|
|
Post by Ryan Thames on Jun 6, 2008 17:36:40 GMT -5
i think ill for the independant
|
|
|
|
Post by Robert Bishop on Jun 6, 2008 17:49:33 GMT -5
i hear Jesse V was talking independant
|
|
|
|
Post by Erick "Zap" Szczap on Jun 7, 2008 11:01:30 GMT -5
I'd vote Bob Barr but I'm not thrilled that he supported the Patriot Act. He's still the only candidate that I wouldn't categorize as "evil" (as in "the lesser of two evils").
P.S. Someone please remind me why, in this day and age, we're still using the electoral college process to select our president instead of basing it on the popular vote.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnny Edwards on Jun 7, 2008 11:07:20 GMT -5
No idea. It should be the popular vote since the people is supposed to be who selects the president.
|
|
|
|
Post by TK on Jun 7, 2008 11:16:51 GMT -5
none of the above.....sorry Ryan.
TK
|
|
|
|
Post by Erick "Zap" Szczap on Jun 7, 2008 18:37:57 GMT -5
No idea. It should be the popular vote since the people is supposed to be who selects the president. We have politicians that want to amend our constitution to forbid gay marriage yet they won't amend the constitution to represent the actual will of the people, that being the popular vote. That amazes me. And nobody talks about it. Our constitution has been beaten to a pulp by politicians as of late, yet the one amendment I'd agree with, an amendment that would result in a voting process more reflective of the people's votes, hasn't even been brought up by a single politician. |
|
|
|
Post by Leonard Harkless on Jun 7, 2008 23:14:14 GMT -5
No idea. It should be the popular vote since the people is supposed to be who selects the president. We have politicians that want to amend our constitution to forbid gay marriage yet they won't amend the constitution to represent the actual will of the people, that being the popular vote. That amazes me. And nobody talks about it. Our constitution has been beaten to a pulp by politicians as of late, yet the one amendment I'd agree with, an amendment that would result in a voting process more reflective of the people's votes, hasn't even been brought up by a single politician. Eric we have a representative government not a basic democratic government. The will of the people are too easily swayed. Look at our history for prime examples. One comes to mind....Salem witch hunts. That was the "will" of the people. Our biggest problem is Judges making law instead of following the constitution. We need more strict constitutionalist judges. |
|
|
|
Post by Ryan Thames on Jun 8, 2008 1:00:35 GMT -5
i would vote for Ron Paul as the president of the confederate states of america.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnny Edwards on Jun 8, 2008 10:25:28 GMT -5
That was a completely different time period though Leonard. People today want to be more independent so they aren't as easily swayed. It is a Representative government which is exactly why it should be the popular vote that elects the President.
|
|
|
|
Post by Leonard Harkless on Jun 8, 2008 10:37:04 GMT -5
That was a completely different time period though Leonard. People today want to be more independent so they aren't as easily swayed. It is a Representative government which is exactly why it should be the popular vote that elects the President. The representative is the electoral collage. That is just not going to change. Salem was a while ago I will give you that. So how about something closer to our time. The will of the people by a popular vote would abolish Gays ability to Marry. The very thing that you were bashing our congressmen in trying to do. Again I say that the "people" are too easily swayed and alot of bad things will be done in the name of the popular vote. |
|
|
|
Post by Erick "Zap" Szczap on Jun 8, 2008 10:56:14 GMT -5
We have politicians that want to amend our constitution to forbid gay marriage yet they won't amend the constitution to represent the actual will of the people, that being the popular vote. That amazes me. And nobody talks about it. Our constitution has been beaten to a pulp by politicians as of late, yet the one amendment I'd agree with, an amendment that would result in a voting process more reflective of the people's votes, hasn't even been brought up by a single politician. Eric we have a representative government not a basic democratic government. The will of the people are too easily swayed. Look at our history for prime examples. One comes to mind....Salem witch hunts. That was the "will" of the people. Our biggest problem is Judges making law instead of following the constitution. We need more strict constitutionalist judges. Leonard, I agree about the judges, but I disagree on the principle of a 'representative government' whose purpose is to somehow filter out the swaying of opinions by voters. The ultimate representation of the electorate would be to elect based on a popular vote. Otherwise you are discounting nearly half of the votes being cast. For example, McCain will likely win North Carolina. If I were an Obama supporter my vote would be WORTHLESS here in North Carolina because all of North Carolina's electoral votes would go to McCain. If we used the popular vote instead, my vote for Obama might actually mean something. Same thing goes for a republican vote in California or a democratic vote in Texas. Everyone's vote should mean something, regardless of the state you live in. And Leonard, let's not be silly in believing that this system somehow changes the fact that voters' opinions are constantly being swayed by petty 'talking points'. Right now MSNBC is pushing for Obama and Fox News is pushing for McCain. We're hearing about such absurd topics as Father Pfleger's suspension and Cindy McCain's tax returns instead of real issues. That's what the media does, and that's what American voters get wrapped up in...when they're not wondering if Brangelina is having twins. |
|
|
|
Post by Erick "Zap" Szczap on Jun 8, 2008 10:59:09 GMT -5
i would vote for Ron Paul as the president of the confederate states of america. I would vote for Ron Paul as the president of the United States of America...a candidate that doesn't ignore the atrocities of the Federal Reserve, the weakening of our borders and our sovereignty, the beating our Constitution has taken at the hand of contemporary politicians, and the money that both democrats and neo-cons are wasting. |
|
|
|
Post by Erick "Zap" Szczap on Jun 8, 2008 11:08:53 GMT -5
That was a completely different time period though Leonard. People today want to be more independent so they aren't as easily swayed. It is a Representative government which is exactly why it should be the popular vote that elects the President. The representative is the electoral collage. That is just not going to change. Salem was a while ago I will give you that. So how about something closer to our time. The will of the people by a popular vote would abolish Gays ability to Marry. The very thing that you were bashing our congressmen in trying to do. Again I say that the "people" are too easily swayed and alot of bad things will be done in the name of the popular vote. Actually, the popular vote would NOT abolish gay marriage. Gay marriage is not a federal issue. It's a state issue. See, this is where the american political machine has gotten jammed. We're treating issues like gay marriage as if they're a national issue. Much like abortion, these issues are NOT the responsibility of the federal government. These issues should be handled on the state level. That's why it amazes me when, amidst a brutal war, a mortgage meltdown, a credit crunch, and an energy crisis we still have federal-level republicans wasting our time with an issue like gay marriage. Gay marriage is a state-level issue. The fact that our federal government has stuck their nose into it is another example of how our government has gotten too big. Want a better contemporary comparison to the electoral college? Look at the difference between the democratic and republican primaries. The republicans us an all-or-nothing system. The democrats use a popular vote system. The republicans definitely got their nominee quicker, but look at how unhappy most republicans are with the nominee they're stuck with. Specifically, evangelical republicans who backed Huckabee feel very disenfranchised right now. They're stuck with a liberal-minded neo-con as their candidate. On the flip side, the democrats went through a brutal primary that was neck and neck right to the end. But at the end of the day the more popular candidate won (of course, there was some controversy with michigan and florida, but the party did what they could to iron out those wrinkles). Now, Hillary will back Obama and by November the party will be unified behind its strongest and most proven candidate. The republicans, by comparison, will limp into the election season with a liberal neo-con as their candidate. The result? The democrats will likely turn out in record numbers, while some republicans hesitantly vote for "the lesser of two evils"...but most stay at home and don't vote at all. The popular vote just makes sense. |
|
|
|
Post by Leonard Harkless on Jun 8, 2008 11:12:36 GMT -5
Erick,
The examples are too many in our history of the population wanting something not in our best interest. We elect representatives to maintain a more even approach to issues and decisions. I have given several examples of that. Sometimes the popular opinion is so strong that it does move our politicians to do what the masses want. The latest example is immigration reform. With out the mass outcry against it, it would have passed.
You are right about when a state is won the entire state goes to the winner in a winner take all sort of approach. Exactly how the republicans get their nominee as opposed to the Democratic party which has given us this year long rehashing of who to pick. I still like the winner take all formula.
|
|
|
|
Post by Leonard Harkless on Jun 8, 2008 11:18:38 GMT -5
The representative is the electoral collage. That is just not going to change. Salem was a while ago I will give you that. So how about something closer to our time. The will of the people by a popular vote would abolish Gays ability to Marry. The very thing that you were bashing our congressmen in trying to do. Again I say that the "people" are too easily swayed and alot of bad things will be done in the name of the popular vote. Actually, the popular vote would NOT abolish gay marriage. Gay marriage is not a federal issue. It's a state issue. See, this is where the american political machine has gotten jammed. We're treating issues like gay marriage as if they're a national issue. Much like abortion, these issues are NOT the responsibility of the federal government. These issues should be handled on the state level. That's why it amazes me when, amidst a brutal war, a mortgage meltdown, a credit crunch, and an energy crisis we still have federal-level republicans wasting our time with an issue like gay marriage. Gay marriage is a state-level issue. The fact that our federal government has stuck their nose into it is another example of how our government has gotten too big. Want a better contemporary comparison to the electoral college? Look at the difference between the democratic and republican primaries. The republicans us an all-or-nothing system. The democrats use a popular vote system. The republicans definitely got their nominee quicker, but look at how unhappy most republicans are with the nominee they're stuck with. Specifically, evangelical republicans who backed Huckabee feel very disenfranchised right now. They're stuck with a liberal-minded neo-con as their candidate. On the flip side, the democrats went through a brutal primary that was neck and neck right to the end. But at the end of the day the more popular candidate won (of course, there was some controversy with michigan and florida, but the party did what they could to iron out those wrinkles). Now, Hillary will back Obama and by November the party will be unified behind its strongest and most proven candidate. The republicans, by comparison, will limp into the election season with a liberal neo-con as their candidate. The result? The democrats will likely turn out in record numbers, while some republicans hesitantly vote for "the lesser of two evils"...but most stay at home and don't vote at all. The popular vote just makes sense. It doesn't matter if the gay marriage is a state issue or not if put to a vote by the people it would be law that they could not marry. That is a fact and a good example of the will of the people. I disagree entirely about Obama and Hillary. 40% of the Hillary voters by exit polls will vote for McCane (who you call a neo con ;D). I too liked Huckabee more but picking Obama over McCane? Never. |
|
