Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Your first line says you are still applying labels, my post was very much tongue in cheek, sorry that I tried humour on what must be a depressing day for you.
GT40s.com Paddock Politics Thread
- Thread starter Big-Foot
- Start date
- Status
Your first line says you are still applying labels, my post was very much tongue in cheek, sorry that I tried humour on what must be a depressing day for you.
Jeff, before we give President-elect Trump a "clean slate," he still has two separate fraud cases (one in NY, one in CA) relating to Trump University that are still proceeding.
The MAJORITY voted for Clinton, so nothing for the judicial branch to shoot down as unconstitutional. We still have three branches of government and all our other elected officials are voted in by popular vote, at least here in CA. I'd have to agree with Doug and say that the electoral college, an idea developed in the 18th century, has outlived its purpose in the 21st century.
All States will still have their 2 senators and the House will still be apportioned based upon the census every 10 years.
Either one 'gets' the 'hows', 'whys' and 'what fors' behind The Founders reasoning that the 'College was needed, or one doesn't.
But, I'd submit The Founders constituted some of the finest minds ever seen in this or any other nation (if not THEE finest), and given that, I personally would be loath to second guess the wisdom of their decision. :scholar:
Larry, I'm sure you'll recognize that our state-of-the-art in technology is an issue that our "founding fathers" could never have conceptualized. They still had not even "discovered" electricity yet.
Sure, they did a great job with what they had...but progress is undeniable. Our idea of transportation is one example...the founding fathers could not have conceptualized our beloved GT40s, for example.
So...to hold with your philosophy we should have/do/desire/etc. nothing that the founding fathers could not have planned for is pure folly, IMHO.
Progress is unstopable and technology is advancing at an exponential rate. Why should we embrace advances in medical technology, for example, and not embrace advances in other uses for technology, such as, shall we say, recording electoral results?
We currently have the technology to function without the Electoral College...it's as outdated as the antique medical devices with which you are undoubtedly familiar, and :thumbsup: for that!!
We all respect the FF's...but time marches on and there is as much room for advances in vote-recording technology as there is in medical technology. We should embrace both...and I would speculate that our founding fathers, who were a bunch of pretty smart fellows, would agree.
Time to move on and embrace the present, much less the future.
Cheers!
Doug
Sure, they did a great job with what they had...but progress is undeniable. Our idea of transportation is one example...the founding fathers could not have conceptualized our beloved GT40s, for example.
So...to hold with your philosophy we should have/do/desire/etc. nothing that the founding fathers could not have planned for is pure folly, IMHO.
Progress is unstopable and technology is advancing at an exponential rate. Why should we embrace advances in medical technology, for example, and not embrace advances in other uses for technology, such as, shall we say, recording electoral results?
We currently have the technology to function without the Electoral College...it's as outdated as the antique medical devices with which you are undoubtedly familiar, and :thumbsup: for that!!
We all respect the FF's...but time marches on and there is as much room for advances in vote-recording technology as there is in medical technology. We should embrace both...and I would speculate that our founding fathers, who were a bunch of pretty smart fellows, would agree.
Time to move on and embrace the present, much less the future.
Cheers!
Doug
Doug, you need to grasp the reason The Founders set up the 'College and recognize that said reason was not affected by or dependent upon the tech (or lack of same) available in The Founder's day, nor is it affected in any way or dependent upon today's tech! Tech plays no part in/has no effect on/has nothing to DO with the r-e-a-s-o-n the 'College was set up. The function/purpose of the 'College was - and still IS - to see to it that a few states with huge populations can't run roughshod over/impose their will over the rest of the states in the union via the sheer number of voters living within their borders. It doesn't matter if voting is done by touch screen, punch cards, smoke signals or carrier pidgin - the function of the 'College remains the same...'basically to see to it that individual states have as much of an equal a say in federal elections as possible...so to speak.
I would submit that today's "electors" do utilize today's tech to tally electoral votes. So, in that regard at least, your wish to incorporate modern tech has been granted. But, it'll take a constitutional amendment to dump the 'College.
As someone far wiser than I once said, I can take a stab at 'splainin' it to yuz, but, I can't understand it fer yuz! :nice:
HEY!!! I rezembulls that remark! :veryangry: (Apologies to Curly.)
Last edited:
As I remember, the members of the House of Representatives is based on apportionment (recognizing the "power" of population), whereas the SENATE is the branch that recognizes and accommodates the need to keep the populous states from running unfettered over the less populous states.
Admittedly, I am older than aluminum foil, but that is my memory. The electoral college was the "process" whereby the various states communicated the desires of their citizens.
I'll read that information you suggested...maybe it will make sense, but if communication of votes was the purpose for the Electoral College, IMHO there is no longer any need for it...other than to give some delegates a chance to party like it's 1984 (or was that 1994?)
[EDIT]: Well, Larry, I read Article 1, Section 2 multiple times, even read Wikipedia's information on the constitution...never once did I see the establishment of the Electoral College, just rules guiding the election of representatives. Can you provide a bit more guidance?
The 12th Ammendment, though, does mandate that the electoral college shall elect certain individuals provided there is no clear majority of the popular vote. Does that count? If so, I respectfully submit that we could AND SHOULD prioritize the majority of the popular vote...and I have yet to see any disagreement that HC won the majority of the popular vote.
Thanks!
[End edit]
Cheers!!
Doug
Admittedly, I am older than aluminum foil, but that is my memory. The electoral college was the "process" whereby the various states communicated the desires of their citizens.
I'll read that information you suggested...maybe it will make sense, but if communication of votes was the purpose for the Electoral College, IMHO there is no longer any need for it...other than to give some delegates a chance to party like it's 1984 (or was that 1994?)
[EDIT]: Well, Larry, I read Article 1, Section 2 multiple times, even read Wikipedia's information on the constitution...never once did I see the establishment of the Electoral College, just rules guiding the election of representatives. Can you provide a bit more guidance?
The 12th Ammendment, though, does mandate that the electoral college shall elect certain individuals provided there is no clear majority of the popular vote. Does that count? If so, I respectfully submit that we could AND SHOULD prioritize the majority of the popular vote...and I have yet to see any disagreement that HC won the majority of the popular vote.
Thanks!
[End edit]
Cheers!!
Doug
Last edited:
Randy, you need to cut Jeff some slack. It's already been established in the discussion about Hillary's emails that Jeff doesn't grasp the definition of facts.
Well, I'd submit that if you have the finest mind in this or any nation, then you don't own other human beings. The founding fathers owned slaves. And the electoral college was setup when there were 13 colonies. And there weren't 50 states spanning from the Atlantic to the Pacific Oceans. Every other office is elected by popular vote. The POTUS should be as well.
There's no "running roughshod" in a presidential race. No unconstitutional law is being passed. One person, one vote. BTW, the founding founders wouldn't even allow a female to vote. Genius? I think not.
At any rate, 33% of CA voted for Tump. Clinton got 61-62%. So, 2/3 of CA voted against Trump, which means there's about 6,000,000-ish voters feeling disenfranchised. And that's more than a bunch of states added together. 250 years ago, the electoral college may have made sense. Not any more.
How is the Trumpster going to deliver his election promises, Obarmy has left the pot empty so where is the cash going to come from?
Bob
Bob
In a nutshell, each state has as many "electors" as it has senators (2) AND members of the House of Reps...for a total of 538. (Yep! The 'value' of each individual citizen's vote does vary from state to state.) The minimum amount of electors assigned to any state is 3...including Wash. D.C....which isn't even a state. The total number of electoral votes need to 'win' is 270 (538 divided by 2 plus a smidgeon...just to keep things nice and neat, I guess.)
The gathering of electors wherein the electoral votes are tallied is what ended up being called/referred to as the Electoral College...don't ask me why. I imagine that's why you don't find it specifically mentioned in the Constitution.
The whole works is pretty thoroughly explained here if you want to wade thru it:
Does my vote count? Understanding the electoral college
My bad Doug. Here's another similar article:
https://thehornnews.com/college-offers-counseling-students-traumatized-trump/
https://thehornnews.com/college-offers-counseling-students-traumatized-trump/
You're obviously attempting to shoot the messenger, sir.
Does my vote count? Understanding the electoral college
From the above link: "...every state gets a number of electors that is the total of all of its representatives in Congress, both in the House of Representatives and in the Senate. The House of Representatives is divided approximately by population — big states have the most representatives, small states have the fewest — but every state has exactly two senators, regardless of size. That means that while big states have more electors than small states, they don't have as many more as they would based on population alone."
...which is the way The Founders figured was the best way to ensure a couple states with large populations (and the views/interests of THEIR population) would find it difficult to/couldn't lord over the whole country. Each state has its own individual interests/needs based on their own individual population/economic base, etc., and if the 'popular votes' of a couple of large population states determined whether or not this-or-that legislation were passed, it's easy to see how the best interests of the nation as a whole could take a back seat. One size does not fit all, if you will.
It's obvious your view differs from that of The Founders and nothing will change it. I'm not attempting to convert you. So, put down yer gun, son.
Because it has been a growing trend here in the UK for a number of years. I don't doubt that people of a 'Right' persuasion have muttered similar 'threats' but over here, at least, it appears more orchestrated by the more extremes of the left of which I believe we have a greater number of factions. To me, this is a fairly new tactic and one that is often demonstrated in '1/3rd world' countries if they don't like an election result because they are not used to, have no allegiance to, a sense of democracy which might have been enforced upon them by an 'economic benefactor' as a condition of aid.
Lets say that the recent mass left inspired demonstration against the Brexit result forced Parliaments hands for a re-run, and the Remain camp won. Has democracy been served? To me it only shows the political hypocrisy of those who would abandon democracy when they seek to overthrow a decision and yet embrace it when it suits them.
I see there have already been riots in US cities against the Presidential result. This is third world stuff and the rest of the world is watching..
Why, CHINA...of course. 'Surprised you didn't think of that! :laugh:
Sorry Larry, they're now broke after buying up all the English football leagues....:laugh:
(True)
- Status
