|
|
| As if we could pretend this wouldn't come around... [message #131105] |
Thu, 06 January 2005 15:44   |
 |
Crimson
Messages: 7429
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
Popular vote throughout the nation is a morbidly STUPID idea and would never work until/unless we had accurate vote counting... COMPLETELY 99.99% accurate. And even after that, I don't think a raw popular vote would work for us. People are stupid.
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| As if we could pretend this wouldn't come around... [message #131326] |
Sat, 08 January 2005 06:29 |
 |
Fabian
Messages: 821
Registered: April 2003
Location: Boston, MA
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| Aircraftkiller |
The electoral vote gives everyone an equal voice, instead of having the massed population of one area in a state dictate what everyone else thinks.
|
Equal voice, huh? People in very low populated states who, proportionately, should have less than three electoral points, have an equal say? No. They get more than their share because they are guaranteed three. That's not equal, that's inflated.
As I said before, if popular vote would always "dictate what the rest of the country had to experience and live through," then why has the popular vote and the electoral points agreed for all but four times?
|
|
|
|
| As if we could pretend this wouldn't come around... [message #131342] |
Sat, 08 January 2005 09:29 |
 |
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Aircraftkiller |
The electoral vote gives everyone an equal voice, instead of having the massed population of one area in a state dictate what everyone else thinks.
|
Funny thing is, the exact opposite is true.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| As if we could pretend this wouldn't come around... [message #131515] |
Sun, 09 January 2005 12:19 |
|
Fabian
Messages: 821
Registered: April 2003
Location: Boston, MA
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| hydra1945 |
Dr. Hydra says: take two pills of common sense and get back to me in the morning, and if that doesn't cure your ignorance about the electoral college, try taking a crowbar to your head.
|
Way to give a link that also includes a strong argument for the opposite of your point.
No matter what points you give, the electoral college inflates the importance of some votes and deflates the importance of others, and it is not a true democratic process. Prevention of third parties? So the fuck what? If the third party has a stance that people agree with, why shouldn't people vote for him? Given the current system, a vote for a third party is throwing your vote away (this doesn't mean I like Nadar).
I love how you assume that my position on the issue is just shear ignorance, and your position must be correct. You're so fucking arrogant. YES, THERE ARE TWO VALID SIDES TO THIS ARGUMENT. JUST BECAUSE YOU ARE ON ONE END, DOES NOT MEAN THE OTHER END IS "IGNORANT."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
