Elections Why is there an Electoral College - Page 2

synthesis2 · 11-07-2012, 07:24 AM

It started in the 1700's when people didn't have access to information and understanding as to what is going on with the canidates but with everything we have today to make a good informed decision, it simply dosent make any sense.

Examples: If you live in Texas and are a democrat your vote dosen't count

If you live in California and are a republican your vote dosen't count

I have never heard a good argument as to why a popular vote dosen't work in today's society.

If the majority of the people want one person but the electorial college says the other is the winner why is that right?

Look I really don't care who wins in the end with divided house/senate very little is going to happen, we all know that.

My rant is why we can't finally go to a vote that makes sense.

rabblerouser · 11-07-2012, 08:19 AM

Good point.

I live in MO, a 'red' state.

I hate Obama...but really didn't want to vite for Romney.

Knowing that MO would be 70% red, and therefore casting our electoral votes for Romney, I voted for Gary Johnson.

Then, Romney won MO, took the popular vote...but lost the election.

I'm stunned.

I'm not going to work today, not going to school, either.

**** this shit.

L.A. Chieffan · 11-07-2012, 08:19 AM

Why even bitch about this? Obama won the popular vote too.

**banyon** · 11-07-2012, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Well, Amn, according to originalist construction you are WRONG!

Ah yes, the originalist construction where you and Scalia shake the magic 8 ball and if it say what you want, then that's what it must've been.

They were written to be co-equal branches a la Montesquieu's writings. But amnorix is right in that the actual duties delegated to each do not imply that the execuutive is the weakest. Your tantrum notwithstanding.

Hell, you don't even believe in judicial review and marbury v. Madison, so what important tasks are you claiming make it stronger?

BigCatDaddy · 11-07-2012, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by L.A. Chieffan

Why even bitch about this? Obama won the popular vote too.

Being procative?

rabblerouser · 11-07-2012, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by L.A. Chieffan

Why even bitch about this? Obama won the popular vote too.

I think the Teamsters and the Unions bought the states Obama needed to win. It sure looks that way.

He's been a terrible President for 4 years, and half of the American public are so stupid and brainwashed that they went ahead and elected him again.

That's why to even bitch about it.

We're ****ed.

**banyon** · 11-07-2012, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Driving Wheel

I think the Teamsters and the Unions bought the states Obama needed to win. It sure looks that way.

He's been a terrible President for 4 years, and half of the American public are so stupid and brainwashed that they went ahead and elected him again.

That's why to even bitch about it.

We're ****ed.

Teamsters are pretty stout in Colorado and Florida, huh?

tiptap · 11-07-2012, 08:29 AM

It is too bad billionaires money doesn't go as far anymore.

BucEyedPea · 11-07-2012, 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tiptap

It is too bad billionaires money doesn't go as far anymore.

It just goes to show you that freaking over Citizen's United was wasted energy.

BucEyedPea · 11-07-2012, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tiptap

Formation of a Cabinet was legislated? Yet there you go Washington

That's called a strawman argument. I am referring to this:

"This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure." - Federalist Papers, No. 58, 1788 by James Madison who was there at the convention and wrote the document.

tiptap · 11-07-2012, 08:39 AM

It isn't a stawman argument. It was an attempt to get you to be more specific in your claim. However it is the most democratic selection of representation that got the purse control. I believe that is Madison's argument. And this is in relation to the Congress and the Senate process is it not.

L.A. Chieffan · 11-07-2012, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Driving Wheel

I think the Teamsters and the Unions bought the states Obama needed to win. It sure looks that way.

He's been a terrible President for 4 years, and half of the American public are so stupid and brainwashed that they went ahead and elected him again.

That's why to even bitch about it.

We're ****ed.

Alright, you win. Abolish the electoral college and go strictly with the popular vote like the op wants. Yeah! Romney wins now!

rabblerouser · 11-07-2012, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by banyon

Teamsters are pretty stout in Colorado and Florida, huh?

they're where they need to be now :

http://fdocteamsters.org/

http://www.local385.org/

http://www.unions.org/unions/colorad...f-teamsters/42

everywhere they need to be.

rabblerouser · 11-07-2012, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by L.A. Chieffan

Alright, you win. Abolish the electoral college and go strictly with the popular vote lie the op wants. Yeah! Romney wins now!

I voted for Gary Johnson.

I don't believe the liberal media.

At ALL.

You are a fool.

I will take no solace in telling anyone 'I told you so.'

**banyon** · 11-07-2012, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Driving Wheel

they're where they need to be now :

http://fdocteamsters.org/

http://www.local385.org/

http://www.unions.org/unions/colorad...f-teamsters/42

everywhere they need to be.

Ah, I see. Existence=strong influence on election.

Ok.

rabblerouser · 11-07-2012, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by banyon

Ah, I see. Existence=strong influence on election.

Ok.

It feels better than thinking that the American Public is gullible enough to be duped into actually re-electing that farce of a President.

11-07-2012, 07:24 AM
synthesis2 synthesis2 Join Date: Mar 2005 Casino cash: $5064	Why is there an Electoral College It started in the 1700's when people didn't have access to information and understanding as to what is going on with the canidates but with everything we have today to make a good informed decision, it simply dosent make any sense. Examples: If you live in Texas and are a democrat your vote dosen't count If you live in California and are a republican your vote dosen't count I have never heard a good argument as to why a popular vote dosen't work in today's society. If the majority of the people want one person but the electorial college says the other is the winner why is that right? Look I really don't care who wins in the end with divided house/senate very little is going to happen, we all know that. My rant is why we can't finally go to a vote that makes sense.
Posts: 155

11-07-2012, 08:19 AM	#17
L.A. Chieffan PLAY GOOD FOOTBALL Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: American Gardens Building Casino cash: $573563	Why even bitch about this? Obama won the popular vote too.
Posts: 14,854

11-07-2012, 08:29 AM	#22
tiptap Is this it? Join Date: Jan 2004 Casino cash: $20916	It is too bad billionaires money doesn't go as far anymore. __________________ Even a superstitious man has certain inalienable rights. He has a right to harbor and indulge his imbecilities as long as he pleases. . . He has a right to argue for them as eloquently as he can, in season and out of season. He has a right to teach them to his children. But certainly he has no right to be protected against the free criticism of those who do not hold them. He has no right to demand that they be treated as sacred. He has no right to preach them without challenge." -H.L. Mencken
Posts: 4,956

11-07-2012, 08:39 AM	#25
tiptap Is this it? Join Date: Jan 2004 Casino cash: $20916	It isn't a stawman argument. It was an attempt to get you to be more specific in your claim. However it is the most democratic selection of representation that got the purse control. I believe that is Madison's argument. And this is in relation to the Congress and the Senate process is it not. __________________ Even a superstitious man has certain inalienable rights. He has a right to harbor and indulge his imbecilities as long as he pleases. . . He has a right to argue for them as eloquently as he can, in season and out of season. He has a right to teach them to his children. But certainly he has no right to be protected against the free criticism of those who do not hold them. He has no right to demand that they be treated as sacred. He has no right to preach them without challenge." -H.L. Mencken
Posts: 4,956

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode