WWW.RIDESIDE.NET

Posted by uncle on 2004-11-01 21:40:11 +0000

Here here TGL. I'm still trying to figure out the justification for the EC.

Posted by tgl on 2004-11-01 21:54:48 +0000

If you have lots of land and you want your vote (wealthy, educated, Anglo, i.e, of the class of men who wrote the Constitution) to count more than that of the newly immigrated.

Posted by uncle on 2004-11-01 22:08:21 +0000

Wait a minute, that's me. I own lots of land, I wrote the constitution and I REALLY hate immigrants.

Posted by tendiamonds on 2004-11-01 22:24:52 +0000

The EC is also a useful way to make sure that the votes of individuals in states in which voter turnout is very low count for more. Which is particularly useful if you own a shitload of slaves that you aren't going to inform of their voting rights. I hear Jeb Bush has slaves. Oh, it's also a good way for people in rural states to see any of the candidates if they don't have access to TV, radio, newspapers, their own dicks... Oh, and our F-ing Fathers (that's Founding) couldn't count too well, so it was easier for them to bundle. I would like to, personally, pirate copies of MATLAB for any legislator that would like to abolish the EC. (or slavery)

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-11-01 22:32:20 +0000

Not quite. The Constitution creators all knew that uneducated (there's that word again) people were going to get the right to vote. Yes, it was landowners originally, but even still you could have a small farm and NOT have gone to school, any school. You simply cast your vote to your state's Electorial College indicating which way you wanted them to vote, (and to this day it is still a suggestion) because you, the unschooled farmer, understood that your Electorial College knew more than you and would make a better final vote. The best way to get rid of the Electorial College: Simply have the dissenting Senators and Reps. from a state vote for their candidate regardless of their State's outcome. IE. Say Florida goes 51% Bush - 49% Kerry, but the 7 Democrat Reps. refuse to Vote for Bush, and Bush loses the election. That would change the EC pretty quick.

Posted by uncle on 2004-11-01 22:46:45 +0000

Did I mention that I hate immigrants?

Posted by bizquig3000 on 2004-11-02 01:17:16 +0000

Best thing that happens is Bush wins the Electoral College. Or if you go the other way, Kerry wins the Electoral College. The popular vote, like NFL post-season games vis-a-vis consecutive win streaks, doesn't count!

Posted by tgl on 2004-11-02 01:49:41 +0000

...Or one-game winning streaks, 21 consecutive times.

Posted by rladew on 2004-11-02 04:19:51 +0000

why let people in rural states vote at all? We all get our cultural and social identities from NYC and LA anyway.... Im pretty comfortable with Gov Ahhnold and Sen Clinton et. al running my life so I dont have to think anymore. Sounds like fun. _______________________________ If you can't respect that, your whole perspective is whack Maybe you'll love me when I fade to black

Posted by tgl on 2004-11-02 13:09:23 +0000

My understanding is that people in rural states generally appreciate less encroachment from government. If the president must pander to the population centers, then we get a voice for urban areas that tend to be neglected over subsidies and land giveaways to those anti-goverment types who live in the hinterlands.

Posted by tendiamonds on 2004-11-02 15:56:50 +0000

As a suburbanite, I don't give a shit if urban areas get more say in our government. There are more people there, they _should_ have more say. OK, so I do give a shit, I really think they should. It's simple, one person, one vote. The rest of the world gets it, it's shocking to me that our self-proclaimed best democracy in the world has this so fucked up. For a good time, listen to the BBC coverage of the election. They are constantly explaining and reexplaining how our system works, since the majority of their listeners are baffled.

Posted by tgl on 2004-11-02 17:05:44 +0000

We just got to get those places like Alaska and North Dakota knocked down from two Senators to something more reasonable... maybe they could share one.

Posted by bizquig3000 on 2004-11-03 01:41:49 +0000

Lets try this again... The reason we have an Electoral College is that the candidates have to appeal to the broadest possible selection of civilians. When our Founding Fathers came up with the idea of the Electoral College, they had the understanding that we were eventually going to expand and therefore they planned ahead. As the U.S. expanded, we've since become as big as a whole fucking continent. We are made up of 50 different demarcations. And since we're continent-sized, and our states are the size of some countries, the Electoral College was divided amongst those states into numbers based upon population. The more populated, the more votes. The Presidential race is designed to be the winner of 50 individual races, not racketeering the most number of votes from say NYC, LA, Dallas, Chicago, Atlanta, and any other major metropolitan area. Simple? Notice we haven't heard or seen many ads for either candidate? Because it's pretty much assumed that Kerry's winning the, what, 12 Electoral votes from Massachusetts? Now, please turn your attention to where the battleground states are: the places where the so-called "middle Americans" live. Which at the end of the day are the only swing voters in a tight race. These are also the only major places where Bush and Kerry were campaigning. Why? Because by campaigning to those folks, they'd win states garnering Electoral College votes and ultimately the presidency. By racketeering votes from heavily populated areas is by no means representative of the entire nation. Case in point: the only exported service from the U.S. that is greater than that which is imported is agricultural goods. You know, all those fly-over states. (source: 2004 World Almanac, page 315) This nonsense about winning the popular vote is bullshit, it's happened four times out of 43: Rutherford B. Hayes and George W. Bush (because of Electoral College), John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton (because of not winning at least %50 of the popular vote). That's 9% of all elections that something was deemed "iffy." 9 out of 10 elections, this wasn't even a problem. If somebody gets a hit 3 times of every 10 at bats, they're inducted into the Hall of Fame. Looks like we're doing just fine with it. Electoral College is Article II if anybody needs to brush up on it. And while we're here: the greatest part about the Constitution was that it could be ratified for change (another brilliant move by Founding Fathers). And, yeah, we've added some important ones like XIII (slavery abolished) and XIX (suffrage), but we've had some dumb ones like XVIII (prohibition) and let's not forget the failed ones like ERA and banning flag burning. But it hasn't been touched in 12 years -- XXVII (Congressional pay). Anyone care to guess how long they had bandied about that proposal? That's right 203 years. In conclusion: it's a bitch to change it. -B

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-11-03 04:16:30 +0000

"The reason we have an Electoral College is that the candidates have to appeal to the broadest possible selection of civilians." -BQ Nonsense. No Constitutional scholar believes this. Please read Aricle II, Section 1, clause 2 and 3. The Electorial College is NOT designed to be a winner of the States, but so that people who are "appointed" get to vote for the President! The Founding Fathers could not imagine the population electing their new king/president, so they didn't let them, and created a quasi House of Lords. You are ignoring the fact the state's vote to the Electorial College is not set in stone. And in 2004, I believe it is time the people voted for their President.

Posted by tgl on 2004-11-03 07:25:22 +0000

The only reason middle American is able to export agricultural goods is through protectionist government welfare programs, aka, subsidies.