| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/03/2006 03:35:34 AM · #51 |
RonB, & Robert
thanks for the lesson. Now, if you could also elaborate what are the weights of states based on, it would be great to know. Population of states or something else? And how different is it in reality, assuming that 100% of the voters would come out and vote.
I don't buy it. I understand it but I don't buy it. How does one electoral vote measures against 45 votes of a bigger state? Those smaller states have representation in both houses of congress to be instrumental ( as we have seen, e.g. bridge to nowhere) in acquiring resources for their states. I don't believe that switching to simple majority would benefit either party, I just think that it is not healthy.
ANother example: you can have 100% of Alaskans come out and vote all for the candidate #1. In texas or california or ny, you can have in theory five hundred people come out and 251 would vote for candidate #2, who proceeds to win the whole thing. WHy would the candidate then go to alaska to campaign? |
|
|
|
11/03/2006 06:11:32 AM · #52 |
Don't worry, Republicans:
//youtube.com/watch?v=DzBI33kOiKc
Message edited by author 2006-11-03 06:11:50.
|
|
|
|
11/03/2006 07:45:28 AM · #53 |
I think the Secretary of State for Florida was a Democrat at the time, so she must have been a Republican in descise. Not...
Message edited by author 2006-11-03 07:46:03. |
|
|
|
11/03/2006 08:22:29 AM · #54 |
Originally posted by srdanz:
RonB, & Robert
thanks for the lesson. Now, if you could also elaborate what are the weights of states based on, it would be great to know. Population of states or something else? And how different is it in reality, assuming that 100% of the voters would come out and vote.
I don't buy it. I understand it but I don't buy it. How does one electoral vote measures against 45 votes of a bigger state? Those smaller states have representation in both houses of congress to be instrumental ( as we have seen, e.g. bridge to nowhere) in acquiring resources for their states. I don't believe that switching to simple majority would benefit either party, I just think that it is not healthy.
ANother example: you can have 100% of Alaskans come out and vote all for the candidate #1. In texas or california or ny, you can have in theory five hundred people come out and 251 would vote for candidate #2, who proceeds to win the whole thing. WHy would the candidate then go to alaska to campaign? |
It's basically population-based, but it has a low-end cutoff. A state's number of electoral Votes is equal to the number of its senators and representatives. And that number can't be less than three regardless of how small your population is. The "United States" is just what its name suggests; a federation of individual states interacting under a constitution for mutual benefit. The electoral college system better ensures (through organizing votes by regions) that the president must have broad-based national support to win election.
R. |
|
|
|
11/03/2006 08:29:16 AM · #55 |
Originally posted by vtruan:
I think the Secretary of State for Florida was a Democrat at the time, so she must have been a Republican in descise. Not... |
Sorry if I'm missing something..not enough coffee..but what did that statement mean? I'm not being sarcastic, I really don't get it.
Republican Katherine Harris was Florida's Secretary of State.
And Republican Tom Feeney was the congressman who hired the hacker to write the program.
Message edited by author 2006-11-03 08:58:52. |
|
|
|
11/03/2006 08:50:51 AM · #56 |
| As I recall, those in the Electoral College are not required to cast a vote that represents the majority of the popular vote within their state. It's early, I'll find the source for this info in a bit. |
|
|
|
11/03/2006 09:14:19 AM · #57 |
What pisses me off most about politics is if you do not have millions of dollars or can not raise millions of dollars you have no shot at winning an election. We have a guy here trying to unseat one of our senators that has spent over $8,000,000 of his own money on his campaign!!! Bored rich people are not the best choice for running our county! Our country should be run by true representatives of our population, not just the elite.
What would happen if all the millions donated to these campaigns that are nothing but "the other guy is more of an ass hat then me" was sent to charities that could really put the money to good use?
That and career senators and congressmen... It's just wrong to make a career collecting a six figure salary representing people that are lucky to make half what you are making. Even more so when you were rich to begin with and don't even need that six figure salary.
And voting a straight ticket because you always do that is dumb. You should vote for the person that best represents your views in each race. Not all republicans are the same and not all democrats are the same. A "D" or "R" next to your name does not dictate your stance on all positions.
|
|
|
|
11/03/2006 09:17:24 AM · #58 |
Apparently terrorists say vote for Art....
|
|
|
|
11/03/2006 09:22:01 AM · #59 |
Originally posted by idnic:
Apparently terrorists say vote for Art.... |
ROFLMAO!!!!
|
|
|
|
11/03/2006 09:23:07 AM · #60 |
Interesting article on electoral college here.
And another even more interesting wiki one.
Message edited by author 2006-11-03 09:24:31. |
|
|
|
11/03/2006 09:43:23 AM · #61 |
Republicans say vote for dead candidate! Aren't politics fun???
|
|
|
|
11/03/2006 10:01:25 AM · #62 |
Actually this is a common practice for both democrats and republicans. I can't think of the senator that died from the midwest but was still on the balot and got reelected.
Here you go...Dead list
Message edited by author 2006-11-03 10:04:05. |
|
|
|
11/03/2006 10:05:28 AM · #63 |
Originally posted by MrEd:
PLEASE, let's not get church involved. THAT's another discussion... |
Unfortunately, with our current administration, that's kind of tough.
I have NEVER voted for Bush and I've been complaining ever since. Don't get me started on that whole Florida thing.
|
|
|
|
11/03/2006 10:38:33 AM · #64 |
Well Bear and Ron its a good thing I can think and believe what I want. So cringe away ...
Or would you have that changed as well for the greater good. You know so I can't start trouble and change the status Quo.
Message edited by author 2006-11-03 10:42:00. |
|
|
|
11/03/2006 10:46:49 AM · #65 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
What pisses me off most about politics is if you do not have millions of dollars or can not raise millions of dollars you have no shot at winning an election. We have a guy here trying to unseat one of our senators that has spent over $8,000,000 of his own money on his campaign!!! Bored rich people are not the best choice for running our county! Our country should be run by true representatives of our population, not just the elite. |
1) If you are not able to persuade 8 million people to donate $1 each to your campaign, so that you can counter your opponent, then you are probably not going to be able to persuade the majority to vote for you, either. It is not the fault of the campaigner that the public, at large, are so gullible that they fall for campaign rhetoric just because it is repeated 12 times a day.
2) While SOME bored rich people may not be the best choice for running our country, why should being bored or rich be a reason to be excluded from consideration for office?
3) Is it impossible to be a true representative of the population and be an "elite"? If so, why? Is being elite a character flaw?
Originally posted by LoudDog:
What would happen if all the millions donated to these campaigns that are nothing but "the other guy is more of an ass hat then me" was sent to charities that could really put the money to good use? |
1) What makes you think that the advertisers, graphics artists, photographers, printers, copy editors, cameramen, sound engineers, loggers, paper producers, web-men, truckers, postal workers, etc. do not put the money they receive for campaign work to "good use"?
2) Who should decide what "good use" is?
FWIW, the people who get money from campaign work are legally entitled to pass all of that money on to the charaties of their choice - but it's their choice as to whether they agree with you that giving their money to charity would really be a better use for the money or not.
Originally posted by LoudDog:
That and career senators and congressmen... It's just wrong to make a career collecting a six figure salary representing people that are lucky to make half what you are making. Even more so when you were rich to begin with and don't even need that six figure salary. |
1) Why is it wrong to make politics a career?
2) Why is being rich to begin with, or not needing the money qualify as a valid reason for excluding someone from holding office?
3) Should congressional pay be scaled to one's net worth? More if you're "poor", none if you're "rich"?
Originally posted by LoudDog:
And voting a straight ticket because you always do that is dumb. You should vote for the person that best represents your views in each race. |
Even if the person that best represents your views is a career senator or congressman collecting a six-figure salary that's twice what you are making, and they were rich to begin with and don't even need the money?
Does voting for such a person make you "wrong", too?
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Not all republicans are the same and not all democrats are the same. A "D" or "R" next to your name does not dictate your stance on all positions. |
Nor does your length of service. Nor does your net worth. Nor does how you got "rich", as long as you did so legally. Nor does how much money you spent on campaigning. |
|
|
|
11/03/2006 10:53:55 AM · #66 |
I love when conservatives defend rich and powerful people as though they are some discriminated-against minority. Awww... poor tycoon...
|
|
|
|
11/03/2006 10:56:54 AM · #67 |
Here is a link to argue the obsolescence of the electoral collage. I know it wont change your mind but after all it is another valid point of view.
//bellsouthpwp2.net/b/e/benichou/Obsoleting_the_Electoral_College.html
Or maybe not since yours is right and mine is wrong ...
Message edited by author 2006-11-03 10:58:47. |
|
|
|
11/03/2006 11:02:47 AM · #68 |
I'm also against the electoral college. If New York and Texas have more people, then that's just how many more votes they should have. The Senate is enough of a bump to low-population states.
|
|
|
|
11/03/2006 11:04:42 AM · #69 |
I admit, I never understood why Senators, Representatives and the President are paid positions.
My theory, in a nutshell, is that if you want to represent the people and thier views, then it should be because you're genuinely concerned about thier views so much that you would volunteer to do it.
I'd argue that the turnover in these positions would be much higher and that the rotation of new and inspired politicians would be a great asset to our nation.
|
|
|
|
11/03/2006 11:07:46 AM · #70 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
I admit, I never understood why Senators, Representatives and the President are paid positions.
My theory, in a nutshell, is that if you want to represent the people and thier views, then it should be because you're genuinely concerned about thier views so much that you would volunteer to do it.
I'd argue that the turnover in these positions would be much higher and that the rotation of new and inspired politicians would be a great asset to our nation. |
You'd think so, but state Senators and Representatives don't make much money at all (at least in my state) and yet many of them remain for multiple terms. Power alone would encourage those people to stick around.
Message edited by author 2006-11-03 11:13:18. |
|
|
|
11/03/2006 11:15:34 AM · #71 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
I admit, I never understood why Senators, Representatives and the President are paid positions.
My theory, in a nutshell, is that if you want to represent the people and thier views, then it should be because you're genuinely concerned about thier views so much that you would volunteer to do it.
I'd argue that the turnover in these positions would be much higher and that the rotation of new and inspired politicians would be a great asset to our nation. |
So, only those wealthy enough to go without income for their term would be able to serve.
Not that Washington isn't overflowing with spoiled rich brats already, but your idea would make government their exclusive playground. |
|
|
|
11/03/2006 11:17:18 AM · #72 |
[quote=ddpNikon] The terrorists want the US to vote democrat, because it will ensure a victory for them.
[/qoute]
I'll vote exactly the way I feel, and the terrorists can go straight to hell, do not pass go, no 72 virgins, and while they're at it kiss my ugly ass.
Like the democrats would do any worse than the repubs.
Billions and billions of dollars wasted on one war too many (Iraq) and making sure people don't carry toothpaste on board aircraft, when simply re-enforcing cockpit doors and locking them would have prevented 911. Actions recommended at least a dozen times since 1981. Sheeeeesh.
How was that for a rant? ;)
|
|
|
|
11/03/2006 11:20:24 AM · #73 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Not that Washington isn't overflowing with spoiled rich brats already, but your idea would make government their exclusive playground. |
It already is. You can tell this by observing people spend millions of dollars to obtain a job that pays 140,000 a year.
|
|
|
|
11/03/2006 11:32:03 AM · #74 |
Originally posted by fir3bird:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Not that Washington isn't overflowing with spoiled rich brats already, but your idea would make government their exclusive playground. |
It already is. You can tell this by observing people spend millions of dollars to obtain a job that pays 140,000 a year. |
Those people aren't all spending their own millions.
|
|
|
|
11/03/2006 11:45:27 AM · #75 |
Pardon me, but you're being ridiculous. I've never even implied intolerance of your view. I'm just explaining mine.
*****
The following is NOT directed at any individual, it's just more of my "thinking out loud":
We are nevertheless a federation of states. Our constitution was forged on the principle of "states' rights", even if the federal government has metastasized into a frankenstein monster that now tramples over states' rights without compunction. The Libertarian Party is one of the strong proponents of states' rights, for what it's worth.
But consider this: imagine a continent composed of 20-odd individual "states" who decide to confederate to cement a stronger political entity and ensure their well-being into the future, as individual states. Imagine that ONE of these states, maybe even the smallest in area, sees an explosion of commercial growth and consequent population explosion, while the remaining states maintain a low population density and a more agrarian identity. The large state finds itself in the position of having a greater population than all the other states combined. So the politicians of that state decide it is clearly in their best interests to move away from "states voting for president" to "individuals voting for president."
Now if this comes to pass, the very populous small state will begin imposing its ideals and goals on the federation itself, to the extent that it destroys the respective identities of the other individual states.
I don't know how others feel, but in principle this seems wrong to me. You see battles like this all the time at the local level as individual neighborhoods struggle to hold onto their unique traditions and heritage, and as individual communities within counties or regions controlled by "planning boards" attempt to avoid being destroyed by profit-seekers backed by big-money commercial interests. It seems to me that, in theory, we are safer from being dominated by special interest groups (read profit-takers with no regard for history, community, and integrity/morality) under the electoral college system than we would be with a straight popular vote. Of course, we haven't done that well on this lately :-(
R. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/09/2025 08:54:38 AM EDT.
