Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
I disagree with the electoral college. I know the founding... errr those guys that were around in the 1700s believed firmly that the populace was way too stupid to make the right decision,
|
-- My high school and college American History courses say you are incorrect.
The whole idea behind the Electoral College was to ensure that the larger states did not have undue influence over policy that would impact the smaller states.
The whole idea of the union was that the states would remain as autonomous as possible with minimal government entanglements and oversight.
Without the Electoral College, Politicians would campaign in the heavily populated states and neglect the rest. States like Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Kansas, Idaho and their citizens would NEVER be taken into consideration.
That would also mean that political decisions coming out of Congress and the White House would be geared mainly to placating those concentrated areas and the rest of the country would be written off.
Politicians would shuttle between CA, FL. NY, IL and a few others and the rest would be ignored. A large swath of America's population would have no voice in government.
The Founding Fathers make a wise choice.
"And I'm still pissed about Gore. Don't expect me to get over that. Ever. "
-- Al Gore, VP to one of the most popular presidents in history, duringa time of prosperity and relative peace should have cake walked into office. Florida should not have been a make or break for him, period.
I have no problem with how Florida turned out. His "count every vote" idea was shown to be a crock the moment he tried to keep the absentee military and overseas votes from being counted.
News agencies, TV and press paid millions to conduct their own recounts and found that Big Al lost fair and square.
But the thing that strikes me the funniest is that if the loser had just managed to carry is home state, the outcome of Florida would have been moot.
Al didn't make it to the show because he lost in his...own...home...state. Priceless.
---------- Post added at 09:01 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:37 AM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
That's like 6 discussions. 
Abortion: this shouldn't be a state right. It's been established by Supreme Court ruling, if states don't like it they can secede. |
-- So, just to be clear...
If the Supreme Court had decided that it was up to the individual states to set their own laws on abortion, you would say they were wrong.
If you are going to use the Supreme Court as proof of a justification for one position...
Same with 'the voice of the people.'
If the majority votes for a specific law (and it isn't found unconstitutional) then it is ridiculous to decry the process and beg the courts to overturn it.
Especially if you (by 'you' I mean people in general) used the 'the people have spoken' election results to prove that other issues are rightfully legal or illegal in the past.
Case in point: CA and Gay Marraige.
I get a little tired of the "This issues transcends all others" argument to say it should not be a state decision. It is a matter of perspective.
The majority of people who voted in CA chose to keep Gay Marraige illegal....the people have spoken....and the interests groups went absolutely APE.
But if it had been the other way around and the majority had decided that Gay Marraige should be legal, these same interest groups would have said, "the people have spoken" and they have decided what they want. That makes it legal and we should honor it.
I matters not to me. I would accepted either outcome, but then again, I no longer live in CA. But I would have supported the outcome because it was a legal and binding election, whether the interest groups like the outcome or not.