>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.
I am not talking to you like you are stupid, I am saying that the government was setup this way for a reason. And I don't see how things have changed over the past 230 Years that make these things any different. The Federal Government has become more powerful than originally intended, this I disagree with. >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. We have a number of officials that are directly elected by the people, Only one isn't. The president. > > 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. I don't like the original idea either. But the states have that choice. First challenge the state. > > 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. I am not saying you should, But don't blame the electoral college for that. Blame the people. >I hate to be Ben Braver, but its LOSES. Looses is different. Yea, I can't proofread, it always looks correct when I read it. >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? The right of the people to elect a person that has the support of the majority of the people who voted. The right of the people to have a candidate that will focus on the nation, and not just one that will deal with the populated areas. Any person can win a popular election if they concentrated their efforts on the areas with the highest population. Just look at the last election. If you look at a map of the US broken down by district, the area covered by the people who voted for bush was far greater than that of Gore. With a popular only election that majority of the area of the country could end up not having a vote, because the well populated areas swing the vote. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_community Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
