Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 162
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    33,361
    Quote Originally Posted by SiteWolf View Post
    You can't just ban the electoral college, you'd need to adjust it
    Banning it would mean going back to national elections strictly by votes, which would make the votes of large portions of the country meaningless. Votes cast by NYC alone could completely negate those of a dozen entire states.
    The greater LA area and NYC would decide pretty much every election. The EC can be fixed within the constitution as detailed in a previous post of mine.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Coventry RI
    Posts
    4,443
    More than these two lame *** parties actually be popular

    Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
    One More Time

  3. #18
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    10,171
    Place people on the court who will interpret the constitution how I want. Don't have to rewrite anything just need to win the courts.



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    31,524
    The lobby system needs to be dismantled. Obviously.

    Without taking control of media, americans will never be able to take control of our politics. Pointless battle..

    Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
    RAIDERS, SHARKS, WARRIORS

    "i don't believe in mysteries but still i pray for my sister, when speaking to the higher power that listens, to the lifeless vision of freedom everytime we're imprisoned, to the righteous victims of people of a higher position" - planet asia, old timer thoughts

    "God is Universal he is the Ruler Universal" - gangstarr (rip guru), robbin hood theory

    "don't gain the world and lose your soul, wisdom is better than silver and gold" - bob marley, zion train

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    IL
    Posts
    25,341
    Quote Originally Posted by warfelg View Post
    It really is a cycle of sucktatude. Why? We can't change those things without people in power willing to change it. Politics is a closed loop set up to only help a small percent of the population.
    Very true. Whenever we have someone willing to do it they get demonized and rigged out it.




    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    The electoral college can be fixed within the constitution if the states chose to apportion their votes rather than all or nothing. It would also be fixed within the constitution if we had the number of representatives as specified in the constitution. It's only a problem because the number of people in some districts has gotten so big. And the only reason the number of representatives stopped growing is because they ran out of space in the room which strikes me as one of the dumber reasons to screw up a system of government.

    I think voter ID is needed because I think we need to have full time voting so everyone can vote on ever coming matter at any time any day and their vote is only counted on what it is when that vote ends, and that would include online voting.

    I also think we should go to ranked choice voting.
    But states with low populations still shouldn't have a disproportionate say...isnt that the point of the EC?

    Quote Originally Posted by SiteWolf View Post
    You can't just ban the electoral college, you'd need to adjust it
    Banning it would mean going back to national elections strictly by votes, which would make the votes of large portions of the country meaningless. Votes cast by NYC alone could completely negate those of a dozen entire states.
    Rural states with lower population should never have disproportionate say in electing a president. That's what the electoral college does.

    The way it is, just a few swing states determine it anyway, no?

    By the way! I went to banff last year and drove the SD on the way back. So the northern lights at night (really just a red glare that was hard to see because it was so cloudy). Have you seen that there before?

    My wife and I were 95 percent sure but havent been able to corroborate it.

    Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

    Click here to register!

    Hope to see some new posters around here soon.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    33,361
    Quote Originally Posted by mngopher35 View Post
    Place people on the court who will interpret the constitution how I want. Don't have to rewrite anything just need to win the courts.
    "how i want" ... so you just want to be emperor?

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    33,361
    Quote Originally Posted by nastynice View Post
    The lobby system needs to be dismantled. Obviously.

    Without taking control of media, americans will never be able to take control of our politics. Pointless battle..
    "take control of media" like fascists and communists do?

    Can't do that or "dismantle" the "lobby system" without changing the constitution.

  8. #23
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    10,171
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    "how i want" ... so you just want to be emperor?
    If my options are current way of doing things or I make the decisions, sure I would settle for that. I actually don't want any power at all and just want politicians to create a normal environment for society to live and prosper.

    The obvious point is you can change things by owning the courts, that's why politics has in part become a battle of that and the SCOTUS issues come up and so on. It isn't about a fixed interpretation of the constitution (the best/common sense and so on version if you will), it is about how you can twist the interpretation to your beliefs.

    Winning that game that's already started is a way to make changes/fixes which is why it's such a battle.

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    33,361
    Quote Originally Posted by blams View Post
    Very true. Whenever we have someone willing to do it they get demonized and rigged out it.






    But states with low populations still shouldn't have a disproportionate say...isnt that the point of the EC?



    Rural states with lower population should never have disproportionate say in electing a president. That's what the electoral college does.

    The way it is, just a few swing states determine it anyway, no?

    By the way! I went to banff last year and drove the SD on the way back. So the northern lights at night (really just a red glare that was hard to see because it was so cloudy). Have you seen that there before?

    My wife and I were 95 percent sure but havent been able to corroborate it.
    If, as the constitution says, there was a representative for every 50k people, then Wyoming would have 11 representatives and 13 EC votes rather than the current 3, but California would have 790 representatives and 792 EC votes rather than the current 55. Right now each EC vote in Wyoming represents 200k people while in California it's 718k. The reason there is a discrepancy is because congress decided to stop growing and it twisted the numbers.

    In addition, 2 states have chosen to have their EC votes proportionally applied based on the district voting. If every state did the same then there never would have been a president elected without the popular votes. Blaming the EC is just a ploy to keep people occupied and give them something to blame that isn't the real issue. The real issue is that politicians want to win and they will twist the system any way they can to maximize their power and to keep it.

    And since I said that, term limits in every elected position seem an obvious need.

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    33,361
    Quote Originally Posted by mngopher35 View Post
    If my options are current way of doing things or I make the decisions, sure I would settle for that. I actually don't want any power at all and just want politicians to create a normal environment for society to live and prosper.

    The obvious point is you can change things by owning the courts, that's why politics has in part become a battle of that and the SCOTUS issues come up and so on. It isn't about a fixed interpretation of the constitution (the best/common sense and so on version if you will), it is about how you can twist the interpretation to your beliefs.

    Winning that game that's already started is a way to make changes/fixes which is why it's such a battle.
    I would rather there be debate on the court. I think them lasting beyond administrations is a good tool for them being allowed growth and protection from changes in administrative ideologies.

    You can make decisions without twisting the court to your will.

  11. #26
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    10,171
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    I would rather there be debate on the court. I think them lasting beyond administrations is a good tool for them being allowed growth and protection from changes in administrative ideologies.

    You can make decisions without twisting the court to your will.
    You can, I think people are naive if they don't see the games being played around the courts already though. There is a reason they fought so hard not to let Obama appoint. We have covered some very obvious cases with crazy reasoning/legit dissent and so on.

    You can make decisions that way but unfortunately we don't seem to and instead do the games I mentioned.

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    31,524
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    "take control of media" like fascists and communists do?

    .
    Na, kinda more like PBS

    Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
    RAIDERS, SHARKS, WARRIORS

    "i don't believe in mysteries but still i pray for my sister, when speaking to the higher power that listens, to the lifeless vision of freedom everytime we're imprisoned, to the righteous victims of people of a higher position" - planet asia, old timer thoughts

    "God is Universal he is the Ruler Universal" - gangstarr (rip guru), robbin hood theory

    "don't gain the world and lose your soul, wisdom is better than silver and gold" - bob marley, zion train

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    IL
    Posts
    25,341
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    If, as the constitution says, there was a representative for every 50k people, then Wyoming would have 11 representatives and 13 EC votes rather than the current 3, but California would have 790 representatives and 792 EC votes rather than the current 55. Right now each EC vote in Wyoming represents 200k people while in California it's 718k. The reason there is a discrepancy is because congress decided to stop growing and it twisted the numbers.

    In addition, 2 states have chosen to have their EC votes proportionally applied based on the district voting. If every state did the same then there never would have been a president elected without the popular votes. Blaming the EC is just a ploy to keep people occupied and give them something to blame that isn't the real issue. The real issue is that politicians want to win and they will twist the system any way they can to maximize their power and to keep it.

    And since I said that, term limits in every elected position seem an obvious need.
    I would agree with that, but doesnt that just do the same thing as having the voting percentage/totals dictate the winner? I'm on board with that type of reform to the EC.

    Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

    Click here to register!

    Hope to see some new posters around here soon.

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    33,361
    Quote Originally Posted by mngopher35 View Post
    You can, I think people are naive if they don't see the games being played around the courts already though. There is a reason they fought so hard not to let Obama appoint. We have covered some very obvious cases with crazy reasoning/legit dissent and so on.

    You can make decisions that way but unfortunately we don't seem to and instead do the games I mentioned.
    I agree, but I don't see a way within the constitution to fix it.

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    33,361
    Quote Originally Posted by nastynice View Post
    Na, kinda more like PBS
    PBS doesn't "take control of the media"

Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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