| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/03/2006 11:49:31 AM · #76 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Pardon me, but you're being ridiculous. I've never even implied intolerance of your view. I'm just explaining mine.
|
You said "I wish more people understood how the Electoral College works and why we have it in the first place. I cringe every time I hear someone saying "we should go by the popular vote".
We are not a democracy. As you point out, we are a Republic with a modified democratic voting system. "And to the republic for which it stands..." I don't think the current generations are learning the difference, frankly :-( "
Not intolerance but I inferred that maybe I was not to smart and did not understand the difference. Well I do and I still have the same opinion.
So cool I guess I am being ridiculous. You have every right to explain your view. sorry. I guess before I offend anyone else I should take my views and go. Have fun!
Message edited by author 2006-11-03 13:24:13. |
|
|
|
11/03/2006 11:49:54 AM · #77 |
Originally posted by greatandsmall:
After giving it more thought, I have decided to do my Patriotic duty and vote for only for the candidates who are most likely to restore our Constitution. Sadly, I don't have much hope that there is anyone powerful enough to do that; Republican or Democrat. |
Sounds like a good approach and also what I intend to do. I would remind you, though, that 33 Democrats in the Senate and 162 Democrats in the House voted against the Military Commissions Act, and 21 Democrats in the Senate and 126 Democrats in the House voted against the Iraq War Resolution. So all hope is not lost for our elected officials from the Democratic Party.
|
|
|
|
11/03/2006 11:52:51 AM · #78 |
That depends on the integrity and value of the "state" distinction. People move from state to state without thinking twice. I think state governments should have some power because they are a more local source of governance (and provide a check to federal power), but I don't see the need to distort the voting power of states for a federal election (I know there used to be a need in colonial times, but not any more). The most harmful effect of this is the underrepresentation of cities, which not coincidentally are where people get the worst and least government service per capita.
|
|
|
|
11/03/2006 12:07:52 PM · #79 |
The problem with the Electoral College is neither its intended purpose or its origins.
The problem with the Electoral College as it is and has always been utilized is that it doesn't accurately reflect the feelings and wishes of any state's citizens. California is a "blue" state, but that is most certainly not to say there aren't Republicans living there. And yet a 51% - 49% popular vote for a Democratic Presidential candidate will yield a full 55 electoral votes for that Dem candidate. So, in this scenario which plays out every election year, why should a Republican in California vote at all?
The same situation can be applied to every state. In Colorado, while the city and county of Denver is largely Democrat, the rest of the state tends towards Republican. At least, enough so that in most Presidential elections our electoral votes end up going wholly to the Republican candidate.
It's this "wholly" application that makes the voting process, at least in Presidential elections, largely irrelevant for anyone who is in the political minority in their state. Even if that minority is only by a point or two.
There's no need to go to a popular vote, but the electoral process must be revised so that the electoral votes are proportionally cast, rather than wholly for whichever candidate may happen to win the popular vote in any given state. That is to say, in Colorado, if Bush in 2004 won 55% of the votes, he would garner 5 out of the 8 available electoral votes. At least then the Democrats in Colorado would feel as though their vote counted for something, and it would still require candidates to pay some attention to even the least populated of states. In many cases, it would require candidates to spend more time in a state than they have historically.
*These states and figures are merely examples |
|
|
|
11/03/2006 12:23:47 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
I love when conservatives defend rich and powerful people as though they are some discriminated-against minority. Awww... poor tycoon... |
Of course they get discriminated like every other group of people at one time or another. Granted, they could care less since it doesn't have any real impact on them. However, if you are a proponent against discrimination in general one should practice what they preach. That's one of my biggest pet peeves and one of the biggest problems I see in the world. |
|
|
|
11/03/2006 12:24:42 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
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. |
When you have the ability to spend those millions, it matters not where they came from. ;)
|
|
|
|
11/03/2006 12:25:25 PM · #82 |
Will you be voting against those that aren't on those lists? Curious. |
|
|
|
11/03/2006 12:27:14 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by greatandsmall:
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. |
Stand corrected, I was thinking of some of the locals like in Dade County. Ya caught me. Cause I like Mrs. Harris, I just had a senior minute, Oh MY... |
|
|
|
11/03/2006 12:38:43 PM · #84 |
Originally posted by heathen:
The problem with the Electoral College is neither its intended purpose or its origins.
The problem with the Electoral College as it is and has always been utilized is that it doesn't accurately reflect the feelings and wishes of any state's citizens. California is a "blue" state, but that is most certainly not to say there aren't Republicans living there. And yet a 51% - 49% popular vote for a Democratic Presidential candidate will yield a full 55 electoral votes for that Dem candidate. So, in this scenario which plays out every election year, why should a Republican in California vote at all?
The same situation can be applied to every state. In Colorado, while the city and county of Denver is largely Democrat, the rest of the state tends towards Republican. At least, enough so that in most Presidential elections our electoral votes end up going wholly to the Republican candidate.
It's this "wholly" application that makes the voting process, at least in Presidential elections, largely irrelevant for anyone who is in the political minority in their state. Even if that minority is only by a point or two.
There's no need to go to a popular vote, but the electoral process must be revised so that the electoral votes are proportionally cast, rather than wholly for whichever candidate may happen to win the popular vote in any given state. That is to say, in Colorado, if Bush in 2004 won 55% of the votes, he would garner 5 out of the 8 available electoral votes. At least then the Democrats in Colorado would feel as though their vote counted for something, and it would still require candidates to pay some attention to even the least populated of states. In many cases, it would require candidates to spend more time in a state than they have historically.
*These states and figures are merely examples |
I agree in principle, but it is not, and should not be a dictate from the federal government as to how a state's electoral votes are cast. That is, and should remain, a function of the state itself. If the good people of Maine want their electoral votes cast in accordance with the popular vote by congressional district, so be it. If the good people of California or Colorado do not, and wish to have their electoral votes cast on an all or nothing basis, then that should be their prerogative. They have the power to change their own Constitution, if they are dissatisfied with the current workings.
That being said, any state should be very wary in deciding to change the way in which electoral votes are cast - especially the heavily populated states. There are many, many instances where gerrymandering has occurred in the drawing of congressional districts, so as to give one party more "representation" than would occur compared to the state-wide political make-up. Politics, after all, is power. And power corrupts. |
|
|
|
11/03/2006 12:44:24 PM · #85 |
| I believe some states already have the ability to do that. Maine perhaps? |
|
|
|
11/03/2006 12:47:38 PM · #86 |
Originally posted by vtruan:
Stand corrected, I was thinking of some of the locals like in Dade County. Ya caught me. Cause I like Mrs. Harris, I just had a senior minute, Oh MY... |
No worries:) Just thought I was going crazy, for a minute. |
|
|
|
11/03/2006 12:48:37 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Will you be voting against those that aren't on those lists? Curious. |
I will NOT vote for Dems who voted affirmatively in those two votes, which means, for example, that I will be voting for the Green Party Senate candidate against Hillary Clinton, not that it matters as Hillary will be reelected anyway.
|
|
|
|
11/03/2006 12:54:08 PM · #88 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by yanko:
Will you be voting against those that aren't on those lists? Curious. |
I will NOT vote for Dems who voted affirmatively in those two votes, which means, for example, that I will be voting for the Green Party Senate candidate against Hillary Clinton, not that it matters as Hillary will be reelected anyway. |
Good for you. The Military Commissions Act is anti-constitutional and the court that can judge its constitutionality has been seeded by the proto-fascist who created it in the first place.
|
|
|
|
11/03/2006 01:02:48 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Will you be voting against those that aren't on those lists? Curious. |
Personally speaking; I still have a lot more research to do before I vote. I will be attempting to determine which candidates stood up against the NWO initiatives, that have been so rapidly advanced by the current administration. Thanks, Judith for the helpful links!
There are some authentic Republicans, who haven't been seduced by they Illuminati, and I will vote for them if they seem legitimate. On the undecided candidates I will likely vote Democratic, for the sake of trying to restore the balance.
The sad truth is that I don't really have much hope that my vote will be counted. Who will ever know?
Edit to add: I will never vote for Hillary! She is Illuminati, all the way!
Message edited by author 2006-11-03 13:04:55. |
|
|
|
11/03/2006 01:26:28 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by greatandsmall:
After giving it more thought, I have decided to do my Patriotic duty and vote for only for the candidates who are most likely to restore our Constitution. Sadly, I don't have much hope that there is anyone powerful enough to do that; Republican or Democrat. |
That's the way I've always done it. And, though it seems hopeless, it may buoy you up to read the story of how just one man, William Wilberforce, through perseverance, accomplished the near impossible.
"In 1780 Wilberforce was elected to the House of Commons from Hull and from Hull and Yorkshire in 1784. It was also in 1784 that Wilberforce became an Evangelical Christian, a step that changed his life and behaviour completely.
A meeting in 1787 with dedicated abolitionist Thomas Clarkson was to alter the social fabric of the British Empire and, in time, the western world. For 18 years, from 1788 onwards, Wilberforce - with Pitt's support - annually introduced anti-slavery motions in Parliament.
But Wilberforce and his supporters had only limited success against the planters in the colonies who relied on slaves for cheap labour. It was not until 1807 that Parliament abolished slavery and it was not until August 1833 - a month after Wilberforce's death - that the slave trade was abolished throughout the Empire. (Thirty years were to pass before President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation freeing the slaves in the United States.)"
So, vote for those who are worthy - ignoring party affiliation. It only takes ONE true civil servant to bring about great change. What could happen if there were TWO such men? or THREE?
Oh, and I can't resist pointing out that Wilberforce was a bored, wealthy man who became a career politician. Some would say that he, therefore, should not have been a representative of the populace. I respectfully disagree. |
|
|
|
11/03/2006 01:42:33 PM · #91 |
| Thanks for the inspirational story, Ron. We are definitely due for a modern-day Wilberforce! |
|
|
|
11/03/2006 01:48:51 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by greatandsmall:
Personally speaking; I still have a lot more research to do before I vote. I will be attempting to determine which candidates stood up against the NWO initiatives, that have been so rapidly advanced by the current administration. |
Just curious: what are some of the NWO initiatives you're referring to, other than the two already mentioned in this thread?
|
|
|
|
11/03/2006 01:51:40 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Oh, and I can't resist pointing out that Wilberforce was a bored, wealthy man who became a career politician. Some would say that he, therefore, should not have been a representative of the populace. I respectfully disagree. |
Great story, though it seems to me that for every Wilberforce you find a few dozen George W. Bushes and Duke Cunninghams ... |
|
|
|
11/03/2006 02:13:33 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by RonB:
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. |
With $12 in my “war chest” just how do you propose I convince 8,000,000 people to give me $1?
Originally posted by RonB:
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? |
I made a bad generalization. There are SOME good bored rich politicians.
Originally posted by RonB:
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? |
Not impossible, but it’s hard to represent people that worry about paying their electrical bill when your biggest worry is should I have invested that 10 million in stocks or bonds? It seems to me that a disproportionate number of our reps are among the elite compared to the represented.
Originally posted by RonB:
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? |
Good point, but I can’t see how commercials saying the other guy is more of an ass hat then me is a good use when I see what organizations like the Make A Wish foundation can do with the money. Difference of opinion I guess.
Originally posted by RonB:
1) Why is it wrong to make politics a career? |
Probably a matter of opinion, but to me it does not seem right to make a career off being a representative of the people and getting rich off their tax money. I don’t have a problem with politicians that are moving up the ladder to an ultimate goal. My beef is with the guys that have held the same job for 30 years, are useless, and keep getting re-elected because that’s who the sheep always vote for. (I think you’d agree with most of the ones I’m thinking about)
Originally posted by RonB:
2) Why is being rich to begin with, or not needing the money qualify as a valid reason for excluding someone from holding office? |
It doesn’t and I didn’t say it should. But it also shouldn’t be a prerequisite! If I wanted to run for Senate there is no way I could unseat either of they guys in my state with my $12 “war chest.”
Originally posted by RonB:
3) Should congressional pay be scaled to one's net worth? More if you're "poor", none if you're "rich"? |
If I were making the rules, Congressmen and Senators would get paid the average household income for the area they represent. Kind of gives them some incentive to do a good job, huh? And it eliminates the people there just for the pay check. Benefits should be comparable too.
Originally posted by RonB:
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? |
If the person that best represents you is Ronald McDonald, that’s who you should vote for and there is nothing wrong with that. What I think is wrong is that most of my options are bored rich guys that are in no way a representation of me.
And note that the current pay for senate and congress is $165K/year so it’s actually triple what most Americans make. That’s high enough where people would do it just for the money and not for the good of the country.
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. |
Originally posted by RonB:
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. |
Agreed, bad generalization on my part as I stated.
I agree that SOME of our politicians should be bored rich people as those people need representation and SOME bored rich people can do a great job as a politician representing the rest of us. However, don’t you feel at all cheated when the vast majority of our “representatives” live lifestyles we only dream about? While we worry about paying taxes, keeping our job and making next month’s house payment, they build up their “war chest” so no one can unseat them.
|
|
|
|
11/03/2006 02:20:31 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Oh, and I can't resist pointing out that Wilberforce was a bored, wealthy man who became a career politician. Some would say that he, therefore, should not have been a representative of the populace. I respectfully disagree. |
Okay... Not ALL bored rich people make bad representatives.
|
|
|
|
11/03/2006 02:21:43 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by RonB:
Oh, and I can't resist pointing out that Wilberforce was a bored, wealthy man who became a career politician. Some would say that he, therefore, should not have been a representative of the populace. I respectfully disagree. |
Great story, though it seems to me that for every Wilberforce you find a few dozen George W. Bushes and Duke Cunninghams ... |
And Kennedys, Kerrys...
|
|
|
|
11/03/2006 03:10:41 PM · #97 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
... it’s hard to represent people that worry about paying their electrical bill when your biggest worry is should I have invested that 10 million in stocks or bonds? It seems to me that a disproportionate number of our reps are among the elite compared to the represented. |
Yes ... for some perspective:
Since the last time the Federal Minimum Wage was raised some 10 years ago to $5.25/hour* the salaries for members of Congress have been raised 8 times, from $133,600 to the current $165,200. This salary does not include paying for their staff (18-60 people), office or travel expenses, or the franking privilege (free postage).
*Working a full 8-hour day at minimum wage works out to the following, before deductions:
$42 per day
$210 per week
$903 per month (typical aparment rents around here are more than $1,00/month)
$10,836 per 52-week year (minimum wage workers typically do not get paid vacations) |
|
|
|
11/03/2006 03:22:40 PM · #98 |
Originally posted by fir3bird:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
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. |
When you have the ability to spend those millions, it matters not where they came from. ;) |
Those funds that are not personal, can't be spent on personal things. If a politician has $8million in campaign funds, they must be spent on campaigning, not a new Beemer for their daughter's sweet sixteen party. |
|
|
|
11/03/2006 03:27:10 PM · #99 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Oh, and I can't resist pointing out that Wilberforce was a bored, wealthy man who became a career politician. Some would say that he, therefore, should not have been a representative of the populace. I respectfully disagree. |
You had to go back over 200 years and to another country to find one bored wealty man who was worthy of representing his people? |
|
|
|
11/03/2006 03:27:21 PM · #100 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Those funds that are not personal, can't be spent on personal things. If a politician has $8million in campaign funds, they must be spent on campaigning, not a new Beemer for their daughter's sweet sixteen party. |
You'd be surprised (or maybe not) ... |
|
