It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A Question for all Candidates

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 06:17 PM
link   
You're missing my point. If people in rural areas know that large metropolitan areas are essentially what decides elections, what motivation would they have to vote? Their opinion wouldn't really count.




posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
You're missing my point. If people in rural areas know that large metropolitan areas are essentially what decides elections, what motivation would they have to vote? Their opinion wouldn't really count.


Well not everyone in a metroplitan area is going to be the same.

Add to that that cities can generally be on either side.



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
You're missing my point. If people in rural areas know that large metropolitan areas are essentially what decides elections, what motivation would they have to vote? Their opinion wouldn't really count.


I don't think the demographics are as black and white as they used to be and I would also attribute this to the speed at which information flows.

I can't see how the clear will of the majority - especially in determining the president - could be a bad thing.



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by befoiled
I don't think the demographics are as black and white as they used to be and I would also attribute this to the speed at which information flows.

I can't see how the clear will of the majority - especially in determining the president - could be a bad thing.


Are you sure? Did you not see the big red map in the last election? All red except for the coasts and Great Lakes area? The fact is... Big city folk don't think the same as rural folk. They don't have the consider the same things a priority that "most" people in large urban areas do. The same can be said during state elections. The whole state of Michigan is red... Except the Detroit area. Which happens to decide every senatorial election.

One close election... I believe the popular vote not matching the electoral vote only happened once, I could be wrong... And all of a sudden the system is messed up?

Oh, and sorry to those saying we are a Democracy... You are wrong. We are a Representative Republic. Or a Constitutional Republic.


Outside source
The United States of America is one of the oldest constitutional republics in the world. According to James Woodburn, in The American Republic and Its Government, "the constitutional republic with its limitations on popular government is clearly involved in the Constitution, as seen in the election of the President, the election of the Senate and the appointment of the Supreme Court." He says in a republic, as distinguished from a democracy, the people are not only checked in choosing officials but also in making laws.

Click Here Holmes



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by LostSailor
Are you sure? Did you not see the big red map in the last election? All red except for the coasts and Great Lakes area? The fact is... Big city folk don't think the same as rural folk...Oh, and sorry to those saying we are a Democracy... You are wrong. We are a Representative Republic. Or a Constitutional Republic.


In the the 2004 presidential election, Ohio for instance was red by 51% to 49%. Those maps merely showed the way the majority in each state voted. In some cases it was quite close. One of our most rural states, Montana, elected a democratic senator in '06. Times they are a changin'.

I know, I know, we are not a true democracy. We just need to be.



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 06:49 PM
link   
Here is a question:

Why should 10 peoples views be more important than 1000 peoples?



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
Here is a question:

Why should 10 peoples views be more important than 1000 peoples?


You know that is not how it works... I hope...

The Bush/Gore election was the closest in history. The system works as it is in my opinion. I am not of the liberal mindset so I don't think the Constitution needs... or should... ever be rewritten.



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by LostSailor

Originally posted by Odium
Here is a question:

Why should 10 peoples views be more important than 1000 peoples?


You know that is not how it works... I hope...

The Bush/Gore election was the closest in history. The system works as it is in my opinion. I am not of the liberal mindset so I don't think the Constitution needs... or should... ever be rewritten.


State: California
Population: 36,457,549

State: Wyoming
Population: 515,004

Do you believe the State of Wyoming should have the same power in Government as the State of California? As they have in the Senate. Furthermore if the Electoral College gets seats dependent on the population it doesn't overly matter if the population get the say or they do. Also what is important to people with a City is different depending on the person and also differs from City to city.

Edit: I also have to add:


It is also theoretically possible to win the election by winning all of eleven states and disregarding the rest of the country. If one ticket were to take Texas (34 votes), Pennsylvania (21), Ohio (20), North Carolina (15), New York (31), New Jersey (15), Michigan (17), Illinois (21), Georgia (15), Florida (27) and California (55), that ticket would have 271 votes, which would be enough to win.


Taken from Wikipedia.

So you could win 11 out of 50 states and that'd be enough. Is that really fair?

[edit on 26/2/2007 by Odium]



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 07:22 PM
link   
Odium,

I'm not sure where you are going with this? It sounds almost as though you are agreeing with me that the system works. Yes, if someone running for President wins the 11 states with the most population... Then they win the election.

So... Why does it need to be changed?



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 07:26 PM
link   
When the US was founded, you selected some state representatives and sent them off on a journey. They'd go by horseback or coach and would be gone for many weeks.

There was no telegraph, no phones, no communication with the state that they were representing.

So the electorial college all got together and would figure out who should be president.

The electorial college is an artifact that was needed in it's time but with modern communication, it is no longer necessary.



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by befoiled
What about the electoral college?

Do we keep it, improve upon it, or do away with it entirely?


I never saw much use for the electoral college. Personally I think that democracy is a great thing and our nation should fully embrace it. Therefore I would campaign for a constitutional amendment in favor of popular voting.

Needless to say I'd also demand that voting be done with a paper copy. The Diebold machines never seem to work quite right depending on the voting district.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 03:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth

Again, if you did it that way, you'd be leaving out large segments of the constituency. What purpose would candidates have in campaigning in small areas if it was done the way you suggest? All they would have to do is win in cities like Houston,Los Angeles and New York ...


I'm sorry, but if every eligible person gets a vote, and the result of the election is based on the final total, then that is fully representative of the people, and leaves no one out of the equation.

Candidates would need to campaign in small areas as well as the larger metropolitan ones because the votes of the smaller areas may well tip the balance in the overall election.

I would suggest that the debacle in the 2000 election, where Gore polled about half a million more votes than Bush in the final tally of individual votes and yet Bush became president is not a shining example of democracy. This goes back to my central themed policy of leading by example, because if that had happened anywhere else in the world, people would have been crying foul and claiming the election was rigged.

[edit on 27/0207/07 by neformore]



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 04:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by befoiled
What about the electoral college?

Do we keep it, improve upon it, or do away with it entirely?


I completely disagree with the idea of the Electoral College; I believe that this is quite the flawed system as shown blatantly by the 2000 election. I believe in one person one vote. I believe that if a candidate wins the popular vote, that candidate won the election. However we have seen through the 2000 election that if a candidate wins the popular vote they may still loose the electoral votes. This in my opinion completely disregards the will of the American people.

No candidate should win an election through litigation.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 06:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by LostSailor
Odium,

I'm not sure where you are going with this? It sounds almost as though you are agreeing with me that the system works. Yes, if someone running for President wins the 11 states with the most population... Then they win the election.

So... Why does it need to be changed?


Simple: If the minimum people in each state voted (of those 11) for one candidate and the maximum voted in the other 39 (for a different candidate) you would result in a President being elected with no where near 30% of the votes and the vast percentage of the population would be against his presidency.

I believe in a simple system of: One vote, one voice. Nobody should have more of a say in Government than anyone else and there is no reason anyone has shown that says otherwise.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by befoiled
What about the electoral college?

Do we keep it, improve upon it, or do away with it entirely?


This one is fairly easy. The Electoral College was established by Article Two, Section One of the United States Constitution. It grants states the right to choose how they determine their Presidential Electors. The President has no right to interfere with this process, and neither does the Federal government. I'm sorry if you want it changed, but it is not the job or the right of the President to do so.

I have no intention of altering the U.S. Constitution.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 02:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by befoiled
What about the electoral college?

Do we keep it, improve upon it, or do away with it entirely?


We do away with it under my administration. There's really no need for it when the People are the ones that dictate who's elected, and what's done in the country. The People deserve all of the say, and not just 1/1,000,000th of it.

TheBorg



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 02:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
Time to create a real democracy.

Thank you for this question to all candidates: befoiled.

The question:

I believe that power should rest in the hands of you. Not me.


I think that if I make it past the primaries, I'll ask for you to be my VP. You embody all that I'm trying to do. If I don't happen to make it, and you do, know that there's a VP out there that's on your side.

TheBorg



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 08:57 PM
link   
Speaking as Intrepid's running mate, we need to leave the decision up to the people.

Voters are dissatisfied with the system and complain, "My vote doesn't count." I believe that more people will vote in national elections if (as in many other nations) the person's vote actually counts as a vote for the candidate rather than as a vote for the electoral college.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
Speaking as Intrepid's running mate, we need to leave the decision up to the people.


Your Intrepid's running mate? That’s like paring a can of whoop (censored) with a cruise missile, how about giving the rest of us at least a fighting chance here?



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by befoiled
Do we keep it, improve upon it, or do away with it entirely?


I have never felt comfortable with the electoral college. That is actually one of the reasons I didn't vote in years past. I just don't see how it is a more accurate representation of what the people want than an old fashioned ballot box count would be.

I understand the reasoning behind it - at least as far as what it's function is. But I don't see how it is at all a fair representation and certainly does NOT fit in with a government of the people.

It is basically congress voting for President.

3 votes can in no way fairly represent the population of any given state.

If there are 800,000 registered voters in a state, for instance....then there are potentially 800,000 ballots to count.

If there are two candidates and one receives 200,000 votes and the other one gets the remaining 600,000...then there is no way that 3 electoral votes is going to fairly represent the people's choice!

I think it might be a much greater deterrent to the number of people who register to vote, in fact. It is almost like it a farce...why bother?

I think it is totally against the main philosophy of American democracy!



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join