Don't click or your IP will be banned


Hittin' The Web with the Allman Brothers Band Forum
You are not logged in

< Last Thread   Next Thread ><<  1    2    3  >>Ascending sortDescending sorting  
Author: Subject: Is the Electoral College fair ???

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 20943
(20942 all sites)
Registered: 6/15/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/27/2012 at 10:36 PM
quote:
It is fair because The US is a republic, not a democracy.

changing the constitution is risky business




Agreed. And not only a Republic but a Republic of 50 separate sovereign states.

 

____________________

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 25201
(25201 all sites)
Registered: 9/7/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/29/2012 at 11:17 AM
quote:
quote:
It is fair because The US is a republic, not a democracy.

changing the constitution is risky business




Agreed. And not only a Republic but a Republic of 50 separate sovereign states.


not quite so sovereign after the Civil War.

 

____________________
Keep on Smiling


 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 20943
(20942 all sites)
Registered: 6/15/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/29/2012 at 11:28 AM
quote:
quote:
quote:
It is fair because The US is a republic, not a democracy.

changing the constitution is risky business




Agreed. And not only a Republic but a Republic of 50 separate sovereign states.


not quite so sovereign after the Civil War.




The Civil War decided the question of whether the Union is voluntary. It is not. The 14th Amendment ensured that the bill of rights was applicable to the states. The States are still fully sovereign except for the powers specifically given to the Federal government by the Constitution. The primary thing distinguishing many conservatives from liberals is that conservatives tend to still believe strongly in the federal structure set up by the Constitution.

 

____________________

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 25201
(25201 all sites)
Registered: 9/7/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/29/2012 at 02:50 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
It is fair because The US is a republic, not a democracy.

changing the constitution is risky business




Agreed. And not only a Republic but a Republic of 50 separate sovereign states.


not quite so sovereign after the Civil War.




The Civil War decided the question of whether the Union is voluntary. It is not. The 14th Amendment ensured that the bill of rights was applicable to the states. The States are still fully sovereign except for the powers specifically given to the Federal government by the Constitution. The primary thing distinguishing many conservatives from liberals is that conservatives tend to still believe strongly in the federal structure set up by the Constitution.


From a historical standpoint, more power (money) is controlled by the Federal Gov't after the civil war.

I don't think the Medical Marijuana growers in California are feeling very sovereign.



 

____________________
Keep on Smiling


 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 20943
(20942 all sites)
Registered: 6/15/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/29/2012 at 04:03 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
It is fair because The US is a republic, not a democracy.

changing the constitution is risky business




Agreed. And not only a Republic but a Republic of 50 separate sovereign states.


not quite so sovereign after the Civil War.




The Civil War decided the question of whether the Union is voluntary. It is not. The 14th Amendment ensured that the bill of rights was applicable to the states. The States are still fully sovereign except for the powers specifically given to the Federal government by the Constitution. The primary thing distinguishing many conservatives from liberals is that conservatives tend to still believe strongly in the federal structure set up by the Constitution.


From a historical standpoint, more power (money) is controlled by the Federal Gov't after the civil war.

I don't think the Medical Marijuana growers in California are feeling very sovereign.






Of course you are right. And there are many who do not believe in any limitation on Federal power at all. But the Constitution says the Federal government has limited powers. Anything not specifically allocated to the Federal government is reserved for the States. Most conservatives do not hate government. They just want it limited to its core function, particularly the federal government.

 

____________________

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 25201
(25201 all sites)
Registered: 9/7/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/30/2012 at 12:36 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
It is fair because The US is a republic, not a democracy.

changing the constitution is risky business




Agreed. And not only a Republic but a Republic of 50 separate sovereign states.


not quite so sovereign after the Civil War.




The Civil War decided the question of whether the Union is voluntary. It is not. The 14th Amendment ensured that the bill of rights was applicable to the states. The States are still fully sovereign except for the powers specifically given to the Federal government by the Constitution. The primary thing distinguishing many conservatives from liberals is that conservatives tend to still believe strongly in the federal structure set up by the Constitution.


From a historical standpoint, more power (money) is controlled by the Federal Gov't after the civil war.

I don't think the Medical Marijuana growers in California are feeling very sovereign.






Of course you are right. And there are many who do not believe in any limitation on Federal power at all. But the Constitution says the Federal government has limited powers. Anything not specifically allocated to the Federal government is reserved for the States. Most conservatives do not hate government. They just want it limited to its core function, particularly the federal government.


You need to regulate business function because the greed heads will act against their own best interests and crash the economy requiring a socialist bailout. Greenspan was wrong and even he admits it.

Small businesses will mix meningitis virus
into steroid injections even after they have been warned about bad practices because of no regulatory function. Has the Tea Party noticed??

We need less regulation of our own bodies and the choices we make with them. but busting folks for drugs and locking them up is big business for cops and jailers, even if we have more young black men in jail than under South African apartheid! And contract out jailing functions with population guaranties. How's that for freedom?

The Eisenhower conservative ethic has morphed into this modern conservatism that is more about making a buck, than conserving our constitution and american standards of living.
Damn the cost to our environment and our citizen's standard of living. Not my problem.

IMO

 

____________________
Keep on Smiling


 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 20943
(20942 all sites)
Registered: 6/15/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/30/2012 at 04:23 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
It is fair because The US is a republic, not a democracy.

changing the constitution is risky business




Agreed. And not only a Republic but a Republic of 50 separate sovereign states.


not quite so sovereign after the Civil War.




The Civil War decided the question of whether the Union is voluntary. It is not. The 14th Amendment ensured that the bill of rights was applicable to the states. The States are still fully sovereign except for the powers specifically given to the Federal government by the Constitution. The primary thing distinguishing many conservatives from liberals is that conservatives tend to still believe strongly in the federal structure set up by the Constitution.


From a historical standpoint, more power (money) is controlled by the Federal Gov't after the civil war.

I don't think the Medical Marijuana growers in California are feeling very sovereign.






Of course you are right. And there are many who do not believe in any limitation on Federal power at all. But the Constitution says the Federal government has limited powers. Anything not specifically allocated to the Federal government is reserved for the States. Most conservatives do not hate government. They just want it limited to its core function, particularly the federal government.


You need to regulate business function because the greed heads will act against their own best interests and crash the economy requiring a socialist bailout. Greenspan was wrong and even he admits it.

Small businesses will mix meningitis virus
into steroid injections even after they have been warned about bad practices because of no regulatory function. Has the Tea Party noticed??

We need less regulation of our own bodies and the choices we make with them. but busting folks for drugs and locking them up is big business for cops and jailers, even if we have more young black men in jail than under South African apartheid! And contract out jailing functions with population guaranties. How's that for freedom?

The Eisenhower conservative ethic has morphed into this modern conservatism that is more about making a buck, than conserving our constitution and american standards of living.
Damn the cost to our environment and our citizen's standard of living. Not my problem.

IMO


Most conservatives believe in reasonable regulation. Most modern conservatives are not libertarians. They just believe that today's government has gone too far and is ineffective. To say the choice is between left too much regulation or none at all is another straw horse being beaten.

 

____________________

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 25201
(25201 all sites)
Registered: 9/7/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/31/2012 at 04:03 PM
I worry when deregulation allows poison in our drugs. No steroid shots for my neck thank you. I will pass on the meningitis virus.

I wonder if the Tea Party notices. I hear the cries of regulation killing small businesses. And see what lack of regulation causes to our health and the environment.



 

____________________
Keep on Smiling


 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6635
(6635 all sites)
Registered: 11/7/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/2/2012 at 07:15 AM
I just read a piece by Nate Silver of the New York Times that reinforces my earlier point about Obama being able to win the electoral college without winning the popular vote. A quick snippet for your reading pleasure, keeping in mind that "tying in the popular vote" and "losing the popular vote by a small margin" are virtually identical outcomes...

"Suppose, however, that Mr. Obama were to tie Mr. Romney in the popular vote on Tuesday...Even under these conditions, Mr. Obama would still be a favorite in the forecast. In fact, hed be about a 70 percent favorite to win the Electoral College conditional upon the national popular vote being tied, according to our simulations.

A tie in the national popular vote is a tolerable condition for Mr. Obama, in other words. His position is robust enough in states like Ohio that he has some slack. With a lead of about 2.5 percentage points in the tipping-point states, Mr. Obama could underperform his state polls by a point or two and still win.

Conversely, Mr. Romney has few chances to win unless the state polls are systematically wrong."


275-281 electoral votes for Obama is looking pretty good to me right now.

 
E-Mail User

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 20943
(20942 all sites)
Registered: 6/15/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/2/2012 at 09:32 PM
quote:
I just read a piece by Nate Silver of the New York Times that reinforces my earlier point about Obama being able to win the electoral college without winning the popular vote. A quick snippet for your reading pleasure, keeping in mind that "tying in the popular vote" and "losing the popular vote by a small margin" are virtually identical outcomes...

"Suppose, however, that Mr. Obama were to tie Mr. Romney in the popular vote on Tuesday...Even under these conditions, Mr. Obama would still be a favorite in the forecast. In fact, hed be about a 70 percent favorite to win the Electoral College conditional upon the national popular vote being tied, according to our simulations.

A tie in the national popular vote is a tolerable condition for Mr. Obama, in other words. His position is robust enough in states like Ohio that he has some slack. With a lead of about 2.5 percentage points in the tipping-point states, Mr. Obama could underperform his state polls by a point or two and still win.

Conversely, Mr. Romney has few chances to win unless the state polls are systematically wrong."


275-281 electoral votes for Obama is looking pretty good to me right now.


There is no way that is happening. There is a disparity between the state polls and the national polls. Silver is basing his prediction on the state polls and he is assuming they are correct. The state polls and the national polls that have shown Romney ahead are assuming totally different levels of Democratic vs. Republican turnout. The polls showing Obama ahead are assuming a turnout similar to 2008. They obviously believe that was not a one off or a unique "wave" election but the norm for what Democrats can expect now and they weight the polls accordingly. Rasmussen and Gallup have assumed a more traditional norm somewhere between 2004 and 2008. Many Republicans believe it will be an even higher GOP turnout. Someone is right and someone is wrong. It is much more likely that the poll methodology is wrong (wouldn't be the first time) than that all historical norms are out the window. As for Nate Silver, he is a brilliant prognosticator of baseball statistics. He has a lot of data to work with, all of which is valid. He called one single election correctly and he was far from alone. Many pundits, including the vast majority of Conservative pundits also called the 2008 election almost exactly. It wasn't that hard because it wasn't close and there was no real question that the polls were basically correct.

I'm sure everyone knows the old expression "garbage in garbage out." Silver's predictions are only as good as the data he is using and he is not a political scientist or historian. He may be right because the Democrats really may have become a large majority party again. Or he may be wrong because the turnout may revert to the pre-2008 norm given that Obama is not very popular. Only the election will tell the tale.

I have predicted a Romney win and I am standing by that. But I will make an even stronger prediction. I will eat my hat if Obama loses the popular vote but wins the electoral college.

 

____________________

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16027
(16019 all sites)
Registered: 10/13/2007
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/2/2012 at 09:54 PM
quote:
I worry when deregulation allows poison in our drugs. No steroid shots for my neck thank you. I will pass on the meningitis virus.

I wonder if the Tea Party notices. I hear the cries of regulation killing small businesses. And see what lack of regulation causes to our health and the environment.



All the street corner mom and pop pharma manufacturers are listening.

[Edited on 11/3/2012 by alloak41]

 

World Class Peach



Karma:
Posts: 5822
(5827 all sites)
Registered: 7/4/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/5/2012 at 08:19 PM
If you win the popular vote then you win period the electorial college is way out of line and needs to be abolished...
 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 19751
(19811 all sites)
Registered: 2/9/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/6/2012 at 06:29 AM
quote:
I realize this kind of "split election" has been rare in American history, but it happened twice within 12 years in 1876 and 1888, with both Rutherford B. Hayes and Grover Cleveland winning the Presidency while losing the popular vote.


Add Bush/Gore in 200 and that makes three.

44 Presidents and 13 "Two term" Presidents, including Roosevelt's 3 terms

44
13
01

58 Presidential elections with 3 being "split elections"......not the best of odds.

 

____________________

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 9082
(9082 all sites)
Registered: 2/25/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/6/2012 at 08:21 AM
quote:
I will pass on the meningitis virus.




Oh, you should try it. I had it when I was 16. Its really quite fun...if you like feeling like your head has been smashed with a sledge hammer and you like puking your guts out, then its the illness for you!!

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16027
(16019 all sites)
Registered: 10/13/2007
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/6/2012 at 09:49 AM
quote:
If you win the popular vote then you win period the electorial college is way out of line and needs to be abolished...


I agree. Whoever gets the most votes should win.

 

Sublime Peach



Karma:
Posts: 7168
(7166 all sites)
Registered: 4/7/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/6/2012 at 11:28 AM
Actaully, the electoral college is the fairest way to elect a president. It gives every state a voice. They would love to get rid of the electoral college, that way they would never lose another election.

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if we have a split decision and then the battle cry for repealing the electoral college will be on.

 

____________________
"If everyone demanded peace instead of another television set, then there'd be peace."

- John Lennon

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 11679
(12122 all sites)
Registered: 1/8/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/6/2012 at 11:30 AM
quote:
They would love to get rid of the electoral college, that way they would never lose another election.

Who?

 

____________________
We'd all like to vote for the best man, but he's never a candidate.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 46657
(46658 all sites)
Registered: 7/8/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/6/2012 at 11:31 AM
quote:
quote:
If you win the popular vote then you win period the electorial college is way out of line and needs to be abolished...


I agree. Whoever gets the most votes should win.


That would certainly save on campaign travel...

 

____________________
"Live every week like it's Shark Week." - Tracy Jordan

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 46657
(46658 all sites)
Registered: 7/8/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/6/2012 at 11:31 AM
quote:
quote:
They would love to get rid of the electoral college, that way they would never lose another election.

Who?


Them. But, since both sides are a part of the same sinister cabal, they win every time anyway.

 

____________________
"Live every week like it's Shark Week." - Tracy Jordan

 

World Class Peach



Karma:
Posts: 5822
(5827 all sites)
Registered: 7/4/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/6/2012 at 01:32 PM
Ok i will explain my answer I may be wrong but i think i read it right .. the electoral college was instituted because it took weeks or forever to get the info from a vote to find out a winner people lived way out in the boondocks (like I do now) BUT in this day of instant information it is no longer needed it is possible today that a candidate could win by popular vote and loose the election that is wrong, this is one country everyone votes and the winner is decided by votes not population areas... if i am wrong here ok but it is just like term limits they need to be gone!
 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 25201
(25201 all sites)
Registered: 9/7/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/6/2012 at 02:07 PM
quote:
Ok i will explain my answer I may be wrong but i think i read it right .. the electoral college was instituted because it took weeks or forever to get the info from a vote to find out a winner people lived way out in the boondocks (like I do now) BUT in this day of instant information it is no longer needed it is possible today that a candidate could win by popular vote and loose the election that is wrong, this is one country everyone votes and the winner is decided by votes not population areas... if i am wrong here ok but it is just like term limits they need to be gone!


no , the electoral college was never about communication issues.

the electoral college was set up to mirror the population of the country. As population changes the college changes as does the house of representatives. The census determines any changes to congress and the electoral college.

This is the nature of a republic of independent states. The United States of America.

WE ARE NOT A PURE DEMOCRACY , it is not one vote per person, each vote is weighted by population differences through the electoral college.

Each state then decides how to divide up their share of congress with state districting.

The Presidential election is not about who get the most votes, but who gets the most electoral college votes. This is fair as The Elected President must represent all the states
in Federal Matters.









 

____________________
Keep on Smiling


 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 25201
(25201 all sites)
Registered: 9/7/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/6/2012 at 02:10 PM
quote:
quote:
I will pass on the meningitis virus.




Oh, you should try it. I had it when I was 16. Its really quite fun...if you like feeling like your head has been smashed with a sledge hammer and you like puking your guts out, then its the illness for you!!


if it doesn't kill you.

sounds lovely but no thanks!



 

____________________
Keep on Smiling


 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 20943
(20942 all sites)
Registered: 6/15/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/6/2012 at 05:35 PM
quote:
Ok i will explain my answer I may be wrong but i think i read it right .. the electoral college was instituted because it took weeks or forever to get the info from a vote to find out a winner people lived way out in the boondocks (like I do now) BUT in this day of instant information it is no longer needed it is possible today that a candidate could win by popular vote and loose the election that is wrong, this is one country everyone votes and the winner is decided by votes not population areas... if i am wrong here ok but it is just like term limits they need to be gone!


That had nothing to do with it. What you describe is the reason inaugural day was originally in March. As we know it was changed to January 20. The electoral college was a compromise between those who wanted direct Democracy and those who mistrusted it. It was also a compromise between those who lived in larger states and those who lived in smaller states. Like the makeup of Congress itself (which it totally mirrors) It gives smaller states a dispoportionate share of the vote. But that is by design because otherwise the smaller states would have no power at all. Every state has to have a minimum amount of power and that is three votes.

 

____________________

 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6635
(6635 all sites)
Registered: 11/7/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/7/2012 at 12:39 AM
It's looking like Obama will narrowly win the popular vote, but I just want to point out that he could have easily won the electoral vote tonight without doing so. He could have won without Ohio, Florida or Virginia, and it looks like he might win all 3.

My man Obama did a little better than I thought he would, sue me

 
E-Mail User

World Class Peach



Karma:
Posts: 5822
(5827 all sites)
Registered: 7/4/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/7/2012 at 10:47 AM
quote:
quote:
Ok i will explain my answer I may be wrong but i think i read it right .. the electoral college was instituted because it took weeks or forever to get the info from a vote to find out a winner people lived way out in the boondocks (like I do now) BUT in this day of instant information it is no longer needed it is possible today that a candidate could win by popular vote and loose the election that is wrong, this is one country everyone votes and the winner is decided by votes not population areas... if i am wrong here ok but it is just like term limits they need to be gone!


no , the electoral college was never about communication issues.

the electoral college was set up to mirror the population of the country. As population changes the college changes as does the house of representatives. The census determines any changes to congress and the electoral college.

This is the nature of a republic of independent states. The United States of America.

WE ARE NOT A PURE DEMOCRACY , it is not one vote per person, each vote is weighted by population differences through the electoral college.

Each state then decides how to divide up their share of congress with state districting.

The Presidential election is not about who get the most votes, but who gets the most electoral college votes. This is fair as The Elected President must represent all the states
in Federal Matters.

Sorry Charlie it was all about communication or lack there of it was instituted in 1788 horse travel was the only means of communication! I know you are a smart guy so you can figure out the rest ...











 
<<  1    2    3  >>  


Powered by XForum 1.81.1 by Trollix Software

Privacy | Terms of Service | Report Infringement | Personal Data Management | Contact Us
The ALLMAN BROTHERS BAND name, The ALLMAN BROTHERS name, likenesses, logos, mushroom design and peach truck are all registered trademarks of THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. whose rights are specifically reserved. Any artwork, visual, or audio representations used on this web site CONTAINING ANY REGISTERED TRADEMARKS are under license from The ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. A REVOCABLE, GRATIS LICENSE IS GRANTED TO ALL REGISTERED PEACH CORP MEMBERS FOR The DOWNLOADING OF ONE COPY FOR PERSONAL USE ONLY. ANY DISTRIBUTION OR REPRODUCTION OF THE TRADEMARKS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE PROHIBITED AND ARE SPECIFICALLY RESERVED BY THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO.,INC.
site by Hittin' the Web Group with www.experiencewasabi3d.com