Jump to content

WE ARE NOT SORRY

GUNWOUNDS
 Share

Recommended Posts

Anathema

Anathema

Posted
Posted

You got that site from the other thread I see? I think it's disturbing that apparently the most staunch Bush supporters all own assault rifles and shit. Also it's funny that they're unable to write the plural form "hippies" in sound English, according to that last pic.

Anathema

Anathema

Posted
Posted

The electoral college is an obsolete institution. In the early days it may have been useful because common people didn't know anything about politics and instead trusted on their local man in the electoral to pick the right candidate, but it's useless now as voters just pick the guy whom they know is going to vote for Kerry/Bush/Clinton whatever. It also brings the risk of putting someone in office who didn't get the most votes like we saw in 2000.

thomas

thomas

Posted
Posted

The electoral college is an obsolete institution. In the early days it may have been useful because common people didn't know anything about politics and instead trusted on their local man in the electoral to pick the right candidate, but it's useless now as voters just pick the guy whom they know is going to vote for Kerry/Bush/Clinton whatever. It also brings the risk of putting someone in office who didn't get the most votes like we saw in 2000.

huh? the electoral college doesn't work like that, each state has so many votes and it the state's popular vote winer is given all of those votes, and it was instituted so slave states would have more votes and could stand up against the more populated northern states.

Andrew

Andrew

Posted
Posted

That election method is mighty messed up to me.

If say 51% of california voted for a person, then the political party automatically gets all 55(?) seats? wtf? Doesn't seem very democratic to me.

In Canada you vote for the person running in your area and also the party you want to vote for. A person in your electorial district gets voted in (by having the most votes) and thus a seat in Parliment. There is no "if 51% of your province votes a certain party then that party gets all the seats automatically".

Anathema

Anathema

Posted
Posted

Thanks for the correction. But if the idea is to give lightly populated states some leverage, wouldn't it make far more sense to just let the senate pick the president though? That way the new president can at least govern the nation without them frustrating his every move.

SurlyPIG

SurlyPIG

Posted
Posted

So it was instituted to appease slavemasters?  That's another good reason to axe it then.  If that's truly the case, then it should have been abolished when slavery was.

Digital Guerrilla

Digital Guerrilla

Posted
Posted

huh? the electoral college doesn't work like that, each state has so many votes and it the state's popular vote winer is given all of those votes, and it was instituted so slave states would have more votes and could stand up against the more populated northern states.

??? There are no more slave states in the US so why is this still in use now in electoral voting?

Anathema

Anathema

Posted
Posted

??? There are no more slave states in the US so why is this still in use now in electoral voting?

Because there's uncertainty as of why the founding fathers chose for a two stage election (I did some checking up)

Some say it's because they wanted to protect the southern, less populated states from the tyranny of the north, others say that it was to make sure the best man for the job was elected like I said earlier.

TMA_1

TMA_1

Posted
Posted

I can understand why people would hate the electoral college, and you do make sense anathema. The problem for me though is that we are a republic. We are NOT a democracy, and because of this, and because our government was founded to stay a republic, the electoral college is necissary. The college keeps the government from growing too beurocratic, too muddled with the millions of voices of the people. It is important to keep us what we are as america.

Anathema

Anathema

Posted
Posted

Why would being a republic exclude being a democracy? The term republic originates in Latin from res publica and wasn't used for any type of government in particular. I know it's more commonly used to label countries that are not monarchies but that still makes no difference. In my view a nation is a democracy when those in charge are forced to cater the wants and needs of the people because otherwise their influence diminishes. There are many possible systems in wich the head of government is not directly elected by the people, and yet are democratic (in my view).

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.