Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|6660|Tampa Bay Florida

DSRTurtle wrote:

The electorial college is not anti democratic.  It gives smaller states a fair stake in representation.  It forces candidates to pay attention to all the people in the country not just those in New York and California.

Al Gore can blame his loss on not winning his home state.  That's all he needed to win in the first place.
Important back in the 19th century?  Probably.

Important now, where everyone is exposed to more information, and our lives are becoming more and more isolated, even if we may live right next to someone?  Probably not.

Last edited by Spearhead (2008-02-23 15:51:57)

Liberal-Sl@yer
Certified BF2S Asshole
+131|6426|The edge of sanity

Poseidon wrote:

AAFCptKabbom wrote:

- Military in shambles - FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU!!!  We have never lost a military battle and they are adapting and gaining technology.
First off - lol @ a bush supporter and roid rage

Second, um...ever hear of Vietnam? And the Air Force has already complained that they are losing their grasp of superiority in the skies. Only a matter of time before the other branches start doing the same.
Under techinically terms we did not lose vietnam. The conflict was resolved in a treaty. We lost Vietnam politically but the military did not lose there.
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,973|6602|949

DSRTurtle wrote:

The electorial college is not anti democratic.  It gives smaller states a fair stake in representation.  It forces candidates to pay attention to all the people in the country not just those in New York and California.

Al Gore can blame his loss on not winning his home state.  That's all he needed to win in the first place.
How does it do that?  How does it equal fair representation?  It equals proportional representation, and then only on a state basis.  In most states, a 55% majority means the candidate gets all electoral votes for that state, not just 55%

It actually forces candidates to pay attention to states with large amounts of electoral votes and/or bubble states, not all the people.  A candidate could win the presidency by only winning a handful of states.

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about.

Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2008-02-23 16:03:31)

Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6375|North Carolina
DSRTurtle, the reason why your argument fails is basically due to what Ken said.

If one man = one vote, then a popular vote is all that should matter.  With the current arrangement, the votes of a small state are overrepresented by electors, while the votes of citizens in big states are underrepresented.

Otherwise, you just have to say that one man doesn't equal one vote, and then the idea of us all being equal becomes entirely irrelevant.
Dersmikner
Member
+147|6469|Texas
Democracy is doomed to failure when the masses realize they can vote themselves largess from the community coffers.

The Electoral College is the only thing keeping us from having a full-on Socialist state.

There is no such thing, and never can be, as a "one man, one vote" democracy. If "one man, one vote" were the way we elected officials we'd be in a big fatass socialist state, with broke motherfuckers voting to steal the fruits of my labor for themselves.

The day we abolish the Electoral College, and start voting through convenience stores or our televisions is the day I stick all my money in a Swiss bank account and become a citizen of the world, with an alleged permanent residence somewhere like Antarctica.

Why the fuck don't more people want to make their own money instead of taxing other people? Fucking wears me out...
Tushers
Noctwisaskfirtush
+224|6655|Some where huntin in Wisconsin
i love this country so much im joining the marines and tbh i think if a democrat would have gotten into office there would be more health care and we would be outta the war in the middle east but let look at it this way

the congress has to agree on the act of war right...they did
president bush never said we are going to get saddam and get out thats what the media portrayed it to be
president bush also said we will get osama as long as it takes, the congress voted on it.
health care is not prevalent but lets see who all pays taxes here me and im willing to be over 50% of the people here..you want the government to take  more money away from out pay we already pay social security that anyone under the age of about 40 wont get

tbh America is a great country alot better of then most other countries yes the dollar is at its low point but thats the economy, not to much the pres can do about that...

all in all nothing personal iron chef i think ur a good person but if you don't like the country move out bush hasn't started to hand out red arm bands and i dont think he will, the only thing stoping you is...well nothing
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6375|North Carolina

Dersmikner wrote:

Democracy is doomed to failure when the masses realize they can vote themselves largess from the community coffers.

The Electoral College is the only thing keeping us from having a full-on Socialist state.

There is no such thing, and never can be, as a "one man, one vote" democracy. If "one man, one vote" were the way we elected officials we'd be in a big fatass socialist state, with broke motherfuckers voting to steal the fruits of my labor for themselves.

The day we abolish the Electoral College, and start voting through convenience stores or our televisions is the day I stick all my money in a Swiss bank account and become a citizen of the world, with an alleged permanent residence somewhere like Antarctica.

Why the fuck don't more people want to make their own money instead of taxing other people? Fucking wears me out...
Um...  if you were correct, then Norway would be very poor.

Oh, by the way...  Which is worse?  The public doing what you just said, or special interests?  You fear a "bread and circus" democracy, but you seem to ignore the corporate fascist one we currently have.

Last edited by Turquoise (2008-02-23 18:18:48)

Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|6660|Tampa Bay Florida
Are these people honestly advocating that the minority should rule, as long as the system in place allows them to? 

Scary
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6375|North Carolina

Spearhead wrote:

Are these people honestly advocating that the minority should rule, as long as the system in place allows them to? 

Scary
They certainly wouldn't if they were poor.  Greed has a tendency to corrupt logic.
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|6660|Tampa Bay Florida
Well... you know the story.  Im outta karma right now.
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6381|'Murka

Turquoise wrote:

Spearhead wrote:

[pt] KEIOS wrote:

it took you eight years to realize, that he´s a prick? gj
Well you know Gore beat him by 500,000 votes in 2000, just that the majority doesn't always win.

Damn electoral college.
True dat...  the Electoral College and the delegate process for our primaries are 2 of the most antidemocratic processes in America.  I know we're a democratic republic, but we lean far too much in the republic direction and not enough in the democracy direction.
You both do realize that the electoral college system is laid out in the Constitution, right?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
DSRTurtle
Member
+56|6656

Spearhead wrote:

DSRTurtle wrote:

The electorial college is not anti democratic.  It gives smaller states a fair stake in representation.  It forces candidates to pay attention to all the people in the country not just those in New York and California.

Al Gore can blame his loss on not winning his home state.  That's all he needed to win in the first place.
Important back in the 19th century?  Probably.

Important now, where everyone is exposed to more information, and our lives are becoming more and more isolated, even if we may live right next to someone?  Probably not.
It's still important.  There is way too much information and not enough time for even the most poiltically active citizen to read comprehend and digest to make informed decisions.  And there is no right to vote.  It is privledge.  The representitives to the electorial college shall be chosen by the individual states in a manner decided by the individual states.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6375|North Carolina

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Spearhead wrote:


Well you know Gore beat him by 500,000 votes in 2000, just that the majority doesn't always win.

Damn electoral college.
True dat...  the Electoral College and the delegate process for our primaries are 2 of the most antidemocratic processes in America.  I know we're a democratic republic, but we lean far too much in the republic direction and not enough in the democracy direction.
You both do realize that the electoral college system is laid out in the Constitution, right?
True...  that's what Amendments are for.  We need an Amendment to get rid of it.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6375|North Carolina

DSRTurtle wrote:

Spearhead wrote:

DSRTurtle wrote:

The electorial college is not anti democratic.  It gives smaller states a fair stake in representation.  It forces candidates to pay attention to all the people in the country not just those in New York and California.

Al Gore can blame his loss on not winning his home state.  That's all he needed to win in the first place.
Important back in the 19th century?  Probably.

Important now, where everyone is exposed to more information, and our lives are becoming more and more isolated, even if we may live right next to someone?  Probably not.
It's still important.  There is way too much information and not enough time for even the most poiltically active citizen to read comprehend and digest to make informed decisions.  And there is no right to vote.  It is privledge.  The representitives to the electorial college shall be chosen by the individual states in a manner decided by the individual states.
Is it just me or are you admitting that democracy is somewhat futile in America?  I mean, if we go by what you just said here, then why do we even hold elections?

Electors theoretically are supposed to reflect the will of the people, but if that's true, then why don't we simplify the process down to the popular vote?

Yet, if what you said is true, then maybe the electors shouldn't reflect the will of the people.  You're suggesting that the public is too ignorant to decide, so that only leaves the next questions: how should people enter power, and what makes the electors more fit to elect politicians than the general public?
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|6660|Tampa Bay Florida
Is the right to vote really just a privilege?  I admit I do not know for sure, but I think it is a right.  Legally I mean.
nukchebi0
Пушкин, наше всё
+387|6294|New Haven, CT
Additionally, the Electoral college gives the people in smaller states more say (effectively), because the electoral vote to person ration is unbalanced by the inclusion of senators.

I think the electoral college is a failure though. We should not have anything but a popular select the president.

Spearhead wrote:

Is the right to vote really just a privilege?  I admit I do not know for sure, but I think it is a right.  Legally I mean.
Yes, it is a legal right for those over 18, although one you forfeit when committing a crime (much like freedom).

Last edited by nukchebi0 (2008-02-23 21:22:02)

Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|6660|Tampa Bay Florida
Thank you, I mean, ya, its the right to vote.  That'd be crazy if it were just a privelige.  Talk about civil rights, lmao
nukchebi0
Пушкин, наше всё
+387|6294|New Haven, CT
With poll taxes and literacy tests, it was unjustly made a privilege, but it is a right.

Think of a driver's license. You have the privilege to drive, not the right, and they make you pass a test to earn this privilege.
DSRTurtle
Member
+56|6656
The consitiution specifically says :

Section. 4.
Clause 1: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

this has been amended by at least 4 different ammendments with regards to race, sex, age and the manner of choosing Senators.

But no where does it say that anything about voting as a right to choose the president and or vice president.
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|6660|Tampa Bay Florida
Suffrage = right to vote

Womens suffrage movement?  Suffrage for African Americans and minorities?
SineNomine
Panzerblitz
+37|6693|SPARTA
gwb is the worst president of the us ever. not because he fought the war on terror. not because he is dumb as all the retards in the middle east together. not because he is a corporate monkey.
most important: he weakend the us beyond belief in times where it needs all its strength. weakend in every point: economically, militarily, socially. i wont start on the loss of trust of the allies.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6375|North Carolina

DSRTurtle wrote:

The consitiution specifically says :

Section. 4.
Clause 1: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

this has been amended by at least 4 different ammendments with regards to race, sex, age and the manner of choosing Senators.

But no where does it say that anything about voting as a right to choose the president and or vice president.
Like I said, we need to amend it further so that it does.
GodFather
Blademaster's bottom bitch
+387|6190|Phoenix, AZ

IRONCHEF wrote:

We're just becoming the countries we've looked down on for so long..we've got the level of corruption in our leadership that once was our headlines as we self-righteously read our papers disgusted at political manipulation in 3rd world countries..thieving presidents and governors, etc.
very epicly put.
Dersmikner
Member
+147|6469|Texas
Here are some honest thoughts:

1. My family used to be poor, poor, poor. Matter of fact my Dad used to say "we're just 'po', there's no 'or' to it." Dad and Mom worked their asses off, Dad kicked ass in college, got a scholarship to medical school, and those days are long past. I have no sympathy for the poor. If you WANT to get out of it, you can. Does it take time and hard work? Absolutely, but in America EVERYONE can rise above poverty. There are two kinds of people in the world: The kind who get things done, and the kind who make excuses why they don't get things done. I call bullshit on anyone who is poor.

2. I am in favor of some form of limits to voting. I believe that if you don't pay taxes (and I'm not talking about filing a return, I'm talking about making a net contribution in the form of a check to the government), own property, or serve in the military you have no right to vote. Sorry. If you don't contribute to the community coffers or serve to defend them why should you have the right to determine how other people's money is spent? No asshole off the street can walk into my home and tell me how to spend the household money because he hasn't contributed to the household bank account. Same principle. If you don't add to the stash, you don't get to determine how the stash is spent. I'd even be for graduated voting. You can pick the level of taxes you want to pay, and your vote counts along those lines. The more you want to contribute the more say you get in how the money is spent. If you don't want to pay any tax at all, you get no vote. Of course, that might cost you in the long run when legislation goes against you, but that's the way it would work. You could cap it somehow so Bill Gates couldn't simply buy the entire government, but I think that someone who pays $100,000+ in taxes should have more say than someone who makes $20,000 a year and gets an "earned income tax credit" which is basically just a handout. Why should that person have as much say when they've not nearly made the contribution the other guy has?

3. Let's just get to the crux of it: You "socialists" either don't have any money or you have some yourself but you want to tell me how I have to spend mine. Personal property rights are something that simply escapes you. If I wake up in the morning and I go to work and I create something through my own labor and someone is willing to pay me for that, who the fuck are you to tell me that I have to take that money and support my fellow man? Who are you to tell me I have to pay more for better schools for someone else's kids, or for a breakfast program for the poor, or for dental care for the needy or healthcare for the sick and elderly? If YOU want to donate to that shit, feel free, but what makes you think you can watch me go to work, watch me earn money, then waltz into my bank account and decide to take some of what I'VE EARNED and use it for what you think is a noble cause? Go live in a tent and give away ALL YOUR MONEY, but don't try to legislate theft and call it right. It's still theft. This country was founded on the idea that we are free people, with the right to earn without undue taxation, and that the government should only be here to meet the bare essentials of rule and order. Anyone remember the Boston Tea Party? Anyone know the phrase "taxation without representation"? You're going down the very road that this country was founded to avoid. Stay the fuck out of my wallet. Give me a military to keep us from getting invaded, pave roads because individuals can't, provide police and firefighters, and stay the hell out of everything else. The market works pretty damned well when it's not interfered with.

Or we can go with your theory. I went to work about 50 hours this week, then I went in for 5 hours yesterday, and I'll make a little 2 hour jaunt up there today, so I CAN HAVE MORE SHIT, not so you can earn more tax dollars to spend as you see fit. If you're a "socialist" to any degree, you're nothing more than a common fucking lazy thief who doesn't have the balls to break and enter. You're trying to legalize your theft and that makes you not just a thief, but a hypocritical pussy. The worst kind of shitbag.
PureFodder
Member
+225|6256

Dersmikner wrote:

Here are some honest thoughts:

1. My family used to be poor, poor, poor. Matter of fact my Dad used to say "we're just 'po', there's no 'or' to it." Dad and Mom worked their asses off, Dad kicked ass in college, got a scholarship to medical school, and those days are long past. I have no sympathy for the poor. If you WANT to get out of it, you can. Does it take time and hard work? Absolutely, but in America EVERYONE can rise above poverty. There are two kinds of people in the world: The kind who get things done, and the kind who make excuses why they don't get things done. I call bullshit on anyone who is poor.
So if everyone works hard they can all climb the corporate ladder and everyone can be the manager..... A well thought out scheme.

Dersmikner wrote:

2. I am in favor of some form of limits to voting. I believe that if you don't pay taxes (and I'm not talking about filing a return, I'm talking about making a net contribution in the form of a check to the government), own property, or serve in the military you have no right to vote. Sorry. If you don't contribute to the community coffers or serve to defend them why should you have the right to determine how other people's money is spent? No asshole off the street can walk into my home and tell me how to spend the household money because he hasn't contributed to the household bank account. Same principle. If you don't add to the stash, you don't get to determine how the stash is spent. I'd even be for graduated voting. You can pick the level of taxes you want to pay, and your vote counts along those lines. The more you want to contribute the more say you get in how the money is spent. If you don't want to pay any tax at all, you get no vote. Of course, that might cost you in the long run when legislation goes against you, but that's the way it would work. You could cap it somehow so Bill Gates couldn't simply buy the entire government, but I think that someone who pays $100,000+ in taxes should have more say than someone who makes $20,000 a year and gets an "earned income tax credit" which is basically just a handout. Why should that person have as much say when they've not nearly made the contribution the other guy has?
That would be a good plan if you wanted to ruin the country. Nobody would bother paying taxes. Also, since when does pay earned equate to value to society?

Dersmikner wrote:

3. Let's just get to the crux of it: You "socialists" either don't have any money or you have some yourself but you want to tell me how I have to spend mine. Personal property rights are something that simply escapes you. If I wake up in the morning and I go to work and I create something through my own labor and someone is willing to pay me for that, who the fuck are you to tell me that I have to take that money and support my fellow man? Who are you to tell me I have to pay more for better schools for someone else's kids, or for a breakfast program for the poor, or for dental care for the needy or healthcare for the sick and elderly? If YOU want to donate to that shit, feel free, but what makes you think you can watch me go to work, watch me earn money, then waltz into my bank account and decide to take some of what I'VE EARNED and use it for what you think is a noble cause? Go live in a tent and give away ALL YOUR MONEY, but don't try to legislate theft and call it right. It's still theft. This country was founded on the idea that we are free people, with the right to earn without undue taxation, and that the government should only be here to meet the bare essentials of rule and order. Anyone remember the Boston Tea Party? Anyone know the phrase "taxation without representation"? You're going down the very road that this country was founded to avoid. Stay the fuck out of my wallet. Give me a military to keep us from getting invaded, pave roads because individuals can't, provide police and firefighters, and stay the hell out of everything else. The market works pretty damned well when it's not interfered with.
The problem you will run into is that your plan would utterly cripple the country. Agriculture, airline industry, all high tech industry, pharmacuticals etc. etc. could never have occured and would almost certainly disappear without huge government influence. Free markets tend to ignore externalities until they cripple the sector. Fucking up the environment is a great short term profit maker, but comes back with a vengence later, but that's later so it's not important for free-market economics.

Free markets have been tried in Africa and South America with spectacular failures in both. There's good reason why no rich countries actually have proper free-market economies, they're crap. Without govenrment to spend huge amounts the public's of money on research, infrastructure and the welfare of the populace the economy is doomed to stagnate and fail.

Dersmikner wrote:

Or we can go with your theory. I went to work about 50 hours this week, then I went in for 5 hours yesterday, and I'll make a little 2 hour jaunt up there today, so I CAN HAVE MORE SHIT, not so you can earn more tax dollars to spend as you see fit. If you're a "socialist" to any degree, you're nothing more than a common fucking lazy thief who doesn't have the balls to break and enter. You're trying to legalize your theft and that makes you not just a thief, but a hypocritical pussy. The worst kind of shitbag.
If you actually, honestly worked out all the things that have benefitted you in your life that came from public spending you'd be amazed. Using your personal story, your poor parents wouldn't have been able to afford to go to school in the first place, hence you'd probably be poor or never have been born without any socialism.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard