Should we allow the rich to get richer?

[dogman_1234]

One word: semantics...

 

[wanamingo]

I definitely see where John is going with this I dont know why you are all being so hostile.

If Rupert Murdoch wants to play some porn on his stations should he have the freedom to do so? He owns the equipment, the employees, the buildings, and he cant force you to watch a channel. But to protect the freedoms of other citizens we have laws against such things. So he is not free in that sense because if he were to do that people would feel like their freedoms are being taken away?

 

[johnsonma]

We agree to disagree that we are a republic or a democracy? wait, im confused.

We are a republic of individual united states. If we are a democracy as you contend then why do we have state governments? Why does each individual state have their own state constitution?

The EC is part of Article II in the Constitution. It would be nearly impssible to just "do away" with it anyway. I suppose an amendment could be ratified, but I doubt you could get the 30+ states that would effectively be silenced to ratify it.

Disagree what our republic stands for I guess, I think that a popular vote would be the best option.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic

Also they put that electoral college in place for many reasons, most of which are no longer valid. Why the states should have more say then the people is beyond me. Of the people, by the people, for the people.

 

[wanamingo]

I understand what you are saying Oldman but is it really fair that the candidate that had the most votes from the people did not win the election?

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

If this then is the case, there should be no state rights as to marraige at all, and popular vote would then need to rule.
And if that also was the case, the courts would be helpless to stop some popular legislation, voted on by the people, and found unconstitutional by the judges within those states.
It works both ways, and again, to eliminate such things is scary and not wise.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Essentially, youd be eliminating the rights of the minority

 

[wanamingo]

Hmm in understand the pros and cons of this system but we dont really need an indirect election anymore. We have the tech to give every single person a vote. Whats more equal than every person getting to say who they believe is the best leader?

The big case is Bush V Gore. More people voted for Gore but Bush won..... Just from the surface of that it seems to be taking voices away from the people. Doesnt this process also discourage multiparty systems, Dem and Repub are the only parties who would ever win elections or garner any kind of support. Literally millions of people all over the country could vote for a candidate but if enough in one area dont then that candidate gets no electoral votes and the wishes of those people arent heard.

Interesting stuff. At its core it really comes down to a direct or an indirect election. Im curious to see how the french elections are going to play out....

 

[wanamingo]

That definition of fair got me thinking.

What is an unfair way of making money, and can you give exampes?

 

[dogman_1234]

I thought the EC was set up by the Founders to protect the country from mod rule?

I would have to agree that a popular vote would be great. We are a republic and a democracy. We The People vote for our leaders.

I can say that a popular vote will not disable states rights. If the 9th and 10th amendment were not in then yes I would worry; however, the US hast to recognize each and individual state, its laws/regulations, and bring about justified democracy at Capitol Hill via Representatives.

 

[riser]

I understand what you are saying Oldman but is it really fair that the candidate that had the most votes from the people did not win the election?

Which candidate has the most votes?

 

[riser]

Hmm in understand the pros and cons of this system but we dont really need an indirect election anymore. We have the tech to give every single person a vote. Whats more equal than every person getting to say who they believe is the best leader?

The big case is Bush V Gore. More people voted for Gore but Bush won..... Just from the surface of that it seems to be taking voices away from the people. Doesnt this process also discourage multiparty systems, Dem and Repub are the only parties who would ever win elections or garner any kind of support. Literally millions of people all over the country could vote for a candidate but if enough in one area dont then that candidate gets no electoral votes and the wishes of those people arent heard.

Interesting stuff. At its core it really comes down to a direct or an indirect election. Im curious to see how the french elections are going to play out....

A large population lives in California. Do you think they can relate to another state's population? In the end we would have a few states with so much population controlling everything.

For example, Pennsylvania pretty much was a red state until you tally in Philadelphia. Then it turned over to a blue state. One single area of common people and control the entire state, let alone the government? If that's how you run it, every city would be controlling everything and the people outside of a city wouldn't have any say. With the EC, the people have a voice.

If you have a city like Detroit that is in disrepair because of a poor local government, do you think other people, cities, or states can really relate? Yet a former population of 8 million people is fairly significant.. what do city people care about that of which they do not know?

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Hmm in understand the pros and cons of this system but we dont really need an indirect election anymore. We have the tech to give every single person a vote. Whats more equal than every person getting to say who they believe is the best leader?

The big case is Bush V Gore. More people voted for Gore but Bush won..... Just from the surface of that it seems to be taking voices away from the people. Doesnt this process also discourage multiparty systems, Dem and Repub are the only parties who would ever win elections or garner any kind of support. Literally millions of people all over the country could vote for a candidate but if enough in one area dont then that candidate gets no electoral votes and the wishes of those people arent heard.

Interesting stuff. At its core it really comes down to a direct or an indirect election. Im curious to see how the french elections are going to play out....

In the end, the most local, or closest government governs best.
They know the woods, the mountains, the lakes, the particular environment, the people near them, amd their needs and desires.
The larger you make it, the further their reach, the less effective it becomes, and our forefathers knew this, as the bickering started as to who should call the shots, at that time.

It is important that states have certain abilities in the larger picture, its essential as a matter of fact.
In the overall picture, eliminating EC would weaken states rights and abilities even further.
I understand the argument, and until Id seen time and again failings by larger entities of government as opposed to the willingness of the local one actually making applications where and how, so theyd be done correctly for the people there, and to see it over ridden, then later, redone the way it should be done anyways, is wasteful and dangerous.

Anything that simple, that promises an easy solution, well, if it sounds too good to be real, it probably isnt real.
So, even tho some are smarting from an EC scenario, I would have liked to have Gore there on 911, as then terrorism would have been a liberal problem, with liberal solutions.
Im guessing things would have been done exactly the way theyve been done, but the MSM would be behind it, Gore would then be responsible, and wed all be closer on certain issues.
But, being as it may, certain peoples have gone out of their way to create divisions at a time when this country needs to be united more than ever