Democrats rally to defend electoral college system - Page 6

Morganan · 10-09-2007, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pokerface

I wasn't trying to push an agenda (at least... I don't THINK I was); just clarifying W6's position that a popular vote doesn't disenfranchise small-population states.

Yes, BUT the EC dictates that a clear majority is required to win (more than everyone else combined), whereas a direct vote could have a winner with only a plurality of votes (just more than anyone else), if that's how we chose to set it up.

Outside of that, yeah, I think it could stand to be complication for complication's sake. But (and here's my agenda) I think I'd rather see that than see a swing state try to eke out every last advertising dollar from presidential candidates and remain a 'battleground' (I'm looking at YOU, Colorado).

See, I live in the North-eastern corridor, the I-95 corridor so to speak. We never see people "campaigning" for President in our area, they stop in for "rubber stamp" tours in area's that vote specifically one direction and have rallies that are strangely reminiscent of the old communist/nazi rallies where you chanted the chants and spoke the slogans at the proper time without caring what you were saying because it didn't matter what you particularly thought, your district was going to vote for this guy anyway because that's simply how your district voted. My district in particular is strange, for Presidents, the last 8 elections we have been a republican district, but for the house we have voted in 2 democrats and 2 republicans in the same time frame. So as far as presidential elections go you can either vote for the republican candidate or a comic book character, as they have an equal chance of beating the republican as the democrat candidate in my particular district.

That's my "agenda" in this discussion, I want my vote to matter again without having to move or get my district re-drawn.

**CingularDuality** · 10-09-2007, 11:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhiskeySix

You're obviously using hyperbole here, but I'm still not that concerned about who gets "ignored".

You're still not thinking this through. Right now, the EC gives even small "unimportant" states a significance. Removing the EC will remove the importance of states completely. Instead metro areas will become the new battlegrounds. And the potential for corruption would multiply exponentially! I'm not talking about areas being ignored during political campaigns. I'm talking about actual government services only going to the population centers!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beatnik

As for Ron Paul, several of his assertions are fallacious. Of course, the abolition of slavery was also against the constitution, until the 13th Amendment, anyway.

I'd like to hear why you think this is...

Quote:

His argument re: "majority tyranny" seems to be based on the inherent political values of those his disagrees with, and assumes that because we want every vote to count toward president, we believe in "absolute federal power". Hogwash. One man/one vote simply does not necessarily imply "absolute federal power", and in fact requires a great deal of mental gymnastics to even connect the two concepts. And his second-to-last and third-to-last paragraphs at the end there paint the opposition with such a broad brush, using loaded terms such as "hostile to liberty", "staist elites", "omnipotent federal power", and further insinuating that we hatefamilies, individual liberties, and property ownership, that any reasonable amount of scrutiny of his assertion reveals that he's just plain wrong.

You're completely ignoring our Constitution and the important protections it offers to our states. Turning our republic into a democracy would be a very bad thing, even in this one area.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Sponsored links