Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is it Time for a major change?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post
    Now We Know Why It’s Time to Dump the Electoral College

    https://finance.yahoo.com/news/now-k...172200852.html

    IMO the EC has been long over due to become history.
    We disagree here HPJ, I used to think that as well but have changed my mind, I am very much afraid that it could lead to direct democracy which I certainly do not want for my children and grandchildren, I would rather stick with the flawed representative republic we have.
    Trying hard to be the Man, that my Dog believes I am!

    Comment


    • #17
      One thing about living in Alabama, I can vote my conscience without having to worry about my vote helping to get a Democrat elected because I know we'll be a red state. If I were in a swing state I'd have to vote the lesser of two evils I guess.
      “I do not wish to have the slave emancipated because I love him, but because I hate his master."
      --Salmon P. Chase

      Comment


      • #18
        This stupidity comes up every few years. The Electoral college was set up for a very specific reason: To give states with smaller populations a say in the Presidential election process.

        Like the 17th Amendment the irrelevant Appeal to popularity of a direct democratic vote will not make things "fair" or "equal" for the majority of Americans. Instead, it makes things more unfair and unequal as it favors states with larger populations.

        The 17th Amendment took the power of the states to have a say in Congress with appointment of Senators by state legislatures or governors and turned the Senate into a second version of the House representing the people.

        Direct election of the President does the same thing on a nationwide scale. If you don't live in one of the seven (7) states that comprise more than 50% of the population of the US (California, Texas, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Ohio) then your vote is all but irrelevant, as are your state's issues at the Federal level. There'd be no one, other than your state's puny delegation in the House that has any pull with the Federal government at all.

        What elimination of the Electoral College really does is what the Left wants most: Concentrate power in the hands of a few. The more power gets concentrated, the more easily it becomes to move to a dictatorship and then force social change on the nation by government fiat. America's founders tried hard to prevent that by setting up a system to divide power and limit it. Ever since those who want power to rule over everyone else have sought to end that and concentrate power in their hands.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
          You mean like they do now? Colorado has zero influence in presidential elections, since the only states required are the ones that constitute the majority of electoral votes.

          It's way past time to get rid of the antiquated Electoral College system and make every American's vote count.

          If you abolish the EC, you make the US ungovernable,which will lead to dictatorship : The end of the EC will result in the end of the GOP and the Democrats : why would Kasich and Cruz remain in the same party if the EC disappears ?

          GOP and Democrats will be replaced by more than 100 parties : in each state there will be at least 2 parties,this will make the election of a president impossible and will prevent Congress to do its job .

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
            You mean like they do now? Colorado has zero influence in presidential elections, since the only states required are the ones that constitute the majority of electoral votes.

            It's way past time to get rid of the antiquated Electoral College system and make every American's vote count.
            You do so, you guarantee a Democrat President in office forever. That is, until they Democrats establish themselves as the only party in the country to form a dictatorship controlled by Southern California, Chicago, New York City area, Washington DC.

            Might as well eliminate the Senate while you are at it since it is based upon two votes per state, regardless of their population, and not the population of the country as the House is.

            The rest of the country will have no say or influence in the matter.

            Welcome to Agenda 21 soon after the EC process gets eliminated.
            “Breaking News,”

            “Something irrelevant in your life just happened and now we are going to blow it all out of proportion for days to keep you distracted from what's really going on.”

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by ljadw View Post
              If you abolish the EC, you make the US ungovernable,which will lead to dictatorship : The end of the EC will result in the end of the GOP and the Democrats : why would Kasich and Cruz remain in the same party if the EC disappears ?
              .
              That is completely unproven, and extremely doubtful. What it would do is make every vote equal, and not disenfranchise millions of voters as the electoral system does now.
              Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                That is completely unproven, and extremely doubtful. What it would do is make every vote equal, and not disenfranchise millions of voters as the electoral system does now.
                No, since voting would be strictly by population and more than 50% of all Americans live in just 7 states, some votes would be far more equal than others.
                Those living on the two coasts in large urban areas would dominate the election by sheer numbers. Their issues become the nation's issues. Places like Kansas or Alaska would get nothing. They'd be forgotten as their small population's votes are irrelevant to a Presidential candidate.
                What places like Los Angles or Washington DC want as solutions become everybody's solutions to everything. Problem in Montana? Who cares? Certainly not a government with no political capital or interest in that remote and sparsely populated state.

                Eliminating the EC just makes centralizing power and centralized rule all the more possible for those wanting it. That's why they want to eliminate the EC to begin with.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                  This stupidity comes up every few years. The Electoral college was set up for a very specific reason: To give states with smaller populations a say in the Presidential election process.

                  Like the 17th Amendment the irrelevant Appeal to popularity of a direct democratic vote will not make things "fair" or "equal" for the majority of Americans. Instead, it makes things more unfair and unequal as it favors states with larger populations.

                  The 17th Amendment took the power of the states to have a say in Congress with appointment of Senators by state legislatures or governors and turned the Senate into a second version of the House representing the people.

                  Direct election of the President does the same thing on a nationwide scale. If you don't live in one of the seven (7) states that comprise more than 50% of the population of the US (California, Texas, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Ohio) then your vote is all but irrelevant, as are your state's issues at the Federal level. There'd be no one, other than your state's puny delegation in the House that has any pull with the Federal government at all.

                  What elimination of the Electoral College really does is what the Left wants most: Concentrate power in the hands of a few. The more power gets concentrated, the more easily it becomes to move to a dictatorship and then force social change on the nation by government fiat. America's founders tried hard to prevent that by setting up a system to divide power and limit it. Ever since those who want power to rule over everyone else have sought to end that and concentrate power in their hands.
                  In the end it seems to come down to those states anyway. I'm willing to bet that is why many people don't vote. They know which way their state is going anyway so why bother?
                  “I do not wish to have the slave emancipated because I love him, but because I hate his master."
                  --Salmon P. Chase

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                    This stupidity comes up every few years. The Electoral college was set up for a very specific reason: To give states with smaller populations a say in the Presidential election process.

                    Like the 17th Amendment the irrelevant Appeal to popularity of a direct democratic vote will not make things "fair" or "equal" for the majority of Americans. Instead, it makes things more unfair and unequal as it favors states with larger populations.

                    The 17th Amendment took the power of the states to have a say in Congress with appointment of Senators by state legislatures or governors and turned the Senate into a second version of the House representing the people.

                    Direct election of the President does the same thing on a nationwide scale. If you don't live in one of the seven (7) states that comprise more than 50% of the population of the US (California, Texas, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Ohio) then your vote is all but irrelevant, as are your state's issues at the Federal level. There'd be no one, other than your state's puny delegation in the House that has any pull with the Federal government at all.

                    What elimination of the Electoral College really does is what the Left wants most: Concentrate power in the hands of a few. The more power gets concentrated, the more easily it becomes to move to a dictatorship and then force social change on the nation by government fiat. America's founders tried hard to prevent that by setting up a system to divide power and limit it. Ever since those who want power to rule over everyone else have sought to end that and concentrate power in their hands.
                    The 17th Amendment was passed because of the simple reason the the original system had failed. 36 STATE legislatures WILLING passed the amendment, thus GIVING up their power to appoint Senators. Nothing was
                    TAKEN from the States.

                    It did not work.

                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sevent...s_Constitution

                    Electoral deadlocks were another issue. Because state legislatures were charged with deciding whom to appoint as senators, the system relied on them being able to agree. Some states could not, and thus delayed sending representatives to Congress; in a few cases, the system broke down to the point where states completely lacked representation in the Senate.[14] Deadlocks started to become an issue in the 1850s, with a dead-locked Indiana legislature allowing a Senate seat to sit vacant for two years.[15] Between 1891 and 1905, 46 elections were deadlocked, in 20 different states;[13] in one extreme example, a Senate seat for Delaware went unfilled from 1899 until 1903.[16] The business of holding elections also caused great disruption in the state legislatures, with a full third of the Oregon House of Representatives choosing not to swear the oath of office in 1897 due to a dispute over an open Senate seat. The result was that the legislature was unable to pass legislation that year.[16]
                    “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
                    “To talk of many things:
                    Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
                    Of cabbages—and kings—
                    And why the sea is boiling hot—
                    And whether pigs have wings.”
                    ― Lewis Carroll

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
                      The 17th Amendment was passed because of the simple reason the the original system had failed. 36 STATE legislatures WILLING passed the amendment, thus GIVING up their power to appoint Senators. Nothing was
                      TAKEN from the States.

                      It did not work.
                      So the Feds appoint Senators now?

                      States didn't give up anything, they just changed how they chose their senators.

                      Tuebor

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
                        The 17th Amendment was passed because of the simple reason the the original system had failed. 36 STATE legislatures WILLING passed the amendment, thus GIVING up their power to appoint Senators. Nothing was
                        TAKEN from the States.

                        It did not work.

                        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sevent...s_Constitution
                        The system didn't fail. It was changed because it could be changed, and not for the better.
                        The reasons for the change varied by state. But, in giving up their power they really made the system worse not better.
                        What was taken from the states was that Senators no longer realistically had to listen to state legislatures or state governors as these were no longer who was appointing them.
                        They could, like the House, simply rake in money from a range of contributors and so long as they appealed to the public as candidates get elected. No longer were they answerable to their state directly.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Tuebor View Post
                          So the Feds appoint Senators now?

                          States didn't give up anything, they just changed how they chose their senators.

                          Tuebor
                          Did not say that. re-read.
                          “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
                          “To talk of many things:
                          Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
                          Of cabbages—and kings—
                          And why the sea is boiling hot—
                          And whether pigs have wings.”
                          ― Lewis Carroll

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                            The system didn't fail. It was changed because it could be changed, and not for the better.
                            The reasons for the change varied by state. But, in giving up their power they really made the system worse not better.
                            What was taken from the states was that Senators no longer realistically had to listen to state legislatures or state governors as these were no longer who was appointing them.
                            They could, like the House, simply rake in money from a range of contributors and so long as they appealed to the public as candidates get elected. No longer were they answerable to their state directly.
                            Yes, it failed. And it did so because of rapid partisan politics at the state level.

                            Once again, nothing was 'taken'.
                            “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
                            “To talk of many things:
                            Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
                            Of cabbages—and kings—
                            And why the sea is boiling hot—
                            And whether pigs have wings.”
                            ― Lewis Carroll

                            Comment

                            Latest Topics

                            Collapse

                            Working...
                            X