"Election" by Trial

rocket · 10-20-2004, 2:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baketech

Ummm....no, it just means ummm...not sure where you got the rest of that....

Sure it did

Baketech · 10-20-2004, 2:22 PM

BDA116 · 10-20-2004, 2:27 PM

Add to the list those willing to repeal the 16th and 17th Amendments to the Constitution. Amendments that go directly against the original Constitution itself.

rocket · 10-20-2004, 2:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baketech

rocket · 10-20-2004, 2:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BDA116

Add to the list those willing to repeal the 16th and 17th Amendments to the Constitution. Amendments that go directly against the original Constitution itself.

sheepofblue · 10-20-2004, 3:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luvtolean

I don't think the litigation is necessary.

Get rid of the electoral college and I think you'd see things go differently, including margin of victory.

The electoral college is there for a reason. We are not a Democracy rather a Federalist government. The college helps protect less populous states from say CA

ER · 10-20-2004, 4:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sheepofblue

The electoral college is there for a reason. We are not a Democracy rather a Federalist government. The college helps protect less populous states from say CA

Correct...we are a Republic and we have elected officials in each state that carry a weighted vote. This allows every state to have a voice, albeit at different db levels of course.

FYI - LTL, I'm not sure how you make the assumption that abortion and religion are directly connected. Not everyone who believes that killing an unborn baby is wrong has convicted, religious beliefs.

spillover · 10-20-2004, 5:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rocket

... Arnold would fit the bill.

Bullock: "I have in fact perused some news reels from the Schwarzenegger Library..."

Stallone: (Cuts her off, holding up his hands in surprise).
"Hold it! The Schwarzenegger Library?"

Bullock: "Yes, the Schwarzenegger Presidential Library.
Wasn't he an actor when you were...."

Stallone: (amazed): "Stop! He was President?"

Bullock: "Yes, even though he was not born in this country,
his popularity at the time caused the 61st amendment which states that...."

Stallone (looking disgusted, shaking his head):
"I don't wanna know. Wheh! President?!"

Ahhh, a classic flick.

As for the electoral college, it wouldn't be such a problem if the states didn't sell out their minorities. I'm all for some kind of apportionment of electors based on vote tallies.

I'm also not sure how much of a fan I am of Rhode Island or Montana having as much clout as they do. Might be time to revamp the Congress.

Baketech · 10-20-2004, 6:14 PM

Just for fun, and because it's a bit topical due to the current situation with Colorado....

sheepofblue · 10-20-2004, 6:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spillover

As for the electoral college, it wouldn't be such a problem if the states didn't sell out their minorities. I'm all for some kind of apportionment of electors based on vote tallies.

I'm also not sure how much of a fan I am of Rhode Island or Montana having as much clout as they do. Might be time to revamp the Congress.

They have a disporportionate power in the Senate vs Californias and New Yorks power in the house. By design.

spillover · 10-20-2004, 8:35 PM

How does that disproportionate representation improve the guidance of the federal government and the representation of the American people?

sheepofblue · 10-20-2004, 8:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spillover

How does that disproportionate representation improve the guidance of the federal government and the representation of the American people?

Well to start with it is the government that was agreed to. Also it is another of the checks and balances built into our system. Thus highly urbanized areas cannot run over the less populated rural areas while the rural areas cannot run over the more densely populated areas. By both having a bit of say the result is more likely to be one that benefits all.

Edit: also the federal government unlike state governments was designed to represent the states not the people (the exception being the House of Representatives). Hence a federalist system. This has been perverted to some degree over the years but largely remains intact.

spillover · 10-21-2004, 8:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sheepofblue

Edit: also the federal government unlike state governments was designed to represent the states not the people (the exception being the House of Representatives). Hence a federalist system. This has been perverted to some degree over the years but largely remains intact.

Ahh, this strikes at what bothers me most. I !really! want to reorganize the northeast. Roll ME, NH, VT, RI, and MA into one state, and then make CT a part of NY.

QuikMike · 10-21-2004, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ER

Correct...we are a Republic and we have elected officials in each state that carry a weighted vote. This allows every state to have a voice, albeit at different db levels of course.

FYI - LTL, I'm not sure how you make the assumption that abortion and religion are directly connected. Not everyone who believes that killing an unborn baby is wrong has convicted, religious beliefs.

well said, fine Sir!

100% agreement over here...