Discussion in 'Politics' started by Northern Flash, Dec 30, 2016.
Want to see democrats flip out? Threaten to take 10 cents of their free stuff.
Rotflmao, you mean they didn't earn that by existing?
Just trying to eliminate food stamp fraud makes them cry racism.
The Dems won't support any cut to anything......ever.
You nailed it JD. Even a narrow minded person could understand this graphic. There is a 20 page pdf that explains it in print and in detail. It may be reached at www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf.
Perhaps pilot87 should read it. Back in my early days of voting, I was opposed to the electoral system before I understood when and why it was created and how it worked. The framers of our country and the election process were able to foresee the problems of this country far into the future. They wanted all segments of our population to have an equal say in determining who the president would be and not just the rich and powerful who lived in the high population centers. The first idea was to have Congress choose the President. That idea was rejected. The second idea was to have state legislators select the President. That idea was also rejected. A third idea was to have a President elected by popular vote of the people. That too was rejected. Finally a "Committee of Eleven' proposed an indirect election of president through a College of Electors.
The reasons why the first three choices were rejected is explained in this PDF. It has ensured a fair representation of all sectors of the American population for over 200 years, regardless of wealth or population or power brokers in certain areas of the country. I too was opposed to the electoral system before I understood it. The first 3 or 4 pages of the PDF give a rough explanation. The rest of the pages go into detailed explanations of why it is a fair way to elect a president. If it works, don't fix it - and it HAS worked for over 200 years. Perhaps others that are so closed-minded and unwilling to see or read an opposing view on the subject can see the good points of the electoral system in our country (that happens to be a Republic, not a Democracy) Obama treated it as his personal dictatorship ignoring Congress and the people with countless "executive orders" and "executive actions".
Yes she did. She used the high pop center NYC to do it.
So do I.....
When I have the time to devote to reading the Link you provided, I will read and consider the information with an open mind.......
Come on now. You have plenty of time. You consider yourself to be well informed, well-read, intelligent,and as you posted in #123, "concise and articulate". This PDF is a 20 page document that is also "concise and articulate" written by William C. Kimberling, Dep. Director, Federal Election Commission on Election Administration. It will not take much time to read.
You like to express your opinions. They are nothing more than that if you do not back up your opinions with facts.
As I have said, I was like you in the past, believing the Electoral System was unfair until I took the time to read the history of it, the people who created it, the reason why it still is the best way to include all SEGMENTS of a nation as big and as diverse as America has become, including all, even those in the most sparsely populated but economically important areas, such as the huge farming and ranching areas of the Great Plains. The number of Electors appointed in those states take that into consideration. Even 241 years ago, they were concerned about the voting power of the most populated and best educated areas of the young America being able to dictate who the President would be over the less populated, less educated and very remote areas of the country that had little in the way of communication. To a lesser degree, that is still true. Many Americans still live in very remote, thinly populated areas with very limited political news (or news of any kind). Living in the far north, I am one of those Americans. I choose to live here, but I am not comfortable with the large voting blocks controlling from the densely populated areas like Hollywood, New York and Chicago controlling Presidential elections. The Electoral System may not be perfect, but it gives us a better voice every 4 years.
I rather resent the fact that you consider the Electoral System as being "corrupt" in your post #139. What other parts of our Constitution do you consider to be "corrupt"? Nothing that is ever made or written is without flaws, but considering the Electoral System was created with much debate and consideration of at least three other methods of electing a President in our very young Republic 241 years ago, it has worked very well ever since. The "Committee of Eleven" mentioned in the article had amazing foresight and were well schooled in past history of what worked (and what did not) in the past.
"Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it" Winston Churchill and Geo. Santayana
I have read the document contained in the link you provided..... There are several points made within that I would like to specifically comment on..... At the moment, I am traveling and have business to tend to and don't have the proper time to formulate the proper response necessary .....I haven't been on the fourm for any length of time over the past several days.... I will say, however, it was an interesting read......
More on it later.... Thanks!
We each have the same amount of time.....but we each have varying duties and responsibilities that dictates how we use that time....... Currently, my responsibilities require more time than participating in the exchange of opinions on this forum..... It will resolve in a few days and once again, I'll have more leasure time.....
I didn't intend to arouse your resentment.... However, it is unmistakable that our political system is deeply corrupted at ALL levels....
No where have I said the constitution is corrupt....
Read your post #139
To pilot87......There is one thing that we agree on. There IS corruption in all branches of our government. Federal, state and local. There are way too many politicians that have been in office way too long, to the point that they have forgotten why they were first elected. They eventually gain enough money and legislative political power that they are always re-elected by those that benefit the most financially from their senior positions on various committees that control gov't spending (i.e. farm subsidies for sugar beet farmers while the gov't says too much sugar is "poisoning Americans" and is responsible for obesity) There are many more examples of gov't "double dealing" by politicians of both parties that have been in office way too long and have forgotten what reality is for the common folks. I fully support Trumps intention to "drain the swamp" in DC and the time for term limits is now.