Our future

[Doug S.]

Here's the NO SPIN, NO B.S., NO FABRICATION reason the 'college exists: WITHOUT IT, JUST A FEW STATES WITH LARGE POPULATIONS COULD, in effect, RULE THE WHOLE COUNTRY. They could dictate who was elected pres, what the national policies should be, what fed. laws/regs would be passed - the whole 9 yards. In effect, they COULD make the vast majority of the nation a voiceless, "fly over" area. That, sir, IS AN ABSOLUTE FACT.

The Founders wanted to make sure that would never be the case...'that smaller states would have a 'say' in things, and the 'college is the way they .

With all due respect, Larry, you are wrong. The very issue you mentioned is the reason the two houses of the Legislative Branch of our government is set up the way they are. Allotted state representation in the House of Representatives is based on population---there's the power of population. The numbers each state is allowed in the Senate is the same for every state, California and New York each get only two...the other states all have the same number. That provides a check-and-balance against the power to dominate based on population.

The Electoral College, on the other hand, is set up EXACTLY like the House of Representatives...states with larger populations get larger numbers of votes, thereby ensuring their power to dominate in the electoral process as run by the Electoral College.

Fred Staker was one hell of a Social Studies teacher...are you sure you studied the same U.S. government as the rest of us did? Sure wish you had been fortunate enough to have had Mr. Staker as a teacher :-/

Cheers!!

Doug

 

[Larry L.]

Let's say the U.S. only consisted of California and 3 other states whose total populations together fell short - or even far short - of Cali's. Let's further say the people in Cali were all staunch liberals and people in the other 3 states were a mix...but mostly conservative/libertarian. Then let's say the popular vote decided presidential elections.

Would D.C. politicians/candidates even visit those 3 other states? Would they care at all what people in those 3 states wanted to see done when it came time to pass this-or-that federal law/rule/regulation? Would they matter at all at any time?

 

[Nick]

Would D.C. politicians/candidates even visit those 3 other states? Would they care at all what people in those 3 states wanted to see done when it came time to pass this-or-that federal law/rule/regulation? Would they matter at all at any time?

Speaking from personnel experience they should and if they have any sense they would. No point spending all your time preaching to the converted.

If they do, those libertarian / conservatives may actually become liberated cast of the chains of oppression, see sense and convert from the dark side

Or are they all such staunch conservatives that no amount of facts or logic will change their views

 

[Larry L.]

Speaking from personnel experience yes they would.

Really? Didn't the absolute lib majority that ran congress during Obama's 1st two years tell the nation they were going to pass Obamacare with or w/o the GOP's input? Didn't Pelosi say she was going to DEEEEEEEEEEEM it passed?

Didn't Obama himself say (in reference to proposed solutions to the crash of '08) he wasn't too interested or inclined to listen to "the people (GOPs) who created the problem"...'that they should "sit in the back of the bus"?

So, in light of available evidence such as that, I suggest they in fact wouldn't.

 

[Nick]

Larry I actually put

Speaking from personnel experience they should and if they have any sense they would.

You appear to have changed that to

Originally Posted by Nick Brough

"Speaking from personnel experience yes they would,"

big difference in the two statements.

 

[Pat]

So, in light of available evidence such as that, I suggest they in fact wouldn't.

Case in point, Harry Reid...

Take for example in 2011 the GOP wanted a quick vote on Mr. Obama’s jobs plan, but Harry Reid blocked it knowing the president could not muster the necessary votes—among Democrats. Yet Mr. Obama continued his sales blitz across the country, touting his jobs plan and scolding Republicans in Congress more than once to “pass this bill.”

There was only one rather embarrassing problem: his $447 billion proposal was blocked in the Senate—by his fellow Democrats.

 

[Larry L.]

Larry I actually put



You appear to have changed that to

Originally Posted by Nick Brough

"Speaking from personnel experience yes they would,"

big difference in the two statements.

No, sir. It was a direct 'cut-and-paste' whether you believe that or not.

I cannot explain the diff.

 

[Nick]

I cannot explain the diff.

I believe I can but it's a bit boring and distracts from my main point. The fact remains my last edit was made at 5.31 and your reply was made at 5.53 so you had plenty of time to read the final posted draft.

 

[Larry L.]

Deleted. 'Screw up.

 

[Larry L.]

Deleted. 'Screw up.

 

[Larry L.]

Yeah, BUT - just as I cut and pasted your comment to the white 'reply' rectangle area, the phone rang...and I was tied up for a while with that B4 I typed what I typed and "sent" the post.

I be thinkin' you must have gone back and "edited" your comment BEFORE the site would have recorded any change you made as an "edit"....so, when I posted what I posted your edited post differed from the one I'd already cut-and-pasted earlier.

Am I right?

Trust me when I tell you I DID NOT 'edit' your post.

 

[Howard Jones]

Doc, interesting question. How would I do the voting if I was Emperor?

Well, here we go.

1. NO phone in, mail in, in advance voting, email or any other remote electronic voting, EXCEPT for military members that are overseas. Computer voting systems at polling places (maybe)

2. The election would be held over a 48 hour period on a week end.

3. The Senate would go back to the way it was and be appointed by the governor of each state.

4. House districts would be redrawn to borders that prevented gerrymandering.

5. Electoral collage:

I think I agree with the "factions" argument. After all, a majority of people already don't pay taxes. Imagine that they all vote for the party that proposes to tax the minority and thus support a total welfare state socialist form of government!

The reason that the Constitution calls for this extra layer, rather than just providing for the direct election of the president, is that most of the nation’s founders were actually rather afraid of democracy. James Madison worried about what he called "factions," which he defined as groups of citizens who have a common interest in some proposal that would either violate the rights of other citizens or would harm the nation as a whole. Madison’s fear – which Alexis de Tocqueville later dubbed "the tyranny of the majority" – was that a faction could grow to encompass more than 50 percent of the population, at which point it could "sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens." Madison has a solution for tyranny of the majority: "A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking."

I'd keep it until its changed by a constitutional convention. Which I lean towards favoring.

 

[Howard Jones]

Link to the entire article that I pasted from above.

The Reason for the Electoral College