What if your candidate wins the popular vote, but is not made President?

a reply to: vethumanbeing

Everyone would be able to afford it. The funny thing about money is that when people are spending what they have, it likes to circulate a lot. When one is spending everything they have, all of that money goes through local businesses paying for products, material, and labor which creates work as customers frequent a business. It also gets taxed at each step of the way. Eventually the money spent is fully taxed out of the economy and back into government hands where it is then re-injected through basic income. It's the same concept as to why the Bush stimulus was deficit neutral.

a reply to: Aazadan
What is the point of money? We could have a barter and trade nation instead. Money exists to circulate; be taxed allow for bank loans and grease the wheels of basic goods and service providers.

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
a reply to: Aazadan
What is the point of money? We could have a barter and trade nation instead. Money exists to circulate; be taxed allow for bank loans and grease the wheels of basic goods and service providers.

Money can be broken down and serves as a more efficient means of exchange because it doesn't exist as a single finite unit. Additionally it allows for greater market flexibility because it enables anyone to purchase from anyone else regardless of the buyers skill set. For example, an auto mechanic can use his paycheck to buy groceries even if that person has no need for a mechanics skills. This allows many professions to remain viable when otherwise only the most vital professions would be.

As far as taxes go, what's wrong with taxes? But besides that, in the past taxes were collected on items like grain rather than coin, without money that would still happen except for most professions it would mean putting in hours of work rather than paying a bill.

a reply to: Aazadan

I realize you cannot debate this; but try conceptually to explain this concept to Native North or South Americans remnants of the Aztec or Maya Civilizations living in the 1300's (before the Spanish invasion; mirrors and beads).

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
a reply to: Aazadan

I realize you cannot debate this; but try conceptually to explain this concept to Native North or South Americans remnants of the Aztec or Maya Civilizations living in the 1300's (before the Spanish invasion; mirrors and beads).

Conceptually, those civilizations (the Native Americans atleast, I'm not sure for the others) were much closer to Communism, which is a system that can be run without money, it's effectively bartering with time rather than goods. For that matter, to a civilization that doesn't have a concept of individual ownership you're not going to be able to barter something of yours for something of theirs in the first place.

originally posted by: Aazadan
originally posted by: vethumanbeing
a reply to: Aazadan

vhb: I realize you cannot debate this; but try conceptually to explain this concept to Native North or South Americans remnants of the Aztec or Maya Civilizations living in the 1300's (before the Spanish invasion; mirrors and beads).

Aazadan: Conceptually, those civilizations (the Native Americans atleast, I'm not sure for the others) were much closer to Communism, which is a system that can be run without money, it's effectively bartering with time rather than goods. For that matter, to a civilization that doesn't have a concept of individual ownership you're not going to be able to barter something of yours for something of theirs in the first place.

Fast forward to the 1700's in North America. The Native American Tribes here could not get along with each other and constantly were at War. Why? over hunting territories. They hated each other (even though were all native to this place and supposedly pushed a grand spiritually as BROTHERS) murdered each other in vicious attacks of aggression. The White eye comes and now they have to coaless (bond) and push aside differences to act as one against a bigger aggressor--The March Of Time and Progress (a new paradigm) they cannot forestall the inevitable and must accept this fated destiny. Too late for them as they fractured themselves earlier in the game killing each other off instead of bonding against a potential threat of the White Eye taking everything they have. Even bartering doesnt work when you have thieves among you.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

Our states should bond together and get rid of the anachronism known as the Electoral College and replace same with a direct popular vote for President before it is too late for our country in present times!

originally posted by: kendix1960
a reply to: vethumanbeing

Our states should bond together and get rid of the anachronism known as the Electoral College and replace same with a direct popular vote for President before it is too late for our country in present times!

The States elect those delegates to represent them. The idea here is that there may be the potential of an underlying sinister reason why the popular vote cannot be trusted to know what or why they are voting for regarding a particular candidate.

a reply to: [post=20485723]vethumanbeing[/post

A vote in the House Of Representatives abolishing the Electoral College and then affirmed by the US Senate replacing same with the right of a popular vote for President will allow the voice of the people to be heard.


The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing but their decisions were based upon prevailing conditions that existed over 200 years ago. America needs an electorate educated enough to understand the issues and to know the candidates so that they can cast an intelligent vote. Once we achieve that goal thru enhanced educational programs, a bill should be introduced to get rid of the Electoral College IMO.

originally posted by: kendix1960
a reply to: [post=20485723]vethumanbeing[/post

Kendix: A vote in the House Of Representatives abolishing the Electoral College and then affirmed by the US Senate replacing same with the right of a popular vote for President will allow the voice of the people to be heard.[

This will never happen. The states vote their delegates as "trustees" to insure the popular vote is not high jacked by one deemed "unfit" or has dubious intent. I am not sure I could out smart the system in place; it is there for a reason.

Kendix: The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing but their decisions were based upon prevailing conditions that existed over 200 years ago. America needs an electorate educated enough to understand the issues and to know the candidates so that they can cast an intelligent vote. Once we achieve that goal thru enhanced educational programs, a bill should be introduced to get rid of the Electoral College IMO.

They; the Founding Fathers (in their wisdom) were looking across time; not envisioning a future but more to preserve in their time what was to them an idea "TIMELESS". The electorate is educated enough (think of it like a Grand Jury) as the individual States ordained themselves those chosen as the Trustees of this sacred obligation. This means those persons must bypass or reject the popular vote if they deem those votes were steered falsely by cronyism, corruption or have the potential to produce a wild cat/tyrant/dictator candidate. This goes for both parties; and may well be why both conventions may be contested this election term.

originally posted by: kendix1960
a reply to: [post=20485723]vethumanbeing[/post

A vote in the House Of Representatives abolishing the Electoral College and then affirmed by the US Senate replacing same with the right of a popular vote for President will allow the voice of the people to be heard.


The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing but their decisions were based upon prevailing conditions that existed over 200 years ago. America needs an electorate educated enough to understand the issues and to know the candidates so that they can cast an intelligent vote. Once we achieve that goal thru enhanced educational programs, a bill should be introduced to get rid of the Electoral College IMO.

That's not how it works. The voting process is written into the Constitution. That means only an amendment to the Constitution can change it. That means both houses need to pass it by 2/3 and 3/4 of states need to ratify it. That ain't happening.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

If only the electorate WERE educated enough. Unfortunately they are not. Many young folks today don't have even the foggiest notion how government works and also don't seem to have a clue as to where the present presidential candidates stand on the major issues of the day. I agree the Electoral College should remain until the education problem is resolved. But resolve this problem must!

a reply to: kendix1960

I agree with you entirely. We need to set a goal though. We need to keep that on the horizon or efforts to keep people dumb will always be prevalent. There will always be an incentive to dumb us down since that keeps us form becoming masters of our own destiny.

Good thoughts on here. I am sorry I havent been participating all that much, I had nothing to add really is all.

Great minds!

a reply to: Arizonaguy

It may be difficult for sure but the Constitution has been amended before and it can be amended again. We must try!

originally posted by: kendix1960
a reply to: Arizonaguy

It may be difficult for sure but the Constitution has been amended before and it can be amended again. We must try!

Regarding this? NEVER will happen; no amendment to the Constitution and anyone attempting to present such a Bill will be laughed out of Congress; not to ever be taken seriously (no second look).

originally posted by: kendix1960
a reply to: vethumanbeing

If only the electorate WERE educated enough. Unfortunately they are not. Many young folks today don't have even the foggiest notion how government works and also don't seem to have a clue as to where the present presidential candidates stand on the major issues of the day. I agree the Electoral College should remain until the education problem is resolved. But resolve this problem must!

You don't know who those folks are (guarantee they are not college students). You must realize the popular vote does decide most election results tried and true; it is a rare moment when it does not. There is no problem here. If you were a member of the Electoral College you might have a better perspective as to what that duty entails.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

It's worth a try even though a long shot. Besides, our congressman are being laughed out of town anyway for many reasons, and they should be!

originally posted by: kendix1960
a reply to: vethumanbeing
It's worth a try even though a long shot. Besides, our congressman are being laughed out of town anyway for many reasons, and they should be!

I do not disagree with you. History has proven this seems to be the best system that works (I think by threat alone); an evil necessity. I have enjoyed speaking with you.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

This is the 21st century and I still maintain it is high time the people themselves should be able to vote for their president by direct popular vote, the positive aspects of the Electoral college notwithstanding. America, as a democratic republic, deserves no less.