? (I am, but how would you know that?)

    MOST of us are very sensitive to the needs of minority groups and would NEVER vote to intentionally harm a minority group.

  3. #243
    Pragmatic Idealist
    upsideguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rocky Mtn. High
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    10,126

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Lachean View Post
    Eliminate the electoral college, and VP running mates. 2nd place is VP. Just like the good ole days.
    Obama/Romney 2012?

  4. #244
    Educator / Liar Champion ab9924's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Sharing time between UK and US.
    Last Seen
    11-19-12 @ 10:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    904

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    I am specifically talking about for presidential elections here, so I think that everybody is voting as an individual then it wouldn't really make much difference about the size and population of a state.
    Your point is VERY interesting here, although I must admit that I don't fully understand it. Is it a fair assumption that your vote (individually) is as per how well you think your business will do under the 4 year administration of your candidate? If yes, then your vote is not really individual but a vote "of" the community that your supplier/buyer relationships operate under. I think the "indirect" half of the Founding Fathers had this particular circumstance with their lives and so they pushed for something like the Electoral College.

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    That isn't globalization. That is immigration.
    I agree, supporting an immigration of a neighbor group by undercutting domestic labor rates and having them live under a dollar-a-day over the border, will be suicideous to the host group's identity. (For example the white Los Angeles guys who are now a minority.)

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    I completely disagree with your above assessment, and how would you know if I am a white American? (I am, but how would you know that?)

    MOST of us are very sensitive to the needs of minority groups and would NEVER vote to intentionally harm a minority group.
    I just guessed that you are a white American because the USA is still ~70% white and your posts never mention non-white life experiences. HAHAHA People's identities shine through their thinking even without an explicit statement, and that's how it should be, instead of the modern popular aggressive assimilation.

    I would like to propose, that the word "minority" was invented in its legal and political sense, to isolate and assimilate lesser populous groups. I think it is interesting that the Electoral College is uniquely suited to halt that.

  5. #245
    Professor

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    08-19-14 @ 02:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,824

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

    Quote Originally Posted by H. Lee White View Post
    Exacrtly, how?
    He had the power to negotiate a treaty with France.
    The Senate ratified the treaty w/ France
    Congress, pursuant to its power to spend in providing for the general welfare, appropriated the money to send to France.

    Looks legit to me. Show me how the Constitution was ignored.
    Jefferson was authorized by Congress only to purchase New Orleans. Monroe saw the chance to double the size of the country, so he went far beyond what he was sent to France to do, knowing that Jefferson would approve. Later, when Monroe became President, he used General Andrew Jackson to do the same thing with Florida, "Take what you can get and we'll settle the Constitutionality later," knowing that Congress or the Supreme Court would back down if faced with an accomplished fact.

    The Federalists, who saddled us with this obstructive Constitution, were the chief opponents of the Louisiana Purchase. How does that make them look now?
    On the outside, trickling down on the insiders.
    We won't live free until the 1% live in fear.
    Hey, richboys! Imagine the boot of democracy stomping on your faces, forever.

  6. #246
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    The great lakes
    Last Seen
    06-12-13 @ 02:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    1,907

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

    Quote Originally Posted by PrometheusBound View Post
    Jefferson was authorized by Congress only to purchase New Orleans. Monroe saw the chance to double the size of the country, so he went far beyond what he was sent to France to do, knowing that Jefferson would approve.
    Did the senate ratify the treaty?
    Did congress appropriate the funds?
    If yes to both, then there's no issue.

  7. #247
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    01-27-15 @ 11:37 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,247

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

    Quote Originally Posted by PrometheusBound View Post
    The Federalists, who saddled us with this obstructive Constitution, were the chief opponents of the Louisiana Purchase. How does that make them look now?
    Sounds as if you're unhappy with the current compact between the states. Have you considered the possibility of getting your state to secede? Or at the very least to have your state interpose between you and the federal government and to nullify unwarranted acts by the general government?

  8. #248
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:31 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,935

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    direct democracy is a vote by the people on every issue, in a union our size, that is not possible, and it would destroy America.

    the founders have the electoral college, because the USA was not created as a democracy, but a republic, with a republican form of government, article 4 section 4 of the constitution, federalist paper #39 and 43.

    democracy is the enemy of man!...its shame most people do not know this.
    What most people know is the date on the wall calendar. That would be 2012 and not 1787.

    What most people know is that what fit in 1787 for that nation that no longer exists politically, economically or socially does NOT fit today.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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

  9. #249
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:31 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,935

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

    Quote Originally Posted by H. Lee White View Post
    Did the senate ratify the treaty?
    Did congress appropriate the funds?
    If yes to both, then there's no issue.

    You badly misunderstand the point that the poster was making. He was NOT trying to turn back the clock and invalidate the Louisiana Purchase made over 200 years ago. The poster was simply observing that the Federalists who claimed to be creating a government of very narrow limits were among the first to abandon their sacred principles of limited government when a very practical benefit arose in the real world necessitating that government go beyond their ideological confines.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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

  10. #250
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    01-27-15 @ 11:37 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,247

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

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    You badly misunderstand the point that the poster was making. He was NOT trying to turn back the clock and invalidate the Louisiana Purchase made over 200 years ago. The poster was simply observing that the Federalists who claimed to be creating a government of very narrow limits were among the first to abandon their sacred principles of limited government when a very practical benefit arose in the real world necessitating that government go beyond their ideological confines.
    Perhaps this is why, when the Nationalists were cooking up their power grab, patriots like Sam Adams nor Patrick Henry decided to stay home, with Patrick Henry famously stating, "I smell a rat."

    "Show me that age and country where the rights and liberties of the people were placed on the sole chance of their rulers being good men, without a consequent loss of liberty! I say that the loss of that dearest privilege has ever followed, with absolute certainty, every such mad attempt." -- Patrick Henry

Page 25 of 32 FirstFirst ... 152324252627 ... 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
  •