tlmorg02
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2007
- Messages
- 3,347
- Reaction score
- 1,078
- Location
- Louisville, Ky
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
Abortion is a state issue so New York wouldn't decide Nebraska's abortion laws.
I agree with both of you, to a point. Elections, at least recent ones have shown the same result either way. But, I feel that if the electoral college were done away with, more people would vote. This is both good and bad. Usual election turn-out is 42% on good year presidental campaigns. If more people turned out, then you would see the coastal states reign supreme. The founders wanted the electoral college because they feared that if more populous states silenced the smaller one's, which would be the case with red vs. blue states, then succession might occur. Imagine that voter turnout reached 70%. If Democrats continuously won the White House, conservatives would eventually grow so distraught that the Union would surely be endangered.
Do you guys find a reason why this should not be a fear in 2009?
It may be a State issue in theory, but North Dakota tried to ban it and the Supreme Court slapped them down.
I think political realignment periods will continue to happen so you can't say coastal states will vote Democratic forever.
So you don't want the person with the most votes to win? Then why have a democracy? Do you think there should be an electoral college to elect governors too?
Right, that is why the electoral college must remain. Or conservatives would have to move.:lol:
Democracy, even in elections, in an extremist ideology that has effectively proven itself not to work in the best interests of the citizens that use it.
Do you remember what the case's name was? It seems like an interesting case.
I wish history didn't offend you so much.
I agree with both of you, to a point. Elections, at least recent ones have shown the same result either way. But, I feel that if the electoral college were done away with, more people would vote. This is both good and bad. Usual election turn-out is 42% on good year presidental campaigns. If more people turned out, then you would see the coastal states reign supreme. The founders wanted the electoral college because they feared that if more populous states silenced the smaller one's, which would be the case with red vs. blue states, then succession might occur. Imagine that voter turnout reached 70%. If Democrats continuously won the White House, conservatives would eventually grow so distraught that the Union would surely be endangered.
Do you guys find a reason why this should not be a fear in 2009?
I believe the majority should win period, even if I do not agree with them.
1. Where's the proof of Democracy not working?
2. What kind of system of government do you think is best?
So that is a yes you do not mind NewYork or some other densely populated liberal state deciding laws that impact your state.
Look at all the presidents and congressman elected in the past 100 years.
Couple that with the massive expansion of government since we've implemented universal suffrage and you have your answer.
95% incumbency rate is pretty bad in my opinion.
A republic is the best system as long as everyone knows that voting is a privilege that must be earned and not owed.
So you would want densely populated states to decided laws for your state? The system isn't perfect but its much better than NewYork,California and other densely populated states trying to decided gun laws,hunting laws,abortion and etc for my state.
Regarding incumbency rate, that is a result of uninformed voters it can happen in any system of government... Including a republic.
Of course but it is exacerbated by universal suffrage.
Uninformed voters is the primary reason why voting should not be universal.
Not everyone knows what is in the best interest of their government.
Of course but it is exacerbated by universal suffrage.
Uninformed voters is the primary reason why voting should not be universal.
Not everyone knows what is in the best interest of their government.
Who would you take it away from?
No. Again, it is a difference which makes no difference. There are plenty of moderates and conservatives in coastal states, and, with the electoral college gone, their votes would be pooled along with those of other moderates and conservatives the nation over. The solid blue appearance and solid red appearance of states results from the electoral college system; in truth, there is a very mixed dispersal even in the most supposedly liberal or conservative states. I don't even think campaign strategy would change that much, since, in the regions where there are more people, the goal would still be to focus in on an candidate's appeal in those regions.
People who don't pay taxes and people who recieve any form of payment or privilege from the government.
Under this plan I would not be able to vote (I don't pay federal taxes) but I realize that making a personal sacrifice is more important.
People who don't pay taxes and people who recieve any form of payment or privilege from the government.
Under this plan I would not be able to vote (I don't pay federal taxes) but I realize that making a personal sacrifice is more important.
Technically, you don't pay taxes if you make below a certain amount (it gets returned). Everyone still pays income tax of course. But by your plan, poor people would be disenfranchised.
Also, even if you don't pay taxes, so many other things are handled by the federal government, it's going to affect you no matter what, and that'd be pretty unjust.
Why would you disenfranchise them?
pro-bipartisan said:That's impractical and unworkable. Why should someone who is poor yet very knowledgeable and up-to-date on current events who would be a very informed voter not be able to vote while Paris Hilton can vote?
Thats the key point there. I do not want California or some other densely populated stated decided laws for my state.And also, we're talking about the presidency, who only approves and enforces laws, not congress who decides laws.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?