Eliminate the Electoral College

[Ramo]

I think you have no argument, and are just trying to justify bias towards small states in the EC.

[MrFun]

I like Ramo's use of the tongue smilie better than Plato's.


tongue smilie score:

Plato: 5

Ramo: 7.3

[Dis]

Originally posted by Ramo
Ignorant swing staters making crappy generalizations about red/blue staters.

hey now, my state has spent many, many years as a conservative republican state. Politicians used to never come to my state.

It's nice to recieve the extra attention.

[Ramo]

Shrub used to live in Austin, and I can't remember the last time he came here. I'll never be able to throw some dung at him.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by MrFun
I like Ramo's use of the tongue smilie better than Plato's.


tongue smilie score:

Plato: 5

Ramo: 7.3

At least I got a 5 on the Mr. Fun Scale.


Ramo, All states have regional issues. The EC exists in order that the issues of the small state may be taken into account in the choosing of a national executive. Wheater or not a state is a "swing state" has no bearing on this fact. The fact that many states are decidedly for or against one particular candidate has no bearing on the national campaign other than allowing candidates to cocentrate on areas where there is still indecision on the issue. The EC serves a valuable purpose in giving every region representation in choosing a chief executive.

[GePap]

The Electoral College does nothing to protect States rights anymore- if the electors were NOT tied to the results of a popular election by the state citizens, then yes, the EC would help protect states rights- but since that is no longer true, the EC serves no purpose in this regard.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by GePap
The Electoral College does nothing to protect States rights anymore- if the electors were NOT tied to the results of a popular election by the state citizens, then yes, the EC would help protect states rights- but since that is no longer true, the EC serves no purpose in this regard.

While there may be some truth in this statement, I am shocked by your statement that the voters cannot determine the best interest of their particular state.

[GePap]

Originally posted by PLATO


While there may be some truth in this statement, I am shocked by your statement that the voters cannot determine the best interest of their particular state.

Bull. Individuals vote based on their OWN INDIVIDUAL INTERESTS AND VALUES. A voter is austin is not voting base don what ranchers in east texas need, nor are citrus growers in the valley voting with the interests of San Francisco in heart, nor a guy in Brooklyn thinking about the needs of dairy farmers in Syracuse.

In essence all the EC does now is disfranshise huge blocks of voters. Essentially a republican in NY or a democrat is MIssissippi might as well not even show up to vote-their vote won't count.

[Ramo]

Ramo, All states have regional issues. The EC exists in order that the issues of the small state may be taken into account in the choosing of a national executive.

Why should the issues of small states have precedence out of proportion to their population over the issues of large states?

Wheater or not a state is a "swing state" has no bearing on this fact.

It has every bearing on this. When was the last time the issues of Rhode Island or Montana come up in the Presidential Campaign?

The fact that many states are decidedly for or against one particular candidate has no bearing on the national campaign other than allowing candidates to cocentrate on areas where there is still indecision on the issue.

There's indecision everywhere. The election is simply not very close everywhere.

The EC serves a valuable purpose in giving every region representation in choosing a chief executive.

You mean, it serves a valuable purpose in giving small states disproportional clout and keeping the vast majority of the country out of the campaign?

[Dis]

Originally posted by GePap


Bull. Individuals vote based on their OWN INDIVIDUAL INTERESTS AND VALUES. A voter is austin is not voting base don what ranchers in east texas need, nor are citrus growers in the valley voting with the interests of San Francisco in heart, nor a guy in Brooklyn thinking about the needs of dairy farmers in Syracuse.

In essence all the EC does now is disfranshise huge blocks of voters. Essentially a republican in NY or a democrat is MIssissippi might as well not even show up to vote-their vote won't count.

I'm inclinced to agree with you.

But I still say the system should stay, but electors should be required to split their votes based on the number of votes in a state. yes this includes third party candidates. It would make third party candidates slightly more viable.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It seems that recently, states' rights is beginning to turn away from being a means to repress minority groups, and god forbid -- be used for real, constructive purposes.

I know you are biased against the states, but even these ignorant remarks are too much for you . When a majority were for slavery, it was Northern states who continually attempted to flaunt the law. And remember, the first talk of secession was actually from some northern states who were discussing it during the War of 1812.

When the federal government was being bad, there were always a state or two who had a position which we, in 2004, would think was better and who would act upon that position.

[Al B. Sure!]

And remember, the first talk of secession was actually from some northern states who were discussing it during the War of 1812.

WRONG AGAIN BUCKO!

The term secession had been used as early as 1776. South Carolina threatened separation when the Continental Congress sought to tax all the colonies on the basis of a total population count that would include slaves.

source: http://college.hmco.com/history/read..._secession.htm

and don't forget the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions

[Imran Siddiqui]

Um... The 1776 'seperation' ISN'T the same as secession. You actually have to be part of a federal union before you can leave it. Being a co-revolutionary doesn't cut the mustard.

And the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions simply said the states can ignore federal laws it considered wrong. Nothing about leaving the group.

[Al B. Sure!]

And the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions simply said the states can ignore federal laws it considered wrong. Nothing about leaving the group.

but by implication, if states can ignore federal laws, they effectively have seceeded. Those resolutions were the basis for Calhoun's whole post-1820's political career of sticking it to the federal gov't, which eventually caused him to support secession.

[Imran Siddiqui]

if states can ignore federal laws, they effectively have seceeded.

Um... no. Not at all. Simply ignoring federal law does NOT mean you are leaving the union. Many states attempted stuff like that in the early days of the Republic until the SCOTUS told them they can't do that stuff.

As your link says:

Calhoun had hoped that nullification was a proper, constitutional alternative to disunion

Nullification was supposed to prevent secession, not be a part of it.