do you agree with the electoral college stsyem?

mmhmm. I'd certainly bet that everyone else is like me enough to see that as quite a bit beyond a mild flame. If you were indeed merely shooting for your usual passive aggressive level of insult (yeah right) I'd suggest some editing..

I certainly don
 
I certainly don’t want him carded or anything like that, it’s no big deal in here people talk and that’s why they are here.

In person thing are different.

I'd certainly say anything to your face that I'd say here. The fact is that you responded to a factual correction of your post by lying about me and attacking my character. That's something I doubt *you* would do in person, and if you did, you'd expect some kind of response no matter who you did it to. I'd think that being told that not everyone is the kind of dishonorable piece of shit you seem to be would be on the milder end of the responses you'd get.
 
I think it's time to get rid of the representatives and make decisions via direct citizen vote.
 
I'd certainly say anything to your face that I'd say here. The fact is that you responded to a factual correction of your post by lying about me and attacking my character. That's something I doubt *you* would do in person, and if you did, you'd expect some kind of response no matter who you did it to. I'd think that being told that not everyone is the kind of dishonorable piece of shit you seem to be would be on the milder end of the responses you'd get.



Do you actually think you intimidate me in anyway?

I view you through your post history and the way you post, while I respect you knowledge on some things like economics on other things you come across as an elitist left wing ass and I call them like I see them.

Any time you are in my neighborhood your welcome to come by the gym and we can “work out/role”.

If you want to take it off the matt that’s up to you to start.
 
I'm just here giving helpful advice. Much like when I warned him that calling people "white supremacist" without proof over he internet can actually net him criminal charges in some countries.

Not that getting blocked from wasting your days arguing on a message board is actually a hindrance in life.

Yea but he seems to want to go someplace with this, it
 
Do you actually think you intimidate me in anyway?

Do you actually think you intimidate me in anyway?

Did I in any way suggest that I'm intimidating you? I said that if you behave as boorishly in your real life as you do here (which I doubt you do), you'd get a response from people and likely one that is far stronger than the one you got here.

Yea but he seems to want to go someplace with this, it’s up to him.

LOL!
 
Did I in any way suggest that I'm intimidating you? I said that if you behave as boorishly in your real life as you do here (which I doubt you do), you'd get a response from people and likely one that is far stronger than the one you got here.



LOL!

You have no idea of my history but I’ll give you a clue.

I treat others with respect as long as they do the same for me but I call them like I see them.

I don’t back down when fucked with, win, lose, live or die and I’m still here and have been for a long time.

And this place is about talking but anything I put here I will say to anyone’s face.

I don’t seek out political decision in life because I have a low tolerance for shit but if asked I give my thoughts in honesty.
 
I think it's time to get rid of the representatives and make decisions via direct citizen vote.

I'm with you on this one. Representatives are just a temporary version of royalty that aren't nearly temporary enough, plus they are too easily bought.
 
NO, NO, NO, this isn't it.

It's the way it is because our founding fathers understood that a representative democracy is superior to a direct democracy.

Unfortunately this foundational concept of our country has been eroded over the years, so we just end up with a bunch of fools in office that pander to the masses.

Nobody should ever be allowed to vote for someone they can't actually meet and talk with. Citizens should vote for their local representatives, who then vote for their state representatives, who then vote for their federal representatives. It's much harder to fool people when you live in their nieghborhood and have to look them in the eye.

Pretty much every claim in your post is wrong. For one thing, it's much, much easier to fool people when you can look them in the eye. For another, representative democracy is, you know, a democratic gov't where we have representatives (like presidents, Senators, Congressfolk, etc.). We still have that, and it has eroded. Shit, we still have the ridiculous EC (and, BTW, one of the main reasons for it was that the founders feared people would just vote for shitty candidates from their own state). Politicians have always pandered to the masses--and the masses are far, far more sophisticated than they've ever been. Many of the founders (most notably Madison) realized that a bigger voting population would lead to a better caliber of elected officials. Etc. If there's any point you made that I didn't address, just assume that it's wrong, too.
 
Last edited:
As a third partier, we could live without it.
 
NO, NO, NO, this isn't it.

It's the way it is because our founding fathers understood that a representative democracy is superior to a direct democracy.

Unfortunately this foundational concept of our country has been eroded over the years, so we just end up with a bunch of fools in office that pander to the masses.

Nobody should ever be allowed to vote for someone they can't actually meet and talk with. Citizens should vote for their local representatives, who then vote for their state representatives, who then vote for their federal representatives. It's much harder to fool people when you live in their nieghborhood and have to look them in the eye.

Yea when I researched there was a lot more to it then what I first posted.
 
The methods used to seat congress evens the playing field and I support it.
How so? Numerically we know for a fact that the methods to seat congress (and elect president) substantively favor voters from lower population areas. The playing field is emphatically tilted in one direction, a direction that generally favors conservatives and currently favors the GOP. As I posted previously, you seem to favor this imbalance because it favors your views.
 
I'm with you on this one. Representatives are just a temporary version of royalty that aren't nearly temporary enough, plus they are too easily bought.

exactly. no bribery. no special interest groups. no congressmen getting jobs in corporations after retiring from politics, in gratitude for services rendered to the company while on congress. etc.

that's what we need. that and exams for voting licenses so complete ignorants don't vote on things they don't have a clue about.
 
How so? Numerically we know for a fact that the methods to seat congress (and elect president) substantively favor voters from lower population areas. The playing field is emphatically tilted in one direction, a direction that generally favors conservatives and currently favors the GOP. As I posted previously, you seem to favor this imbalance because it favors your views.

I believe in states power and rights within the limits of the constitution to keep this and prevent an all powerful federal government the smaller states need to balance the power.
 
So if the smaller states arent unfairly overrepresented they are 'being trampled on by an overbearing federal government'?

Intredasting
 
As an outsider, it makes sense to me.

States with smaller populations would be vastly ignored if it was straight up votes. Politicians would simply focus on the heavily populated states.

But with the electoral college system you have the majority of states worth 3-10 points or even 3-15 points. Only 9 states worth more that 15 points, so a lot of those smaller states suddenly matter.

Obviously many states are historically left or right wing states, but in theory, if one party could win all the smaller states then they have a pretty good shot at winning.
 
I believe in states power and rights within the limits of the constitution to keep this and prevent an all powerful federal government the smaller states need to balance the power.
We're not talking about a balance, in terms of the electoral college we're talking about smaller (by population) states having greater power than larger (by population) states. In terms of the House we also see that rural areas are given more clout as well via gerrymandering. This isn't about balance but rather the fact that there is currently an imbalance. Why do you persist in misunderstanding this simple point? The only explanation I can see for your persistent misunderstanding is that there is currently an imbalance that favors your views so you're choosing to be blind to it.

Again, if you live in a smaller population state your presidential vote counts for more than a presidential vote in a more populous state.
 
Back
Top