Thread: Democrat nominee decided by super delegates?

Originally Posted by ...bigdog...

Originally Posted by Glock

That because they possess so few votes, the candidates mostly ignore them unless they're desperate, correct?

Again...I'm sure Gore and Kerry, and the entire DNC believed that.....prior to losing the 2000 and 2004 elections.

focus on popular vote only......cali....NYC.....detroit....chicago.....m iami.......if that's all you can get...then you lose the national election.

the electoral college is like progressive taxes. They benefit the poor in a much larger proportion than they punish the rich. And though it's nice to say "fair tax" or flat taxes........that's not good for the strength of the union, and back in 1786 or whenever it was....it probably wasn't a good way to convince the small states to join the union with the big states. Why would anyone join a union where they were immediately outvoiced, out voted, and made irrelevant? The electoral college gives them a weighted chance. Still small.....but effective (see 2000 and 2004, or the red state/blue state bush bumper stickers.)

final draft of the constitution was '89 if memory is correct, it was started 87 took em a few years to complete.

I hope that my comments thus far have seemed as clear(non red/blue) affiliated.

I think that the electoral college also was great for those back in the late 1700s, it provided a way that the elite(the electors) could keep the power. not to mention back then in the first hand full of presidential elections only 4% of the american people could legally vote, Literate, property owning white males of the age of 21+

though now adays we do not need an educated person electing the president for us. I think we should have direct democracy. In which we vote directly. It makes every person's vote count. It shouldn't be split down the middle by states we are one union

Originally Posted by JBMCW2010

It shouldn't be split down the middle by states

and

we are one union

are incompatible.

A union is many joined together. We are one union, but we are 50 states.

and again...if you direct democracy, then you have to add dissolving the sentate to your platform. Are you for dissolving the senate?

Originally Posted by ...bigdog...

Originally Posted by JBMCW2010

It shouldn't be split down the middle by states

and

we are one union

are incompatible.

A union is many joined together. We are one union, but we are 50 states.

and again...if you direct democracy, then you have to add dissolving the sentate to your platform. Are you for dissolving the senate?

tricky tricky, no I am not for dissolving the senate. I should restate my position then.

I think that we should elect all elected officials the same way. We can elect senators and reps w/o the electoral college why should we elect the executive branch with one?

As to the union vs states yes that is an oxymoron huh

Originally Posted by JBMCW2010

I think that we should elect all elected officials the same way.

and I don't. just like I think we should execute criminals, and drive a set speed limit, and have a drinking age of 21, and make gambling/prostitution illegal, and set our own penalties for crimes at local and state levels.

you can't have it both ways. either we are states that make up a federal union....or we are just one national populace.

Originally Posted by D0ubl3 Tap

Please explain why we would have to desolve the senate.

because the senate is not based on population, and thus gives an unfair advantage and voice to small population states in the governance of the country. Not just an unfair advantage.....EQUAL FOOTING.

So if you don't like the electoral college, which is simply a weighted means of compiling the popular vote, then you have to hate the senate, which is totally outside the will of the popular vote. Montana....Alaska....Vermont.....with equal power as NY, florida, texas, and Cali? Crazy....right?

Originally Posted by D0ubl3 Tap

Please explain why we would have to desolve the senate.

because I said Direct Democracy which would mean that every national issue would be left up to the national population. IE should we go to war, who should be taxed what, where money should be spent.

Where there are pluses to every argument there are negatives. We as a nation should all agree upon war/no war but spending money? that is something best left to the local/states because the guys in DC can not tell you what is best in Burlington VT and best and equally fair for Kansas City

Originally Posted by Rustxko78

The electoral college isn't bound to the popular vote either which sucks though. They can abstain which I think is screwed up.

that's not true, at least not for all states.