• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Amendment to get rid of the Electoral College?

Should Congress create an amendment to get rid of the Electoral College?

  • Yes

    Votes: 15 36.6%

  • No

    Votes: 19 46.3%

  • Yes, but it could never get passed.

    Votes: 4 9.8%

  • I have no opinion.

    Votes: 3 7.3%
  • Total voters
    41
stekim said:
Yes they do. You can try and get all technical, but the electors from the states vote for who the people in the state vote for. Might as well finish the job right and just get rid of electors completely. As for my thoughts on Democracy, I agree with you. It's overrated. But if you are going to do it, just do it. The fact someone can get more votes and lose is nothing short of a total joke.
Click to expand...

Work out the mechanics of the process some day and get back to us.

For some strange reason the Al Gore team, in addition to trying to manufacture votes in Floriduh! was also trying to get Electoral College Electors supposedly dedicated to Bush to switch and cast their vote for Gore. Why would Al Gore try that kind of underhanded trick if the electors were constrained to vote for the "winner takes all" candidate? Answer: The electors are chosen by the victorious party, but their votes are still their votes.

If you're going to insist on being ignorant about how the EC works, can you at least be silent about your ignorance?
 
In truth, our health care has become too expensive for all but the most wealthy. To say that most Americans do not want the government to "meddle" is true.. No body wants "meddling"....Its also true that most of us are not wealthy, and do want something done....and who better than our federal government, to bypass the AMA and lawyers.
My idea is a pay as you go system and insurance only for catastrophes (cancer, polio, serious accidents, ect).
It is the insurance and its misuse by the people and the doctors that has caused medical care to be so damned expensive. Also, we must get rid of the lawyers and the AMA...this would help...talk about two impossible tasks...
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Oh.

So you're not in the United States, then. Good for you. Where is this "free capitalist" society you're referring to?
Click to expand...

Oh please, this is hardly a socialist government Scarecrow. Almost every President since John Adams has broken the Constitution in someway, and we still survive.
 
pro-bipartisan said:
How did Clinton run up the debt? Oh yeah, he didn't. Besides, how does debt violate the Constitution? You're such an idiot.
Click to expand...


Civility a must ??
This seems to mean nothing.
Remember , the Scarecrow is a conservative.
 
earthworm said:
Civility a must ??
This seems to mean nothing.
Remember , the Scarecrow is a conservative.
Click to expand...

Your right, sorry. If he is a conservative why does he state Republican beliefs are unconstitutional?
 
Three more questions for you:
1. How does two president's actions represent every Democrat when there has been a lot more than 2 democratic presidents?
2. What do Republicans believe in that violates the Constitution (since you said republican beliefs violate the Constitution)?
3. What does the Constitutionality of these two parties beliefs have to do with the poll?
 
pro-bipartisan said:
How did Clinton run up the debt? Oh yeah, he didn't. Besides, how does debt violate the Constitution? You're such an idiot.
Click to expand...


Oh, yes, he did.

The national debt increased EVERY SINGLE YEAR under his regime, accounting gimmicks using FICA revenues in the operating funds without substracting the corresponding debts incurred is an accounting scam that would put accountants in the commercial world in jail, but dupes find it acceptable when their government does it. Stupid dupes, don't they know that tricks are for prostitutes, not accountants?

Clinton took the defense savings from the former presidents' victory in the Cold War and spent them on more socialist BS, instead of allowing the savings to show in the budget. He then took the savings from successfully paying off the Savings and Loan snafu, on which he profitted, and spent those, instead of reducing government spending by that much. Two MAJOR multi-hundred billion dollar savings events simply redirected into more perpetual government spending by the Democrats' Rapist Co-Presidency.

So, no, the rapist impeached pervert corrupt president wasn't any good at all.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Oh, yes, he did.

The national debt increased EVERY SINGLE YEAR under his regime, accounting gimmicks using FICA revenues in the operating funds without substracting the corresponding debts incurred is an accounting scam that would put accountants in the commercial world in jail, but dupes find it acceptable when their government does it. Stupid dupes, don't they know that tricks are for prostitutes, not accountants?

Clinton took the defense savings from the former presidents' victory in the Cold War and spent them on more socialist BS, instead of allowing the savings to show in the budget. He then took the savings from successfully paying off the Savings and Loan snafu, on which he profitted, and spent those, instead of reducing government spending by that much. Two MAJOR multi-hundred billion dollar savings events simply redirected into more perpetual government spending by the Democrats' Rapist Co-Presidency.

So, no, the rapist impeached pervert corrupt president wasn't any good at all.
Click to expand...

You obviously don't know what rape is; anyways, look at this link U.S. National Debt Graph: Since Great Depression it proves the debt went down under Clinton especially since you have no substance to back up your claims.
 
pro-bipartisan said:
Three more questions for you:
1. How does two president's actions represent every Democrat when there has been a lot more than 2 democratic presidents?
Click to expand...

Because you people really really do not want to get started on a discussion of That Idiot Carter.

pro-bipartisan said:
2. What do Republicans believe in that violates the Constitution (since you said republican beliefs violate the Constitution)?
Click to expand...

Republicans are mostly Democrats without the steroids.

pro-bipartisan said:
3. What does the Constitutionality of these two parties beliefs have to do with the poll?
Click to expand...

Damn if I know, how's about you go back and trace the question back to where it appeared in the thread, since that will provide the clear answer. Mostly it's because the EC is the last chance the republic has to stop an unconstitutional slimy bastard from getting into office. As I said, it saved us from Gore, so it's still useful.
 
pro-bipartisan said:
You obviously don't know what rape is;
Click to expand...

You mean, when a businesswoman starting a nursing is invited for a one-on-one meeting with the Attorney General of her state, the man who has supreme investigatory authority over her business, and she is then visciously attacked, including having the AG bite her lip and force his penis into her unwilling vagina, that's not what you call "rape"?

I call that rape.

You'd call that rape, except your boy Clinton did it.
 
pro-bipartisan said:
Look at the link.
Click to expand...

Did.

Amazing how statisticians can manipulate data to produce a lie, isn't it?


You are aware that normalizing "national debt" in terms of a variably increasing term such as GDP can only be used to indicate that "national debt" as a function of that variable becomes a decreasing fraction thereof, without once making any factual statement in regards to the actually monetary value of that debt at any time, aren't you?

Remember, figures don't lie, but liars can figure, and ain't no bigger liar than political hacks trying to show what it bad is good, and there was never a bigger liar in office than Clinton.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Did.

Amazing how statisticians can manipulate data to produce a lie, isn't it?


You are aware that normalizing "national debt" in terms of a variably increasing term such as GDP can only be used to indicate that "national debt" as a function of that variable becomes a decreasing fraction thereof, without once making any factual statement in regards to the actually monetary value of that debt at any time, aren't you?

Remember, figures don't lie, but liars can figure, and ain't no bigger liar than political hacks trying to show what it bad is good, and there was never a bigger liar in office than Clinton.
Click to expand...

So do you have any links to back up your claims or not?
 
pro-bipartisan said:
So do you have any links to back up your claims or not?
Click to expand...

Nope, not gonna bother scaring up a single one. I demolished yours, that's good enough. Run along and find a national debt graph that shows debt for nothing but inflation adjusted dollars.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
No, it was my way of stating facts.

Using honest accounting methods, and honest graphs, the national debt hasn't gone down since That Idiot Carter began growing it.
Click to expand...

There's no point of you saying something if you have nothing to back it up.
 
jamesrage said:
So that is a yes you do not mind NewYork or some other densely populated liberal state deciding laws that impact your state.
Click to expand...

Here I will use an example to demonstrate the flaws in the electoral system.
(numbers are fictitious)


CA has 40 million people and are granted 20 electoral votes.
NE has 35 million people and are granted 18 electoral votes.

In the 2012 elections only 8 million in CA vote with 6 million voting for candidate (A).
In NE 25 million people vote and 20 million vote for cadidate (B).

So altho cadidate (B) got far more votes cadidate (A) still won by eletoral votes.


So essentially we are making one persons vote less valuable then someone elses. Not to mention super delegates.
 
pro-bipartisan said:
There's no point of you saying something if you have nothing to back it up.
Click to expand...

But I did back it up.

Facts do not require links to internet blog sites for confirmation, your efforts to the contrary notwithstanding.

Now you need to learn some of the generally accepted rules of accounting, and you need to pay attention to what was done to reveal the non-existent Clinton "surplus", and then you need to ask, why weren't those people put in jail?

It's not my job to keep a catalogue of every fact ever to satisfy your ignorance, nor am I required to keep links to active web pages that echo those facts for your edification. I pointed out the lie you were unwittingly repeating, I pointed out the fallacies in the cute little graph you eagerly presented up as proof for what you said, and I pointed out how you could improve your knowledge of what's real and be less gullible in the future. You don't have to work to improve yourself, it's not my problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom