When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
Connect with
I allow to create an account
When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
Again with generic semantics, Bluehawk. You speak of your “just” perceptions, and not of the actual process. Tell ya what… read this and stop with the lofty “it’ ain’t right, they’re really appointed” stuff.
The feds set up the amount of electorate per state, based on representatives and senators. Voters pull the lever that chooses their electorates in ALL STATES. They are not appointed.
You actually diss the “faithless” electorate when, in some ways, they may actually be serving the public. They are expected, and oft time pledged, to support the party that nominated them. However if their districts have voted overwhelmingly against their pledged candidate, they are able to follow the public’s choice in good faith.
Now… since you’re so danged concerned the “faithless” electorate, why don’t you provide us with the statistics of “faithless” electorates who have affected POTUS elections in the past? Becuase frankly, you are out of “failures” to complain about.
One last time I’ll ask before simply abandoning conversing with a brick wall, Bluehawk. Give me a specific event in history where any of your above claims are true.
Do I need to repeat them for you?
It does NOT, for example, prevent large populations from overwhelming the electoral will of small ones.
When in history has that been true, Bluehawk?
And, because the States are free to appoint (some believe the electors are elected) whomever they please to it, those choices are guaranteed to have been based on anything but representative government. In other words, the electors are almost certainly given their extreme authority by an undemocratic mechanism.
ALL STATES electors are chosen by voters via election. Provide proof on one state who “appointed” electors instead of elections, please.
because any elector is free to make of themselves a “Faithless Elector” (i.e. NOT vote as expected or promised when the time comes) then the Presidency is left to the whims of unelected persons, who are largely unknown to anyone.
See above INRE “unelected” … and oh, BTW, you prefer they hold tight to “party” pledges? And again I say, show me the instance where “faithless” electors affected a POTUS election in our history.
Donald Bly
14 years ago
Been following this back and forth for a moment now.
The one thing that strikes me is the propensity of some to ignore “State Rights”. This is the primary purpose of the Electoral College. How the Electoral College is selected is a matter left to the individual states. This propensity to ignore State rights in favor of populist vote has also brought us the 17th Ammendment which I believe to be a mistake.
Some States require by law that their representatives vote in accordance with the method that is determined within their state constitutions. Other states have no provisions mandating that electoral representative vote in accordance with the outcome of the proscribed methodology.
My thinking is that to “fix” any percieved ill with the Electoral College would simply require electoral representative to vote in accordance with their State’s methodology, thus ending the risk of “rouge” representatives. That would require States determine that ammending their constitutions is worth the effort.
Now that’s my 2 cents worth of input and I’ll get out of the way. MataHarley has handed me my ass once or twice so good luck Bluehawk.
Bluehawk
14 years ago
🙂
Well, I’ll take my ass handed to me by anyone willing to abolish the ineffective and abusive electoral college, gerrymandering, closed primaries and sovereign immunity. This ain’t my first rodeo either.
Gratitude for the improvement in our Republic thereafter will not be necessary.
It is true that the States are free to decide their electors and process as they see fit… and that could be said to constitute another good argument in favor of the peculiar institution of an electoral college being vestigial, at best… in that in a Federal election, it makes no sense for there to be a second tier (appointed or “elected”) making the decision, and being free to change their vote at will. Too much room for mischief in that process. Its mere existence gives political parties all the leeway they need to ensure a pre-ordained outcome.
It would be more honest than that for Congress to simply appoint a President every four years, and relieve us all of the deceit that we have anything to do with it other than to pour money into a political campaign.
We’ve been vacillating about Federalism vs State’s Rights since our founding, as is well known. Ordinarily, the States want to gain or retain rights until it becomes inconvenient to do so, and the Federal government wants to do the same for itself until it becomes to expensive to so do – or until their decisions become divisive and “controversial.”
In the end, without an electoral college, gerrymandering, closed primaries and/or sovereign immunity the electorate would have a fair shot at expressing their will at the voting booth… that is, unless everyone out there is satisfied that everything is coming along just hunky dory?
You’re dreaming if you expect gratitude for your progressive leftist views on POTUS elections, Bluehawk. You will be responsible, right along with those you purport *not* to support, for a direct democracy, and the destruction of the Republic with your ill-chosen notions.
As for the rest of your “abolish” list, you can say it as often as you like. It makes it no less false in your imagination.
So here’s my parting shots. Been a pleasure… done… outta here. Waste of time and getting a headache from the brick wall mentality of parroted progressive/3rd party wannabe powers talking points instead of specific events that support your rhetoric. Without such, you leave me doubting your assertations of being any form of conservative, let along having a snippet of knowledge of founding principles.
Donald, you are exactly right. Had Bluehawk decided to read the FPC doc I linked INRE individual State procedures for nominating their elected electorates, it still goes over Bluebeard’s head for the division between the State’s choices for the federal mandates for electors.
If I’ve handed you your ass before, here’s hoping I guarded it carefully while holding it. LOL
Bluehawk
14 years ago
“Progressive Leftist views”… now THAT truly is a laugh. I’m sure my family and former friends will be highly entertained to learn that about me. 🙂
Too bad we don’t have or make the time to fully read one another’s views in their entirety. It would save many hours of confusion – unless of course there was never any intent to do more than assert the obvious in favor of the impossible.
As mentioned earlier in this dialogue today – when all else fails change the subject, base the disagreement on propaganda, and bear false witness against the messenger.
My buns were returned still warm, no scarring is evident. I think our biggest difference was you have a bit more faith that our courts can right the majority of ills besetting our nation’s government. But that”s an honest differing of opinion with similar objectives.
I understand your hilarity at yourself, Bluehawk. The problem would be is you need to look around at who shares your views… that would be the progressives and Paulbots. By heavens, you even adopted the “victim” banner as well. Goodness…. into the spiral of whining you’re descending.
Now, you may not be a leftist progressive yourself. But what you espouse is their talking points, and you are the company you keep – at least on this issue.
But take heart… you are wrong for the same reasons they are.
Well, Donald Bly, I’m probably more on your side in my heart of hearts with lack of faith in our judicial system than I’d care to admit. But when I’ve abandoned all hope for the last bastion of checks and balances via the courts, we’re too far gone to even play the debate game.
I’ve been heartened by decisions like Miller and the DC gun ban. And thoroughly depressed by others like Boumediene. But then, that’s the way of the opinions, yes? We shall have to wait and see how they handle future opines… and if the court balance swings more towards the Sotomayors.
BH: No electoral college would have meant Al Gore would have become President over George Bush.
Is that what you would have wanted?
Mr. Irons
14 years ago
The Electoral college was put into place to prevent Foriegn nations such as the then British Empire from putting in puppet agents to run in our National Elections and winning by commiting massive voting fraud with a public system. It seems people are truly blind to History lessons these days and do not want to take the subject matters to heart with modern day politics. The Electoral system is currently broken, but it should NOT be casted away and replaced by a Public voting system. To do so is a very large step to surrendering Sovern status of the United States to an external Government whom have little care of our Citizens. Our Nation still to this day have External threats to our Governmental system, and a Public Voting system is the easiest means to destroy it. Why wage bloody conflict when you can send in an agent to acquire the Public’s “vote” by corrupt ways, and then declare martial law on the peoples and use their own Military machine against their own people and slowly replacing such forces with personaly loyal subjects hell bent on your Enemy’s demise.
In my opinion, the E.C. needs to be redesigned to have an equal number of votes among all 50 States instead of this skewered population calculation of how a State get’s its E.C. count. A state like New York depends heavily on the food Industry of the Midwest to survive daily, as such population per state should NOT factor into the ablity to represent States. We should have a fair number, such as 11 votes per state to give fair balance to the system and to prevent certain States to run victim of being subjected to political pandering to Special Interest groups who house themselves in other States whose E.C. count is massive which praticaly has the power to override States like Kansas who has only 7 votes possible in the E.C. compared to New York’s or Texas’s counts.
@Bluehawk:
Again with generic semantics, Bluehawk. You speak of your “just” perceptions, and not of the actual process. Tell ya what… read this and stop with the lofty “it’ ain’t right, they’re really appointed” stuff.
The feds set up the amount of electorate per state, based on representatives and senators. Voters pull the lever that chooses their electorates in ALL STATES. They are not appointed.
You actually diss the “faithless” electorate when, in some ways, they may actually be serving the public. They are expected, and oft time pledged, to support the party that nominated them. However if their districts have voted overwhelmingly against their pledged candidate, they are able to follow the public’s choice in good faith.
Now… since you’re so danged concerned the “faithless” electorate, why don’t you provide us with the statistics of “faithless” electorates who have affected POTUS elections in the past? Becuase frankly, you are out of “failures” to complain about.
One last time I’ll ask before simply abandoning conversing with a brick wall, Bluehawk. Give me a specific event in history where any of your above claims are true.
Do I need to repeat them for you?
When in history has that been true, Bluehawk?
ALL STATES electors are chosen by voters via election. Provide proof on one state who “appointed” electors instead of elections, please.
See above INRE “unelected” … and oh, BTW, you prefer they hold tight to “party” pledges? And again I say, show me the instance where “faithless” electors affected a POTUS election in our history.
Been following this back and forth for a moment now.
The one thing that strikes me is the propensity of some to ignore “State Rights”. This is the primary purpose of the Electoral College. How the Electoral College is selected is a matter left to the individual states. This propensity to ignore State rights in favor of populist vote has also brought us the 17th Ammendment which I believe to be a mistake.
Some States require by law that their representatives vote in accordance with the method that is determined within their state constitutions. Other states have no provisions mandating that electoral representative vote in accordance with the outcome of the proscribed methodology.
My thinking is that to “fix” any percieved ill with the Electoral College would simply require electoral representative to vote in accordance with their State’s methodology, thus ending the risk of “rouge” representatives. That would require States determine that ammending their constitutions is worth the effort.
Now that’s my 2 cents worth of input and I’ll get out of the way. MataHarley has handed me my ass once or twice so good luck Bluehawk.
🙂
Well, I’ll take my ass handed to me by anyone willing to abolish the ineffective and abusive electoral college, gerrymandering, closed primaries and sovereign immunity. This ain’t my first rodeo either.
Gratitude for the improvement in our Republic thereafter will not be necessary.
It is true that the States are free to decide their electors and process as they see fit… and that could be said to constitute another good argument in favor of the peculiar institution of an electoral college being vestigial, at best… in that in a Federal election, it makes no sense for there to be a second tier (appointed or “elected”) making the decision, and being free to change their vote at will. Too much room for mischief in that process. Its mere existence gives political parties all the leeway they need to ensure a pre-ordained outcome.
It would be more honest than that for Congress to simply appoint a President every four years, and relieve us all of the deceit that we have anything to do with it other than to pour money into a political campaign.
We’ve been vacillating about Federalism vs State’s Rights since our founding, as is well known. Ordinarily, the States want to gain or retain rights until it becomes inconvenient to do so, and the Federal government wants to do the same for itself until it becomes to expensive to so do – or until their decisions become divisive and “controversial.”
In the end, without an electoral college, gerrymandering, closed primaries and/or sovereign immunity the electorate would have a fair shot at expressing their will at the voting booth… that is, unless everyone out there is satisfied that everything is coming along just hunky dory?
You’re dreaming if you expect gratitude for your progressive leftist views on POTUS elections, Bluehawk. You will be responsible, right along with those you purport *not* to support, for a direct democracy, and the destruction of the Republic with your ill-chosen notions.
As for the rest of your “abolish” list, you can say it as often as you like. It makes it no less false in your imagination.
So here’s my parting shots. Been a pleasure… done… outta here. Waste of time and getting a headache from the brick wall mentality of parroted progressive/3rd party wannabe powers talking points instead of specific events that support your rhetoric. Without such, you leave me doubting your assertations of being any form of conservative, let along having a snippet of knowledge of founding principles.
Donald, you are exactly right. Had Bluehawk decided to read the FPC doc I linked INRE individual State procedures for nominating their elected electorates, it still goes over Bluebeard’s head for the division between the State’s choices for the federal mandates for electors.
If I’ve handed you your ass before, here’s hoping I guarded it carefully while holding it. LOL
“Progressive Leftist views”… now THAT truly is a laugh. I’m sure my family and former friends will be highly entertained to learn that about me. 🙂
Too bad we don’t have or make the time to fully read one another’s views in their entirety. It would save many hours of confusion – unless of course there was never any intent to do more than assert the obvious in favor of the impossible.
As mentioned earlier in this dialogue today – when all else fails change the subject, base the disagreement on propaganda, and bear false witness against the messenger.
@MataHarley
My buns were returned still warm, no scarring is evident. I think our biggest difference was you have a bit more faith that our courts can right the majority of ills besetting our nation’s government. But that”s an honest differing of opinion with similar objectives.
I understand your hilarity at yourself, Bluehawk. The problem would be is you need to look around at who shares your views… that would be the progressives and Paulbots. By heavens, you even adopted the “victim” banner as well. Goodness…. into the spiral of whining you’re descending.
Now, you may not be a leftist progressive yourself. But what you espouse is their talking points, and you are the company you keep – at least on this issue.
But take heart… you are wrong for the same reasons they are.
Well, Donald Bly, I’m probably more on your side in my heart of hearts with lack of faith in our judicial system than I’d care to admit. But when I’ve abandoned all hope for the last bastion of checks and balances via the courts, we’re too far gone to even play the debate game.
I’ve been heartened by decisions like Miller and the DC gun ban. And thoroughly depressed by others like Boumediene. But then, that’s the way of the opinions, yes? We shall have to wait and see how they handle future opines… and if the court balance swings more towards the Sotomayors.
BH: No electoral college would have meant Al Gore would have become President over George Bush.
Is that what you would have wanted?
The Electoral college was put into place to prevent Foriegn nations such as the then British Empire from putting in puppet agents to run in our National Elections and winning by commiting massive voting fraud with a public system. It seems people are truly blind to History lessons these days and do not want to take the subject matters to heart with modern day politics. The Electoral system is currently broken, but it should NOT be casted away and replaced by a Public voting system. To do so is a very large step to surrendering Sovern status of the United States to an external Government whom have little care of our Citizens. Our Nation still to this day have External threats to our Governmental system, and a Public Voting system is the easiest means to destroy it. Why wage bloody conflict when you can send in an agent to acquire the Public’s “vote” by corrupt ways, and then declare martial law on the peoples and use their own Military machine against their own people and slowly replacing such forces with personaly loyal subjects hell bent on your Enemy’s demise.
In my opinion, the E.C. needs to be redesigned to have an equal number of votes among all 50 States instead of this skewered population calculation of how a State get’s its E.C. count. A state like New York depends heavily on the food Industry of the Midwest to survive daily, as such population per state should NOT factor into the ablity to represent States. We should have a fair number, such as 11 votes per state to give fair balance to the system and to prevent certain States to run victim of being subjected to political pandering to Special Interest groups who house themselves in other States whose E.C. count is massive which praticaly has the power to override States like Kansas who has only 7 votes possible in the E.C. compared to New York’s or Texas’s counts.