It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 08:21 PM
I believe the electoral college stays simply on account of the fact that it is the established, and constitutional process for our elections. Am I a fan of it? No. But, I believe in the constitution.

posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 04:29 AM
More thoughts on the Electoral College...

As was mentioned by our opponent, TheLibra, it was established by the Constitution. It's described in Article II, section 1 (as ratified by the founding fathers) and is mentioned in at least 10 of the Amendments to the Constitution.

We've got a sticky situation. Politicians have a vested interest in their own career, and to amend the Constitution means the Senate AND Congress has to propose the amendment with a 2/3 majority. The states (3/4ths of them) then have to ratify it:

We need to find out just what percentage of the population is hopping mad over this... mad enough to start voting people out of office.

So at this time, the best strategy is to bring it to the attention of the people and encourage them to let their will be known to their representatives. So as a candidate of a party that focuses on education, my role here is to educate the people that it CAN b done, tell them HOW they can do it, and encourage them to start taking the power for themselves.

posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 09:17 AM
I think that changing the constitution to match the problems of the electoral college would be a mistake.

What might work significantly more effectively is for states to split their electoral votes per percentage of the popular vote.

For instance, if a state has 10 electoral votes, Candidate A has 50% of the popular vote, Candidate B has 40% of the popular vote, and Candidate C has 10% of the popular vote, then:

A = 5 electoral votes
B = 4 electoral votes
C = 1 electoral votes

This would serve two purposes: it would give a new level of franchise to non-Republican/non-Democrat parties, and it would allow for a more accurate representation of the popular vote versus the electoral vote, while still giving fair representation to each state in the electoral college.

A third and added benefit is that there would be no more "Ohios", where only a few big-ticket states decide the outcome of the election. Instead, nearly every state would matter, and even the ones that had few electoral votes would still have enough muscle to merit candidate attention.

posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 12:15 PM
Perhaps the problem isn't with the constitution but with the carrying out of the constitution.

"Refine and enlarge the public views by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation it may well happen that public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Man of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests of the people
-James Madison

Refine and enlarge.
Wisdom and discernment.
Patriotism and love of justice.

LEAST LIKELY to sacrifice to temporary or PARTIAL considerations.

The problem is quite possibly that our Congress is NOT exercising wisdom and their own careers and personal interests more than their responsibility...and are not patriotic.

Patriotism is about loving one's country - not one's government. The job of our government is to ensure that our country remains efficient and productive based on the principles it was founded upon. Which was freedoms and happiness and potential.

Not just for SOME but for ALL. Not just for the advantaged but for the disadvantaged. FOR ALL.


[edit on 3/11/2007 by queenannie38]

posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 11:45 PM
Great question. I plan to do an episode on this topic for the Above Politics show, coming soon in 2008.

new topics

top topics
<< 1  2   >>

log in