OneLight Posted November 10, 2016 Group: Royal Member Followers: 22 Topic Count: 1,294 Topics Per Day: 0.21 Content Count: 31,762 Content Per Day: 5.23 Reputation: 9,762 Days Won: 115 Joined: 09/14/2007 Status: Offline Author Share Posted November 10, 2016 Just now, ENOCH2010 said: Why not go with land mass, say 50 sq. miles = 1 vote That wold not be fair to the ones voting. Alaska has a size of 663,300 sq miles with a population of 736,732. Hawaii has a size of 4,028 sq miles with a population of 1,420,000. See the problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayin jade Posted November 10, 2016 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 44 Topic Count: 6,178 Topics Per Day: 0.88 Content Count: 43,795 Content Per Day: 6.21 Reputation: 11,243 Days Won: 58 Joined: 01/03/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted November 10, 2016 4 minutes ago, ENOCH2010 said: Why not go with land mass, say 50 sq. miles = 1 vote In alaska, there are large areas where you would be hard pressed to find 1 person in 50 sq miles. In new york city, you have several million in 50 sq miles. That seems to go to an extreme. Regardless, it isnt how our country was founded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted November 10, 2016 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.76 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.95 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted November 10, 2016 31 minutes ago, Yowm said: I don't have all that much political savvy. I am inclined to trust the political genius of the Founders who managed to put together the greatest governmental document given to man from man. But when reading the original purpose of the electoral college, I'm not sure the same reasoning fits for today. The founding fathers were among the few college-educated men in a time when most people had no more than an 8th grade education (and a college education meant being educated in philosophy and governance and higher reasoning skills in a way that has been lost to us now), if that at all; and news traveled a lot slower. They feared the "ignorant masses" who could be swayed by charlatans and hearsay and wanted the safeguard of the knowledged to balance things out. Today our leaders are not necessarily higher-educated than society, and the news is almost instantaneous of events. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneLight Posted November 10, 2016 Group: Royal Member Followers: 22 Topic Count: 1,294 Topics Per Day: 0.21 Content Count: 31,762 Content Per Day: 5.23 Reputation: 9,762 Days Won: 115 Joined: 09/14/2007 Status: Offline Author Share Posted November 10, 2016 9 minutes ago, The_Patriot2016 said: The cities are going to have the advantage anyway. In fact if you go with a popular vote the cites would have even more power than they do now. Please excuse me stepping in, but if they counted the votes, or split the Electoral College, that would reflect the voice of the people. The preamble of the constitution begins with "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union...". It does not say The Cities or The States. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneLight Posted November 10, 2016 Group: Royal Member Followers: 22 Topic Count: 1,294 Topics Per Day: 0.21 Content Count: 31,762 Content Per Day: 5.23 Reputation: 9,762 Days Won: 115 Joined: 09/14/2007 Status: Offline Author Share Posted November 10, 2016 Sure wish this held true today. The Constitutional Convention of 1787 considered several methods of electing the President, including selection by Congress, by the governors of the states, by the state legislatures, by a special group of Members of Congress chosen by lot, and by direct popular election. Late in the convention, the matter was referred to the Committee of Eleven on Postponed Matters, which devised the electoral college system in its original form. This plan, which met with widespread approval by the delegates, was incorporated into the final document with only minor changes. It sought to reconcile differing state and federal interests, provide a degree of popular participation in the election, give the less populous states some additional leverage in the process by providing “senatorial” electors, preserve the presidency as independent of Congress, and generally insulate the election process from political manipulation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneLight Posted November 10, 2016 Group: Royal Member Followers: 22 Topic Count: 1,294 Topics Per Day: 0.21 Content Count: 31,762 Content Per Day: 5.23 Reputation: 9,762 Days Won: 115 Joined: 09/14/2007 Status: Offline Author Share Posted November 10, 2016 Just now, Yowm said: Weren't we formed as a representative form og government rather than a populace form? I would not call it representative, but padded. See the post above yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Patriot21 Posted November 10, 2016 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 28 Topic Count: 338 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 15,710 Content Per Day: 2.46 Reputation: 8,526 Days Won: 39 Joined: 10/25/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/27/1985 Share Posted November 10, 2016 1 hour ago, OneLight said: Please excuse me stepping in, but if they counted the votes, or split the Electoral College, that would reflect the voice of the people. The preamble of the constitution begins with "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union...". It does not say The Cities or The States. yes, but where are the population centers? look at new york. whos votes gonna count more, the 8.4 million people in new york city, or the 11 million of the rest of the state? sure the rest of the state technically outnumbers the city-but theres no way 100% of them will vote for the same candidate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
other one Posted November 10, 2016 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 29 Topic Count: 598 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 56,129 Content Per Day: 7.56 Reputation: 27,858 Days Won: 271 Joined: 12/29/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted November 10, 2016 3 hours ago, GoldenEagle said: @other one I suppose you are correct that it's the state that counts in a Democratic Republic. We claim to be the leaders of the free world and democracy in the USA but do not have a true democratic election? Republic: a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch. Democracy: a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives. I don't understand this whole hick up over population centers. If every vote counted then it would be just as important for a person in North Dakota to vote as it would be in California or Texas right? God bless, GE No it's not right for the needs of a person in small states are different than the needs of the city and it isn't right for the people of the city to direct my life. Especially now that the federal government has taken to interview our states workings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayin jade Posted November 10, 2016 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 44 Topic Count: 6,178 Topics Per Day: 0.88 Content Count: 43,795 Content Per Day: 6.21 Reputation: 11,243 Days Won: 58 Joined: 01/03/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted November 10, 2016 6 hours ago, nebula said: But when reading the original purpose of the electoral college, I'm not sure the same reasoning fits for today. The founding fathers were among the few college-educated men in a time when most people had no more than an 8th grade education (and a college education meant being educated in philosophy and governance and higher reasoning skills in a way that has been lost to us now), if that at all; and news traveled a lot slower. They feared the "ignorant masses" who could be swayed by charlatans and hearsay and wanted the safeguard of the knowledged to balance things out. Today our leaders are not necessarily higher-educated than society, and the news is almost instantaneous of events. Are the masses more or less ignorant today? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 if every state had equal population numbers and no major population centers, the electoral college would not be needed. But as it stands, the Eastern and mid-western states alone would determine who our president is before everyone on the west coast got to the polls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts