Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Orange

2/3ds of Americans think the EC should go

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Orange said:

So you're not interested in a discussion.  Generally, one human being alone doesn't start a civil war, or enact an amendment to the constitution, so your "instruction" that I do so is pretty disingenuous.

I've been on here long enough to see this discussion like 100 times. I generally don't believe in determinism, but maybe you should just type "Electoral College" into this site's search engine, read up for an hour and see exactly where this thread will go if people take it seriously.

But to be fair, maybe I shouldn't get in the way if some of you want to have it again. And it puts money in the pocket of our great benevolent dictator. So have at it if you want.

 

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about making the Senate proportional based on population just like the House of Representatives is?  Why should Wyoming get just as much say in spending federal money as California?  Do we even need a bicameral legislature?  Why not just get rid of the Senate altogether and give their power to the House like New Zealand and Denmark did?

The only reason for not having unicameralism is to give different sectors of societies (states in this case) more power.  The only problem is that it basically takes all the power away from the minority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, bsu_alum9 said:

How about making the Senate proportional based on population just like the House of Representatives is?  Why should Wyoming get just as much say in spending federal money as California?  Do we even need a bicameral legislature?  Why not just get rid of the Senate altogether and give their power to the House like New Zealand and Denmark did?

The only reason for not having unicameralism is to give different sectors of societies (states in this case) more power.  The only problem is that it basically takes all the power away from the minority.

The Senate doesn't represent populations, it represents states. Hence, 2 senators for each state. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And as I said before, the current setup has led to the richest, most powerful nation in world history, with one exception owing to its morally reprehensible cause. Find another system that is comparable and I’ll wait.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, MetropolitanCowboy said:

If you hate the EC so much, maybe you should spend your time trying to get an amendment done rather than whining about it here. 

This is a discussion board. If you weren't anti-social you would discuss it here instead of trying to shut down opinions you don't agree with and being a douche.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Orange said:

Yet they should, for reasons I made clear.  The EC ensures that no candidate has any motivation whatsoever to visit WY, Utah, NE, the Dakotas, KS, etc.

Why are you all so anxious to shut this discussion down?  I'm genuinely curious?  I guess it's NOT about the fact that Republicans are not popular?

The exact opposite to what you are claiming will happen.  All of the candidates will spend their time in 8 to 10 states.  The conservative minority in California will be worth more than all of the front range states combined.  The EC is there as a check so the small states still can matter, just like all states getting two senators.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BYUcougfan said:

The exact opposite to what you are claiming will happen.  All of the candidates will spend their time in 8 to 10 states.  The conservative minority in California will be worth more than all of the front range states combined.  The EC is there as a check so the small states still can matter, just like all states getting two senators.

Shhhhhh, he didn’t think this through.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SJSUMFA2013 said:

Yeah but what states do they live in? That’s what really matters.

Idk if you know this, but Wyoming residents are imminently more qualified to vote than California residents. That’s why their votes count for more. I am basically 3/5 of a person when it comes to voting, and that’s more than fair. 

In fact, midwesterners really know more about voting than just about anyone else. They should get to decide every election from here unto eternity. I bow before their superiority and wisdom.

/end sarcasm

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mugtang said:

Awesome. Now just get 2/3rds of the House & Senate and 3/4ths of the States to agree to a constitutional amendment to get rid of it. 

That's the plan Stan

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Orange said:

Seriously, you don't see anything wrong with someone in Wyoming have 6x the voting power of someone in CA?

 

1 hour ago, Orange said:

The small states should prefer it especially.  RI, CT, DE, ND, SD, WY, AK, etc., have virtually no voice in the election process, and candidates skip those states because they are solidly in one party or the other.

 

So which one is it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Orange said:

Seriously, you don't see anything wrong with someone in Wyoming have 6x the voting power of someone in CA?

Are you philosophically against 1 person/1 vote?  If so, why?

Anything?  Sure.  But state's rights are worthless without it.  Do you see anything wrong with that?

The World Needs More Cowboys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SJSUMFA2013 said:

Yeah but what states do they live in? That’s what really matters.

Idk if you know this, but Wyoming residents are imminently more qualified to vote than California residents. That’s why their votes count for more. I am basically 3/5 of a person when it comes to voting, and that’s more than fair. 

In fact, midwesterners really know more about voting than just about anyone else. They should get to decide every election from here unto eternity. I bow before their superiority and wisdom.

I guarantee you Wyoming has 1/60,000,000 fewer ignorant voters than CA has :) 

The World Needs More Cowboys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Rocket said:

This is a discussion board. If you weren't anti-social you would discuss it here instead of trying to shut down opinions you don't agree with and being a douche.

Why the name calling? Don't you have to go make sure that you're labeling Indian Reservations as Concentration Camps? Laff laff laff. 

Spinning your wheels about your leftist utopia isn't going to get action done. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Rocket said:

This is a discussion board. If you weren't anti-social you would discuss it here instead of trying to shut down opinions you don't agree with and being a douche.

So not a discussion board for all of us?  Only opinions you agree with?  Awesome pawsome!

The World Needs More Cowboys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...