|
Post by Erick "Zap" Szczap on Jun 8, 2008 11:41:19 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. What is the benefit of the winner-take-all formula? What is truly the benefit of a quicker primary? Why rush to choose one candidate and leave half the voters feeling like their participation was worthless? The democratic party's system, while not perfect, better reflected what the people wanted. For crying out loud, think of all the states that never even got to chime in on who they'd want as their republican candidate because the process was done before their state even got to have its primary. I see no upside to such a system. And for every example you could give me of the population wanting something that's "not in our best interest", I could give you an example of how our supposedly representative government has done something that is "not in our best interest". This government has let illegal immigration get out of hand for decades now. Twelve million illegal aliens didn't just show up here over night. This government has let this country's oil dependency carry on for decades now. This government has let pork barrel spending get out of control for decades now. This government has let the federal reserve destroy the middle class for decades now. This government, a government that is supposed to be of the people, by the people, and FOR the people, has forgotten that THEY are here to serve US, and NOT the other way around. So maybe it is time that we let the popular vote decide an election and put the power back into the PEOPLE'S hands. This is, after all, OUR country...NOT the GOVERNMENT'S country.
|
|
|
Post by Johnny Edwards on Jun 8, 2008 11:49:35 GMT -5
^totally agree. Without us there would be no Government.
|
|
|
Post by Johnny Edwards on Jun 8, 2008 11:51:49 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. IMO gays shouldn't marry an if thats popular vote then it should be so. I think marriage is between a man an a woman an thats originally what it was intended to be outright plainly. The minority should never win over the majority in a democracy.
|
|
|
Post by Johnny Edwards on Jun 8, 2008 11:53:06 GMT -5
An if they voted for it to be legal then I couldn't argue thats the majority whether I like it or not. Even though I would still speak against it.
|
|
|
Post by Leonard Harkless on Jun 8, 2008 12:15:47 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. What is the benefit of the winner-take-all formula? What is truly the benefit of a quicker primary? Why rush to choose one candidate and leave half the voters feeling like their participation was worthless? The democratic party's system, while not perfect, better reflected what the people wanted. For crying out loud, think of all the states that never even got to chime in on who they'd want as their republican candidate because the process was done before their state even got to have its primary. I see no upside to such a system. And for every example you could give me of the population wanting something that's "not in our best interest", I could give you an example of how our supposedly representative government has done something that is "not in our best interest". This government has let illegal immigration get out of hand for decades now. Twelve million illegal aliens didn't just show up here over night. This government has let this country's oil dependency carry on for decades now. This government has let pork barrel spending get out of control for decades now. This government has let the federal reserve destroy the middle class for decades now. This government, a government that is supposed to be of the people, by the people, and FOR the people, has forgotten that THEY are here to serve US, and NOT the other way around. So maybe it is time that we let the popular vote decide an election and put the power back into the PEOPLE'S hands. This is, after all, OUR country...NOT the GOVERNMENT'S country. Erick, Most of that is true and one of our biggest problems is that our population has turned to an attitude of what can our government do for us attitude. Our congressmen and women have all been doing what they can to accommodate that attitude with pork barrel spending. They then go back to their districts and get re-elected based on all the federal money they brought into the state or district. Few of those voters realize that all those funds were a big problem why our deficit is so high. If we quit spending money we don't have on domestic boondoggles and spending money helping other countries that just don't appreciate it, out dollar would go back up and therefor the cost of oil would go down. We have been trying to drill for oil in new places and road blocks is all that happens. Our domestic oil production is down 60% from 20 years ago. Yet we want other countries to increase production when we will not be willing to do the same. None of this will be fixed without our population making some internal changes in attitude. As long as the attitude is "what are you going to do for me to get my vote" we will continue down the path of over spending. The immigration problem is easily fixed. Crack down on businesses that hire them. No jobs and they will go home. Just try to go to Canada and get a Job. It is very easy to get there but you cannot work so you cannot stay there. We don't need to deport anyone, just make it impossible to work and they will leave.
|
|
|
Post by Leonard Harkless on Jun 8, 2008 13:29:32 GMT -5
Obama reports 10,000 people killed by a tornado in KansasObama Sees Dead Peopleobama - 57 states?John McCain doesn't understand economicsNo thanks - I am writing in for Ron Paul. If more like you waits for Ron Paul, we can all look forward to says Hail to the Chief President Obama
|
|
|
Post by Erick "Zap" Szczap on Jun 8, 2008 14:53:06 GMT -5
Erick, Most of that is true and one of our biggest problems is that our population has turned to an attitude of what can our government do for us attitude. Our congressmen and women have all been doing what they can to accommodate that attitude with pork barrel spending. They then go back to their districts and get re-elected based on all the federal money they brought into the state or district. Few of those voters realize that all those funds were a big problem why our deficit is so high. If we quit spending money we don't have on domestic boondoggles and spending money helping other countries that just don't appreciate it, out dollar would go back up and therefor the cost of oil would go down. We have been trying to drill for oil in new places and road blocks is all that happens. Our domestic oil production is down 60% from 20 years ago. Yet we want other countries to increase production when we will not be willing to do the same. None of this will be fixed without our population making some internal changes in attitude. As long as the attitude is "what are you going to do for me to get my vote" we will continue down the path of over spending. The immigration problem is easily fixed. Crack down on businesses that hire them. No jobs and they will go home. Just try to go to Canada and get a Job. It is very easy to get there but you cannot work so you cannot stay there. We don't need to deport anyone, just make it impossible to work and they will leave. Couldn't agree more with you on both counts.
|
|
|
Post by Leonard Harkless on Jun 8, 2008 14:56:19 GMT -5
[If more like you waits for Ron Paul, we can all look forward to says Hail to the Chief President Obama We have two, far-left warmongers eager to take away even more of our rights, bankrupt the government, crash the economy and devalue the dollar even further – and both are demonstratively incompetent (per the above clips). How is one “better” than the other? One is the most Liberal of all Senators, one is determined to have socialized health care. Speaking of which I would like someone, anyone, to give us all an example of one thing that the Feds have run efficiently. Just one. Social Security? Naw bad example, guess I can't name one. On to the Obama bashing ;D One is determined to raise the capital gains tax even though he admits that will actually bring in less money but it is more "fair" One wants to meet with America's worse enemies with no pre conditions, therefor increasing their prestige in the regions that they exist. One will appoint liberal judges that legislate from the bench. Need I go on?
|
|
|
Post by Erick "Zap" Szczap on Jun 8, 2008 14:56:42 GMT -5
We have two, far-left warmongers eager to take away even more of our rights, bankrupt the government, crash the economy and devalue the dollar even further – and both are demonstratively incompetent (per the above clips). How is one “better” than the other? I agree with this too. I don't vote for the "lesser of two evils". I will vote for the best candidate. Many will say "you're wasting your vote". In my opinion, the only truly wasted vote is a vote in favor of an evil, even if it's "the lesser of two evils".
|
|
|
Post by Tim "Powerhouse" Parker on Jun 8, 2008 15:12:42 GMT -5
Obama reports 10,000 people killed by a tornado in Kansas ; Awwww ... come on, give him a break. Cant blame a guy for wanting to be The President of the United "57 States"!!!! very sad
|
|
|
Post by CHRISTIAN BINNIE on Jun 8, 2008 15:44:12 GMT -5
It is to bad that the Republican party put up poor candidates......Or should I say a Poor candidate WON the Republican primary.....
. In the Republican primary, theSuper delegates VOTE goes to the one with the most POPULAR votes..NOT true with the Dems Primary..In the Dems primary, the super delegates can cast their vote for either candidate, NOT necassarily the one with the most POPULAR votes..THIS IS HILIARYS contention.....Funny, its the same thing the Dems complained about when Bush "stole" the election for Gore when he won the Electoral college..
Also, Candidates backgrounds, affliations, etc ARE EXTREMELY IMPORTANT ISSUES to decide on whether who you will vote for.....Their isn't much difference between the candidates and their GOVERNMENTAL issues anyway...LOL
.
|
|
|
Post by Erick "Zap" Szczap on Jun 8, 2008 16:10:38 GMT -5
Christian, do you think a different republican candidate may have been nominated if the republican party didn't use a winner-takes-all format? If all 50 states and voting territories had been given a chance to vote, perhaps a "poor candidate" wouldn't have won?
|
|
|
Post by Elaine Blik on Jun 8, 2008 16:19:44 GMT -5
All I know that the critical future of our country hangs in the balance with the outcome of this year's election(s)... specifically the General Election. I wish I didn't care so much. I lose too much sleep when election time comes around.
|
|
|
Post by Johnny Edwards on Jun 8, 2008 16:39:59 GMT -5
I think our country is in for another rough 4 years.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Kaufman on Jun 8, 2008 17:47:29 GMT -5
I can't remember the name of the show, but i was watching something on HBO investigating the voting that was done back when it was Gore vs. Bush. I think it was in Ohio they were doing random testing of the voting machines they used. When they tested the machine they put in like 6 no and 2 yes. When they ran the report that counts the number of votes, it printed out 7 yes and 1 no. They went into the machine and looked at the actual data and it reflected the values on the report, so there was no way of knowing if the data was accurate at all. So, instead of getting a different voting machine/software, they decided to use them for the election.
There was all sorts of dirtiness like this they showed. Anyone else see this show?
|
|