State legislatures plot to abolish electoral college!

[Assassin X]

Got this from a lady who email us about the constantly changing politics that go on (not an article):


Uphold the Constitution and the Way We Elect Our Presidents!


Beware of mischievous activities in your state legislature intended to change our constitutional form of government and to abolish the Electoral College! This effort to radically alter the way we elect our presidents has become a nationwide campaign, led by a compact of as few as eleven of the most populous states.

The plan of the campaign, called the National Popular Vote (NPV) http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/, is to get states with at least 270 votes in the Electoral College to enact identical bills requiring their own electors to ignore the winner of their state's election and cast all their state's ballots for the candidate who the state believes received more popular votes than the other candidates nationwide, even if he fails to win a majority of the popular vote. This scheming by frustrated liberals to negate the original intentions of our Founding Fathers is outrageous and un-American!

Traditionally, each state has cast its electoral votes, equal to its total representation in Congress, for the candidate who receives the most votes statewide. The Electoral College is one of the legacies of the inspired genius of our Founding Fathers because it allows all states, regardless of size, to be players in the process of electing our President. It induces presidential candidates to gear their time, money, and policies toward the whole country, not merely toward the half dozen most populous states. The direct election of presidents would be a political, electoral, and constitutional mistake that would radically change America's election system and produce various unfavorable results, including:


Geographically narrower campaigns, for election efforts would be largely urban.
Increased election-fraud.
A multicandidate, multiparty system, rather than the two-party system we currently have.
Weaker presidents.
Bills are currently being drafted and introduced in almost all 50 states; a bill even passed the Colorado State Senate in April 2006! The Electoral College ensures that no single faction or issue can elect a president because he must win many diverse states to be elected. The U.S. Constitution established this method for a reason and it has served us well for more than two centuries — please help us in preserving it!

Take Action


Call your state legislators and urge them to vote NO on any measure in favor of abolishing the Electoral College!
Talking Points for Electoral College http://www.eagleforum.org/alert/2007/talking-points-electoral-college.pdf— Please print out this 2-page PDF file.
Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121

[The Space Pope]

I say goodbye and good riddance. It's about time the United States became a DEMOCRACY instead of merely a federal republic. It seems hypocritical for conservatives, who always complain about how special interest groups are ruining politics, to reject measures to put power in the hands of the majority. As for the ruining our two-party system, I personally think the the two-party system is ruining our country. Oh heavens, what will come next, people having influence over elected officials who are already in office?

[Abyssal_Worm]

"A multicandidate, multiparty system, rather than the two-party system we currently have."

About friggin time! I'm so tired of entering a political conversation and people instantly peg you as either a conservative or a liberal. This all or nothing garbage just leads to mudslinging which gets nothing accomplished.

Look at all of the other "stable and open" democracies in the world. Each time an election is held, they generally have to form what is called a unity government in which several of the leading factions agree to cooperate with one another and form a legislature. What odes our government do after an election? Squabble, nitpick, hold grudges, and block votes for "party purposes." If we had a third party, then we might see a drop in the ammount of time wasted on these so-called "bi-partisan" issues and actually get some work done.

As for the potential for election fraud, What's going to stop it anyway? In Chicago, there has been a saying for over a century: "Vote early, vote often, vote the dead." And that still goes on today. Each year there are articles covering votes that had to be thrown out due to falsified voting records. Haven't seen much in an effort to curb that type of fraud...

Also, I've noticed that many on these boards are "anti-Bush". If the popular vote had been in effect instead of the electoral vote, Gore would have won in 2000. Think about that.

[Cartesiantheater]

I strongly disagree... without things like the electoral college, we'll have...

TRYANNY OF THE MAJORITY!!!!!!!

[Assassin X]

I think it should be every vote counts. If someone wins by one they win by one. Not such screwed up systems like it is now.

Of course it doesn't change the fact that voting will still be messed up.

There will still be idiots that will walk in and vote their side straight across instead of giving a rats ass about who they are voting for.

Dude 1: "I am voting all <insert side>"
Dude 2: "Um, you realize Hitler is one that side right?"
Dude 1: "I don't care I only vote <insert side>!"
Dude 2: "OOOOKKK."

According to studies 1 out of 3 people vote straight across. Sad.

[Cartesiantheater]

There will still be idiots that will walk in and vote their side straight across instead of giving a rats ass about who they are voting for.

Dude 1: "I am voting all <insert side>"
Dude 2: "Um, you realize Hitler is one that side right?"
Dude 1: "I don't care I only vote <insert side>!"
Dude 2: "OOOOKKK."

According to studies 1 out of 3 people vote straight across. Sad.

Yep. It is... It reflects an unwillingness to comprimes AT ALL, which may also reflect, in some cases, ignorance to what the other side is really about.

[lady-t]

all of our local elections are run by majority rule and it works out pretty well. several times in history the electoral college voted in a president that did NOT have the majority vote of the people. as for the comment that a few states would control the rest of the country then i say so be it. majority rule is good electoral college is bad. too much power in the hands of too few people. they can tell you right now who the next president is going to be. a two party system sucks and i wish that they would just abolish it and make everyone on an even playing field. government funded campaigns to equalize the candidates or at least funding controls to control spending during a campaign so that a great candidate without billions of dollars to spend can have just as much clout and media coverage as a rich one. the choice should not be about who has more money for advertising. it should be about who is the better choice for president.

maybe i am naive, but it could and would work.

[Traveler]

I have noticed that here in Canada the campaigns are fought in the most populous provinces. The result is that those provinces in the west that have lower population densities tend to get left out. As do some on the extreme east coast.

Talk about the western provinces splitting away from the rest of Canada has been raised on more than one occasion. And there was a time when the Canadian flag was ordered lowered for a while in one of the east coast provinces as a protest measure.

One of the main requirements for the system of elections is the holding of the nation together. If some of the states end up feeling as if they have no voice or say in their affairs then the nation will start to fragment.

I have always said the greatest threat to the US and western civilization in general is the enemy that has entrenched itself within. The enemy without is easily dealt with because it is identifiable. But the enemy within is already a part of the establishment.

[Raptor Witness]

Nice contribution Assassin, I learned something reading it.

[lady-t]

me too. you have some valid points for sure, but the idea about funding controls is still a good one. it should be about the candidate and not the money they spend.

when i was growing up there were us 3 kids and majority ruled, right wrong good bad or indifferent. it worked out pretty good most of the time. if one got into trouble all three did. if one got praise then all three did. we all stuck together. THAT is the way it SHOULD be. now back to reality.

[The Space Pope]

The result is that those provinces in the west that have lower population densities tend to get left out.

I just think that every vote should count equally. Just because you live in the middle of nowhere doesn't mean that you should get the votes weighted in your favor.

[White Knight]

I say goodbye and good riddance. It's about time the United States became a DEMOCRACY instead of merely a federal republic. It seems hypocritical for conservatives, who always complain about how special interest groups are ruining politics, to reject measures to put power in the hands of the majority. As for the ruining our two-party system, I personally think the the two-party system is ruining our country. Oh heavens, what will come next, people having influence over elected officials who are already in office?

The majority can't be trusted. The majority in SA keeps electing left-wing dictator wannabees like Hugo Chavez in VN. The United States was never intened to be a filthy democracy by our Founding Fathers. We are a Constitutional Republic. A simple majority should never be able to destroy a significant minority. It's treasonous to even sugest we change our glorious electoral college system.

[lady-t]

The majority can't be trusted. The majority in SA keeps electing left-wing dictator wannabees like Hugo Chavez in VN. The United States was never intened to be a filthy democracy by our Founding Fathers. We are a Constitutional Republic. A simple majority should never be able to destroy a significant minority. It's treasonous to even sugest we change our glorious electoral college system.

where are you from the goddamn middle ages? and this is not venezuela, what the hell do you mean by "filthy" democracy anyway. majority rule democracy is alive and well in the united state every general state election that is voted upon. the electoral college is only for the presidential election. it doesn't rule local and state elections at all. and how would you know what america was "intended" to be anyway, are you now a mind reader? gimme a break and open your eyes. as for treasonous? what a load of crap.

grow up and join the rest of the human race!!

[The Space Pope]

The majority can't be trusted. The majority in SA keeps electing left-wing dictator wannabees like Hugo Chavez in VN. The United States was never intened to be a filthy democracy by our Founding Fathers. We are a Constitutional Republic. A simple majority should never be able to destroy a significant minority. It's treasonous to even sugest we change our glorious electoral college system.

It is treason and tyranny for any government to act against the wishes of its people. If the majority votes in a horrible leader, then they deserve what they get. Trying to protect stupid people from themselves only ensures that they will neither learn from their mistakes, or be removed from the genepool by them. However, if a minority feels that it is mistreated in a nation, it shouldn't have to stand for it. If they are oppressed enough to feel such matters necessary, they should secede.

[Cartesiantheater]

For those of you who want a straight up democracy...


The Christian right is growing... If they become the majority and you people have it their way (i.e. majority rules)...

- we wouldn't teach evolution in schools; instead, we'd teach creationism...thus, science would get ******...

- General government funding for SCIENCE would likely be re-routed to helping CHURCHES... thus setting us behind the secular nations technologically and acedemically.

- our children would be forced to participate in corporate christian prayer... what if you're a muslim? what if being involved in a christian prayer is blasephemy in your religion?

- welfare would be eliminated, because christians claim it is the responsibility of the church to feed the hungry... unfortunately, we all know they WON'T do it to the degree that a welfare system would (not implying our welfare is perfect; I AM implying that christians are NOT going to go around behaving like Jesus and feeding all the hungry and clothing all the naked... they WON'T do it... and you KNOW it..)

- abortion rights (including in instances of rape and incest)... gone

- equality for gays... gone

- programs to help disadvantaged minorities... gone

- programs to help battered women... gone (again, the church WON'T do it as well as the government...I KNOW this because my mother WAS one... churches hardly helped... but the good ol' "liberal government" was a life savor)

-Christianity would become the national religion.

- Halloween might be outlawed...

- Alchohol might be outlawed...

- Free speech would likely get censored greatly

- Funding for select private Christian schools would be increased, at the expense of public schools in poorer neighborhoods.

- Our politicians would try to escalate world problems in a misguided attempt to hasten the "end times" (see George W. Bush)


This small list barely touches the issue... however... I want you to think about this...

What if MILITANT MUSLIMS became the majority, and then gained power through pure democracy?

Then what would you have to say.... are you FOR this? Think. There are many reasons why the US became so successful so quickly... one of the major ones is that our founding fathers were SMART ENOUGH to think things through and to inspect the reason of the world's great minds... THEY KNEW WHAT THEY WERE DOING WHEN THEY MADE IT A REPUBLIC, PEOPLE...

Pure democracies are slow, and they allow the stupidest, most insane, and most unfit for power to GAIN power...

If you had a pure democracy, you're putting power into the hands of people who are likely unfit to poccess it. At least with a representative republic you have a say... but you also have buffers that keep majorities from haveing too much power... it's all about checks and ballances... checks and ballances...

[The Space Pope]

The point isn't that the majority is always right. In fact, it rarely is. But what gives a government the right to rule aganst the will of its people, even if the people are wrong? You have to resort to one of a number of arguements to justify this: divine right of the ruler, which I'm sure you don't believe, might makes right, because the government has guns, it's right, or you basically reduce them to second class citizens because you don't think them intelligent enough to govern themselves. As for laws oppressing minority opinions, in a democracy, the law the governs one must govern all. Otherwise, it's simply an upside down aristocracy, where there are many privileged nobles and a few oppressed plebeians.

[TC]

The injection of any moral issues or religion into a constitutional government will create the same scenario that caused the original exodus from Europe to America, the religious political right would present their morals as a foundation of the American way of life, and would remove your right of free choice.

For each amendment made in the Constitution ( done for the so called betterment of the nation) you effectively remove what small margin of control that was allotted to voter from the creation of this country, and chip away at the only safe guard established to protect us from dominant moral codes or dictatorship.

[Assassin X]

Wow your certainly loopy Cartesiantheater. If you think christians would do that then you definetly have become mental in your hatred of us. Christians may have issues with things but they aren't going to hurt everyone and take away rights. I think your paranoid or get the wrong impression from "cult" kind christians that out there to take over the world. If the right kind of christians "took over" as you say they would be good people not hitlers.

BTW some of the things you said like "Kids praying in school", it never hurt them before did it? The only people it "hurt".. more so angered was parents. God forbid kids should have morals and do something decent like praying, even if its only once a day at a school for whatever.

[Cartesiantheater]

Wow your certainly loopy Cartesiantheater. If you think christians would do that then you definetly have become mental in your hatred of us. Christians may have issues with things but they aren't going to hurt everyone and take away rights. I think your paranoid or get the wrong impression from "cult" kind christians that out there to take over the world. If the right kind of christians "took over" as you say they would be good people not hitlers.

I don't think I actually mentioned them hurting anyone... did I? Just that if taking care of the needy is left up to the church, well, there will be more needy.


BTW some of the things you said like "Kids praying in school", it never hurt them before did it? The only people it "hurt".. more so angered was parents. God forbid kids should have morals and do something decent like praying, even if its only once a day at a school for whatever.

First of all I DID NOT SAY KIDS PRAYING IN SCHOOL! I MEANT CORPORATE PRAYER AND YOU KNOW IT! What part of this concept do you not understand? Or maybe it's just that you want to TWIST my words so you can feel persecuted? (that's frustration, not anger)
..ok.. not that that's out of the way... all better...


A.) you can have morals without having religion shoved down your throat.

B. ) Who gets hurt if gay people get married? And yet...

C.) What if the MIlitant Muslims took over assnx?

I wasn't implying that ALL christians are going to do this. I was making the point that if "majority rules," you will end up with a system where only conformers have the maximum benifit under the law. Don't read so much into it.


BTW (this one is NOT about religion; it's about the topic of the thread), assassin, how would YOU feel if MILITANT MUSLIMS took over the government through democracy?

[Cartesiantheater]

The point isn't that the majority is always right. In fact, it rarely is. But what gives a government the right to rule aganst the will of its people, even if the people are wrong? You have to resort to one of a number of arguements to justify this: divine right of the ruler, which I'm sure you don't believe, might makes right, because the government has guns, it's right, or you basically reduce them to second class citizens because you don't think them intelligent enough to govern themselves. As for laws oppressing minority opinions, in a democracy, the law the governs one must govern all. Otherwise, it's simply an upside down aristocracy, where there are many privileged nobles and a few oppressed plebeians.

Ok, you say, what gives a government to rule against the will of it's people. But that's not actually what is happening. What is happening is that the government is ruling (rarely) against the majority.

The MINORITY are the people too! If majority rules, then THEIR will is being ruled against..

Now, I want to ask you THIS question.

Since you asked me what gives the government the right to object to the will of the majority, what gives the government the right to object to the will of the minority? Might makes right? (by force of sheer numbers)... hmm...

And of course, it isn't JUST moral issue... it's aslo a practicle one... if the majority always wins, you'll end up with a government where the party with the best TALKER rather than the best THINKER will always win... again, if majority rules, we could in principle end up a Muslim state, a Cannabolistic state, a Nazi state, and on and on and on... checks and ballances...

[Assassin X]

I swear I posted a reply. Stupid Firefox.

Anywho....

Just that if taking care of the needy is left up to the church, well, there will be more needy.

Err... you do know who is always helping people right? If its not an organazation then its some religious group and by religious group its usually one that believe in god like the christians, catholics, baptists...etc. Who was there after Katrina like crazy? Who was there after the Tsunami? I am not saying were the only ones but religious people are always helping. You can't say you never seen a church NOT help someone. Heck our own church is helping us right now. Our last church helped the needy all the time.


A.) you can have morals without having religion shoved down your throat.

You mean like the morals we all have now? Gambling, prostitution, addictions (drugs, drinking), swearing like crazy, beating your spouse, stealing...etc. Heck no one is perfect but if thats what "moral" means then wow, things have changed.

Once again though you make it sound like everyone would shove christianity down your throats and make everything moral. This isn't as I would say "Biblical" times. You can't make anyone do anything.


B. ) Who gets hurt if gay people get married? And yet...

No one. Christians may not like it but we certainly wouldn't forcibly change it if we were in power, no one would allow a "messed" up thumper into such a high place like that. Anyways comparing gay marriage to something like a innocent prayer to bless a school day is obsurd. "We pray for today to be a good day", wow that is definetly the same as something as complicated as marriage, which I personally don't care if gays marry.


C.) What if the MIlitant Muslims took over assnx?

Thats another absurd statement. Thats like saying "What if CHINA takes over!!!". It would never happen, at least not in our current state, that would have to be something that would happen (the china thing) in an EXTREME state. To even compare christians taking over to a bunch or militantsis insulting. Were not militants.


...you will end up with a system where only conformers have the maximum benifit under the law.

You say I read it all wrong but yet you make it sound like christians make it a "All christian, all the time" world. Like some Third Reich thing. Like no one has any rights but christians. I think you been hanging around these forums to much. Anyways what if christians did take over? THis country was christian to beggining with, you act like its something new, it has only been taken away from being religious over time.

Which I don't care about that much but it seems everyone has less religious rights and the non-religious have more rights. Is that fair?

BTW speaking of prayer NTO allowed in school, when they stopped doing that it lead to getting rid of punishment which led to this:
http://forums.armageddononline.org/showthread.php?p=141942#post141942

[Cartesiantheater]

IErr... you do know who is always helping people right? If its not an organazation then its some religious group and by religious group its usually one that believe in god like the christians, catholics, baptists...etc. Who was there after Katrina like crazy? Who was there after the Tsunami? I am not saying were the only ones but religious people are always helping. You can't say you never seen a church NOT help someone. Heck our own church is helping us right now. Our last church helped the needy all the time. All I'm saying is that the good people in the church won't be able to raise enough charity.



You mean like the morals we all have now? Gambling, prostitution, addictions (drugs, drinking), swearing like crazy, beating your spouse, stealing...etc. Heck no one is perfect but if thats what "moral" means then wow, things have changed. That's a total myth. The "good ol days" weren't all that good... rascism, discrimination, unreported rapes, unreported sexual harrassment....


Once again though you make it sound like everyone would shove christianity down your throats and make everything moral. This isn't as I would say "Biblical" times. You can't make anyone do anything. Assassin, do you want your kids to be forced to pray to Allah? Would you be ok with this?




No one. Christians may not like it but we certainly wouldn't forcibly change it if we were in power, no one would allow a "messed" up thumper into such a high place like that. Anyways comparing gay marriage to something like a innocent prayer to bless a school day is obsurd. "We pray for today to be a good day", wow that is definetly the same as something as complicated as marriage, which I personally don't care if gays marry. Assassin, then please explain why so many evangelicals are trying to get gay marriage banned? (and are succeeding in several states)



Thats another absurd statement. Thats like saying "What if CHINA takes over!!!". It would never happen, at least not in our current state, that would have to be something that would happen (the china thing) in an EXTREME state. To even compare christians taking over to a bunch or militantsis insulting. Were not militants. ::headdesks:: Assassin, do you realize WHY they made the electoral college? Do you have any idea at all? For the HYPOTHETICAL RISK of such a majority taking over. Btw, do you know where these people came from? Europe, where protestantism was PERSECUTED BY THE MAJORITY... geez...




You say I read it all wrong but yet you make it sound like christians make it a "All christian, all the time" world. Like some Third Reich thing. Like no one has any rights but christians. I think you been hanging around these forums to much.
Know, you have a persecution complex, which has been shown over and over again.


Anyways what if christians did take over? THis country was christian to beggining with, you act like its something new, it has only been taken away from being religious over time. No it wasn't. That is ALSO a myth. They were DEISTS based on Christianity. Thomas Jefferson had a Bible that ELIMINATED nearly the whole thing, aside from the words of Jesus/God. Therefore, according to most Christian's interpretation of Revelation, the Tree of Life will be TAKEN AWAY FROM HIM...


Which I don't care about that much but it seems everyone has less religious rights and the non-religious have more rights. Is that fair? It wouldn't be if it were TRUE... unfortunately for you, it ISN'T. Religious people do NOT have less rights than nonreligious. It just SEEMS that way to you because people are fighting to make things EQUAL, and the religious right is used to having MORE.


BTW speaking of prayer NTO allowed in school, when they stopped doing that it lead to getting rid of punishment which led to this:
http://forums.armageddononline.org/showthread.php?p=141942#post141942

Ha! How can you link this? Further, punishment like that is often shown to lead your children to emotional issues. My parents WERE RAISED CHRISTIAN and were SPANKED...and went to a private CHRISTIAN school where corporate prayer was ALLOWED...

EDIT- MOST of that was a tangent...

The point is, the Electoral College is one way to insure that the majority doesn't run the minority into the ground... the founding fathers considered this a good thing... if you think they're were so wise (you claim they were christain) why do you disagree with them on this issue?

[lady-t]

i think it is against nature to mate with the same sex, if male was supposed to mate with male then there wouldn't be females and vice versa. no religious connotations to that

religious connotation--the bible says man shall not lay down with man and man shall not lay down with beast. and i am sure it meant woman couldn't as well.

that is two sources, good enough for any journalist or newspaper. or me ----whichever floats your boat.

personally though i really don't see the harm in same sex marriages, so long as they do not unduly influence children to the same behavior. hell, pretty soon there would be no human race. i personally have several friends and a neighbor that is gay. real nice people and they don't push it on other people. but i am not inclined that way and i don't want my kids to be inclined that way. and i wouldn't want anyone to force it on my kids.

[Assassin X]

I just thought about something. So you don't want a "christian" run country, which more on that in a minute, because that wouldn't be right to you? Fine then, I'll give in to your crazy aspects of this concept of christians forcing you to pray (how stupid).

So then what about now? Or in the future if its always run by non religious people? Isn't that you guys forcing us non religious people to be religious ONLY at certain places?

Because thats what I see going on. Laws prohibit prayer here and there, laws seems to prohibit this and that when it comes to religion now. Heck they even took away a freakin' "ten commandements" tablets from walls of court houses.

So basically its not fair to us. Yet you complain "I don't want a a religious country!!", fine then, I don't want a country where you can't even show your religious with being made fun of or thrown in jail if it violates some law. What a stupid argument.

A for:

Know, you have a persecution complex, which has been shown over and over again.

I ignore statements like that seeing as how it comes from someone who studies psychology. Only psychologists label people. Their not happy unless they are smashing people to the floor with labels. Thats why I think most psychologists are ...ahem "egostistical" and a bit of "narcissist". They think so much of themselves because they think they know everybody. Yet they tend to have their own problems and they can never fix them.

Crap, see now I am ranting.

Anywho, just like you guys have idiots shove religion down your throat and your "prosecuted". Same here. I always have to see sh***y stories, chats and idiots bashing me and my religion and so I feel prosecuted. No complex its called being religious. Until your religious you won't know what its like. So can't really judge someone, unless of course you understanding the feeling from the bible thumpers thumping you.

[DontBeAfraid]

AssX you have failed again and again to show how you are being persecuted because of your religion. You have not been banned from praying anywhere in this country. THE GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN BANNED FROM ENDORSING YOUR PRAYERS! You have been banned from nothing. Quit making shit up about being put in prison fro praying.

[donniedarko]

The failure of true democracy is the influence of propaganda and the fact that few people have the ability to truly understand the broader scope of most issues. We at AO are lucky in that we are reasonably intellegent enough to think these things through and to critically examine the issues at hand. The will of the uneducated majority is that which we must fear the most; the fundamentalists and the extremists; those who are unwilling to change WITH changing times.

The best democratic system is a mixed system of proportional representation and rep by pop. It allows for the general will to be that of the majority without compromising the ability for the minority to have a voice. Sure it yields greater bureaucracy but in the end, efficiency must take a back seat to equality.

peace

d.d.