goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: Dirty Sanchez on June 21, 2011, 05:37:54 PM
-
http://www.mediaite.com/online/this-exists-iceland-rewrites-their-constitution-using-suggestions-through-twitter/
Watch the video.
Combine this with the types of other thoughts coming from satanist "thinkers" and you get a disaster of epic proportions for the US and subsequently the world.
-
You dont like democracy?
-
I guess that would be an ok idea if we needed to rewrite our Constitution, which we don't.
-
You dont like democracy?
I like republics, but that aside, where the hell does that question even come from in relation to this video? :dunno:
-
Fantastic idea. Great video.
It would be a great idea to revisit the Constitution considering how much the world has changed since it was written:
http://www.dilbert.com/blog/entry/founding_fathers_version_20/
-
Why does it not surprise me that you take your political advice from Dilbert?
-
And on the other point:
Its "living and breathing" when you want it to be. When you don't want it to be, we should change it entirely.
-
Did you even watch the video? :users:
-
Fantastic idea. Great video.
It would be a great idea to revisit the Constitution considering how much the world has changed since it was written:
http://www.dilbert.com/blog/entry/founding_fathers_version_20/
That article is arguing that our "system" doesn't work because it's too old
I'd say it doesn't work because all our politicians are ass holes that are tied in with corporations.
These corporations regulate themselves. Big Pharma is all over the FDA, just as BP is all over the DOE. Monsanto is all over the DOA
We don't declare war, yet we're fighting 5 countries right now. Same corporations are profiting out their asses.
The two party system is a load of crap - We're too tied up in the largest pissing contest in history to get anything done.
The Fed has done nothing but devalue our currency since it was created.
So yeah, if we just adhered to what the constitution says, we wouldn't have any of these problems. But instead, we let people get too powerful, we let government get too big, we let the President do things the president can't do. etc.
-
What if we just took an eraser to the electoral college thing?
:dunno:
-
Twitter suggestions = townhall for people smart enough to use a computer for things besides forwarding emails
-
Fantastic idea. Great video.
It would be a great idea to revisit the Constitution considering how much the world has changed since it was written:
http://www.dilbert.com/blog/entry/founding_fathers_version_20/
China really is fantastically pragmatic. To make this work in the US, we'd have to package it as "principled pragmatism" or something. But African, Middle Eastern, and Latin American companies rough ridin' love doing business with the Chinese specifically because they don't attach moral, ethical, or ideological conditions onto their business deals or trade agreements. Essentially, we're the football team "doing things the right way" and China is Auburn or some other awesome school, except in this scenario Auburn (and USC/Russia) have a veto on the NCAA investigations committee.
-
Fantastic idea. Great video.
It would be a great idea to revisit the Constitution considering how much the world has changed since it was written:
http://www.dilbert.com/blog/entry/founding_fathers_version_20/
China really is fantastically pragmatic. To make this work in the US, we'd have to package it as "principled pragmatism" or something. But African, Middle Eastern, and Latin American companies rough ridin' love doing business with the Chinese specifically because they don't attach moral, ethical, or ideological conditions onto their business deals or trade agreements. Essentially, we're the football team "doing things the right way" and China is Auburn or some other awesome school, except in this scenario Auburn (and USC/Russia) have a veto on the NCAA investigations committee.
This is satanist propaganda in a nutshell. Government by euphemism. "man-caused disasters" "overseas contingency operations" and every other pc bullshit phrase including the divisive hyphenated-Americans.
-
Did you even watch the video? :users:
Yes. And I used actual thought to compare it to other suggestions I've heard from satanist "thinkers." Its obvious what he's getting at.
-
Fantastic idea. Great video.
It would be a great idea to revisit the Constitution considering how much the world has changed since it was written:
http://www.dilbert.com/blog/entry/founding_fathers_version_20/
China really is fantastically pragmatic. To make this work in the US, we'd have to package it as "principled pragmatism" or something. But African, Middle Eastern, and Latin American companies rough ridin' love doing business with the Chinese specifically because they don't attach moral, ethical, or ideological conditions onto their business deals or trade agreements. Essentially, we're the football team "doing things the right way" and China is Auburn or some other awesome school, except in this scenario Auburn (and USC/Russia) have a veto on the NCAA investigations committee.
This is satanist propaganda in a nutshell. Government by euphemism. "man-caused disasters" "overseas contingency operations" and every other pc bullshit phrase including the divisive hyphenated-Americans.
Meh. All forms of rule (government, religion, corporations, families, etc) operate under one sort of guiding fiction or another.
-
Did you even watch the video? :users:
Yes. And I used actual thought to compare it to other suggestions I've heard from satanist "thinkers." Its obvious what he's getting at.
So you do realize that Zakaria (and I) weren't suggesting we "change the Constitution entirely"? The fact that you can't carry on a rational conversation about what Iceland is doing or Zakaria is discussing scares me way more than what Iceland is doing or Zakaria is discussing.
-
Let's be honest, our constitution is an antiquated piece of crap. It's like the Ten Commandments. Hey d00ds, do we still need the part about not coveting our neighbors slaves? I mean, it's kind of humiliating that we had, in the guiding rules of our religion, a part about actually owning slaves let alone a rule about not wishing our slaves were as good as our neighbors slaves. But then here come the ten commandment judges with their ten commandment originalism freak outs.
-
Fantastic idea. Great video.
It would be a great idea to revisit the Constitution considering how much the world has changed since it was written:
http://www.dilbert.com/blog/entry/founding_fathers_version_20/
China really is fantastically pragmatic. To make this work in the US, we'd have to package it as "principled pragmatism" or something. But African, Middle Eastern, and Latin American companies rough ridin' love doing business with the Chinese specifically because they don't attach moral, ethical, or ideological conditions onto their business deals or trade agreements. Essentially, we're the football team "doing things the right way" and China is Auburn or some other awesome school, except in this scenario Auburn (and USC/Russia) have a veto on the NCAA investigations committee.
This is satanist propaganda in a nutshell. Government by euphemism. "man-caused disasters" "overseas contingency operations" and every other pc bullshit phrase including the divisive hyphenated-Americans.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaand there you have it, folks. :users:
-
Let's be honest, our constitution is an antiquated piece of crap. It's like the Ten Commandments. Hey d00ds, do we still need the part about not coveting our neighbors slaves? I mean, it's kind of humiliating that we had, in the guiding rules of our religion, a part about actually owning slaves let alone a rule about not wishing our slaves were as good as our neighbors slaves. But then here come the ten commandment judges with their ten commandment originalism freak outs.
Yes, we need a constitution for the modern man.
-
Fantastic idea. Great video.
It would be a great idea to revisit the Constitution considering how much the world has changed since it was written:
http://www.dilbert.com/blog/entry/founding_fathers_version_20/
China really is fantastically pragmatic. To make this work in the US, we'd have to package it as "principled pragmatism" or something. But African, Middle Eastern, and Latin American companies rough ridin' love doing business with the Chinese specifically because they don't attach moral, ethical, or ideological conditions onto their business deals or trade agreements. Essentially, we're the football team "doing things the right way" and China is Auburn or some other awesome school, except in this scenario Auburn (and USC/Russia) have a veto on the NCAA investigations committee.
This is satanist propaganda in a nutshell. Government by euphemism. "man-caused disasters" "overseas contingency operations" and every other pc bullshit phrase including the divisive hyphenated-Americans.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaand there you have it, folks. :users:
have what?
-
Let's be honest, our constitution is an antiquated piece of crap. It's like the Ten Commandments. Hey d00ds, do we still need the part about not coveting our neighbors slaves? I mean, it's kind of humiliating that we had, in the guiding rules of our religion, a part about actually owning slaves let alone a rule about not wishing our slaves were as good as our neighbors slaves. But then here come the ten commandment judges with their ten commandment originalism freak outs.
Yes, we need a constitution for the modern man.
We have one. We need to follow it.
Those who trade...
-
:lol:
I love the new Dirty Sanchez run pit.
-
:lol:
I love the new Dirty Sanchez run pit.
In awe of my eliteness of knowledge of history, government, media, and the trainwreck that is the satanist agenda I see.
-
What if we just took an eraser to the electoral college thing?
:dunno:
Terrible Idea, unless you want all our presidents to be elected in New York City and Los Angeles.
-
:lol:
I love the new Dirty Sanchez run pit.
In awe of my eliteness of knowledge of history, government, media, and the trainwreck that is the satanist agenda I see.
HA HA!
It's mostly the delusional unsupported rants filled with your favorites buzzwords. Your "knowledge" is quite underwhelming actually. It's funny to see how impressed you are with knowing a few basic facts though. That one PolySci class must have been a doozy!
-
What if we just took an eraser to the electoral college thing?
:dunno:
Terrible Idea, unless you want all our presidents to be elected in New York City and Los Angeles.
That's just poor logic. The electoral college assigns votes based upon population, so New York and Los Angeles are accounted for. The real problem with the system is that if a candidate were to win a state by just one vote, he/she would still get all the votes from the electoral college as if he/she won the state by unanimous decision. The system should be done away with.
-
Can you imagine what a clusterfuck writing a new constitution would be, though?
CTRL+F
Find what: Negro
Replace with: Homo
-
Can you imagine what a clusterfuck writing a new constitution would be, though?
CTRL+F
Find what: Negro
Replace with: Homo
lol
-
Since we're going through the process of rewriting our constitution ont he most interestingly written, informational, and fun message board I have ever read, I think state lines should be completely redrawn/rethought. They should be based on metropalitan areas and geography rather than ridiculous state lines drawn up as backroom deals and weird traditions. It's completely innefficient and counterproductive for a metro area like Kansas City to be divided by a state line. Same with places like Memphis, Chicago, Cincinnati, and others. The intermountain west should be one enormous state, SF should be separated from LA, etc. Let's do it!
-
Can you imagine what a clusterfuck writing a new constitution would be, though?
CTRL+F
Find what: Negro
Replace with: Homo
Maybe we could put in a new 3/5 compromise for illegal immigrants.
-
Since we're going through the process of rewriting our constitution ont he most interestingly written, informational, and fun message board I have ever read, I think state lines should be completely redrawn/rethought. They should be based on metropalitan areas and geography rather than ridiculous state lines drawn up as backroom deals and weird traditions. It's completely innefficient and counterproductive for a metro area like Kansas City to be divided by a state line. Same with places like Memphis, Chicago, Cincinnati, and others. The intermountain west should be one enormous state, SF should be separated from LA, etc. Let's do it!
The eastern border of Colorado should extend no further than Denver. It's a rocky mountain state.
-
Since we're going through the process of rewriting our constitution ont he most interestingly written, informational, and fun message board I have ever read, I think state lines should be completely redrawn/rethought. They should be based on metropalitan areas and geography rather than ridiculous state lines drawn up as backroom deals and weird traditions. It's completely innefficient and counterproductive for a metro area like Kansas City to be divided by a state line. Same with places like Memphis, Chicago, Cincinnati, and others. The intermountain west should be one enormous state, SF should be separated from LA, etc. Let's do it!
The eastern border of Colorado should extend no further than Denver. It's a rocky mountain state.
http://www.kshs.org/p/kansas-historical-quarterly-kansas-territory-and-its-boundary-question/13180 (http://www.kshs.org/p/kansas-historical-quarterly-kansas-territory-and-its-boundary-question/13180)
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kshs.org%2Fpublicat%2Fkhq%2F1967%2Fgraphics%2F67_1_ksmap-1x.jpg&hash=c4bd6875af6a3a7fff0c2f92fbaf8b637c295d3a)
SOME leaders in the Territory of Kansas in 1858 and 1859 hoped to receive congressional approval for a state of Kansas with a western boundary at the crest of the Rocky mountains in the middle part of present-day Colorado and a northern boundary at the Platte river. If the Platte had been the northern border of Kansas, the state would include a rather extensive and valuable portion of the present-day state of Nebraska, and if the crest of the Rocky mountains had formed the western boundary of Kansas, a large portion of present-day Colorado would be part of the wheat state.
Had the territorial boundaries prevailed, the state of Kansas would look something like this today. No Kansan would need to go to Colorado to see the mountains, for Pike's Peak and a slice of the eastern slope were ours from 1854 -- until Kansas became a state in 1861! This boundary, showing Kansas as it might have been, has been superimposed over a 1956 National Geographic map.
Roll back the clock.
-
definitely need an iq test for people wanting firearms.
-
Buffalo Commons
-
Since we're going through the process of rewriting our constitution ont he most interestingly written, informational, and fun message board I have ever read, I think state lines should be completely redrawn/rethought. They should be based on metropalitan areas and geography rather than ridiculous state lines drawn up as backroom deals and weird traditions. It's completely innefficient and counterproductive for a metro area like Kansas City to be divided by a state line. Same with places like Memphis, Chicago, Cincinnati, and others. The intermountain west should be one enormous state, SF should be separated from LA, etc. Let's do it!
The eastern border of Colorado should extend no further than Denver. It's a rocky mountain state.
I would actually probably split CO into three states - A front range state (at least CO Springs to Ft. Collins), a mountain state, and a plains state. Let the mountain state join forces with parts of Wyoming and Utah and maybe NM and let the plains state join w/ western Kansas and the panhandles.
-
we don't need one dakota let alone two
-
Since we're going through the process of rewriting our constitution ont he most interestingly written, informational, and fun message board I have ever read, I think state lines should be completely redrawn/rethought. They should be based on metropalitan areas and geography rather than ridiculous state lines drawn up as backroom deals and weird traditions. It's completely innefficient and counterproductive for a metro area like Kansas City to be divided by a state line. Same with places like Memphis, Chicago, Cincinnati, and others. The intermountain west should be one enormous state, SF should be separated from LA, etc. Let's do it!
The eastern border of Colorado should extend no further than Denver. It's a rocky mountain state.
I would actually probably split CO into three states - A front range state (at least CO Springs to Ft. Collins), a mountain state, and a plains state. Let the mountain state join forces with parts of Wyoming and Utah and maybe NM and let the plains state join w/ western Kansas and the panhandles.
I would also merge Kansas, Nebraska, and Oklahoma.
-
we don't need one dakota let alone two
happy birthday canada, here's a couple dakotas. we've had our eye on vancouver for awhile fyi.
-
we don't need one dakota let alone two
they could join the mega great plains state I just created. Separate Fargo/Sioux Falls/Sioux City (Iowa) and make a state.
Boom. Democracy at work.
-
we don't need one dakota let alone two
Agreed. They talk like Minnesotans but live like Montanans, so I'm not sure where to put them. Probably Montana.
-
Since we're going through the process of rewriting our constitution ont he most interestingly written, informational, and fun message board I have ever read, I think state lines should be completely redrawn/rethought. They should be based on metropalitan areas and geography rather than ridiculous state lines drawn up as backroom deals and weird traditions. It's completely innefficient and counterproductive for a metro area like Kansas City to be divided by a state line. Same with places like Memphis, Chicago, Cincinnati, and others. The intermountain west should be one enormous state, SF should be separated from LA, etc. Let's do it!
The eastern border of Colorado should extend no further than Denver. It's a rocky mountain state.
I would actually probably split CO into three states - A front range state (at least CO Springs to Ft. Collins), a mountain state, and a plains state. Let the mountain state join forces with parts of Wyoming and Utah and maybe NM and let the plains state join w/ western Kansas and the panhandles.
I would also merge Kansas, Nebraska, and Oklahoma.
But you would have to cut away the KC metro, and maybe the Omaha/Council Bluffs metro. There would definitely be a "four states" state in SEKS/SWMO/NWAR/NEOK
-
Since we're going through the process of rewriting our constitution ont he most interestingly written, informational, and fun message board I have ever read, I think state lines should be completely redrawn/rethought. They should be based on metropalitan areas and geography rather than ridiculous state lines drawn up as backroom deals and weird traditions. It's completely innefficient and counterproductive for a metro area like Kansas City to be divided by a state line. Same with places like Memphis, Chicago, Cincinnati, and others. The intermountain west should be one enormous state, SF should be separated from LA, etc. Let's do it!
The eastern border of Colorado should extend no further than Denver. It's a rocky mountain state.
I would actually probably split CO into three states - A front range state (at least CO Springs to Ft. Collins), a mountain state, and a plains state. Let the mountain state join forces with parts of Wyoming and Utah and maybe NM and let the plains state join w/ western Kansas and the panhandles.
I would also merge Kansas, Nebraska, and Oklahoma.
not sure that okies and nubbs have that much in common. Nubbs probably belong more with the Iowans.
How about Kansas, OK, and Missouri merge?
-
Also, the new constitution will get the government out of marriage (i.e. no special benny's for married folks) and make sure gays can get married. I actually think we should encourage gays make out in front of homophobes.
-
Since we're going through the process of rewriting our constitution ont he most interestingly written, informational, and fun message board I have ever read, I think state lines should be completely redrawn/rethought. They should be based on metropalitan areas and geography rather than ridiculous state lines drawn up as backroom deals and weird traditions. It's completely innefficient and counterproductive for a metro area like Kansas City to be divided by a state line. Same with places like Memphis, Chicago, Cincinnati, and others. The intermountain west should be one enormous state, SF should be separated from LA, etc. Let's do it!
The eastern border of Colorado should extend no further than Denver. It's a rocky mountain state.
I would actually probably split CO into three states - A front range state (at least CO Springs to Ft. Collins), a mountain state, and a plains state. Let the mountain state join forces with parts of Wyoming and Utah and maybe NM and let the plains state join w/ western Kansas and the panhandles.
I would also merge Kansas, Nebraska, and Oklahoma.
not sure that okies and nubbs have that much in common. Nubbs probably belong more with the Iowans.
How about Kansas, OK, and Missouri merge?
From a people standpoint, it makes sense, but the geography in Missouri is much different. I think Kansas, Oklahoma, and west Texas makes more sense.
-
Since we're going through the process of rewriting our constitution ont he most interestingly written, informational, and fun message board I have ever read, I think state lines should be completely redrawn/rethought. They should be based on metropalitan areas and geography rather than ridiculous state lines drawn up as backroom deals and weird traditions. It's completely innefficient and counterproductive for a metro area like Kansas City to be divided by a state line. Same with places like Memphis, Chicago, Cincinnati, and others. The intermountain west should be one enormous state, SF should be separated from LA, etc. Let's do it!
The eastern border of Colorado should extend no further than Denver. It's a rocky mountain state.
I would actually probably split CO into three states - A front range state (at least CO Springs to Ft. Collins), a mountain state, and a plains state. Let the mountain state join forces with parts of Wyoming and Utah and maybe NM and let the plains state join w/ western Kansas and the panhandles.
I would also merge Kansas, Nebraska, and Oklahoma.
not sure that okies and nubbs have that much in common. Nubbs probably belong more with the Iowans.
How about Kansas, OK, and Missouri merge?
From a people standpoint, it makes sense, but the geography in Missouri is much different. I think Kansas, Oklahoma, and west Texas makes more sense.
deal. kck/wichita/topeka/okc/tulsa/amarillo seems like a similar group of cities.
-
Here is what made me think of redrawing state lines:
So allow me to state for the record my philosophy of how the future is aligned: neighborhood – city – region – planet. Note that “county”, “state” and “nation” do not exist. These are eighteenth-century constructs that serve little useful purpose in a connected, digital global economy. The hard question is asking what it will take to achieve this in these “United” States. No politician has ever voted themselves out of a job, and yet a thorough realignment of local and federal governance is necessary.
http://www.urbanophile.com/2011/05/24/the-new-provincials-by-jason-tinkey/
-
If anything, MO should merge with Arkansas, Kentucky, and Tenn, or something. Hill people. MO people are much more like Ark people than KS people.
They deserve each other.
Also, would be ok with OK merge, but not Nubb.
-
I'm sure the brain trust in eastern Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, and west Texas will come up with an awesome name for the new state, like Texoransahoma.
-
If anything, MO should merge with Arkansas, Kentucky, and Tenn, or something. Hill people. MO people are much more like Ark people than KS people.
They deserve each other.
Also, would be ok with OK merge, but not Nubb.
Yes, and the eastern edge of Kansas, especially the southeast portion, probably belongs with Missouri.
-
jesus christ people, get out of ks/mo/co/ok. :flush: /phog
-
ksu won't be ksu anymore. :frown:
more like western ozarks state
-
once we have the implanted technology we can all vote instantly on every issue thus doing away with the need for congress. every citizen in the country can vote on every issue and the president gets veto power but is also up for re-election every 6 months so if he abuses his veto power he's toast.
-
once we have the implanted technology we can all vote instantly on every issue thus doing away with the need for congress. every citizen in the country can vote on every issue and the president gets veto power but is also up for re-election every 6 months so if he abuses his veto power he's toast.
also, citizens can propose laws. but if the law is voted down, they're kicked out of the country.
so like, if dirty sanchez proposes that all homos are to be thrown in a special homo jail, and 94% of the country votes it down, then dirty sanchez is dropped off in el salvador or somewhere equally shitty.
-
voting with the implanted tech earns spg points
-
I think the Constitution should make bad weather illegal. I hate that stuff.
-
What if we just took an eraser to the electoral college thing?
:dunno:
Terrible Idea, unless you want all our presidents to be elected in New York City and Los Angeles.
That's just poor logic. The electoral college assigns votes based upon population, so New York and Los Angeles are accounted for. The real problem with the system is that if a candidate were to win a state by just one vote, he/she would still get all the votes from the electoral college as if he/she won the state by unanimous decision. The system should be done away with.
First of all, novice, New York CITY and the CITY of Los Angeles don't have electoral college representation...their states do. There are rural people in those states as well (shocking, I know). If we did away with the electoral college, Politicians could select a few, highly populated locations and campaign exclusively in those locations. Politicians are forced to gain support across the entire country, rather than specific regions.
Please, read a book about the electoral college, and stop listening to Al Gore about how bad it is.
-
can I cash in said spg points to purchase more votes?
-
can I cash in said spg points to purchase more votes?
Yes, Cap and Trade, but for votes. If your neighbor isn't using his, you could negotiate or barter for them.
-
can I cash in said spg points to purchase more votes?
Yes, Cap and Trade, but for votes. If your neighbor isn't using his, you could negotiate or barter for them.
nice! the free market solution to voter apathy.
-
we don't need one dakota let alone two
happy birthday canada, here's a couple dakotas. we've had our eye on vancouver for awhile fyi.
this needs to happen.
-
can I cash in said spg points to purchase more votes?
Yes, Cap and Trade, but for votes. If your neighbor isn't using his, you could negotiate or barter for them.
nice! the free market solution to voter apathy.
Votes have value. If you don't use them anyway, you should at least get your lawn mowed for them.
-
once we have the implanted technology we can all vote instantly on every issue thus doing away with the need for congress. every citizen in the country can vote on every issue and the president gets veto power but is also up for re-election every 6 months so if he abuses his veto power he's toast.
Best idea in thread
-
What if we just took an eraser to the electoral college thing?
:dunno:
Terrible Idea, unless you want all our presidents to be elected in New York City and Los Angeles.
That's just poor logic. The electoral college assigns votes based upon population, so New York and Los Angeles are accounted for. The real problem with the system is that if a candidate were to win a state by just one vote, he/she would still get all the votes from the electoral college as if he/she won the state by unanimous decision. The system should be done away with.
First of all, novice, New York CITY and the CITY of Los Angeles don't have electoral college representation...their states do. There are rural people in those states as well (shocking, I know). If we did away with the electoral college, Politicians could select a few, highly populated locations and campaign exclusively in those locations. Politicians are forced to gain support across the entire country, rather than specific regions.
Please, read a book about the electoral college, and stop listening to Al Gore about how bad it is.
So instead of "battleground states" we would have "battleground cities"? The horror.
-
once we have the implanted technology we can all vote instantly on every issue thus doing away with the need for congress. every citizen in the country can vote on every issue and the president gets veto power but is also up for re-election every 6 months so if he abuses his veto power he's toast.
hacks
-
What if we just took an eraser to the electoral college thing?
:dunno:
Terrible Idea, unless you want all our presidents to be elected in New York City and Los Angeles.
That's just poor logic. The electoral college assigns votes based upon population, so New York and Los Angeles are accounted for. The real problem with the system is that if a candidate were to win a state by just one vote, he/she would still get all the votes from the electoral college as if he/she won the state by unanimous decision. The system should be done away with.
First of all, novice, New York CITY and the CITY of Los Angeles don't have electoral college representation...their states do. There are rural people in those states as well (shocking, I know). If we did away with the electoral college, Politicians could select a few, highly populated locations and campaign exclusively in those locations. Politicians are forced to gain support across the entire country, rather than specific regions.
Please, read a book about the electoral college, and stop listening to Al Gore about how bad it is.
So instead of "battleground states" we would have "battleground cities"? The horror.
Actually, there wouldn't be "battleground" anything, because nobody would get a unanimous vote from any state or city simply by winning the majority.
-
What if we just took an eraser to the electoral college thing?
:dunno:
Terrible Idea, unless you want all our presidents to be elected in New York City and Los Angeles.
That's just poor logic. The electoral college assigns votes based upon population, so New York and Los Angeles are accounted for. The real problem with the system is that if a candidate were to win a state by just one vote, he/she would still get all the votes from the electoral college as if he/she won the state by unanimous decision. The system should be done away with.
First of all, novice, New York CITY and the CITY of Los Angeles don't have electoral college representation...their states do. There are rural people in those states as well (shocking, I know). If we did away with the electoral college, Politicians could select a few, highly populated locations and campaign exclusively in those locations. Politicians are forced to gain support across the entire country, rather than specific regions.
Please, read a book about the electoral college, and stop listening to Al Gore about how bad it is.
Right now, the rural parts of New York and California might as well not even have a vote if they disagree with the majority in the cities of Los Angeles and New York. If you really think these cities would have enough pull to decide elections nationally without the electoral college, it's pretty Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) to argue that the rural areas of those states have any say at all with it.
-
What if we just took an eraser to the electoral college thing?
:dunno:
Terrible Idea, unless you want all our presidents to be elected in New York City and Los Angeles.
That's just poor logic. The electoral college assigns votes based upon population, so New York and Los Angeles are accounted for. The real problem with the system is that if a candidate were to win a state by just one vote, he/she would still get all the votes from the electoral college as if he/she won the state by unanimous decision. The system should be done away with.
First of all, novice, New York CITY and the CITY of Los Angeles don't have electoral college representation...their states do. There are rural people in those states as well (shocking, I know). If we did away with the electoral college, Politicians could select a few, highly populated locations and campaign exclusively in those locations. Politicians are forced to gain support across the entire country, rather than specific regions.
Please, read a book about the electoral college, and stop listening to Al Gore about how bad it is.
So instead of "battleground states" we would have "battleground cities"? The horror.
Actually, there wouldn't be "battleground" anything, because nobody would get a unanimous vote from any state or city simply by winning the majority.
Presidential candidates would definitely focus on large population centers, which I think is much better than focusing on a select few states. I was just taking issue with the argument that the current system works because the votes of people who choose to live in BFE carry more weight than those who choose to live in cities.
-
What if we just took an eraser to the electoral college thing?
:dunno:
Terrible Idea, unless you want all our presidents to be elected in New York City and Los Angeles.
That's just poor logic. The electoral college assigns votes based upon population, so New York and Los Angeles are accounted for. The real problem with the system is that if a candidate were to win a state by just one vote, he/she would still get all the votes from the electoral college as if he/she won the state by unanimous decision. The system should be done away with.
First of all, novice, New York CITY and the CITY of Los Angeles don't have electoral college representation...their states do. There are rural people in those states as well (shocking, I know). If we did away with the electoral college, Politicians could select a few, highly populated locations and campaign exclusively in those locations. Politicians are forced to gain support across the entire country, rather than specific regions.
Please, read a book about the electoral college, and stop listening to Al Gore about how bad it is.
So instead of "battleground states" we would have "battleground cities"? The horror.
Actually, there wouldn't be "battleground" anything, because nobody would get a unanimous vote from any state or city simply by winning the majority.
Presidential candidates would definitely focus on large population centers, which I think is much better than focusing on a select few states. I was just taking issue with the argument that the current system works because the votes of people who choose to live in BFE carry more weight than those who choose to live in cities.
Campaigns would have to focus on the entire country. Population centers would be important, but no more important than they are now. In fact, population centers in swing states would actually be less important than they are now. It's a myth that people who choose to live in BFE actually have votes that carry more weight with the electoral college.
-
we don't need one dakota let alone two
I heard this proposed by a radical prof in the history department when I took history of the west. For a historian, he clearly wasn't too bright. There's a reason why we went with two legislative bodies when we put the Constitution together. Hell, I think we covered that in 8th grade social studies. One house for population, one house for states. Along those lines, there's a reason why the 17th amendment was stupid. Almost completely negated the reason that system was set up in the first place. Essentially became two of the same house. Separated from ye olde English common law tradition of an upper and lower house.
-
we don't need one dakota let alone two
I heard this proposed by a radical prof in the history department when I took history of the west. For a historian, he clearly wasn't too bright. There's a reason why we went with two legislative bodies when we put the Constitution together. Hell, I think we covered that in 8th grade social studies. One house for population, one house for states. Along those lines, there's a reason why the 17th amendment was stupid. Almost completely negated the reason that system was set up in the first place. Essentially became two of the same house. Separated from ye olde English common law tradition of an upper and lower house.
:lol:
-
we don't need one dakota let alone two
I heard this proposed by a radical prof in the history department when I took history of the west. For a historian, he clearly wasn't too bright. There's a reason why we went with two legislative bodies when we put the Constitution together. Hell, I think we covered that in 8th grade social studies. One house for population, one house for states. Along those lines, there's a reason why the 17th amendment was stupid. Almost completely negated the reason that system was set up in the first place. Essentially became two of the same house. Separated from ye olde English common law tradition of an upper and lower house.
wut
-
love love love the Dirty Sanchez pit!
-
we don't need one dakota let alone two
I heard this proposed by a radical prof in the history department when I took history of the west. For a historian, he clearly wasn't too bright. There's a reason why we went with two legislative bodies when we put the Constitution together. Hell, I think we covered that in 8th grade social studies. One house for population, one house for states. Along those lines, there's a reason why the 17th amendment was stupid. Almost completely negated the reason that system was set up in the first place. Essentially became two of the same house. Separated from ye olde English common law tradition of an upper and lower house.
omg :thumbs:
-
It's a myth that people who choose to live in BFE actually have votes that carry more weight with the electoral college.
A vote in Wyoming is worth more than a vote in New York. I agree with everything else you said.
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi4.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fy110%2FTHE_agnax%2FGENewYorker-1.jpg&hash=7d84d47904e014f79f9907b448d85f3bfce22b5a)
-
It's a myth that people who choose to live in BFE actually have votes that carry more weight with the electoral college.
A vote in Wyoming is worth more than a vote in New York. I agree with everything else you said.
Hmm. Dividing a single vote by electoral college votes leaves a Wyoming vote at .33 and a New York vote at .032, but that .032 counts toward .057 of the electoral total, while Wyoming's .33 only counts toward .005. Seems like kind of a wash, but maybe the population numbers change that, with the Senate limit of 2 working in Wyoming's favor.
:dunno:
-
It's a myth that people who choose to live in BFE actually have votes that carry more weight with the electoral college.
A vote in Wyoming is worth more than a vote in New York. I agree with everything else you said.
Hmm. Dividing a single vote by electoral college votes leaves a Wyoming vote at .33 and a New York vote at .032, but that .032 counts toward .057 of the electoral total, while Wyoming's .33 only counts toward .005. Seems like kind of a wash, but maybe the population numbers change that, with the Senate limit of 2 working in Wyoming's favor.
:dunno:
Not sure where you're getting your numbers:
NY Electoral votes: 31
NY population: 19.5 million
NY EV/million people: 1.6
WY Electoral votes: 3
WY population: 544,000
WY EV/million people: 5.5
-
Didn't use any population numbers. Just electoral college totals.
But if you divide a single vote by population by electoral apportionment by electoral college total, a Wyoming vote is worth 400 times more than a New York vote (or maybe 40 or maybe 4000. There were lots of decimals involved and I'm not entirely sold on my methodology).
-
Didn't use any population numbers. Just electoral college totals.
But if you divide a single vote by population by electoral apportionment by electoral college total, a Wyoming vote is worth 400 times more than a New York vote (or maybe 40 or maybe 4000. There were lots of decimals involved and I'm not entirely sold on my methodology).
jesus christ man. I was talking about per person.
-
Didn't use any population numbers. Just electoral college totals.
But if you divide a single vote by population by electoral apportionment by electoral college total, a Wyoming vote is worth 400 times more than a New York vote (or maybe 40 or maybe 4000. There were lots of decimals involved and I'm not entirely sold on my methodology).
jesus christ man. I was talking about per person.
So was I, under the electoral system.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgraphics8.nytimes.com%2Fimages%2F2008%2F11%2F02%2Fopinion%2F02chart_large.jpg&hash=e4ce8cdebfb8a1c009ee0238bfaab086a4bf5ed5)
-
I see there's only mocking, no refutation. But please, stay blind. :cool:
-
I see there's only mocking, no refutation. But please, stay blind. :cool:
He still didn't notice.
:lol:
-
I see there's only mocking, no refutation. But please, stay blind. :cool:
He still didn't notice.
:lol:
I notice you wear a helmet to keep you safe when you fall down walking through your living room.
-
definitely need an iq test for people wanting firearms.
It would come in handy in a lot of different areas.
-
definitely need an iq test for people wanting firearms.
It would come in handy in a lot of different areas.
It would absolutely cripple the market for legally obtained firearms.
-
I see there's only mocking, no refutation. But please, stay blind. :cool:
He still didn't notice.
:lol:
What did he miss? Obviously you know nothing about our government. Let me explain it to you. There are three branches. One of them is the Dakota's. This branch is elected to represent both the states, in the North Dakota house, and the population, in the South Dakota House. Then, there is the Washington branch. This is the commander-in-chief, who gets to boss everyone around, but not too much, or the Dakotas can fire his ass. Last but not least, there is the Juneau branch, based in Alaska. These guys are appointed by the Washington branch, and get to tell the Dakotas if the crap they try to pull is legal or not.
Did I miss anything, Sanchez?
-
I see there's only mocking, no refutation. But please, stay blind. :cool:
He still didn't notice.
:lol:
What did he miss? Obviously you know nothing about our government. Let me explain it to you. There are three branches. One of them is the Dakota's. This branch is elected to represent both the states, in the North Dakota house, and the population, in the South Dakota House. Then, there is the Washington branch. This is the commander-in-chief, who gets to boss everyone around, but not too much, or the Dakotas can fire his ass. Last but not least, there is the Juneau branch, based in Alaska. These guys are appointed by the Washington branch, and get to tell the Dakotas if the crap they try to pull is legal or not.
Did I miss anything, Sanchez?
Literally lol'd at this post. Well done.
-
What if we just took an eraser to the electoral college thing?
:dunno:
Terrible Idea, unless you want all our presidents to be elected in New York City and Los Angeles.
That's just poor logic. The electoral college assigns votes based upon population, so New York and Los Angeles are accounted for. The real problem with the system is that if a candidate were to win a state by just one vote, he/she would still get all the votes from the electoral college as if he/she won the state by unanimous decision. The system should be done away with.
First of all, novice, New York CITY and the CITY of Los Angeles don't have electoral college representation...their states do. There are rural people in those states as well (shocking, I know). If we did away with the electoral college, Politicians could select a few, highly populated locations and campaign exclusively in those locations. Politicians are forced to gain support across the entire country, rather than specific regions.
Please, read a book about the electoral college, and stop listening to Al Gore about how bad it is.
Right now, the rural parts of New York and California might as well not even have a vote if they disagree with the majority in the cities of Los Angeles and New York. If you really think these cities would have enough pull to decide elections nationally without the electoral college, it's pretty Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) to argue that the rural areas of those states have any say at all with it.
I would rather the rural areas of TWO states have no say than the Rural areas of an entire country.
Who cares what some rural hayseeds think about an issue in the proposed straight election? All I have to do to win an election is hit LA, New York, Chicago, and a few more key cities, promise them cheaper bagels and lower Taxi fees and I have it. Well, I might also need a winning smile, I'll get back to you when I've got that too.
-
I see there's only mocking, no refutation. But please, stay blind. :cool:
He still didn't notice.
:lol:
What did he miss? Obviously you know nothing about our government. Let me explain it to you. There are three branches. One of them is the Dakota's. This branch is elected to represent both the states, in the North Dakota house, and the population, in the South Dakota House. Then, there is the Washington branch. This is the commander-in-chief, who gets to boss everyone around, but not too much, or the Dakotas can fire his ass. Last but not least, there is the Juneau branch, based in Alaska. These guys are appointed by the Washington branch, and get to tell the Dakotas if the crap they try to pull is legal or not.
Did I miss anything, Sanchez?
You know what I said.
No, I shouldn't assume that you do. That would require knowing Constitutional history.
-
I'd hate being a typical birther pit post'r. Seems miserable.
-
What if we just took an eraser to the electoral college thing?
:dunno:
Terrible Idea, unless you want all our presidents to be elected in New York City and Los Angeles.
That's just poor logic. The electoral college assigns votes based upon population, so New York and Los Angeles are accounted for. The real problem with the system is that if a candidate were to win a state by just one vote, he/she would still get all the votes from the electoral college as if he/she won the state by unanimous decision. The system should be done away with.
First of all, novice, New York CITY and the CITY of Los Angeles don't have electoral college representation...their states do. There are rural people in those states as well (shocking, I know). If we did away with the electoral college, Politicians could select a few, highly populated locations and campaign exclusively in those locations. Politicians are forced to gain support across the entire country, rather than specific regions.
Please, read a book about the electoral college, and stop listening to Al Gore about how bad it is.
Right now, the rural parts of New York and California might as well not even have a vote if they disagree with the majority in the cities of Los Angeles and New York. If you really think these cities would have enough pull to decide elections nationally without the electoral college, it's pretty Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) to argue that the rural areas of those states have any say at all with it.
I would rather the rural areas of TWO states have no say than the Rural areas of an entire country.
Who cares what some rural hayseeds think about an issue in the proposed straight election? All I have to do to win an election is hit LA, New York, Chicago, and a few more key cities, promise them cheaper bagels and lower Taxi fees and I have it. Well, I might also need a winning smile, I'll get back to you when I've got that too.
Why should rural votes count for more than city votes? Seems to me all votes should be equal.
-
What if we just took an eraser to the electoral college thing?
:dunno:
Terrible Idea, unless you want all our presidents to be elected in New York City and Los Angeles.
That's just poor logic. The electoral college assigns votes based upon population, so New York and Los Angeles are accounted for. The real problem with the system is that if a candidate were to win a state by just one vote, he/she would still get all the votes from the electoral college as if he/she won the state by unanimous decision. The system should be done away with.
First of all, novice, New York CITY and the CITY of Los Angeles don't have electoral college representation...their states do. There are rural people in those states as well (shocking, I know). If we did away with the electoral college, Politicians could select a few, highly populated locations and campaign exclusively in those locations. Politicians are forced to gain support across the entire country, rather than specific regions.
Please, read a book about the electoral college, and stop listening to Al Gore about how bad it is.
Right now, the rural parts of New York and California might as well not even have a vote if they disagree with the majority in the cities of Los Angeles and New York. If you really think these cities would have enough pull to decide elections nationally without the electoral college, it's pretty Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) to argue that the rural areas of those states have any say at all with it.
I would rather the rural areas of TWO states have no say than the Rural areas of an entire country.
Who cares what some rural hayseeds think about an issue in the proposed straight election? All I have to do to win an election is hit LA, New York, Chicago, and a few more key cities, promise them cheaper bagels and lower Taxi fees and I have it. Well, I might also need a winning smile, I'll get back to you when I've got that too.
Why should rural votes count for more than city votes? Seems to me all votes should be equal.
A national campaign stop never be held outside of CA, FL, NY, OH, TX, IL, or a handful of other mostly eastern states. The great plains and mountain west would become completely irrelevant on the national stage.
-
What if we just took an eraser to the electoral college thing?
:dunno:
Terrible Idea, unless you want all our presidents to be elected in New York City and Los Angeles.
That's just poor logic. The electoral college assigns votes based upon population, so New York and Los Angeles are accounted for. The real problem with the system is that if a candidate were to win a state by just one vote, he/she would still get all the votes from the electoral college as if he/she won the state by unanimous decision. The system should be done away with.
First of all, novice, New York CITY and the CITY of Los Angeles don't have electoral college representation...their states do. There are rural people in those states as well (shocking, I know). If we did away with the electoral college, Politicians could select a few, highly populated locations and campaign exclusively in those locations. Politicians are forced to gain support across the entire country, rather than specific regions.
Please, read a book about the electoral college, and stop listening to Al Gore about how bad it is.
Right now, the rural parts of New York and California might as well not even have a vote if they disagree with the majority in the cities of Los Angeles and New York. If you really think these cities would have enough pull to decide elections nationally without the electoral college, it's pretty Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) to argue that the rural areas of those states have any say at all with it.
I would rather the rural areas of TWO states have no say than the Rural areas of an entire country.
Who cares what some rural hayseeds think about an issue in the proposed straight election? All I have to do to win an election is hit LA, New York, Chicago, and a few more key cities, promise them cheaper bagels and lower Taxi fees and I have it. Well, I might also need a winning smile, I'll get back to you when I've got that too.
Look, there have only been 4 presidents elected while losing the popular vote (only 1 since the 1800's), and each time it was by a very small margin. The cities play a major role, but it's not like 100% of the "big city vote" is going to go to 1 candidate.
Why don't you want everyone's vote to count?
-
What if we just took an eraser to the electoral college thing?
:dunno:
Terrible Idea, unless you want all our presidents to be elected in New York City and Los Angeles.
That's just poor logic. The electoral college assigns votes based upon population, so New York and Los Angeles are accounted for. The real problem with the system is that if a candidate were to win a state by just one vote, he/she would still get all the votes from the electoral college as if he/she won the state by unanimous decision. The system should be done away with.
First of all, novice, New York CITY and the CITY of Los Angeles don't have electoral college representation...their states do. There are rural people in those states as well (shocking, I know). If we did away with the electoral college, Politicians could select a few, highly populated locations and campaign exclusively in those locations. Politicians are forced to gain support across the entire country, rather than specific regions.
Please, read a book about the electoral college, and stop listening to Al Gore about how bad it is.
Right now, the rural parts of New York and California might as well not even have a vote if they disagree with the majority in the cities of Los Angeles and New York. If you really think these cities would have enough pull to decide elections nationally without the electoral college, it's pretty Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) to argue that the rural areas of those states have any say at all with it.
I would rather the rural areas of TWO states have no say than the Rural areas of an entire country.
Who cares what some rural hayseeds think about an issue in the proposed straight election? All I have to do to win an election is hit LA, New York, Chicago, and a few more key cities, promise them cheaper bagels and lower Taxi fees and I have it. Well, I might also need a winning smile, I'll get back to you when I've got that too.
Why should rural votes count for more than city votes? Seems to me all votes should be equal.
A national campaign stop never be held outside of CA, FL, NY, OH, TX, IL, or a handful of other mostly eastern states. The great plains and mountain west would become completely irrelevant on the national stage.
yes, capitalism
-
What if we just took an eraser to the electoral college thing?
:dunno:
Terrible Idea, unless you want all our presidents to be elected in New York City and Los Angeles.
That's just poor logic. The electoral college assigns votes based upon population, so New York and Los Angeles are accounted for. The real problem with the system is that if a candidate were to win a state by just one vote, he/she would still get all the votes from the electoral college as if he/she won the state by unanimous decision. The system should be done away with.
First of all, novice, New York CITY and the CITY of Los Angeles don't have electoral college representation...their states do. There are rural people in those states as well (shocking, I know). If we did away with the electoral college, Politicians could select a few, highly populated locations and campaign exclusively in those locations. Politicians are forced to gain support across the entire country, rather than specific regions.
Please, read a book about the electoral college, and stop listening to Al Gore about how bad it is.
Right now, the rural parts of New York and California might as well not even have a vote if they disagree with the majority in the cities of Los Angeles and New York. If you really think these cities would have enough pull to decide elections nationally without the electoral college, it's pretty Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) to argue that the rural areas of those states have any say at all with it.
I would rather the rural areas of TWO states have no say than the Rural areas of an entire country.
Who cares what some rural hayseeds think about an issue in the proposed straight election? All I have to do to win an election is hit LA, New York, Chicago, and a few more key cities, promise them cheaper bagels and lower Taxi fees and I have it. Well, I might also need a winning smile, I'll get back to you when I've got that too.
Why should rural votes count for more than city votes? Seems to me all votes should be equal.
A national campaign stop never be held outside of CA, FL, NY, OH, TX, IL, or a handful of other mostly eastern states. The great plains and mountain west would become completely irrelevant on the national stage.
I don't see that as a problem. Show most rational, sane people the Birther Pit and I think they'd agree with making the great plains irrelevant on the national stage.
-
What if we just took an eraser to the electoral college thing?
:dunno:
Terrible Idea, unless you want all our presidents to be elected in New York City and Los Angeles.
That's just poor logic. The electoral college assigns votes based upon population, so New York and Los Angeles are accounted for. The real problem with the system is that if a candidate were to win a state by just one vote, he/she would still get all the votes from the electoral college as if he/she won the state by unanimous decision. The system should be done away with.
First of all, novice, New York CITY and the CITY of Los Angeles don't have electoral college representation...their states do. There are rural people in those states as well (shocking, I know). If we did away with the electoral college, Politicians could select a few, highly populated locations and campaign exclusively in those locations. Politicians are forced to gain support across the entire country, rather than specific regions.
Please, read a book about the electoral college, and stop listening to Al Gore about how bad it is.
Right now, the rural parts of New York and California might as well not even have a vote if they disagree with the majority in the cities of Los Angeles and New York. If you really think these cities would have enough pull to decide elections nationally without the electoral college, it's pretty Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) to argue that the rural areas of those states have any say at all with it.
I would rather the rural areas of TWO states have no say than the Rural areas of an entire country.
Who cares what some rural hayseeds think about an issue in the proposed straight election? All I have to do to win an election is hit LA, New York, Chicago, and a few more key cities, promise them cheaper bagels and lower Taxi fees and I have it. Well, I might also need a winning smile, I'll get back to you when I've got that too.
Why should rural votes count for more than city votes? Seems to me all votes should be equal.
A national campaign stop never be held outside of CA, FL, NY, OH, TX, IL, or a handful of other mostly eastern states. The great plains and mountain west would become completely irrelevant on the national stage.
I don't see that as a problem. Show most rational, sane people the Birther Pit and I think they'd agree with making the great plains irrelevant on the national stage.
:thumbs:
-
What if we just took an eraser to the electoral college thing?
:dunno:
Terrible Idea, unless you want all our presidents to be elected in New York City and Los Angeles.
That's just poor logic. The electoral college assigns votes based upon population, so New York and Los Angeles are accounted for. The real problem with the system is that if a candidate were to win a state by just one vote, he/she would still get all the votes from the electoral college as if he/she won the state by unanimous decision. The system should be done away with.
First of all, novice, New York CITY and the CITY of Los Angeles don't have electoral college representation...their states do. There are rural people in those states as well (shocking, I know). If we did away with the electoral college, Politicians could select a few, highly populated locations and campaign exclusively in those locations. Politicians are forced to gain support across the entire country, rather than specific regions.
Please, read a book about the electoral college, and stop listening to Al Gore about how bad it is.
Right now, the rural parts of New York and California might as well not even have a vote if they disagree with the majority in the cities of Los Angeles and New York. If you really think these cities would have enough pull to decide elections nationally without the electoral college, it's pretty Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) to argue that the rural areas of those states have any say at all with it.
I would rather the rural areas of TWO states have no say than the Rural areas of an entire country.
Who cares what some rural hayseeds think about an issue in the proposed straight election? All I have to do to win an election is hit LA, New York, Chicago, and a few more key cities, promise them cheaper bagels and lower Taxi fees and I have it. Well, I might also need a winning smile, I'll get back to you when I've got that too.
Why should rural votes count for more than city votes? Seems to me all votes should be equal.
A national campaign stop never be held outside of CA, FL, NY, OH, TX, IL, or a handful of other mostly eastern states. The great plains and mountain west would become completely irrelevant on the national stage.
So the candidates will just completely ignore Salt Lake City, Denver, Kansas City, St. Louis, Detroit, Seattle, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Minneapolis, Milwaukee, etc? That doesn't sound like a winning strategy to me. Also, the 2 party system still exists, and I'm sure Iowa will try to stay relevant in the primary elections.
-
Anybody that has traveled outside the region already knows that the plains are irrelevant.
:ck:
-
Buffalo Commons
-
Buffalo Commons
never gonna happen
-
Buffalo Commons
never gonna happen
It may happen by default when the Ogallala is sucked dry.
-
What if we just took an eraser to the electoral college thing?
:dunno:
Terrible Idea, unless you want all our presidents to be elected in New York City and Los Angeles.
That's just poor logic. The electoral college assigns votes based upon population, so New York and Los Angeles are accounted for. The real problem with the system is that if a candidate were to win a state by just one vote, he/she would still get all the votes from the electoral college as if he/she won the state by unanimous decision. The system should be done away with.
First of all, novice, New York CITY and the CITY of Los Angeles don't have electoral college representation...their states do. There are rural people in those states as well (shocking, I know). If we did away with the electoral college, Politicians could select a few, highly populated locations and campaign exclusively in those locations. Politicians are forced to gain support across the entire country, rather than specific regions.
Please, read a book about the electoral college, and stop listening to Al Gore about how bad it is.
Right now, the rural parts of New York and California might as well not even have a vote if they disagree with the majority in the cities of Los Angeles and New York. If you really think these cities would have enough pull to decide elections nationally without the electoral college, it's pretty Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) to argue that the rural areas of those states have any say at all with it.
I would rather the rural areas of TWO states have no say than the Rural areas of an entire country.
Who cares what some rural hayseeds think about an issue in the proposed straight election? All I have to do to win an election is hit LA, New York, Chicago, and a few more key cities, promise them cheaper bagels and lower Taxi fees and I have it. Well, I might also need a winning smile, I'll get back to you when I've got that too.
Why should rural votes count for more than city votes? Seems to me all votes should be equal.
A national campaign stop never be held outside of CA, FL, NY, OH, TX, IL, or a handful of other mostly eastern states. The great plains and mountain west would become completely irrelevant on the national stage.
So the candidates will just completely ignore Salt Lake City, Denver, Kansas City, St. Louis, Detroit, Seattle, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Minneapolis, Milwaukee, etc? That doesn't sound like a winning strategy to me. Also, the 2 party system still exists, and I'm sure Iowa will try to stay relevant in the primary elections.
For the most part, yes. Phil/Pitt would be in one of those mostly eastern states I alluded to. As would Detroit.
-
What if we just took an eraser to the electoral college thing?
:dunno:
Terrible Idea, unless you want all our presidents to be elected in New York City and Los Angeles.
That's just poor logic. The electoral college assigns votes based upon population, so New York and Los Angeles are accounted for. The real problem with the system is that if a candidate were to win a state by just one vote, he/she would still get all the votes from the electoral college as if he/she won the state by unanimous decision. The system should be done away with.
First of all, novice, New York CITY and the CITY of Los Angeles don't have electoral college representation...their states do. There are rural people in those states as well (shocking, I know). If we did away with the electoral college, Politicians could select a few, highly populated locations and campaign exclusively in those locations. Politicians are forced to gain support across the entire country, rather than specific regions.
Please, read a book about the electoral college, and stop listening to Al Gore about how bad it is.
Right now, the rural parts of New York and California might as well not even have a vote if they disagree with the majority in the cities of Los Angeles and New York. If you really think these cities would have enough pull to decide elections nationally without the electoral college, it's pretty Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) to argue that the rural areas of those states have any say at all with it.
I would rather the rural areas of TWO states have no say than the Rural areas of an entire country.
Who cares what some rural hayseeds think about an issue in the proposed straight election? All I have to do to win an election is hit LA, New York, Chicago, and a few more key cities, promise them cheaper bagels and lower Taxi fees and I have it. Well, I might also need a winning smile, I'll get back to you when I've got that too.
Look, there have only been 4 presidents elected while losing the popular vote (only 1 since the 1800's), and each time it was by a very small margin. The cities play a major role, but it's not like 100% of the "big city vote" is going to go to 1 candidate.
Why don't you want everyone's vote to count?
Your argument goes hand in hand with mine. So much so, that it's odd we are disagreeing. We are worried about the same thing and can use the 4 presidential elections not carrying a majority to support both our arguments. I've got one of my textbooks somewhere (probably back home) that goes into pretty good arguments as to why we should retain this system and the advantages it has.
Now, if we had a multiple party system, where even us Country Bumpkins could field a candidate to get behind, then I'd be much more willing to get behind destroying the electoral college. As it stands, our two giant parties would simply put forth the best "City vote" candidate and the rest of us who have concerns outside of suburbia would have someone to push for our interests.
Plus, if you want to get technical, you should realize we are a Union of States, and that each State has it's own Government subject to one Federal Government (I'm not trying to be patronizing, honestly). If you were to take the Electoral College away, it's tantamount to taking away statehood in a fashion. Why even have each state elect Senators? Why not just have a massive election for those as well? Then we could all have some sweet Tammany Hall representation!
-
We should have two rounds in presidential elections and you should be able to rank your top 2-3 choices.
-
We should have two rounds in presidential elections and you should be able to rank your top 2-3 choices.
That's a great idea. We should also eliminate political parties completely.
-
We should have two rounds in presidential elections and you should be able to rank your top 2-3 choices.
So how about Vice Pres? Winner of two rounds of competition picks VP after winning?
-
We should have two rounds in presidential elections and you should be able to rank your top 2-3 choices.
That's a great idea. We should also eliminate political parties completely.
Would agree.
-
We should have two rounds in presidential elections and you should be able to rank your top 2-3 choices.
That's a great idea. We should also eliminate political parties completely.
Would agree.
Do want
-
We should have two rounds in presidential elections and you should be able to rank your top 2-3 choices.
So how about Vice Pres? Winner of two rounds of competition picks VP after winning?
Not quite, but its basically the way we started. Washington had no running mate. John Adams got the 2nd highest number of votes. This system was in place through the election of 1800, when an electoral tie had to be broken by the house (Jefferson thankfully beat Aaron Burr--kinda interesting story to that one).
-
Curious that this comes out now in light of the original video. Clearly the new push by the media and the satanist left. Essentially an argument that the Founders were statists. Such bullshit some of you have been programmed with.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2079445,00.html
-
Curious that this comes out now in light of the original video. Clearly the new push by the media and the satanist left. Essentially an argument that the Founders were statists. Such bullshit some of you have been programmed with.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2079445,00.html
shhhh. The Bachelor is on, then Real House wives of NYC!!!! Then the Kardashians!!!
-
Why does it matter what the framers would say or do about anything that is going on today, really? None of that matters. It's a constitution, not a religion.
-
http://www.urbanophile.com/2011/07/11/are-states-an-anachronism/
-
http://www.urbanophile.com/2011/07/11/are-states-an-anachronism/
It would seem impossible for Midwestern states to get any sillier and more irrelevant, but they’re trying.
Obviously, Longsworth is underestimating the value of having citizens that really want to be here.
-
In other news. . . (http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/07/14/california.secession/index.html?iref=obnetwork)
-
also related:
http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/google_will_be_your_new_government/
-
also related:
http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/google_will_be_your_new_government/
:frown: I thought this was going to be a cartoon. :shakesfist:
-
Why does it matter what the framers would say or do about anything that is going on today, really? None of that matters. It's a constitution, not a religion.
nice logic dipshit
-
Why does it matter what the framers would say or do about anything that is going on today, really? None of that matters. It's a constitution, not a religion.
nice logic dipshit
I'm pretty sure the founding fathers would agree with me.
-
Why does it matter what the framers would say or do about anything that is going on today, really? None of that matters. It's a constitution, not a religion.
nice logic dipshit
IMO, applying logic to the contemporary relevancy of the Constitution is a pretty dicey subject.