Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Electoral College

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Santa Clarita, California, USA
    Posts
    49

    Post imported post

    I know that this isn't directly related to firearms or OC, but considering that our next presidential election is only a year away, and that who we elect as president will have an effect on our cause, I want to see what everyone's thoughts are on this article.

    http://www.fairvote.org/?page=200&ar...owarticle=1198

    Should we keep the electoral college, or abolish it and let the popular vote decide who wins the presidency?

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    How about giving power back to the states like it was intended, so that there is a fair balance between national and state power, giving the president less power, and decreasing the importance of the presidential elections?

    Oh crap, I think the Department of Homeland Security is knocking at my door... Nono, not for suggesting a limitation in federal executive power, but because of how OT this thread is

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Keep the Electoral College.

    Direct popular election brings us that much closer to a democracy--something the Founders distrusted.

    Recall the problems with big gov't, socialistic tendencies, etc. Then imagine the liberal-biased media's effect on a direct popular election.

    Wasn't Dianne Feinstein oneof the senators trying to pass the FairnessDoctrine to hamstring conservative talk radio? Anything she supports is instantly suspect in my book. Her comment about fair and uniform is beside the point. The Electoral College directly protects fairness while adding a layer against popular opinion swayed by demagogues. Creating battle-ground states is not a problem created by the Electoral College. Its created by the political parties themselves. An artificial problem if I ever saw one.Since when have political candidates given battle-ground states or non-battle-ground states anything more than sound-bites and talking points instead of real information that can be used to evaluate them?

    At least with the Electoral College an elector can stand back,rubhis chin, and vote against the grain.


    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,508

    Post imported post

    We should not only keep it, we should restore it to its original purpose, and eliminate direct election of senators while we're at it.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, ,
    Posts
    836

    Post imported post

    KBCraig wrote:
    We should not only keep it, we should restore it to its original purpose, and eliminate direct election of senators while we're at it.
    I agree. And as for that poll the OP linked to, well....pfft!:X

    I hope I don't sound too misanthropic, but I find the average Joe to be a moron!
    The majority of citizens in this country are the proverbial boiling frog. They're not upset by extreme taxes or even taxes to build a stadium so millionaires can play a childs game. They don't seem too concerned with the erosion of civil liberties. As long as they can screw once in a while and have a tv remote control in their hand, they are fat, happy, and stupid!

    No way do I want the majority to directly decide who the President is. They're too stupid to be trusted with such a responsibility!

  6. #6
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , Indiana, USA
    Posts
    1,606

    Post imported post

    Not a big fan of the EC... I like popular vote, but that means Gore would have won ICK! :?

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member Tess's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Alexandria, Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,764

    Post imported post

    Without the College, we'd see:

    Candidates focusing on NY, California, Texas, and Florida - the high-population states - trying to buy votes. I don't want those 4 states determining my president.

    Little to no campaigning in the lowest-populated states. You think Montana gets overlooked NOW?


    Frankly, I like the new California proposal, which is likely to be defeated because it would probably make California Republican, but which grants one electoral vote to the winner of each district. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be doing well there.
    Laws alone can not secure freedom of expression; in order that every man present his views without penalty there must be spirit of tolerance in the entire population. -Albert Einstein

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •