• Register
  • Help
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 24

Topic: What do you think about this?

  1. #1

    What do you think about this?

    sponsored links

    A group of Colorado citizens have proposed a change to the state's constitution specifying that Colorado's nine electors be apportioned strictly in proportion to the popular vote. Currently Bush is ahead 48% to 43% there, so under the proposed system, Bush would get five electoral votes and Kerry four electoral votes, instead of nine to zero. The group has turned in petitions containing130,000 signatures. If about 68,000 of these prove to be valid, the question will be a ballot referendum in November. If it passes, the change takes effect for this year's election. If it makes the ballot, on the evening of Nov. 2, the TV news anchors will probably be saying: "President Bush won Colorado with 55% of the vote, but we don't know how many votes he will get in the electoral college until they finish recounting the closely fought referendum on changing the Colorado state constitution." Whoever loses will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which once again may have to rule on the sensitive issue of state's rights.

  2. #2

    Re: What do you think about this?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick Phoenix
    What do you think about this?

    Since you brought it up first, why don't you go first Nick. Do you want the "popular vote" as you have argued since 2000 or the "traditional electoral college" vote?
    Brian W. Ralston

    Check out my new FREE iPhone App! Click Here!

  3. #3

    Re: What do you think about this?

    I never argued for the popular vote. Never said a word. Though truthfully I think that the popular vote should win the election. But, I never whined about that in 2000. Obviously your brain is only capable of zeros and ones.

  4. #4

    Re: What do you think about this?

    I certainly want the popular vote. I've wanted it for years, but now more than ever. It would take away some power from the Supreme Court, which really needs to happen, and it would make it much more difficult for Jeb Bush and that witch to pull their stunts ever again.

  5. #5

    Re: What do you think about this?

    It would also mean that the only people who get a say in things are a handful of populous metropoli. All the rest be damned.

    This is very much the sort of reason the South seceded. They felt like their voices were drowned out by the more populous North and that they had too little say in the workings of the federal government. If the only places that mattered politically were LA, NY, and a few other cities, you're asking for another major schism in the United States. You cannot run roughshod over the rural US expect them to bow down and lick your boots just because you're the oh-so-exalted majority who happen to all live in a handful of cities while it is they who populate the bulk of the actual country.

    This would all be rendered rather moot if the Federal government were restricted to its original role of only resolvingn interstate disputes and handling foreign policy. Let the states be independent and sovereign in all things domestic.

  6. #6
    Moderator/Developer Brian2112's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Out of my Mind

    Re: What do you think about this?

    I must confess that I really don’t like the “winner takes all” electoral process. And, in my opinion, it sure served us poorly in 2000. That being said, I agree with Al Gore that the Electoral College is necessary. As we all know, it was instituted so that big states would not overpower the smaller, less populated ones. But it over-compensates in my opinion. The original post is an interesting idea and certainly would be to the advantage of my preferred candidate; however, I am more inclined to want to make sure that the voting system that we have works first, before we start rewriting the rules. There must be a way to fairly balance the power of the smaller states. The Electoral College has been a solution (perhaps not the best), to the problem of big Vs. small states.

    Of course, I sure would like to split up the votes here in Texas.
    "So what if some parts of life are a crap shoot? Get out there and shoot the crap." -- Neil Peart
    Hint:1.6180339887498948482 Φ

  7. #7

    Re: What do you think about this?

    Brady, I honestly don't understand the logic.

    The number of electoral votes is based on the population (not the number of people who vote, true, but that's another problem). So if all of California's 55 delegates go to Kerry and all seven of Oklahoma's go to Bush, how are you represented better than if California is split into (made-up numbers) 40 million for Kerry and 15 million for Bush?

    You're also conveniently leaving out another issue at the root of the Civil War: ownership of human beings.

  8. #8

    Re: What do you think about this?

    Nick (Batzdorf), it has to do with States being the building block of the nation rather than individual citizens. That was the major disagreement in the Civil War. The North believed the nation to be comprised of individuals, whereas the South believed the nation to be comprised of states, which in turn were comprised of individuals. Hence, the reason the South believed they could secede and the North did not.

    And BTW, slavery was NOT what the Civil War was about. It wasn't a war aim when the war began and only became such out of convenience.

  9. #9

    Re: What do you think about this?

    Ya know, there's a very interesting aspect to this.

    Suppose the states did split their votes. One could surmise that this could potentially cause even closer elections (you know liberals in Ca. don't want a split of those 55 votes).

    What would happen in the event of an even draw 269 to 269? It isn't an absolute majority so the senate votes for president. What happens when each state get's one vote? Republican landslide.

    Just something to keep in mind.

    Brady's correct about state rights. I mean, slavery was the wedge that divided the country and caused the war, but that shouldn't discount the South's interpretation of the role of federal government for that's a separate issue.

    It's interesting to note that the term "nation" was never even uttered until 1821 by John Marshal, a supreme federalist. It's true that Washington referred to a "nation" in his farewell address, and Hamilton was fond of the term as well, another federalist. But even when John Marshal referred to it, he said "America has chosen to be, in many respects and for many purposes, a nation". In the 1820s, Senator William Smith, from South Carolina, speaking about the debates of the "National Road", objected to "this insidious word". He said it was "a term unknown to the origins and theory of our government".

    It's also interesting that the first colonies in North America were almost microcosms of the big rift that would eventually divide the country. Jamestown and Virginia, being a capitalist venture to create riches, eagerly accepted anyone who was willing to settle land, while the Bay Colony and Massachusetts were settled for the interests of a utopian Christian society. There's always been a great difference of opinion pertaining to government and northern and southern interpretations of it.
    Michael Peter

    If music be the food of love...
    play on

    William Shakespeare


  10. #10

    Re: What do you think about this?

    You're right, Frog, but just to clarify, slavery was NOT the cause of the Civil War. The cause of the Civil War was Lincoln's unwillingness to allow the Southern States their right to self-determination and dissolution of their bonds to the federation. He was willing to use force to keep the South joined to the North. There is no moral justification in that which I can discern. So, emancipation came up as not only a militarily advantageous maneuver, but also as a great morale booster since the North had no real moral justification for its campaign until that became its rallying cause.

Go Back to forum
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts