Post by clashcitytrucker on Nov 1, 2012 21:41:06 GMT -5
The founding fathers, as freedom-loving educated wealthy snobs, were frightened by direct democracy and mob rule (which they're right about) so they devised that Electoral College to which decide Presidential elections and not say the popular vote.
There're arguments for and against getting rid of the Electoral College method. Some argue that this would forever get rid of the damn swing states and how both parties couldn't give a rat's ass about 40 states but adore and cuddle and handjob 10 or so states every 4 years. Seriously why does friggin Iowa matter more than California or Texas?
Or that our electing system is outdated and we need to allow the majority-voted candidates to actually win the Presidency and not lose by a technicality.
Others argue we'll become even more dysfunctional voting-time with such a two-party friendly system like the E.C. wrecked, it would open up for splintering and hey the Greens and Libertarians would matter more and Tea Baggers would have their own candidate if the GOP don't cooperate or whatever. In short, plurality would be next to impossible. (I'm reminded of France and other democracies which have first and second rounds of voting to weed out the low-voted candidates.) Or that save for 3 occassions, the system has actually worked. More or less.
What do you all think?
PSN: ToddPolt
The MaDaBa
ANONYMOUS GENERAL MANAGER Yes, we let MaDaBa in. You know who we blame? YOU! Yes, YOU, the public! Especially you, DARRYL!
"TAAANK!" Bill screamed, his nipples erect. A hot Molotov throbbed in his hand."
I say keep it. I don't want a bunch of backwards jerkbags deciding things. I just get up in arms when it comes to the possible tyranny of the majority.
If the polls are to be believed, Romney would have a much better chance at winning if it was a straight-up vote. But because Obama is winning the states with some of the highest electoral college votes, he has a path to a 330/208 victory as of this moment. If I said Obama wins by 122 electoral votes, you'd think he won with 60-65% of the national vote.
If the polls are to be believed, Romney would have a much better chance at winning if it was a straight-up vote. But because Obama is winning the states with some of the highest electoral college votes, he has a path to a 330/208 victory as of this moment. If I said Obama wins by 122 electoral votes, you'd think he won with 60-65% of the national vote.
A classic example is the 1992 election. Look at the electoral score:
Clinton 370 Bush 168 Perot 0
Pretty definitive, right? Now look at the popular vote:
Clinton 43% Bush 37.5% Perot 18.9%
PSN: ToddPolt
The MaDaBa
ANONYMOUS GENERAL MANAGER Yes, we let MaDaBa in. You know who we blame? YOU! Yes, YOU, the public! Especially you, DARRYL!
"TAAANK!" Bill screamed, his nipples erect. A hot Molotov throbbed in his hand."
If the polls are to be believed, Romney would have a much better chance at winning if it was a straight-up vote. But because Obama is winning the states with some of the highest electoral college votes, he has a path to a 330/208 victory as of this moment. If I said Obama wins by 122 electoral votes, you'd think he won with 60-65% of the national vote.
A classic example is the 1992 election. Look at the electoral score:
Clinton 370 Bush 168 Perot 0
Pretty definitive, right? Now look at the popular vote:
Clinton 43% Bush 37.5% Perot 18.9%
And Clinton's considered one of our smarter presidents.
Why? Because I can.
Recipient of Orange's "Good Poster of the Day" Award for August 9, 2011.
Post by Young Chris Jericho on Nov 2, 2012 18:33:25 GMT -5
The general population is full of incompetent morons. And even worse, college educated incompetent morons. I'd hate for them to decide things solely on the popular vote.
The founding fathers, as freedom-loving educated wealthy snobs, were frightened by direct democracy and mob rule (which they're right about) so they devised that Electoral College to which decide Presidential elections and not say the popular vote.
You do know that in 1776, the majority of people in the United States COULD NOT READ. They were not educated enough to make a proper decision. It wasn't fear, it was just prudence.
Post by blackoutcreature on Nov 2, 2012 20:40:25 GMT -5
I say we pick our President the same way Australia picks its President - two men and a kangaroo are thrown in a pit to fight it out. The first one out of the pit is the President. Unless it's the kangaroo, then they BBQ him and go four more years without a President.
HagSIN
NAMELESS BLACK REF The Contrabulous Fabtraption of Professor Horatio Hufnagel
The founding fathers, as freedom-loving educated wealthy snobs, were frightened by direct democracy and mob rule (which they're right about) so they devised that Electoral College to which decide Presidential elections and not say the popular vote.
You do know that in 1776, the majority of people in the United States COULD NOT READ. They were not educated enough to make a proper decision. It wasn't fear, it was just prudence.
Not nearly as bad but equally disheartening is that I took part in a project this semester where we questioned students at a <unnamed> GIFTED school where we (my fellow group members and I) asked random female students on the grounds to sign a petition to end "Women's Suffrage." You would be angrily surprised to see how many agreed to end it because 'suffrage' sounded too similar to 'suffering'. And this was at a GIFTED SCHOOL.
Memorial Day: May 27
The MaDaBa
ANONYMOUS GENERAL MANAGER Yes, we let MaDaBa in. You know who we blame? YOU! Yes, YOU, the public! Especially you, DARRYL!
"TAAANK!" Bill screamed, his nipples erect. A hot Molotov throbbed in his hand."
And frankly, I think we put too damn much emphasis on what the Founding Fathers wanted. Back when the Founding Fathers were still paying our mortgage, they owned slaves and shat in buckets. The world has evolved in 225 years; our needs and our goals have changed. Back then, all men were created equal; now, we're trying to put an emphasis on EVERYBODY'S equality.
Why? Because I can.
Recipient of Orange's "Good Poster of the Day" Award for August 9, 2011.
You do know that in 1776, the majority of people in the United States COULD NOT READ. They were not educated enough to make a proper decision. It wasn't fear, it was just prudence.
In my opinion, most are still too ignorant to even wipe their own ass. I still remember that poll from a decade ago where high school students approved of government censorship of free speech and press.
And frankly, I think we put too damn much emphasis on what the Founding Fathers wanted. Back when the Founding Fathers were still paying our mortgage, they owned slaves and shat in buckets. The world has evolved in 225 years; our needs and our goals have changed. Back then, all men were created equal; now, we're trying to put an emphasis on EVERYBODY'S equality.
For sure, yet I still agree with them about the mob rule mentality of a lazy, ignorant irresponsible public. Hell look at states having voting referendum on civil rights. Yes let me vote your rights away! Hell Shakespeare bluntly ridiculed this point in Corialanus, and he wrote it in the 16th century when Democracy was a dead political fad compared to monarchy.
And frankly, I think we put too damn much emphasis on what the Founding Fathers wanted. Back when the Founding Fathers were still paying our mortgage, they owned slaves and shat in buckets. The world has evolved in 225 years; our needs and our goals have changed. Back then, all men were created equal; now, we're trying to put an emphasis on EVERYBODY'S equality.
I wholeheartedly agree. There is no way in hell that those men could have forseen everything that was going to transpire over the years.
Also, when they said "all men are created equal" they certainly didn't mean women or blacks.
Accepting the BJ wasn't what got him impeached. Lying about it to a Federal Grand Jury did.[/quote]
That it did, which technically I still think was arguably worthy of conviction.
Of course I would argue politically that was made mute since ultimately the Republican narrative became how dare this adulterous big (which he was) shame the White House (which he did). Fine and dandy except your own leaders get busted for hiding the sausage, and your narrative goes off the rails and make the guilty guy become the sympathetic underdog.
Nixon and Clinton both made scandals that were really stupid which betrayed their intelligence, except the latter escaped because of his enemies' intense pathological hatred of him got the best of them.
PSN: ToddPolt
The MaDaBa
ANONYMOUS GENERAL MANAGER Yes, we let MaDaBa in. You know who we blame? YOU! Yes, YOU, the public! Especially you, DARRYL!
"TAAANK!" Bill screamed, his nipples erect. A hot Molotov throbbed in his hand."
And seriously, are we going to complain about Bill Clinton just getting a blowjob from Monica Lewinsky when John F. Kennedy was doing EVERYTHING ELSE with EVERY ATTRACTIVE FEMALE who crossed his path?
Why? Because I can.
Recipient of Orange's "Good Poster of the Day" Award for August 9, 2011.
And seriously, are we going to complain about Bill Clinton just getting a blowjob from Monica Lewinsky when John F. Kennedy was doing EVERYTHING ELSE with EVERY ATTRACTIVE FEMALE who crossed his path?
Difference was JFK had good taste in women.
Bubba's women were for the most part, fat or/and ugly. As if he couldn't be picky and just grabbed whatever was nearby.
