free speech


A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (as always, locked for the duration of major international championship)

Re: free speech

Postby tandfman » Tue Oct 30, 2012 7:53 am

I think most people understand the basics of the EC. I assume they're still teaching it to kids in school. If not, what are they teaching--it's rather basic.

What I don't understand is why there hasn't been an outcry against it. Nobody--politicians, newspapers, tv pundits--utters a word against it. Ever. Why not?
tandfman
 
Posts: 15043
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: free speech

Postby preston » Tue Oct 30, 2012 7:55 am

Marlow wrote:
JRM wrote:Is the electoral college process really that much of a mystery to most citizens of the US?

Can you name the two states that are NOT winner-take-all for their Electors? God forbid that the election should come down to that!

Furthermore, I've heard all the pro-Electoral College arguments, and I still don't buy them. I say the popular vote wins, and if no candidate gets 50%, there's a run-off between the top two.

and spend how much money to have another election? That's crazy. Whomever get's the most votes wins. Period. (Clinton '92)

If they eliminate the electoral college, which I think should happen, then the courage is needed to also eliminate the senate. (that should save a lot of money!) California has more population than the 22 least populated states combined, but each person in California has effectively less say than the people in those 22 states.

Eliminate the senate. And give the residents of the District of Columbia EQUAL representation to the other citizens of the US.
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: free speech

Postby Pego » Tue Oct 30, 2012 8:02 am

I also have some questions. Federal judges are appointed. Why not the state judges? Why not eliminate suspicion that they would be partial to their campaign donors? Police chiefs are appointed, why not the sheriff? Sheriff's job is not a popularity contest, is it? Why do registrars of deeds or town clerk have to spend money on campaigns :shock: ?
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: free speech

Postby tandfman » Tue Oct 30, 2012 9:11 am

Pego wrote:I also have some questions. Federal judges are appointed. Why not the state judges?

In some states, judges are appointed.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Are_state_jud ... or_elected
tandfman
 
Posts: 15043
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: free speech

Postby Marlow » Tue Oct 30, 2012 9:19 am

preston wrote:and spend how much money to have another election? That's crazy. Whomever get's the most votes wins. Period. (Clinton '92)

Because a 'winner' who is backed by LESS than half the electorate (and no EC backing) has a problem before s/he even takes office.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21128
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: free speech

Postby Pego » Tue Oct 30, 2012 9:20 am

tandfman wrote:
Pego wrote:I also have some questions. Federal judges are appointed. Why not the state judges?

In some states, judges are appointed.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Are_state_jud ... or_elected


Thank you. I did not know this.
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: free speech

Postby preston » Tue Oct 30, 2012 9:38 am

Marlow wrote:
preston wrote:and spend how much money to have another election? That's crazy. Whomever get's the most votes wins. Period. (Clinton '92)

Because a 'winner' who is backed by LESS than half the electorate (and no EC backing) has a problem before s/he even takes office.

A plurality is the most votes and most votes make you the winner. It's a fallacy to believe that in a world where people are not only more partisan but ALSO choose their own facts that anyone who wins DOESN'T have a problem before they take office.

The Electoral College is NOT needed.
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: free speech

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Oct 30, 2012 10:39 am

Marlow wrote:
preston wrote:and spend how much money to have another election? That's crazy. Whomever get's the most votes wins. Period. (Clinton '92)

Because a 'winner' who is backed by LESS than half the electorate (and no EC backing) has a problem before s/he even takes office.

As long as those were the stated rules of the game before the election, I don't see why a candidate without a majority of votes but with an EC majority would be any more legitimate than a candidate without a majority of votes in a system that has no EC.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: free speech

Postby Blues » Tue Oct 30, 2012 10:49 am

Pego wrote:I also have some questions. Federal judges are appointed. Why not the state judges? Why not eliminate suspicion that they would be partial to their campaign donors? Police chiefs are appointed, why not the sheriff? Sheriff's job is not a popularity contest, is it? Why do registrars of deeds or town clerk have to spend money on campaigns :shock: ?


I think I prefer the election system.. Although some elected individuals could be somewhat partial to their campaign donors, I think it might be beneficial that whether they're chosen for the position or not isn't at the mercy of any possible bias or prejudice of the particular politician who's been given the power to appoint them.. It's a checks and balances thing...
Blues
 
Posts: 1091
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:58 am

Re: free speech

Postby lonewolf » Tue Oct 30, 2012 2:52 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:[As long as those were the stated rules of the game before the election, I don't see why a candidate without a majority of votes but with an EC majority would be any more legitimate than a candidate without a majority of votes in a system that has no EC.

My sentiments exactly..
I understand the rationale behind the design the Electoral College and could argue either side of EC vs popular with equal lack of conviction.
Actually, I tend to favor the system which elects my candidate. :)
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8816
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Re: free speech

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Oct 30, 2012 3:35 pm

lonewolf wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:[As long as those were the stated rules of the game before the election, I don't see why a candidate without a majority of votes but with an EC majority would be any more legitimate than a candidate without a majority of votes in a system that has no EC.

My sentiments exactly..
I understand the rationale behind the design the Electoral College and could argue either side of EC vs popular with equal lack of conviction.
Actually, I tend to favor the system which elects my candidate. :)

I heard someone on the radio today that if Hurricane Sandy causes large numbers of voters in a few states not to be able to vote, this would be the ideal situation where the electoral college system would come in handy.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: free speech

Postby Cooter Brown » Wed Oct 31, 2012 4:59 am

The parties like the electoral college because it allows them to focus their money and attention on only a few states that are in play.
Cooter Brown
 
Posts: 2057
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Austin

Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 7 guests