Look what was in the paper, found it interesting

imported post

LovesHisXD45 wrote:

Our electoral college system is a perfect example of this as well. Do our votes really count? Do we really have a true choice, even in our "democratic republic, " anymore?

Click to expand...

I will point out that while there are some concerns and issues with incumbent advantage, and how elections are handled, the electoral college is NOT one of the problems. It is one of the bulwarks of liberty that stands alongside the 1st and 2nd amendments, and the whole notion of a limited federal government.

The electoral college prevents any State from artificially inflating its power in electing the president by extending the franchise. Imagine if California lowered the voting age to 14 and made it really easy for illegal aliens to vote. They could increase the number of voters in their State by 25% or more. But it would have no effect on the number of votes they get to cast for president. (Admittedly, the presence of illegal aliens can inflate the number of electoral votes a State has.)

The electoral college mirrors the great compromise of our bicameral congress and gives greater weight to votes cast in small States.

The electoral college requires a candidate to garner support across both a wide geographic area as well as among the population at large. Eliminate it, and the entire "fly over" zone of middle america will be even more ignored than it currently is as candidates focus on winning popular votes in high density areas along the coasts.

The electoral college limits the extend of errors and fraud. If you think Florida in 2000 was bad, imagine a single national election with 100 million votes to case.

The electoral college reduces the possibility and benefit of fraud. In lock States (strongly GOP or strongly Democrat) where vote fraud is most possible, there is little benefit to the presidential candidate. This relates directly to the first point I raised. In swing States, almost by definition, there should be enough sharing of power to prevent much vote fraud.

Ideally, I'd like to see us move toward giving the Electors even more discretion in how they cast their votes just as I think we ought to repeal the 17th Amendment and return election of Senators to the State Legislators.

Just remember, most of the arguments raised against the electoral college being "out of date" are not unlike the attacks levied against the 2nd amendment.

And, as a resident of a small State, my own self interest is enhanced by the electoral college.

Charles

imported post

All in all, this was a balanced, and well researched article.

A letter of thanks to the reporter would not be out of line, IMO. We ought to thank the media when they do a fair job, just as we criticize them when they are grossly biased.

Charles

imported post

PT111 wrote:

LovesHisXD45 wrote:

PT111 wrote:

Time after time I read on this board references to the 10th amendment and exactly what it is means as to ...or to the people. It has been repeated many times that if something is not prohibited ny law such as open carry in many states then it is legal. That is a direct result of the 10th amendment and a perfect example of it. It means exactly what it says, if it is not prohibited then it is legal. Open Carry being legal is a direct result fo the 10th amendment and the part of it that says "Or to the people".

Click to expand...

This is a good point PT. Thanks for sharing it. I hadn't looked at it that way before.

Kevin

Click to expand...

"....The Federal Government would control all actions of the states and people. This would basically nullify all other amendments unless we were given permission by the Feds to exercise them.

Click to expand...

Its already happening..

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,5143,700259131,00.html

"... "Once you fashion a Supreme Court that agrees with the majority, you might as well forget about the Bill of Rights,..."

Click to expand...

imported post

ProtectedBy9mm wrote:

Its already happening..

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,5143,700259131,00.html

Click to expand...

I am afraid that you are correct. The Feds control the money and therefore control everything else. One of the problems with our schools is the interference by the Feds and wanting to standardize rather then tailoring the teachings to the individual students.

People do not realize the disastorous effects of the 1964 Civil Rights Act on the South especially which has led to the narginialization of our students rather than helping those with added abilities only serves to bring them down to the average.

Once the power is removed from the states then we no longer promote efficiency rather we strangle all to be reduced to the lowest common denominator. No longer are drivers required to be able to read road signs but only be able to look at pictures. No longer is a person required to be able to make a decision on how to vote but allowed to sell his vote to the person who gives him a premarked ballot to follow along with a promise of a reward if he follows instructions. No longer are people in the South especially allowed to band together to form communites of like political beliefs but rather are strung together by distant geographical boundaries sometimes only linked by an Interstate Highway in order that a racial balance in the winners of elections be maintained.

Yes the 10th amendment is fast becoming obsolete and you can bet that once it is eliminated the second will shortly follow. While we sit here behind our keyboardstyping heroic sounding quotes from those long dead, arguing about whether 2A covers hand grenades or not and vowing that a vote for our favorite third party cantidate is a sing og protest that will wake up the politicians there is a group quickly moving behind our back to perform a sneak attack that we will never see coming.

imported post

I know this topic got onto a bit of a tangent (as they tend to :?) but here's a following editorial to the original article:

http://www.sltrib.com/Opinion/ci_10480602

Guns in Parks: In most cases, they don't belong
Tribune Editorial


Article Last Updated:09/16/2008 06:25:52 PM MDT

Gun advocates in Utah say that cities and counties are breaking state law when they post signs banning firearms in parks. But just as there are other things and behaviors that don't belong in public parks - bows and arrows, nudity, drinking alcohol, dogs not on leashes (except for dog parks) - it makes sense for local government to tell people not to bring their guns.
The gun rights crowd is right that state law gives people with concealed-carry permits free rein to bring their guns with them pretty much anywhere. The few exceptions include the secure areas of airports, court houses, prisons and mental health facilities. The law also is clear that the Legislature has reserved to itself the power to make gun laws unless it specifically delegates that responsibility to local governments or state agencies.
So it may be that banning guns in city parks is illegal. As far as we know, however, the question has not been litigated.
Maybe cities and counties should make clear that gun bans in parks don't apply to people with concealed-carry permits.
Otherwise, we think the bans are good public policy. We can't imagine that most Utahns would think it's a good idea to let people bring rifles or pistols to a park for target practice, or for shotgunners to shoot trap there. Young people, especially, should be discouraged from any such notions.
And we don't think it makes much sense for people to carry handguns openly, whether it's in parks or on public transportation. That just makes other people, including peace officers, nervous, and could cause accidents just as readily as it could prevent crime.
Frankly, the Legislature should loosen its grip on gun laws enough to give local governments some leeway. A gun ban in parks is one example. There may be places in rural Utah where the folks want to welcome guns to their parks, but cities along the Wasatch Front may take a very different view. We think that local elected officials have at least as much savvy about such things as legislators do, and they certainly listen to their constituents, who have their ear. Let cities and towns decide.
That said, we're all for obeying the law. That's easier when the law makes sense. In most cases, we think that gun bans in parks meet that test.

Click to expand...

My favorite part is how the writer makes the assumption that "allowing guns" means that people will act like a park is the same as a shooting range....

imported post

lol a shooting range at my local park because they make laws about that discharge of a firearm in city limits but nowhere does it say no discharge of a arrow in city limits lol

The State does not understand that a legaly owned citizen who carry's a firearm still will obey the States Laws so no shooting targets in the park unless they are armed lol

imported post

gunsfreak4791 wrote:

... nowhere does it say no discharge of a arrow in city limits lol

Click to expand...

:shock: I guess they need to put up signs for EVERYTHING that they don't want to have happen in a park. How about a "no doing drugs" sign or a "no sex" sign. Because if you don't have a sign prohibiting it then people automatically assume they CAN despite any laws to the contrary right?

lol

People Are Stupid :banghead:

imported post



Was OT post, Made new thread...