Lynn,
Be careful. If you go to the one man one vote you have a true democracy and that is basicly mob rule. The group with the mostest would be the only ones to get their way.(sometimes I think that wouldn't be such a bad thing) The electorial college is the level field maker. Or put another way another check in the balance system.
When the whole system was designed, it was presented to the commoner as Lynn stated. However, to the aristocracy in the country, it was presented a little differently. They were told, yes the commoner gets to vote, but we will make it on a work day(a little longer than the 8 hour day), and we will get to vote unincumbered, and to top it off, we(the aristocracy) will control the electorial college, who really elect the president.
We have already given up one of the checks in the legislative branch. We don't need to give up this one too. As some of you may remember, the house of representatives was elected by the popular vote. The senate, however was appointed by the states legislature and governor, giving the states a sayso in the legislative process. That way the states could protect their "rights" in legislations. Remember the states had the check on the populist representatives, who would vote for anything that benefited their constituents and helped reassure their reelection. The sevnators had to answer to the states legislatures and govenors. Their job was to protect the "states rights" with respect to legislation.(a check on the mob rule thing). You only got replaced if the states legislature or governor got replaced by the oposing party. What happened, is that several states legislatures were so evenly split, they could not come to an agreement on who should be one or both of the senators for that state. That left some vacancys in the senate body. Not wanting to have a state felling left out, several years back, they changed the process to the popular vote for senators. Now they, just like their represenative brethern are only concerned with being reelected, and they spend all of their senate time doing nothing else but making sure of it. Ever since then, you have seen the states rights being eaten up by the federal government. There are fewer and fewer things that the states control. They have no one fighting for their "rights". Thus you see more and more things pushed to the federal level. The states have fewer things that they can control. Those that have a socialist agenda(read the few who want to rule the many) are working hard to get their agenda on the federal docket. Some are Democrat and some are Republican, and a lot are the Green party. One example is the gay marriage issue. Seperation of church and state is another.These are liberal issues and I use the gay marriage issue just for example. Why do you think they chose Massachusetts(Sp?) and California for the challenge to legalize it? They are the two most liberal states there are. By legalizing it, they were trying to slide it in by way of the back door on the other states since they have reciprocity with the other states(what you do is OK with me as long as what I do is OK with you). Some of the states are trying to fight back with their legislatures making it a state's constitutional issue(Ga. for example). They want the right to decide if it should be legal in their state. By getting the liberal states to say it's legal, they will work through the courts to write legislation making it legal everywhere.(another problem with the checks and balances, as the courts are supposed to rule on legislation, not write it)
I am sure I am not 100% right on, but you should be able to see what my gist is here.
Well enough of my rambling. I have an idea for those that think they are true republican or democrat or whatever. If you would like to see which party you are more in line with, go to Neal Boortz.com and take the political preference test and see if you align with the party you profess. I believe some of you will be a little surprised.
Bill
Be careful. If you go to the one man one vote you have a true democracy and that is basicly mob rule. The group with the mostest would be the only ones to get their way.(sometimes I think that wouldn't be such a bad thing) The electorial college is the level field maker. Or put another way another check in the balance system.
When the whole system was designed, it was presented to the commoner as Lynn stated. However, to the aristocracy in the country, it was presented a little differently. They were told, yes the commoner gets to vote, but we will make it on a work day(a little longer than the 8 hour day), and we will get to vote unincumbered, and to top it off, we(the aristocracy) will control the electorial college, who really elect the president.
We have already given up one of the checks in the legislative branch. We don't need to give up this one too. As some of you may remember, the house of representatives was elected by the popular vote. The senate, however was appointed by the states legislature and governor, giving the states a sayso in the legislative process. That way the states could protect their "rights" in legislations. Remember the states had the check on the populist representatives, who would vote for anything that benefited their constituents and helped reassure their reelection. The sevnators had to answer to the states legislatures and govenors. Their job was to protect the "states rights" with respect to legislation.(a check on the mob rule thing). You only got replaced if the states legislature or governor got replaced by the oposing party. What happened, is that several states legislatures were so evenly split, they could not come to an agreement on who should be one or both of the senators for that state. That left some vacancys in the senate body. Not wanting to have a state felling left out, several years back, they changed the process to the popular vote for senators. Now they, just like their represenative brethern are only concerned with being reelected, and they spend all of their senate time doing nothing else but making sure of it. Ever since then, you have seen the states rights being eaten up by the federal government. There are fewer and fewer things that the states control. They have no one fighting for their "rights". Thus you see more and more things pushed to the federal level. The states have fewer things that they can control. Those that have a socialist agenda(read the few who want to rule the many) are working hard to get their agenda on the federal docket. Some are Democrat and some are Republican, and a lot are the Green party. One example is the gay marriage issue. Seperation of church and state is another.These are liberal issues and I use the gay marriage issue just for example. Why do you think they chose Massachusetts(Sp?) and California for the challenge to legalize it? They are the two most liberal states there are. By legalizing it, they were trying to slide it in by way of the back door on the other states since they have reciprocity with the other states(what you do is OK with me as long as what I do is OK with you). Some of the states are trying to fight back with their legislatures making it a state's constitutional issue(Ga. for example). They want the right to decide if it should be legal in their state. By getting the liberal states to say it's legal, they will work through the courts to write legislation making it legal everywhere.(another problem with the checks and balances, as the courts are supposed to rule on legislation, not write it)
I am sure I am not 100% right on, but you should be able to see what my gist is here.
Well enough of my rambling. I have an idea for those that think they are true republican or democrat or whatever. If you would like to see which party you are more in line with, go to Neal Boortz.com and take the political preference test and see if you align with the party you profess. I believe some of you will be a little surprised.
Bill
