General discussion

Locked

Should Barack Obama be reelected?

By maxwell edison ·
Tags: Off Topic
Yes or no, and why?

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

247 total posts (Page 2 of 25)   Prev   01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05   Next
| Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

There's a viable third choice now, DE.

by boxfiddler Moderator In reply to Boxie, two things about R ...

Despite Dem/Rep efforts to silence it. I don't have to choose between Obama and Romney.

Collapse -

do you really think the US electoral college system will allow

by Deadly Ernest In reply to There's a viable third ch ...

anyone but those put up by the two major parties to have a real chance of being voted in? I don't think so, what it may do is to water down the votes for one candidate.

Collapse -

Depends.

by boxfiddler Moderator In reply to do you really think the U ...

On whether or not the Electoral College follows the will of the people as it should, or is as corrupt as the rest of the system.

Collapse -

it's corrupt, it was designed to be corrupt from the start -nt

by Deadly Ernest In reply to Depends.
Collapse -

The Electoral College wasn't designed to follow the will of the people.

by CharlieSpencer In reply to Depends.

With no rapid mass communication, there was no way for potential presidents to reach all the people. Electors were chosen based on their ability to represent the basic desires of those who sent them to the capitol, but those senders were usually state legislatures, not the mass electorate. Because of the inability to communicate from the capitol to those legislature, they were expected to exercise their best judgement.

One day maybe we'll get around to a direct popular vote for president, but we've got bigger problems in the process than that one.

Collapse -

Design and 'should'

by boxfiddler Moderator In reply to The Electoral College was ...

Different things. It was also assumed that electors would 'exercise independent judgment' when voting. And that Prez and Veep would be running independently of one another.

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)

Collapse -

The Electors

by maxwell edison In reply to Depends.

Only one candidate wins any given state primary election, and as representatives of each state, they are beholden to their respective State Constitutions. Whatever latitude they may or may not have is spelled out in their State Constitutions. As far as I know, only two states, Maine and Nebraska, allow for casting split votes.

And quite frankly, it's not up to you to tell people of other states how they manage their own elections, just like its not the place of others to tell you and your state how to cast your vote(s). We have 50 separate state elections, not a national election.

By the way, the will of the people seldom speaks with one monolithic voice. This "people", for example, would be opposed to ending or changing the Electoral College system. It would be the final nail in the coffin to individual state's rights. I'd also support repealing the 17th Amendment for the same reason.

Collapse -

Responses.

by CharlieSpencer In reply to The Electors

"This 'people', for example, would be opposed to ending or changing the Electoral College system."

I see the Electoral College as the exercise of states' right at the expense of individual rights; just this "people's" opinion.

I don't see the coffin nailed shut while the 10th is still on the books.

I don't have feelings about the 17th either way.

I'd love to see the 22nd either repealed or applied equally to all federal elected offices.

I notice you haven't weighed in yet on your original topic.

Collapse -

Palmetto

by maxwell edison In reply to The Electors

We can certainly agree to disagree (as I don't think I've ever swayed anyone at TR to actually to consider another point of view), but if you go back to the founders' intent, the House of Representatives was intended to represent the people of each state, while the Senate was intended to represent the state itself. It was an brilliant concept, if you ask me (which you didn't), but it was circumvented with the passage of the 17th amendment.

Personally speaking, I don't think the people of Colorado (for example) should be able to tell the people of South Carolina (for example) how to conduct their own state's business. The 17th Amendment actually made that possible; and if the Electoral College were to be eliminated, then it would become common practice.

It forces one to consider one's underlying principle: do you believe in a stronger federal government or stronger state governments? Considering the reality that most issues concerning New Jersey (for example), have entirely different considerations than similar issues in Utah (for example), I'm inclined to favor more local control.

Stronger Federal Government, or a stronger State Governments? I choose the latter, because I see their respective roles as quite different. Which do you choose?

(Not to mention the introduction of the progressive movement in America at the time of the passage of both the 16th and 17th Amendments.)

P.S.

Re: You said, "I see the Electoral College as the exercise of states' right at the expense of individual rights; just this "people's" opinion."

I'm curious. When did the electors of South Carolina fail to cast their votes as dictated by the individuals of South Carolina?

Collapse -

Palmetto (again)

by maxwell edison In reply to The Electors

Re: I notice you haven't weighed in yet on your original topic.

Do you really have to ask? (insert smiley face here)

P.S. For those who don't know, I don't do "emoticons". I leave that to my Australian friend! (Insert raving laughter here!)

Back to After Hours Forum
247 total posts (Page 2 of 25)   Prev   01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums