Printer Friendly Version
Email this thread to a friend
|
Featured Web Site Template |
|
Reflects user activity within the last 5 minutes
|
|
| Member |
Message |
jcokos
Staff
Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 171
|
Posted: 2004-Oct-25 17:18
I saw a poll over the weekend where it said that 58% of Americans would like to do away with the Electoral College system and go to a pure "Popular Vote" system.
Seems like after the debacle in 2000, where one candidate (Gore) won the popular vote, but the other candidate had more electoral votes, there was a lot of confusion and anger over the system. Looks like we're likely headed down the same road again this time.
I'm wondering if people just don't understand the Electoral College system, or simply can't get their heads wrapped around what a true stroke of genius it is. Our founding fathers really had some good vision when they came up with it.
My feeling is that without the Electoral College system, you would have a situation where the votes of 90% of the country (in terms of land mass) would basically not be counted at all. They would be counted, yes, but they wouldn't matter. Why?
In 2000, Al Gore, in winning the popular vote got 50.1 million votes. Those votes were primarily gained (by a 75% - 25% margin) in the major "big city" population areas. Bush's 49 million votes came mostly from "fly over" country (the rest of the United States). As you can see from the now famous County by County map, Bush took about 80% of "The Country", while Gore took all of the big cities.
Were there no electoral college system then, Gore would be president today, and if we eliminated it now, Kerry would be a lock to win. That's not the primary reason I want the current system in place, however 
Think about the ramifications of going to a purely "Popular" voting system. A candidate that could dominate as little as 8 cities (from New York, Newark, Chicago, Philadelphia, Detroit, Seattle, Los Angeles, Portland, Cleveland, and/or Denver) could potentially win the election. Those cities have a combined population of about 45 million people (give or take a few).
Do we really want National Races decided by such a small percentage of the country? Going popular vote may seem like a way to "right a wrong", but in doing so, it would silence the voices of everyone in Oklahoma, Arkansas, New Mexico, etc. You could have an election where the candidates spend 90% of their time and money pandering to, and catering to, the needs of the "many" in the big cities, and ignoring the rest of the country completely, because the sum total of 90% of the country couldn't touch the big cities.
The electoral system isn't perfect, but it does give everyone in this country a voice in, and a stake in, who ultimately represents the entire country, not just the big cities. With every state having the chance to cast votes that actually count based on the will of it's own citizenry, we are assured that even the 100 votes from a little river town in the middle of nowhere actually mean something in the grand scheme of things.
That's my opinion on this, and a (hopefully) logical explanation of the system's benefits. Thoughts ?
|
 |
gamiziuk
Joined: Aug 23, 2000
# Posts: 630
|
Posted: 2004-Oct-25 17:57
Back when the system was setup, it was still possible that the 13 states would split up and go their separate ways. The Electoral college was setup so that "states rights" would be guaranteed.
If you think about it, our individual states do enjoy a great deal of sovereignity within the United States. Each state has an elected governor and an elected state legislature. Each state can pretty much go about its own business, except where it would step on the toes of the Federal Government (defense, foreign treaties).
I don't know if there is any other country in the world that has governmental power "distributed" as much as the US does.
|
|
St0n3y
Joined: May 01, 2002
# Posts: 1620
|
Posted: 2004-Oct-25 18:11
I used to think we should do away with the EC but that was before I fully understood it. Quite simply, having the EC forces the presidential candiates to campaign in many many places. Without it, the Dems would only have to campaign in a select few places. its not a GOP vs. DNc thing, its just about making everybody have to work for their vote.
If you thin kabout it, the country was set up not to be a single "country" but to be many small countries within a country. due to national TV, etc. we have created a more controlling national gov't, but that wasn't the way its supposed to be. Fortunately, the electoral college still is part of the original model. Each state elects who they want for President and casts their votes accordingly.
|
|
flyingrose
Staff
Joined: Oct 30, 2003
# Posts: 3361
|
Posted: 2004-Oct-26 02:05
I finally figured out why rural America is pro-Republican. In the poor, rural county I lived in residents basically had two issues: gun control and land use.
Land owners are afraid the Democrats might prevent them from doing what they want with their land.
Gun control is the biggest issue by far. They're afraid the Democrats will ban guns - as it THAT would work any better than prohibition did.
Most guns are not registered and the gun owners aren't going to voluntarily turn them in.
They may end up jobless, farmless, and broke but they'll still have their guns.
|
|
jcokos
Staff
Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 171
|
Posted: 2004-Oct-26 02:26
No.
The rural parts of America are made up of Hard Working, God Fearing people that put more stock in the absolutely crazy concept of "An honest day's pay for an honest day's work". They also believe that this country is worth vigorously defending ... probably because they actually work the land. The Republican ideology is very centered around the individual being responsible for themselves.
The big city folks are made up, largly, of people looking for a handout, assistance, or some other means of government support, which fits right into the Democrats ideology: give give give and you get get get.
Here's a simple way to remember it.
At the end of the day, Democrats measure their success by counting how many people they helped. Republicans, on the other hand, measure their success by counting how many people no longer need help.
|
|
gamiziuk
Joined: Aug 23, 2000
# Posts: 630
|
Posted: 2004-Oct-26 02:35
Maybe the people living in the rural areas don't have a fixation on the "industrial disease" theories.
|
|
flyingrose
Staff
Joined: Oct 30, 2003
# Posts: 3361
|
Posted: 2004-Oct-26 04:45
I came to the conclusions I posted very simply - I asked them. I lived in a rural county for thirteen years among people who still make PART of their living ranching.
Most have spouses who commute to work in the closest city because they can't live off what they can earn where they live any more.
I absolutely believe in an honest day's work for an honest wage. What is happening though is that the days are getting longer and longer, people are doing the work of three or more (or trying since that can't be done well), and are being rewarded:
By having overtime pay taken away.
By having their wages frozen or rolled back.
By being turned into Independent contractors with no benefits.
By having their jobs outsourced, frequently training their "replacements" just before they're let go.
By having one full time position with retirement and benefits replaced by two part time positions with lower pay and no benefits.
By having less vacation time than other Industrialized countries and many times being forced to work unpaid through the little vacation time they do receive by unreasonable workloads.
How can we expect people to be responsible for themselves when many jobs don't pay enough to allow them to keep a roof over their head, their family clothed, and food on the table?
We've taught people to be dependant with employee mentalities and then pulled the rug out from under them. It will take awhile for some to find a way to make money and start hiring the others.
If you don't think that is true, check out the latest thread here
|
|
jcokos
Staff
Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 171
|
Posted: 2004-Oct-26 06:25
And John Kerry coming in on his white horse and raising the taxes on the very people that supply the jobs is the answer ?
My vote is for an economy that encourages success, not punishes it.
|
|
flyingrose
Staff
Joined: Oct 30, 2003
# Posts: 3361
|
Posted: 2004-Oct-26 06:47
Have I posted anything pro-Kerry? The long term effects of what he and his administration may do just don't scare me as much as what the people behind Bush might accomplish in four more years.
The answer is for Americans to change and force government to change, preferably by peaceful means and before even more people cannot support their families any more.
Bush seems to sincerely believe that what he is doing is best. What is there in what Bush has done in the last four years that leads you to believe that more of the same will improve the economy and the lives of the working class?
I suspect you still see yourself and your peers as "haves" while I see anyone who spends what they are currently earning for basic necessities as being precariously on the edge where little stands between them and sliding into poverty.
There is very little true middle class left and it is shrinking all the time. While a few move up, most slide down.
|
|
JQ
Staff
Joined: Mar 11, 2001
# Posts: 2765
|
Posted: 2004-Oct-26 07:18
The rural parts of America are made up of Hard Working, God Fearing people...
The big city folks are made up, largly, of people looking for a handout...
John, gag me with a spoon! 
Just because I live in a "big city" like Los Angeles does not mean I'm looking for a handout. What about those "hard-working farmers" who get paid government subsidies to not plant certain crops? Whose taxes pay for that? Mine, amongst others.
And those rural folks are no more responsible Americans than me or anyone else who lives in the city.
I want my vote to count one-on-one, no more, no less than anyone else's.
|
|
flyingrose
Staff
Joined: Oct 30, 2003
# Posts: 3361
|
Posted: 2004-Oct-26 07:25
The growth of many cities results from "hard-working farmers" who were forced to go there looking for work. Many others are driving trucks cross-country.
The government subsidies primarily benefit large corporate farming. Small farmers and ranchers are struggling.
They are another example of government getting involved, sometimes with good intentions but without being able to predict all the possible consequences.
|
|
jcokos
Staff
Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 171
|
Posted: 2004-Oct-26 16:40
JQ, you know darn well that I'm right, even if you don't want to believe it.
i don't think that rural americans are more "respsonsible" than city folk -- hell, I'm a city folk myself -- but by and large, 80=90% of city dwellers are takers pure and simple. That's just the nature of the beast.
|
|
St0n3y
Joined: May 01, 2002
# Posts: 1620
|
Posted: 2004-Oct-26 18:49
Isn't a job a constitutional right? I think the gov't should raise taxes to guarantee everyboyd a job. A living wage is also a constitutional right so lets raise taxes so a burger fliper in college gets the same wage as a schooled professional raising a family. Pay raises and vacation time are also a constituional right so lets have the gov't raise taxes so everybody can take a month off work each year and get a yearly pay raised NOT based on performance. And since quality of work will go down since everybody gets the same thing regardless of how hard they work, how much education they get, or how hard they try to improve their life, lets have the gov't raise taxes to keep businesses from going bankrupt because somebody else in another country relys on hard work, personal performance and (gasp!) capitalism to get ahead and make (gasp! gasp!) more money than the employee working for them.
|
|
flyingrose
Staff
Joined: Oct 30, 2003
# Posts: 3361
|
Posted: 2004-Oct-26 19:57
No...none of those are Constitutional rights. What rights the Constitution DOES address have been seriously undermined by those willing to trade freedom for the illusion of safety.
One thing rural dwellers may be more aware of than city dwellers is that life cannot be made "safe" by legislation.
Things happen and you can't necessarily prevent them by passing more laws nor expect someone else to compensate you by suing.
The problem is TOO MUCH government and more significantly, the use of our government and laws to benefit the few at the expense of everyone else.
We'd be better off throwing everything out since the Constitution and starting over than expanding the mess we already have.
|
|
St0n3y
Joined: May 01, 2002
# Posts: 1620
|
Posted: 2004-Oct-27 17:57
The Federal Gov't singular most important purpose is to protection. The constitution guarantees our freedom but you're right, those freedoms have been undermined, not by the patriot act, which simply allows federal agents to utuilize the same rules on terrorists as they currently use on organized crime, but by laws such as "campaing finance" reform, gun legislation, and anything that is now called "separation of church and state", something of which there is NO such thing in the consitution.
The phrase "congress shall make no law..." is a far cry from "you are not allowed to because..."
What does this have to do with the electoral college? I think it all goes back to the role of the fed gov't. Ultimately it is the states that are supposed to be governing use more so than the Fed Gov't, which is why the electoral college was developed in the first place.
|
|
flyingrose
Staff
Joined: Oct 30, 2003
# Posts: 3361
|
Posted: 2004-Oct-27 20:31
Excuse me? The Patriot Act simply throws our Constitutional rights out the window.
American citizens can be stopped without cause, have their email and phone privacy violated at will, have their possessions seized WITHOUT PROOF OF ANYTHING.
Whatever happened to the Fourth Amendment against Unreasonable search and seizure?
So many believe that because they're "good citizens" that these could never be used against them. Tell that to all the innocent people framed in Texas.
Tell that to all the people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time or lost their vehicle because someone they allowed to drive it did things they had no reason to know about.
Tell that to all the people who have had money or property seized because they happened to have cash with them.
Or the people whose cars or homes were destroyed during searches that were based on tips obtained from convicts or because the prior occupant may have been guilty.
Even if you're sure these things will "never happen to you" what about the innocent people who have had these laws used against them?
See
How over 200 Civil Asset Forfeiture Laws Enable Police to Confiscate Your Home, Bank Accounts & Business Without Trial for additional information.
There are many other stories - true stories of innocent people victimized by these laws. Any search for "asset forfeiture law" will turn them up.
|
|
St0n3y
Joined: May 01, 2002
# Posts: 1620
|
Posted: 2004-Oct-27 22:55
American citizens can be stopped without cause, have their email and phone privacy violated at will, have their possessions seized WITHOUT PROOF OF ANYTHING.
This simply is not true. Judicial oversight is still required by the Patriot Act. The patriot act simply made it possible to use the same techniques against suspected terrorists as suspected drug dealer and organized crime.
You can read it if you wish.
|
|
tex_dude
Joined: Apr 22, 2004
# Posts: 25
|
Posted: 2004-Oct-28 05:12
We've seen the good ole GOP handing out billions of dollars to their corporate welfare hogs like haliburton to the tune of BILLIONS of dollars and not create a single worthwhile job in America by giving these same fat pigs a TAX BREAK.
You may think the democrats are helping people that are looking for some "handout", but the GOP is giving away 1,000 times what some poor "urban dweller" gets to the corporate elite who couldn't care less about our jobs, farms, houses or anything else.
|
|
flyingrose
Staff
Joined: Oct 30, 2003
# Posts: 3361
|
Posted: 2004-Oct-28 06:51
I've realized there is a primary difference between myself and the Republicans here. You trust those in positions of power and those running our government and I do not.
Given human nature and what the authorities are doing with the forfeiture laws you are far more trusting about what they might do with what is in the Patriot Act than I am.
Ask someone you know who runs an ISP what the government can now request and which of their users' personal correspondence is turned over to them. Ask them specifically if they only allow access to the email of that one individual. Let me know what they tell you.
|
|
jcokos
Staff
Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 171
|
Posted: 2004-Oct-28 08:07
It's beyond simple trust.
Remember, just a couple of months ago, Al Queda Terrorists killed a few hundred SCHOOL KIDS in Russia. Shot 7 year old girls in the back, as I recall.
Are you naive enough to think that if they could pull that off here in the states they wouldn't? Of course they would. Assume that the Terror Cells here in the states were using the network resources of your ISP friend to communicate in the shadows to plan such an attack. Would you trade the "insecurity" of having your email communications being snooped upon to save 500 elementary school kids in your hometown?
Do I like knowing that it's possible that everything I type could be looked at by some shady government agency? Am I all warm and fuzzy knowing that my phone may be tapped? Of course not. But I'm happy to oblige if it means that they may get lucky and hear the people down the road making their final plans to murder my kid on his way to school.
Is that likely? Who knows. In a post 9/11 world, you have to think differently. They have proven that life, especially American life means nothing to them. And if that means a sacrificing a bit of privacy, I'll trade that for not having the supermaket blow up while I'm on line.
--- And tex_dude .... please do your homework before posting here. We're open to everyone's opinion, but just repeating talking points just to have your name in print doesn't cut the mustard. Tax cuts work. They worked for Kennedy, they worked for Reagan, and they're working now. Punishing people who succeed to prop up the lazy is no way to run a country. Look no further than France or Germany for a real life example of how well that system works. 14% unemployment over there ... and their populations "enjoy" the lowest per capita percentage of GDP in the world. Facts that you can very easily check and verify.
|
|
You are not permitted to post messages in this forum or topic, because of one or more of the following reasons:
- You have not yet logged in, or registered properly as a member
- You are a member, but no longer have posting rights.
- This is a private forum, for which you do not have permissions.
If you are a recent member, it's possible that you simply have not yet confirmed your account. Please
check your email for a message entitled 'JimWorld Forums: Confirm Your Account' and follow the instructions
contained within.
If you cannot find this message, click here to Re-Send it.
|
If you are still experiencing problem, please read the
Login Assistance
Article for some advice on what may be causing your login not to work properly.
|
Switch to Advanced Editor and ...
Create a New Topic
or Reply to this Thread
|
|
Inbox
