> You don't have the right to vote for a presidential candidate. No where > in the Constitution does it give you that right. > > The government was not setup that way. To change that would be a change > to the fundamentals of the US.
Stop talking to me like I am stupid. You are irritating me. I recognize that the constitution was set up with the electoral college - I just question the relevance of such an institution at this time. > The President is the head of the Republic, not the democracy. The head > of a republic is not voted in by the people, that person is voted in by > the representatives voted in by the people. The head of the republic could be voted in by whomever we want. There is no universal law saying that a head of a republic has to be voted in by the representatives of the people. Many countries have officials directly elected by the people. > The office of the President was not intended to be something that would > play to the whims of the people. It was intended to be a conservative > office where the State Legislatures send electors to vote for the > office. And I disagree with this practice. It means that my democratic vote in my republican state is completely useless. > In my opinion this is the best way to do it, the states have the power. And thats fine, you are entitled, but it doesn't mean that its the only way to elect a leader. > Also keep in mind much of the Electoral College is still based on the > state. Some states will split their electoral votes based on their > congressional district. But most (48 I think) send the complete set with > the same vote. This is a state decision, not a federal one. The states > have set their laws this way. The point was so their state would speak > with a common voice, not a mixed one, which portrays more solidarity. I dont' agree with forcing me to speak with the voice of the crazed, alaskan conspiracy theorists, thank you. > The states could change this, and create a system that allowed each > district to send an elector based on the districts, it would give more > power to the people. But again, this won't happen. The state looses some > of its power that way. I hate to be Ben Braver, but its LOSES. Looses is different. Perhaps I care for more power to be given to the individual rather than the state. > To answer your question, People choose to vote for a candidate for a > number of reasons, but without a clear majority the election is tainted. > If nobody gets more than half then there isn't a stunning endorsement. So what "rights" is this violating? You said that those who voted for a loser in a no-majority win voting situation have their rights violated? What rights? > > > -----Original Message----- > > How does giving the person who got the most votes the presidency deny > > anyone > > their rights? What rights are you speaking of? > > > > IYO. > > IMO the electoral college denies me my right to vote for a > presidential > > candidate. > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_community Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com
