Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

In praise of the Electoral College.

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

  • #16
    I honestly don't get your point. ^^

    Not sure if I'm being flamed. XD

    EDIT: Before you edited your post.

    Yeah, you are unique. And I'm not sure if there are other countries where states enjoy that much freedom in legislation. It certainly isn't that way in Germany (my home state, Hesse, still has the Death Penalty, but it's void since federal law > state law).

    Comment


    • #17
      This is the best graphic comparison I found, the US with the Electoral College and the proportionate influence of each State, and without the Electoral College, and the proportionate influence of each State.

      http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/922/Kjjv5f.jpg http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/923/fINhVF.jpg
      Last edited by digrar; 04-01-2017, 04:45 PM.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by clancy688 View Post
        I honestly don't get your point. ^^

        Not sure if I'm being flamed. XD

        EDIT: Before you edited your post.

        Yeah, you are unique. And I'm not sure if there are other countries where states enjoy that much freedom in legislation. It certainly isn't that way in Germany (my home state, Hesse, still has the Death Penalty, but it's void since federal law > state law).
        I mean no disrespect, but far as the German system, let's be frank, it's pretty shitty and only Germans think it's a good system. I mean, WTF is a Bundesregierung. How the hell do you even pronounce that? Silly Germans.

        Ya'll just jealous we invented freedom.

        Comment


        • #19
          Well, how about next time we go to war you conquer all the country and not just 25% of it? Then you can export your freedom to us.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by commanding View Post
            Orange Wolf,

            I assume you know the usa is a democratic republic. Not a democracy, not a monarchy.

            One more time: the USA is a group of STATES united. We are NOT one big ass state.
            Yes, I understand. But to me it is both a democracy and a republic. How is it not a democracy? By what definition? Because it is not an Athenian democracy? Because it is not a direct democracy? The USA is a democratic republic, my country is a democratic (constitutional) monarchy. Both are democracies. What is the point of differentiating between a Republic and a Democracy anyway?

            I understand the concept of federalism. My questions re the Electoral College took that into consideration. Why should more rural states have a relatively bigger say and what is the purpose of the winner-takes-all principle. Surely a change to that would not be incompatible with the federal system of the USA.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by OrangeWolf View Post

              Yes, I understand. But to me it is both a democracy and a republic. How is it not a democracy? By what definition? Because it is not an Athenian democracy? Because it is not a direct democracy? The USA is a democratic republic, my country is a democratic (constitutional) monarchy. Both are democracies. What is the point of differentiating between a Republic and a Democracy anyway?

              I understand the concept of federalism. My questions re the Electoral College took that into consideration. Why should more rural states have a relatively bigger say and what is the purpose of the winner-takes-all principle. Surely a change to that would not be incompatible with the federal system of the USA.
              Simply put the USA is comprised of states which Voluntarily joined to form a union. Each state has its own constitution as well as adhering to the US constitution. If population size is to be the governing factor in all elections why would smaller states want to stay in such a union where they get no say? the founders didn't want Delaware or Rhode Island ignored just because of their small populations

              All Elected federal officials would be from New York, Florida, Texas and California


              If we changed the Constitution every time one party lost a presidential election there would be 100 amendments.

              Funny how the Democrats didnt whine about Popular vote when Obama won more states in 2008 primaries than Hillary, yet Hillary got more actual votes

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Linedoggie View Post
                Funny how the Democrats didnt whine about Popular vote when Obama won more states in 2008 primaries than Hillary, yet Hillary got more actual votes
                It's okay only when WE do it.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Linedoggie View Post
                  If population size is to be the governing factor in all elections why would smaller states want to stay in such a union where they get no say? the founders didn't want Delaware or Rhode Island ignored just because of their small populations
                  They still have equal size in the senate. I mean purely for the President, who I get is elected by the States but the States are nothing if not a representation of their people, right?

                  For me this has nothing to do with the Democrats vs Repiblicans but out of interest how the system works. Had I lived in the US I wouldn't have voted in these elections, just interested in the system.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by OrangeWolf View Post

                    Yes, I understand. But to me it is both a democracy and a republic. How is it not a democracy? By what definition? Because it is not an Athenian democracy? Because it is not a direct democracy? The USA is a democratic republic, my country is a democratic (constitutional) monarchy. Both are democracies. What is the point of differentiating between a Republic and a Democracy anyway?

                    I understand the concept of federalism. My questions re the Electoral College took that into consideration. Why should more rural states have a relatively bigger say and what is the purpose of the winner-takes-all principle. Surely a change to that would not be incompatible with the federal system of the USA.
                    Two words: Constitutional Amendment

                    Those who oppose the Electoral College can attempt to change it by a Constitutional Amendment.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by GB_FXST View Post

                      Two words: Constitutional Amendment

                      Those who oppose the Electoral College can attempt to change it by a Constitutional Amendment.
                      But AFAIK this does not refer to the internal management of the elections within a state, right? Example: Nebraska.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by OrangeWolf View Post

                        But AFAIK this does not refer to the internal management of the elections within a state, right? Example: Nebraska.
                        Sure. I referred to a Constitutional Amendment to the US Constitution.

                        We would have to look at state-by-state to determine electoral change in each state. Each state has a constitution, which may or may not define electoral process, and each state constitution can change via a state level constitutional amendment.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by OrangeWolf View Post

                          They still have equal size in the senate. I mean purely for the President, who I get is elected by the States but the States are nothing if not a representation of their people, right?

                          For me this has nothing to do with the Democrats vs Repiblicans but out of interest how the system works. Had I lived in the US I wouldn't have voted in these elections, just interested in the system.
                          OrangeWolf the thing is............. these guys in powdered wigs, and shoes that had neither right of left footed shoes.....with no air conditioning, writing with quills and ink made from galls from oak trees, riding in on horses and wagons,.....wrote the US constitution in the hot summer months of 1787 with sweat rolling down their faces.....

                          their aim was to balance 1. democracy (individual rights) and 2. states rights (rights of smaller government = states), as well as north vs south states, considering black slaves and "free men" (not women), land owners and non land owners, etc etc. (every state is completely different in laws and taxes etc)

                          My point is I think they did a pretty fine job of writing the US constitution, Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights, considering it was 229 years ago, and we are doing pretty damn good if the only upset folks we have are some sore losers in the Hillary Clinton camp, when in fact the HRC camp knew going into the election what the rules were as far as the electoral college. Their organization knew the rules for years before the election, and if Hillary Clinton is in fact as intelligent as she claims to be, she also knew the rules of the Electoral college. Right?

                          So my question to you is why the hell would the US public desire to change a system that has worked, EXACTLY AS DESIGNED for 229 years, by the men we hold as the fathers of our way of life, and that many thousands of Americans have fought and died for both at home and on battlefields in other countries?

                          If you are just interested in system, that is exactly how the system works, and there are very very few people who want to change it. An amendment is not going to happen on this subject. Ever. As a long time student of history, I can assure you of that.

                          edit: the USA population in 1787 was 3.3 million citizens and now about 320 million. Same legal foundation, about 100% increase in number of citizens.
                          Last edited by commanding; 06-01-2017, 03:02 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #28

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by clancy688 View Post
                              Many countries are democratic republics (hell, my own country is one). You're just about the only guys on the planet who say that there's a difference between a democracy and a democratic republic, meaning that a democracy equals direct democracy, and republic doesn't
                              Democracy at the time of the founding of our country was synonymous popularly with "rule by the mob". That's why the word is neither in the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution. One of the first political parties that became the ancestor of the modern-day Democratic Party were the Democratic-Republicans, led by Thomas Jefferson. The word "Democrat" was a political slur heaped on them by the Federalists led by John Adams and later Alexander Hamilton. Jeffersonians adopted the slur but added "Republican" to the end of it to show "we believe in rule by the people, under the form of a republic.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X