View Full Version : Who has to win the South?
Eliminating the Electoral college. I have'nt seen this to much in mainstream press but its happening.
In addition, California is moving its Primary from June to Febraury.
.
Instead of a Federal Amendment to the Constitution, individual States are modifying thier constitutions to weaken the system.
Fienstein has a Bill in the Senate, and Rep. Lofgren has a similar one in the house.
Rather than an amendment to our Federal Constitution, States are modifying their constitutions to read
"Electoral college votes will go to the winner of the Popular vote"
DENVER — The state Senate voted along party lines Monday in favor of joining with other states to bypass the Electoral College system and give their electoral votes to the winner of the nationwide popular vote
Oregon
SALEM, January 23, 2007 — The National Popular Vote bill for Oregon is in the process of being drafted, and its legislative sponsors will make a public announcement when they introduce the bill in the legislature.
The National Popular Vote bill would enact the proposed interstate compact entitled the "Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote."
Even North Dakota.
BISMARCK, N.D. -- A movement to essentially toss out the Electoral College and award the presidency to the winner of the nationwide popular vote is making some headway in states large and small -- including, somewhat improbably, North Dakota.
The National Popular Vote movement is aimed at preventing a repeat of 2000, when Democrat Al Gore lost despite getting more votes than George W. Bush. Backers are asking states to change their laws to award their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the popular vote nationally
New York
.
The bill’s sponsor, New York State Assemblyman Fred W. Thiele, Jr. stated in 2006:
"The election of the President by popular vote is a goal that is supported by more than 70% of the American people. There is no rational reason in the 21st Century why the public should not be permitted to select its President by majority vote. The Electoral College is a 18th Century anachronism that no longer serves the goals of a pure democracy. The enactment of an interstate compact to insure the popular election of the President is a creative and innovative way to attain this goal. New York State, the Empire State should take a leadership role in energizing our democracy
Massachusetts
BOSTON, January 11, 2007 — The National Popular Vote bill has been filed in the Massachusetts State Senate by Senator Joan Menard and in the House of Representatives by Representatives Martin J. Walsh and Charles A. Murphy.
The National Popular Vote bill would enact the proposed interstate compact entitled the "Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote."
."
California
SACRAMENTO, January 8, 2007 — The National Popular Vote bill (AB 2948) was sponsored in the California Legislature in the 2006 session by Tom Umberg (chair of the Assembly Elections and Reapportionment Committee), Mervyn M. Dymally, John Laird, Loni Hancock, Mark Leno, and Ted W. Lieu as well as Senator Jack Scott. The bill was managed in the California Senate in 2006 by Senator Debra Bowen (who was elected California Secretary of State in November 2006). The 2006 bill was vetoed on September 30, 2006. A new bill will be introduced for 2007. Carole Migden is sponsoring SB 37 in the 2007 session.
Wisconsin
MADISON, January 15, 2007 — Wisconsin State Rep. Terese Berceau is planning to introduce the National Popular Vote bill into Wisconsin Legislature for the 2007 session.
Who's against it?
Mississippi could lose its voting "clout" if a budding move to rid elections of the Electoral College gains steam
The Electoral College, they argue, is a constitutional anachronism that can (as in 2000) thwart the will of the voters.
They also argue that America is increasingly urbanized - 80 percent of Americans now live in cities and suburbs, rendering the Electoral College obsolete.
But that's precisely why Mississippi should want to keep it. If it weren't for Mississippi's electoral vote, with its sparse, rural population, it would have no voting "clout" at all. Presidential candidates would skip over the state - almost true now. But with regional primaries, the state still gives candidates a reason to visit - if they're in the neighborhood
Link to story (http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070123/OPINION01/701230319/1008/OPINION)
GameTheory
01-28-2007, 01:07 AM
They also argue that America is increasingly urbanized - 80 percent of Americans now live in cities and suburbs, rendering the Electoral College obsolete.To me, that's the main reason to keep it. Environmentalists ought to fear this -- the unpopulated areas with lots of natural resources will be raped. Wyoming will become a giant trash dump. Why not? There will be no voting power there to stop it.
I think the change the states need to make is simply to get rid of winner-takes-all. They have it in their power to split up their votes, but state politics dicates that the party in power never wants to do that. But some states having more voting power per person doesn't bother me -- I think it should broken up by land area, not population, and the electoral college does that somewhat. If you want more voting clout, move to one of those states...
PaceAdvantage
01-28-2007, 04:19 AM
Bush sure has had quite an impact on folks, hasn't he? He must hold the world record for "Person responsible for the most knee-jerk reactions ever."
betchatoo
01-28-2007, 08:07 AM
To me, that's the main reason to keep it. Environmentalists ought to fear this -- the unpopulated areas with lots of natural resources will be raped. Wyoming will become a giant trash dump. Why not? There will be no voting power there to stop it.
I think the change the states need to make is simply to get rid of winner-takes-all. They have it in their power to split up their votes, but state politics dicates that the party in power never wants to do that. But some states having more voting power per person doesn't bother me -- I think it should broken up by land area, not population, and the electoral college does that somewhat. If you want more voting clout, move to one of those states...
So the "land"votes instead of the people? Oh, that's good. Then the vote of a farmer in Wyoming is worth more than 4 million votes in Manhattan. A government by the land, of the land, for the land. :bang:
rrpic6
01-28-2007, 08:15 AM
Bush sure has had quite an impact on folks, hasn't he? He must hold the world record for "Person responsible for the most knee-jerk reactions ever."
Including many knee-jerk reactions of his own. "Iraq certainly has WMD's, so lets invade 'em, and "Mission Accomplished" are just two that come to mind."
It is the state's right to decide how they vote, so no ammendments is needed.
I do, however, believe myself, that the EC is not a good thing and needs to go. I think popular votes should decide. BUT, and a big BUT, before that can happen, there needs to be a natinal standard vfor voting, eligibility, and counting on all Federal elections. States can do what they want to for local electins, again, thier right, but for federal electins, a strict, document, third party audited system needs to be in effect. Sadly, the micrometers I use at work are more tightly controlled than the voting in my area
Just funny, before the election, the big topic here was faulty voting machines, but with a dem win, the topic disappeared, save a few mentions by me. Strange. :rolleyes:
DJofSD
01-28-2007, 10:54 AM
Tom, faulty is a relative term.
It's like those undocumented features we discover in software.
Or, IOW, who's ox is being gored.
Maybe Nancy will put this on her agenda right after global warming.
Just funny, before the election, the big topic here was faulty voting machines, but with a dem win, the topic disappeared, save a few mentions by me. Strange. :rolleyes:
It appears the machines have been repaired. They are now recording the vote as it was intended :D .
Secretariat
01-28-2007, 12:09 PM
I disagree with LBJ on this one. I do not beleive the voting machines have been repaired despite the outcome. Way too many irregularitie reported during the last election. Safeguarding the election is always critical.
As to GT's fear comment again on no one will care about Wyoming....It always surprises me that many of the people who are pro-environmental come from the cities. They appreciate the land very much and value its contribution to our society. This fear-mongering that state's will lose their rights was aptly addressed by one poster who stated that so one farmer/rancher in Wyoming's vte is worth more than 4 million in New York.
I'm all for doing away with the Electoral College. The idea the founders couldn't have been wrong on points for the future is istaken. Slavery, no votes for women, indians and blacks. All errors remedied by the amendments. Here however the Electoral College gives rights to states over people, and smaller states will always attempt to wield power over larger ones with this. Frankly, I think we could help reduce the deficit by getting rid of the Senate where small states wield an enormous power over larger ones. two senators from Wyoming having equal say to two senators from California. If one compares the populations of those states it is a travesty. We could do with a simple House of Representatives, an Exexutive Branch and the Supreem Court, Think of the politician salaries we'd be saving.
GameTheory
01-28-2007, 12:29 PM
One bonus of getting rid of it is that it might improve turnout. When I lived in California and decided I could not vote for Clinton a second time or Gore a first time, it seemed rather pointless to vote at all since California was going to go Democrat in a big way and my vote essentially would not count at all. Now Clinton was obviously a foregone conclusion, but the Gore/Bush election was close. It is quite possible that under a different system, Bush would have won the popular vote because people will feel that their votes will count no matter where they are from. Of course, you get the same result just by getting rid of winner-takes-all which would solve most problems with the electoral college that people compain about, but no one pays attention to that idea for some reason. I don't think people realize that the winner-takes-all system is also decided state by state and is not built-in to the electoral college system by default.
But I still worry about Wyoming becoming Manhattan's outhouse or a toxic waste dump. (And where to put NYC's shit -- literally -- is actually a big problem.) But I don't think there is any way around bigger groups screwing smaller groups under any system.
But let's be honest about motivations here -- liberals feel that the more urban people are more liberal, and getting rid of the electoral college is good for liberals. If it was the other way around, they'd be against it.
But won't all the states that have that extra clout now never agree to this? (Giving their votes to the popular vote winner.) And so if the other states agree to go with the popular vote, doesn't that give the smaller states even MORE power?
I think the political landscape is changing. Red states are drifting purple.
Last election showed "Bush Fatique" And although many here poo-poo the bushs' present standing in polls-universally awfull-the war and bush personally have soured republican credibilty. The repub presidential front runners are shifting to try to take advantage of the sea change.
Environtal concerns are also spreading nationwide. Even Wyoming is gonna reconsider.
Oh yeah, we would of had an official President namend Gore.
PaceAdvantage
01-28-2007, 01:41 PM
Oh yeah, we would of had an official President namend Gore.
Yeah, but even TODAY, hardly ANYBODY wants THAT! LOL
So why would we have wanted one back then? NY City would probably have been blown off the map by now with a Gore presidency in place.
chickenhead
01-28-2007, 01:43 PM
One bonus of getting rid of it is that it might improve turnout.
DING DING DING
You pretty much summed it up before, in that the states can make themselves proportional if they wish. And while I would very much like California to be proportional (NOT because I want to weaken Dem support or strengthen Rep support) it will never happen.
But I still don't quite get the land mass argument. Maybe it should be weakly accounted for, but it seems an awfully strong accounting. I doubt it had near as much to do with the idea of good government as it did with getting people to sign on to the idea of the US in the first place. Kind of an unhappy necessity.
We were talking Kyoto in another thread, that is a big question. Should carbon be limited by land mass, or per capita, or ?
JustRalph
01-28-2007, 01:54 PM
It has worked just fine for over 200 years................. it is a ploy by the Big cities to increase their control. End of story.
GameTheory
01-28-2007, 02:30 PM
But I still don't quite get the land mass argument. Maybe it should be weakly accounted for, but it seems an awfully strong accounting.Whathisname up there overstated my case when he said, "So the land gets the vote" -- that's not really what I meant. But I do think the land and the people that live in rural areas need representation with enough weight to mean something. All the power in the hands of the urbanites -- a dozen cities or so in a country this vast? Talk about disenfranchising the poor -- sheesh. Does that really seem like a good idea?
Everyone seems ready to throw away state's rights and the whole system of federalism that the country was founded on. I think it needs a better argument than "This system is OLD!" (After all, isn't that an argument that it works well?)
This whole popular vote argument (i.e. Al Gore should have won) is lame because it assumes the voting patterns, turnout, etc would all have been the same under a different system. In a pure popular vote election, Bush very well could have won for reasons I stated above (bigger Republican turnout in states like CA, MI, NY etc where the Democrat was certainly going to win the state -- of course the opposite is also true), but also because campaigning would be completely different. The popular vote doesn't count, the electoral votes do, the candidates know that, and act accordingly. Under a different system, they would act a different way. So saying Al Gore would have won without the electoral college is stupid and unfounded -- it is just unknowable. I mean, if it was a landslide in the popular vote for Gore, and still Bush won, I'd say that's a problem. But it was a very thin margin -- it is just whining.
It has worked just fine for over 200 years................. it is a ploy by the Big cities to increase their control. End of story.
It hasn't. There are many hiccups. Not the least of which is the current President was elected by receiving less votes than his opponent.
Further, Electoral College appears no where in our Constitution.
One Man One Vote? Who isn't for that? Name me one Electoral Voter? Who are these faceless men?
I think Americans need to know.. They have no right to a vote. There is no right to Vote in America. Its not in our Constitution, nor the Bill of Rights.
Iraqi citizens have stronger voting rights than Americans.
Eliminating the Electoral College is a move to strengthen our right as citizens to Elect a representative government. That starts with something simple.
The person who gets the most votes wins. End of story.
GameTheory
01-28-2007, 02:49 PM
It hasn't. There are many hiccups.If you think any system that involves electing people isn't going to have controversy and hiccups, you're crazy.
Not the least of which is the current President was elected by receiving less votes than his opponent.I think that is the least, actually, and is invalid as I explained above. It is an unfortunate side-effect that is possible in close elections -- it doesn't "look good" -- but that's about all you can say about it. All this talk about the will of the people not being served, etc, is garbage...
chickenhead
01-28-2007, 02:53 PM
All the power in the hands of the urbanites -- a dozen cities or so in a country this vast? Talk about disenfranchising the poor -- sheesh. Does that really seem like a good idea?
Remember we are only talking about the President here...I'm not suggesting any changes to the House or Senate, which are already geared strongly to protect the sparsely populated. I don't want to disenfranchise anyone, I live in a small town myself. I just think the president represents people, rather than states.
The house represents ~counties
The Senate represents ~states
The pres represents people individually, or all of us taken together (same thing)
sounds pretty good to me.
I think entirely too much emphasis is given to the presidency, in all things...but I think it is on it's face a broken system when presidential candidates don't come to California. That is absurd.
. All this talk about the will of the people not being served, etc, is garbage...
Remember shock and awe? We thought he had chemical weapons? Maybe a nuke.
When we sent our boys across the desert after shock and awe, Americans knew there was a good chance he might unleash X weapon and our boys would die.
Maybe 20,000 of them, maybe 50,000 of them.
Then we'd have to get another 50,000 and go in again.
Americans have an appetite for war, and an appetite for defending itself.
Americans do not have an appetite for lies, and mistakes, and senseless warfare.
The will of the American People is to leave Iraq.
Everyday we are there, our will is denied.
GameTheory
01-28-2007, 03:09 PM
Remember shock and awe? We thought he had chemical weapons? Maybe a nuke.
When we sent our boys across the desert after shock and awe, Americans knew there was a good chance he might unleash X weapon and our boys would die.
Maybe 20,000 of them, maybe 50,000 of them.
Then we'd have to get another 50,000 and go in again.
Americans have an appetite for war, and an appetite for defending itself.
Americans do not have an appetite for lies, and mistakes, and senseless warfare.
The will of the American People is to leave Iraq.
Everyday we are there, our will is denied.
Ummm... is there ANYONE around here who doesn't like Bush that is capable of having an intellectually honest conversation about anything? That can stay on topic? Is there a version of Tourette's syndrome where people just randomly shout out anti-Bushisms? Seems like many around here have that...
GameTheory
01-28-2007, 03:11 PM
Remember we are only talking about the President here...I'm not suggesting any changes to the House or Senate, which are already geared strongly to protect the sparsely populated. I don't want to disenfranchise anyone, I live in a small town myself. I just think the president represents people, rather than states.
The house represents ~counties
The Senate represents ~states
The pres represents people individually, or all of us taken together (same thing)
sounds pretty good to me.
I think entirely too much emphasis is given to the presidency, in all things...but I think it is on it's face a broken system when presidential candidates don't come to California. That is absurd.Fair enough. But let's cut out that gerrymandering -- that system is much more pernicious than the electoral college.
Ummm... is there ANYONE around here who doesn't like Bush that is capable of having an intellectually honest conversation about anything? That can stay on topic? Is there a version of Tourette's syndrome where people just randomly shout out anti-Bushisms? Seems like many around here have that...
What will of the people are you talking about? I used the most well known example.
I could use minimum wage, I could use border patrol, I could use Health care, I could use SSI...
What example did you want to demonstrate the will of the people is not happening? Gambling on-line?
Or are you speaking in theory....because we elect Congress, and state reps, that in a general sense our will is permeated?
I don't agree. The system is broke. We are not represented.....we are ruled.
Hogwash.
The system works.
You got a demorcat congress and THEY pass legislation, not the president.
So far, they have blinked and applauded, but if they don't vote the way you want them too, don't blame me, - I sure didn't vote them in.
I agree with GT - you guys always run out of arguments and resort to Bush Bad.
:lol:
.
When a man receives less votes and wins the Presidency the system does not work??:lol:
Who could say that that believes in One Man One Vote?
100% right, California has the MOST electoral votes (55) and canditates don't campaign there.
They spend time in South Carolina , talking about Abortion and the Bible in Schools.
System is flawed. Clearly
Overlay
01-28-2007, 03:39 PM
It hasn't. There are many hiccups. Not the least of which is the current President was elected by receiving less votes than his opponent.
Further, Electoral College appears no where in our Constitution.
Article III, Section I, of the Constitution (as modified by the 12th Amendment), is the basis for the Electoral College.
There have been several occasions in our history when a candidate has become president with a majority of the Electoral College, while failing to win a majority of the popular vote, and the country has survived each time. There was debate about the Electoral College on each such occasion, but it was not abandoned because it preserves the rights and importance of smaller states in the presidential election process (which was the intent of those who wrote the Constitution) in a way that a direct popular vote would not.
The Electoral College mechanism could be changed, but it would require a Constitutional amendment to do it, not just an ordinary piece of legislation.
chickenhead
01-28-2007, 03:47 PM
which really goes back to the winner take all thing. It's not the electoral college itself that is so bad (IMO), it is the winner take all setup by the states, that is what really discourages voting and competition. It is MUCH closer to popular vote otherwise, and all votes matter.
I just don't see how you could get the states to change, unless it was done by agreement, whereby states that roughly offset each other politically agreed to open up for proportional electors at the same time.
What Suff pointed out the states are doing is another workaround, by giving them all to the popular winner. That is scary though, as potentially the candidate could have no support from anyone in the state, yet get all their votes. That sounds broken to me as well.
[QUOTE]Article III, Section I, of the Constitution (as modified by the 12th Amendment), is the basis for the Electoral College.
The Electoral College was a term not even used until early 1800's and never appeared in the Constitution, and was not in any Federal Law until 1845.
The Electoral College mechanism could be changed, but it would require a Constitutional amendment to do it, not just an ordinary piece of legislation
The Popular vote movement is doing an end around that. State legislators are modifying State constitutions that will award their electoral college Votes to the candidate with the Most votes nationally.
Feinstein's Bill is a 2nd Front, completely separate from the States efforts. Her Bill calls for a constitutional convention to amend the constitution. That effort would require ratification from 38 states.....and that, as you said , is unlikely
Chickenhead - we are talking the states award all the electoral votes to the winner in that state aren't we?
As far as repubs not campaining in California, with a state so morally bankrupt, mentally challeneged and outright ridiculous - why bother? You think millions of those illegals aren't voting? THAT is where the system is broken. I walk iinto the polling place and sign my name, presto! I vote. NO ID CHECKS whatsoever! This is absurd! I get proofed at Wegman's for beer ( and I'm older than most scotch!).
But, if the states are modifying how their cotes are cast, whats the problem? The system works. As long as they split the votes along popular results - say, 55/45, or whatever. That, to me is fair enough.
JustRalph
01-28-2007, 04:58 PM
remove the electoral college and NY and California pick the president every election. After a few elections, you end up with states talking about leaving the union. Which I am in favor of any way.............. so go for it
Overlay
01-28-2007, 05:04 PM
But, if the states are modifying how their cotes are cast, whats the problem? The system works. As long as they split the votes along popular results - say, 55/45, or whatever. That, to me is fair enough.
In almost every recent election, there has been a third-party candidate who polled a sizable number of popular votes. I haven't gone back and done precise calculations, but it would seem to me that allocating electoral votes on the basis of percentage of the popular vote would have leveled out the electoral vote totals to a degree where no candidate would have achieved a clear electoral majority in most (or all) of those elections. That would have thrown the election into the House of Representatives, where (again, according to the Constitution) each state would have one vote, so it would again be "winner take all", only on a smaller scale. Do we really want to go through a process like that every four years? And changing it would again require a Constitutional amendment, which (as even Suff noted) would be unlikely.
remove the electoral college and NY and California pick the president every election. After a few elections, you end up with states talking about leaving the union. Which I am in favor of any way.............. so go for it
I can think of 10 offhand I would love to see go! :lol:
Require a valid SS card to vote and I think California would lose about half it's elctorals! Si, is true!
chickenhead
01-28-2007, 05:26 PM
So basically JR, California and NY stay in the Union even though we get screwed...but the shoe on the other foot and you jump ship?
So we in Cali and NY are Americans first...obviously (since we stay, despite our taxation without representation), and you're an opportunist first, American second?
Good riddance with that attitude.
chickenhead
01-28-2007, 05:28 PM
Tom, you get me a president and congress to cut down on the illegal stampede I'll be a happy guy....but to blame california, or californians, for this problem is nuts. We are victims here.
chickenhead
01-28-2007, 05:36 PM
btw...there is one and only one officer whose constitutional duty it is to protect us from invasion, and that is the President of the United States.
30 million people across our borders is an invasion. I think all the talk about impeaching the president over Iraq is a joke, but I would support impeaching this president and any of ones to follow who also completely fail to fulfill one of their specifically enumerated constitutional duties.
kenwoodallpromos
01-28-2007, 05:45 PM
The Constitution is trshed daily now by the pres, Congress, and the Supremes. So it figures some want tp trash it with regards to electing the Pres.
Electoral College- you have to read to understand thatr it is a made-up name for the state electoral balloting, and that the electorals are supposed to be people you never heard of. Just party loyalists who have the power to vote according to the popular vote now if they wish.
What the Dems do not understand is that only using the popular vote will destry the 2-party system because the primaries would be meaningless and the general electionwould be open to anyone like Perot who has the money to influence the voters late regardless of party loyalty.
Dem know an ammendment would never be voted in because it takes 2/3 vote of each state to agree.
So now an "interstate compact" which is unconstitutional. because that would eliminate the right of each state to decide how they will pick the electors.
Think, man!
chickenhead
01-28-2007, 05:51 PM
The point some people seem to be missing is Suffs original point...that an amendment to the fed const. is not required. The States have the right to apportion the votes however they want, the constitution only sets how many votes they get. The states decide the rest.
It's a states rights issue JR. You don't want to limit states rights, do you? :lol:
Tom, you get me a president and congress to cut down on the illegal stampede I'll be a happy guy....but to blame california, or californians, for this problem is nuts. We are victims here.
No you're not - you keep electing these brain dead govenors and dem leaders. :lol:
What you guys should have done when the courts shot down your prop about not paying for illegals was shut the damn state down. Maybe a mob on the courthouse would have been in order. YOu guys got royally screwed by the courts, and I cannot believe no one has taken a shot or two at some of the judges. They need to run out of the state and country as traitors.
BTW, Calif leads the list of states I would get rid of. :eek:
chickenhead
01-28-2007, 07:01 PM
you've got Chuck Schumer in the Senate, and you talk smack about us?!!!
new rule. you don't get to talk about California again until Schumer is no longer in office. :cool: Then we can talk.
Until then, lets focus on getting someone elected to national office that will do something right for a change.
btw...there is one and only one officer whose constitutional duty it is to protect us from invasion, and that is the President of the United States.
30 million people across our borders is an invasion. I think all the talk about impeaching the president over Iraq is a joke, but I would support impeaching this president and any of ones to follow who also completely fail to fulfill one of their specifically enumerated constitutional duties.
YES !!!
And every SOB elected official who has refused to enforce the laws!
Thorw the scoundrels out. Put them in prison!
THIS is the iisue that Bush should go to prison over. Undobubtedly. Him and Bubba in the same cell. Let's see who the REAL decider is! :kiss::kiss::kiss:
46zilzal
01-28-2007, 07:05 PM
BTW, Calif leads the list of states I would get rid of.
the Gross National Product of the U.S. would suffer markedly and you would have few fresh vegetables.
If it were an independent country , it would be about the 10th largest economy in the world.
you've got Chuck Schumer in the Senate, and you talk smack about us?!!!
new rule. you don't get to talk about California again until Schumer is no longer in office. :cool: Then we can talk.
Until then, lets focus on getting someone elected to national office that will do something right for a change.
I got "Up"Chuck Schummer AND Hillary! Who better to be ornery than ME?! ;)
And, NY is also on my list of throw away states. We already started - we shipped out most of our jobs years ago.:mad:
the Gross National Product of the U.S. would suffer markedly and you would have few fresh vegetables.
.....and a whole lot less nuts!:lol:
chickenhead
01-28-2007, 07:31 PM
hey 46, have you seen this story?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070128/ap_on_re_us/mountain_lion_attack
Tom, this happened right around where I grew up, most liberal place on the planet. And you guys think we're a bunch of pantywaists. We've got 70 year old women fighting off mountain lions with ball point pens! She snapped it off in it's eye, btw, and then went for a log.
Top that Ohio!
46zilzal
01-28-2007, 07:38 PM
was on CNN today
hey 46, have you seen this story?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070128/ap_on_re_us/mountain_lion_attack
Tom, this happened right around where I grew up, most liberal place on the planet. And you guys think we're a bunch of pantywaists. We've got 70 year old women fighting off mountain lions with ball point pens! She snapped it off in it's eye, btw, and then went for a log.
Top that Ohio!
Cool!
That old gal should run for office. ;)
Electoral college to Mountain Lions inside of 24 hours. Some sort of record there. Gotta be.
Its pretty clear that ONE VOTE per person is true Democracy, and by weighting one vote as more valuable than another is not.
chickenhead
01-28-2007, 08:23 PM
Electoral college to Mountain Lions inside of 24 hours. Some sort of record there. Gotta be.
:jump:
that record is like the damn crown jewel here in OT! To even be nominated is an honor.
Show Me the Wire
01-28-2007, 08:34 PM
Electoral college to Mountain Lions inside of 24 hours. Some sort of record there. Gotta be.
Its pretty clear that ONE VOTE per person is true Democracy, and by weighting one vote as more valuable than another is not.
That is exactly what the founding fathers did not want. The whole reason for the electoral college is to form a democratic Republic, not a true democracy.
skate
01-28-2007, 09:10 PM
To me, that's the main reason to keep it. Environmentalists ought to fear this -- the unpopulated areas with lots of natural resources will be raped. Wyoming will become a giant trash dump. Why not? There will be no voting power there to stop it.
I think the change the states need to make is simply to get rid of winner-takes-all. They have it in their power to split up their votes, but state politics dicates that the party in power never wants to do that. But some states having more voting power per person doesn't bother me -- I think it should broken up by land area, not population, and the electoral college does that somewhat. If you want more voting clout, move to one of those states...
ya game;
good point. Nevada, with the nuke waste dump is a good example. now with nev. getting bigger, things may change.
but just to elaborate on your point, they selected a nuke dump site on a fault line.
and they send the stuff accross country.
skate
01-28-2007, 09:28 PM
It is the state's right to decide how they vote, so no ammendments is needed.
I do, however, believe myself, that the EC is not a good thing and needs to go. I think popular votes should decide. BUT, and a big BUT, before that can happen, there needs to be a natinal standard vfor voting, eligibility, and counting on all Federal elections. States can do what they want to for local electins, again, thier right, but for federal electins, a strict, document, third party audited system needs to be in effect. Sadly, the micrometers I use at work are more tightly controlled than the voting in my area
Just funny, before the election, the big topic here was faulty voting machines, but with a dem win, the topic disappeared, save a few mentions by me. Strange. :rolleyes:
god , thats beautiful.
i kept reading and the more i read the more i said "thats a good point".
now a little levity, i also think that the 'big-butt' should not be aloud to vote.
now the levigate, i can't say "limit the voters by IQ" but maybe a soft devotion, or a show of genuine ability to think. gees, i'd hate to illuminate myself thou.
and and and that last part, aint it funny and so true, whatever happened to the big problem with the machines?
That is exactly what the founding fathers did not want. The whole reason for the electoral college is to form a democratic Republic, not a true democracy.
You can't have a Republic if your dead! The Terrorists want to cut your head off!!!! Don't you understand that? And you want to talk Founding Fathers??
The Terrorists want to kill you!
All I know is George Bush won the popular vote in 2004 and we have not had a Terrorist Attack since! The Popular vote STOPS TERRORISTS!!
Why are you with the Terrorists? A vote for Electoral College is a vote for the Terrorists!
Founding Fathers??:faint: The Terrorists want us Dead!
skate
01-28-2007, 09:37 PM
Remember shock and awe? We thought he had chemical weapons? Maybe a nuke.
When we sent our boys across the desert after shock and awe, Americans knew there was a good chance he might unleash X weapon and our boys would die.
Maybe 20,000 of them, maybe 50,000 of them.
Then we'd have to get another 50,000 and go in again.
Americans have an appetite for war, and an appetite for defending itself.
Americans do not have an appetite for lies, and mistakes, and senseless warfare.
The will of the American People is to leave Iraq.
Everyday we are there, our will is denied.
well, see, you have a ton of good points here, and then you go and mess things up, by taking into consideration "what the people might think", "the people who do not know" , the same "people who elected elbush (not me) to do the very job he is doing". leave it at that, let him do his job, give him backing and lets get the hell away from there.
well, see, you have a ton of good points here, and then you go and mess things up, by taking into consideration "what the people might think", "the people who do not know" , the same "people who elected elbush (not me) to do the very job he is doing". leave it at that, let him do his job, give him backing and lets get the hell away from there.
People know. People by and large are not stupid.
3000 dead? Small number for 4 year war. Tiny tiny number. People know that.
Anti-war, anti-bush, anti-neocon ant-anti use the 3000 symbol.
Americans don't see 3000 and say OMG!!
That's silly.
Americans see what is. All Things. Then they make a call.
skate
01-28-2007, 10:10 PM
People know. People by and large are not stupid.
3000 dead? Small number for 4 year war. Tiny tiny number. People know that.
Anti-war, anti-bush, anti-neocon ant-anti use the 3000 symbol.
Americans don't see 3000 and say OMG!!
That's silly.
Americans see what is. All Things. Then they make a call.
well, maybe, if you spell "it" out to them line by line, then they know.
but, when you have points being made by newspapers, tv, hollyd, forums, teachers (not in touch with negatives if we leave Iraq) then it becomes a situation whereby the "people are mislead"
not stupid, ok, but misguided, also true. and people Will take the easy road and they will not look at the long rough road that george talks about.
they listen to Hlyd.
JustRalph
01-28-2007, 10:13 PM
In ohio that Lion would have been shot a long time ago......we have guns here........ :lol: Unfettered................
46, you ever heard of a Greenhouse? How about Hydroponics? :lol:
well, maybe, if you spell "it" out to them line by line, then they know.
but, when you have points being made by newspapers, tv, hollyd, forums, teachers (not in touch with negatives if we leave Iraq) then it becomes a situation whereby the "people are mislead"
not stupid, ok, but misguided, also true. and people Will take the easy road and they will not look at the long rough road that george talks about.
they listen to Hlyd.
Your serious. Hollywood? Newspapers? TV?
Man-0-Man. Thats nonsense.
Americans.... information flowing all around.....see a movie....read a newspaper and STOP? Repeat what they read?
Why have a free society?
In China, they fired a missile at a Satellite. Media Monitors reported number of Mentions on Chinese owned News network?
Zero. None. No mention.
That's the opposite of what you say here.
Reality is people know. Your not saying people are stupid? Need Government to explain how to be safe? What they should see? hear?
No....Founders said... Let it all out. Agree, disagree,
write, play, act, everything.
People need excuses why they are in minority. 2 years ago, american public was genius in electing Bush. Today they are war weary dumbo victims with no heart.
nope/
skate
01-28-2007, 10:40 PM
Your serious. Hollywood? Newspapers? TV?
Man-0-Man. Thats nonsense.
Americans.... information flowing all around.....see a movie....read a newspaper and STOP? Repeat what they read?
Why have a free society?
In China, they fired a missile at a Satellite. Media Monitors reported number of Mentions on Chinese owned News network?
Zero. None. No mention.
That's the opposite of what you say here.
Reality is people know. Your not saying people are stupid? Need Government to explain how to be safe? What they should see? hear?
No....Founders said... Let it all out. Agree, disagree,
write, play, act, everything.
People need excuses why they are in minority. 2 years ago, american public was genius in electing Bush. Today they are war weary dumbo victims with no heart.
nope/
yep;
ok, fine we have all kinds of info, no doubt about that. unending info is all that it takes, is that what you are saying?
to me, that info is like darts at the dart board, hitting the wrong number. over and over ....
i can just about say, not one issue is right on the numbers.
gimmy one....
skate
01-28-2007, 10:49 PM
suff;
people know all about the immigration issue, cept they (people ) are late, where was the media, hlywd, tv reporters?
too late, yep.
Show Me the Wire
01-28-2007, 11:18 PM
Suff:
What do jihadists muslims have to do with it? The perfect argument against one person one vote is Ray Nagin and the City of New Orleans.
JustRalph
01-29-2007, 04:58 AM
Suff:
What do jihadists muslims have to do with it? The perfect argument against one person one vote is Ray Nagin and the City of New Orleans.
great point
i can just about say, not one issue is right on the numbers.
gimmy one....
Israel is an innocent victim of Palestinian terrorism.
That one's been delivered correct. no?
Suff:
What do jihadists muslims have to do with it? The perfect argument against one person one vote is Ray Nagin and the City of New Orleans.
Seems to be out of relevant arguments again. :lol:
skate
01-30-2007, 06:57 PM
Israel is an innocent victim of Palestinian terrorism.
That one's been delivered correct. no?
ok ok ok, from what you say here, you make my point.
that is a tough issue, which would further my point, ie, "the people are kept confused".
also, that does not mean " i do not get confused", just because im right, always.
ok ok ok, from what you say here, you make my point.
that is a tough issue, which would further my point, ie, "the people are kept confused".
also, that does not mean " i do not get confused", just because im right, always.
Hey, if anyone stands right in front of me and says. People hate George Bush and want to leave Iraq because
1. Liberal Media
2 Vietnam episode II
I say...
Why did Fox news do 452 Prime time news pieces on Scott Peterson, 321 on Natalie Holloway, and 129 on John-Bonet Ramsey.
News & facts
Assume that you know and I don't. Or assume you know some and I know a little.
So where do you want to be?
With Wal-Mart, Who makes stuff with 11 year old girls?
Or
Starbucks, Who just banned Transfat?
Kabeesh?
Show Me the Wire
01-30-2007, 08:55 PM
What is kabesh? Do yo mean Capisci.
Show Me the Wire
01-30-2007, 09:07 PM
And for further clarification it is "minchea", as in ma che minchia, not minga.
skate
01-31-2007, 04:36 PM
Hey, if anyone stands right in front of me and says. People hate George Bush and want to leave Iraq because
1. Liberal Media
2 Vietnam episode II
I say...
Why did Fox news do 452 Prime time news pieces on Scott Peterson, 321 on Natalie Holloway, and 129 on John-Bonet Ramsey.
News & facts
Assume that you know and I don't. Or assume you know some and I know a little.
So where do you want to be?
With Wal-Mart, Who makes stuff with 11 year old girls?
Or
Starbucks, Who just banned Transfat?
Kabeesh?
well, no doubt, you have good points, but for me to come back on your points, id say, i'm really not too concerned about the 11 year olds, the stuff they make may help their position ; but on the other hand, Wal-Mart or whomever, if its cheap stuff, its not worth my time or money.
to the point ( ithink), those people standing in front of you, are flooded with the wrong slant. it is Not a case of "not enough info". but rather "how good is the info". and i would say to that "it is almost always the case, if you have info, it is most likely too late". ie, to serve a purpose.
vBulletin® v3.8.9, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.