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: It is time to do away with the Electorial College

Sublime Peach



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

  posted on 11/4/2008 at 10:45 PM
Please go and read all of the above legislation, I don't have time to do your homework for you. They have stripped you of ALL of your rights and you don't even know it, how sad.

Just listen to the Judge and this is just the Patriot Act I.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNRSs6LsGeI



[Edited on 11/5/2008 by jerryphilbob]

 

World Class Peach



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

  posted on 11/5/2008 at 12:05 AM
The force is very weak in this one Next!

 

____________________
"Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the
Government take care of him; better take a closer look at the American Indian." -Henry Ford

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16589
(16871 all sites)
Registered: 12/24/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/5/2008 at 12:58 AM
quote:
Something is vastly wrong when you can win 7 or 9 states and win the election we have the technology we have the communications to have a election and count the PEOPLES vote... I absolutly loathe this current system. It worked well when we were a 13 state country with horses as the fasted communication,it is time for a change!


Ryde, I agree with you on this. The Electoral College is antiquated to say the least. Every American's vote should count equally, regardless of what state you live in.

 

Sublime Peach



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

  posted on 11/5/2008 at 07:29 AM
TROLL ALERT !!!!

Please kids, don't feed the trolls.

 

World Class Peach



Karma:
Posts: 5349
(5348 all sites)
Registered: 4/18/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/6/2008 at 11:01 AM
quote:
without the electoral collage, as the theory goes...

candidates would only visit heavily populated areas

i.e. NYC, LA, Chi, Atl, Houston etc

Iowa and New Hampshire would be non entities


It's still pretty much that way now. The electoral votes are based on population. If there were only two electoral votes per state, I believe it would be more equitable, or, if the votes were divided according to percentage of popular vote.

 

____________________
All photos posted of family, friends, and places, including those of historic ABB value, by this poster are copyrighted by the poster, or posted by permission of the copywriter.
None of those photos may be reproduced for commercial gain.

 

Zen Peach



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

  posted on 11/6/2008 at 11:09 AM
quote:
quote:
without the electoral collage, as the theory goes...

candidates would only visit heavily populated areas

i.e. NYC, LA, Chi, Atl, Houston etc

Iowa and New Hampshire would be non entities


It's still pretty much that way now. The electoral votes are based on population. If there were only two electoral votes per state, I believe it would be more equitable, or, if the votes were divided according to percentage of popular vote.


Well, (playing devil's advocate here to further the conversation) doesn't the "battleground state" theory still lend validity to the electoral college? McCain (and most candidates, really) had no shot without Ohio, Pennsylvania or Florida?

Should Gore have won then in 2000?

 

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

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 11437
(11442 all sites)
Registered: 8/21/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/6/2008 at 12:07 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
without the electoral collage, as the theory goes...

candidates would only visit heavily populated areas

i.e. NYC, LA, Chi, Atl, Houston etc

Iowa and New Hampshire would be non entities


It's still pretty much that way now. The electoral votes are based on population. If there were only two electoral votes per state, I believe it would be more equitable, or, if the votes were divided according to percentage of popular vote.


Well, (playing devil's advocate here to further the conversation) doesn't the "battleground state" theory still lend validity to the electoral college? McCain (and most candidates, really) had no shot without Ohio, Pennsylvania or Florida?

Should Gore have won then in 2000?


Yes.

But Jerry, how can a flat two votes/state be equitable? That is as undemocratic thing as I've ever heard. Democracy is always about getting the majority of citizens' votes.

 

World Class Peach



Karma:
Posts: 5349
(5348 all sites)
Registered: 4/18/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/6/2008 at 12:20 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
without the electoral collage, as the theory goes...

candidates would only visit heavily populated areas

i.e. NYC, LA, Chi, Atl, Houston etc

Iowa and New Hampshire would be non entities


It's still pretty much that way now. The electoral votes are based on population. If there were only two electoral votes per state, I believe it would be more equitable, or, if the votes were divided according to percentage of popular vote.


Well, (playing devil's advocate here to further the conversation) doesn't the "battleground state" theory still lend validity to the electoral college? McCain (and most candidates, really) had no shot without Ohio, Pennsylvania or Florida?

Should Gore have won then in 2000?


If it went to a purely popular vote, the candidates would still hit the more populated areas, not just those in the "battleground states".
It would still mean that those with smaller populations would not be as intensely campaigned since there would be less votes in that area. If you had to decide to campaign hard in NYC or the state of New Hampshire, I'm sure the candidates would go for NYC.

It's been a while since I've seen presidential candidates go door to door in rural areas to garner votes, or even hold political rallies in places like Forsyth or Barnesville (small towns in mid Ga), except when the primary season has just started.

As for Gore, he got the electoral college bugger.

 

____________________
All photos posted of family, friends, and places, including those of historic ABB value, by this poster are copyrighted by the poster, or posted by permission of the copywriter.
None of those photos may be reproduced for commercial gain.

 

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4028
(4025 all sites)
Registered: 12/11/2001
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/6/2008 at 05:51 PM
The Electoral College is the absolute correct way to elect the President in a Federal System of government among States. It wouldn't be in a true National form of government, but that's not what we have (or at least not what the charter of our government calls for).

With all the national one-size-fits-all government solutions we keep getting (many that don't seem to work over time), I sometimes wonder if our elected officials have ever read The Constitution or the Tenth Amendment. Surely, the phrases "general Welfare" and "regulate commerce among the many States" were never intended to essentially void great portions of the rest of the Constitution.

So, anyhow. They would have to amend the Consitution to change the Electoral College.

 

____________________
Tim L.

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 11437
(11442 all sites)
Registered: 8/21/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/6/2008 at 08:43 PM
Tim, of course you're right that the Constitution would have to be amended to change the Electoral College. But that is no reason not to consider it. If the founders did not expect circumstances to change, they would not have provided for a way to amend the Constitution.

At the very least, perhaps the electors could be apportioned to reflect the percentage of votes within the states(like the Democratic nomination system), rather than winner take all. I recognize small states might not fit perfectly in this and so any rounding probably should favor the winner. It is frustrating to have my vote count for nothing time and time again.

 

World Class Peach



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

  posted on 11/6/2008 at 10:02 PM
quote:
Tim, of course you're right that the Constitution would have to be amended to change the Electoral College. But that is no reason not to consider it. If the founders did not expect circumstances to change, they would not have provided for a way to amend the Constitution.

At the very least, perhaps the electors could be apportioned to reflect the percentage of votes within the states(like the Democratic nomination system), rather than winner take all. I recognize small states might not fit perfectly in this and so any rounding probably should favor the winner. It is frustrating to have my vote count for nothing time and time again.


I agree great post and a great take on the problem...

 

____________________
"Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the
Government take care of him; better take a closer look at the American Indian." -Henry Ford

 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6446
(6445 all sites)
Registered: 8/11/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/6/2019 at 04:13 PM
quote:
Tim, of course you're right that the Constitution would have to be amended to change the Electoral College. But that is no reason not to consider it. If the founders did not expect circumstances to change, they would not have provided for a way to amend the Constitution.

At the very least, perhaps the electors could be apportioned to reflect the percentage of votes within the states(like the Democratic nomination system), rather than winner take all. I recognize small states might not fit perfectly in this and so any rounding probably should favor the winner. It is frustrating to have my vote count for nothing time and time again.


Very good idea....

 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6189
(6198 all sites)
Registered: 6/1/2009
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/6/2019 at 04:28 PM
quote:
quote:
Tim, of course you're right that the Constitution would have to be amended to change the Electoral College. But that is no reason not to consider it. If the founders did not expect circumstances to change, they would not have provided for a way to amend the Constitution.

At the very least, perhaps the electors could be apportioned to reflect the percentage of votes within the states(like the Democratic nomination system), rather than winner take all. I recognize small states might not fit perfectly in this and so any rounding probably should favor the winner. It is frustrating to have my vote count for nothing time and time again.


Very good idea....



Consider all you want.
It ain't going to happen.

The petty talking points the corrupt liberal media espouses are exactly that.
It is nothing more than fodder for the losers.


 

Sublime Peach



Karma:
Posts: 7386
(7386 all sites)
Registered: 7/18/2010
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/6/2019 at 04:41 PM
This thread was started by a conservative against the Electoral College. How did you feel about the Electoral College when Hussein got elected, Mule?

[Edited on 1/6/2019 by BrerRabbit]

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 19619
(20085 all sites)
Registered: 1/19/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/11/2019 at 07:44 PM
quote:
Something is vastly wrong when you can win 7 or 9 states and win the election we have the technology we have the communications to have a election and count the PEOPLES vote... I absolutly loathe this current system. It worked well when we were a 13 state country with horses as the fasted communication,it is time for a change!



I think this is very true. The nation now has more people than government can adequately provide for. Many states are facing bankruptcy and expect the government to just bail them out and keep the money coming. Some have said that in the future we will have regional governments which will handle a handful of states in their region. That may be the best way. Keep taxes mostly local to a specific region and let the federal govt. do what it was designed to do, provide national security and defense from other countries who may be a threat, enact national trade deals, anything requiring interaction with other nations is a federal responsibility.

Let regional governments take taxes for their region, dole it out to the states, and let the states balance their budgets or come up with ways to solve their problems. Look at all the crises, banking, health care. People basically go to doctors in their region, let the regions and states within that region come up with solutions for the people in their region.

We have 320 million people in the United States, how can one government take care of all of the needs of this many people? It can't. Regional representatives can tell the federal govt. if people in the local states want us to support other countries by sending foreign aid, while our own people starve, suffer. We have no idea what our federal government does, what they vote on, and how they spend our tax dollars. Ross Perot wanted to have Town Hall meetings so that people could know what is going on, nobody else wanted that, all the other politicians just want their nice big paychecks and for things to go on with business as usual. But there is not enough tax money coming in to do that.

The states should report to Regional Councils who present statistics, demographics, and desires of the people in their regions to the federal government, who must be accountable and responsible. It hasn't happened yet, but we could. For America to be made great again, things must change.

 

____________________
"Mankind is a single nation" "Allah did not make you a single people so he could try you in what he gave you, to him you will all return, he will inform you where you differed". Quran Chapter 2 Sura 213

 

Peach Master



Karma:
Posts: 785
(785 all sites)
Registered: 11/8/2008
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/11/2019 at 08:41 PM
quote:
Tim, of course you're right that the Constitution would have to be amended to change the Electoral College. But that is no reason not to consider it.


Any idea how long the process takes? To propose an amendment for approval by 2/3 of both houses of Congress to then be ratified by 3/4 of the states? Unless there is a built in expiration date, even amendments that pass Congress linger awaiting ratification. The most recent amendment - the 27th - was proposed in 1789 and ratified in 1992. That's 203 years.

Amendments from 1810, 1861 & 1926 are still awaiting ratification. Amendments proposed in 1971 & 1978 expired.

Sure, most amendments were ratified in a reasonable timeframe, but the current state of bi-partisanship in Congress as well as the states suggests the likelihood of getting 2/3 of Congress & 38 states to concur is low.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 19619
(20085 all sites)
Registered: 1/19/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/19/2019 at 04:03 PM
Senator Warren wants to do this and is running for the Presidency to accomplish it.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/warren-calls-scrapping-u-electoral-college-2020- televised-041859918.html


 

____________________
"Mankind is a single nation" "Allah did not make you a single people so he could try you in what he gave you, to him you will all return, he will inform you where you differed". Quran Chapter 2 Sura 213

 

Zen Peach



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

  posted on 3/19/2019 at 05:22 PM
Slippery slope indeed.

Given this theory or idea (still pouting over a loss), why would people in Iowa, Nebraska and Kansas (etc) even set foot out the door to Vote in a National Election when Los Angeles county is larger than the voting populace of 60% of the States in the Union? I've an idea! Let us have the people in California, New York and Florida decide who is best suited to lead this Country and the rest of us can just sit back and watch CNN report it, because after all, why does anyone else's vote matter?

Our Forefathers knew what they were doing.

Add to this the argument against the 2nd amendment. May I remind you that it was not written with the type of gun made available at that time or any in the future, but more so to protect the People against the Government.

The Constitution works just fine, let's start paying more attention to it.

 

____________________

 

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4175
(4173 all sites)
Registered: 8/26/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/19/2019 at 06:28 PM
quote:
Slippery slope indeed.

Given this theory or idea (still pouting over a loss), why would people in Iowa, Nebraska and Kansas (etc) even set foot out the door to Vote in a National Election when Los Angeles county is larger than the voting populace of 60% of the States in the Union? I've an idea! Let us have the people in California, New York and Florida decide who is best suited to lead this Country and the rest of us can just sit back and watch CNN report it, because after all, why does anyone else's vote matter?

Our Forefathers knew what they were doing.

Add to this the argument against the 2nd amendment. May I remind you that it was not written with the type of gun made available at that time or any in the future, but more so to protect the People against the Government.

The Constitution works just fine, let's start paying more attention to it.


Why would somebody in Iowa, Nebraska, and Kansas vote in a national election? Same reason somebody in Los Angeles would, because their vote would be worth exactly the same. Using your theory, why would somebody in California bother to vote today when their vote doesn't matter as much as someone's vote in Iowa.

 

World Class Peach



Karma:
Posts: 5718
(5725 all sites)
Registered: 2/2/2008
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/20/2019 at 10:17 AM
Don't have the numbers in front of me, but I remember reading that more states would be hurt by the reform than helped; so a constitutional amendment has essentially no chance of flying.

What I would like to see amended is the granting of citizenship to anyone born in the US. Made sense in the 1800's when we were looking to fill the country. Now it costs us a fortune. And it is not just the undocumented poor. Wealthy people fly in to the US to pay out of pocket for obstetrica care to ensure citizenship for their kids. Just doesn't make sense

 

Zen Peach



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

  posted on 3/20/2019 at 10:55 AM
quote:
quote:
Slippery slope indeed.

Given this theory or idea (still pouting over a loss), why would people in Iowa, Nebraska and Kansas (etc) even set foot out the door to Vote in a National Election when Los Angeles county is larger than the voting populace of 60% of the States in the Union? I've an idea! Let us have the people in California, New York and Florida decide who is best suited to lead this Country and the rest of us can just sit back and watch CNN report it, because after all, why does anyone else's vote matter?

Our Forefathers knew what they were doing.

Add to this the argument against the 2nd amendment. May I remind you that it was not written with the type of gun made available at that time or any in the future, but more so to protect the People against the Government.

The Constitution works just fine, let's start paying more attention to it.


Why would somebody in Iowa, Nebraska, and Kansas vote in a national election? Same reason somebody in Los Angeles would, because their vote would be worth exactly the same. Using your theory, why would somebody in California bother to vote today when their vote doesn't matter as much as someone's vote in Iowa.


In a Statewide election, makes perfect sense. In a National Election, why would any Presidential Candidate campaign in Iowa, Nebraska, and Kansas, when he can reach 100X that many prospective voters in L.A, County every day of the week? This is exactly what our founding Fathers feared, all campaign stops would center around the most heavily populated areas and the rest of the Country would be ignored.

 

____________________

 

Zen Peach



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

  posted on 3/20/2019 at 11:28 AM
quote:
quote:
quote:
Slippery slope indeed.

Given this theory or idea (still pouting over a loss), why would people in Iowa, Nebraska and Kansas (etc) even set foot out the door to Vote in a National Election when Los Angeles county is larger than the voting populace of 60% of the States in the Union? I've an idea! Let us have the people in California, New York and Florida decide who is best suited to lead this Country and the rest of us can just sit back and watch CNN report it, because after all, why does anyone else's vote matter?

Our Forefathers knew what they were doing.

Add to this the argument against the 2nd amendment. May I remind you that it was not written with the type of gun made available at that time or any in the future, but more so to protect the People against the Government.

The Constitution works just fine, let's start paying more attention to it.


Why would somebody in Iowa, Nebraska, and Kansas vote in a national election? Same reason somebody in Los Angeles would, because their vote would be worth exactly the same. Using your theory, why would somebody in California bother to vote today when their vote doesn't matter as much as someone's vote in Iowa.


In a Statewide election, makes perfect sense. In a National Election, why would any Presidential Candidate campaign in Iowa, Nebraska, and Kansas, when he can reach 100X that many prospective voters in L.A, County every day of the week? This is exactly what our founding Fathers feared, all campaign stops would center around the most heavily populated areas and the rest of the Country would be ignored.


270 is needed to win.

Considering that you only need to win these 11 states and not one vote in any other state to win the Presidency...

California
Texas
Florida
New York
Illinois
Pennsylvania
Ohio
Georgia
Michigan
North Carolina
New Jersey

...taking into account the largest MSAs in the country...

1 New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA MSA
2 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA MSA
3 Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN-WI MSA
4 Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX MSA
5 Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, TX MSA
6 Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV MSA
7 Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach, FL MSA
8 Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD MSA
9 Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, GA MSA
10 Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH MSA

Isn't the Electoral College essentially already a population contest?

 

____________________
"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 3/20/2019 at 11:50 AM
All that said, making getting rid of the Electoral College a political issue at this time is stupid.

 

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

 

World Class Peach



Karma:
Posts: 5718
(5725 all sites)
Registered: 2/2/2008
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/20/2019 at 05:25 PM
quote:
All that said, making getting rid of the Electoral College a political issue at this time is stupid.


Especially when some rich folk are paying 100K to get their kids into the electoral college

 

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4175
(4173 all sites)
Registered: 8/26/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/20/2019 at 07:28 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Slippery slope indeed.

Given this theory or idea (still pouting over a loss), why would people in Iowa, Nebraska and Kansas (etc) even set foot out the door to Vote in a National Election when Los Angeles county is larger than the voting populace of 60% of the States in the Union? I've an idea! Let us have the people in California, New York and Florida decide who is best suited to lead this Country and the rest of us can just sit back and watch CNN report it, because after all, why does anyone else's vote matter?

Our Forefathers knew what they were doing.

Add to this the argument against the 2nd amendment. May I remind you that it was not written with the type of gun made available at that time or any in the future, but more so to protect the People against the Government.

The Constitution works just fine, let's start paying more attention to it.


Why would somebody in Iowa, Nebraska, and Kansas vote in a national election? Same reason somebody in Los Angeles would, because their vote would be worth exactly the same. Using your theory, why would somebody in California bother to vote today when their vote doesn't matter as much as someone's vote in Iowa.


In a Statewide election, makes perfect sense. In a National Election, why would any Presidential Candidate campaign in Iowa, Nebraska, and Kansas, when he can reach 100X that many prospective voters in L.A, County every day of the week? This is exactly what our founding Fathers feared, all campaign stops would center around the most heavily populated areas and the rest of the Country would be ignored.


270 is needed to win.

Considering that you only need to win these 11 states and not one vote in any other state to win the Presidency...

California
Texas
Florida
New York
Illinois
Pennsylvania
Ohio
Georgia
Michigan
North Carolina
New Jersey

...taking into account the largest MSAs in the country...

1 New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA MSA
2 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA MSA
3 Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN-WI MSA
4 Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX MSA
5 Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, TX MSA
6 Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV MSA
7 Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach, FL MSA
8 Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD MSA
9 Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, GA MSA
10 Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH MSA

Isn't the Electoral College essentially already a population contest?



So where they campaign is what you are concerned about? Seems like that shouldn't matter. Right now they never spend time in California or Nebraska or Idaho or NY anyway. Doesn't matter if the state is blue or red, they only care about the purple states. Is spending all their campaign time in Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania really beneficial to the country as a whole? Sorry, but the electoral college made since in the time of the Pony Express. Today, not so much. You seem to think it is important that states where very few people live get more say in elections than states where lots of people live, but to me that sounds a lot like taxation without representation. The states filling America's coffers get the least say on a per capita basis.

 
<<  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