Here is an update on the soldier who refused to go!

[alanschu]

I think I answered that question already, Alan.

 

Until the Electorial College is removed the popular vote is meaningless, that is the bottom line. The popular vote needs to determine this country's leadership, not a small group of selected few.

 

 

When did they not do it?

[Sand]

Were you not paying attention in the 2000 elections. Gore won the popular vote. The majority of Americans wanted Al Gore president. What did the electorial college give us after a court battle? Bush.

Edited February 15, 2007 by Sand

[Tale]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Electora...thless_electors

 

Apparently they're called Faithless Electors. 158 instances. Only 71 of which sound reasonable.

[alanschu]

Odd that Iowa doesn't seem to be on the list

Edited February 15, 2007 by alanschu

[Sand]

I am not just talking about Iowa, Alan, but the overall country. We have the means and technology to accurately tabulate the popular vote across the whole spread of the nation. The electorial college is obsolete. The people of this country should be able to have their vote count towards who leads this country, not a select few. Gore won the 2000 popular vote by a good 500,000 votes.

Edited February 15, 2007 by Sand

[alanschu]

I am not just talking about Iowa, Alan, but the overall country.

 

I asked you a question about whether or not Iowa had ever placed their votes differently based on your statement about how they weren't required to vote in that way - IN IOWA, and you said that you thought you had already answered the question.

 

 

Apparently how you thought you answered the question, and what the result actually was, was different. It certainly wasn't clear, because I was under the impression that they did.

Edited February 15, 2007 by alanschu

[Sand]

Just because they haven't yet does not mean they couldn't do so in the future. 7 people should not represent 3 million in a presidential election.

[alanschu]

I thought you didn't deal in "what ifs."

 

 

Besides, your answer didn't seem to imply any future misdealings either.

Edited February 15, 2007 by alanschu

[Sand]

Hey, its 5am in the morning here. Are you really expecting a coherent and rational argument from ME this time of day!?!?!? :confused:

 

I stand by my statements... when I stated them. Still, I think iti s funny how Bush is now trying to convince people that Iran is supplying insurgents weapons like he is someone people can trust and believe then act all surprise when they don't.

Edited February 15, 2007 by Sand

[Tale]

Hey, its 5am in the morning here. Are you really expecting a coherent and rational argument from ME this time of day!?!?!? :confused:

You could always do what I did with that Halfling image. It really settles any attempt to argue with you and is best done in states of questionable coherence.

[Walsingham]

I might observe that if one is aware one's arguments are daft one could always not make them.

 

For example, if the electoral college is the blockage, how on earth do you propose fixing it if not by voting? Moreover, I believe I am correct in thinking that the electoral college only applies to the big two main parties. You can always vote for an independent. I mean for ehaven's sake you ahve an untapped 50% of the vote going free.

[Sand]

Independent?

 

HA!

 

Until the electorial college is eliminated it doesn't matter what the popular vote is. We could have all the US citizens vote for an independent and still end up with a Democrat or Republican.

[Dark_Raven]

If I could dissuade someone from joining the military then that would be great. I have no problem in fighting for a cause that is just. The invasion of Afganistan was just because al Qaeda and the Taliban attacked us first. The Iraqi invasion was not because they had no WMDs, no ties to al Qaeda, and ultimately no threat to the U.S.. Now Bushie is trying to rattle the sabre against Iran claiming that they are supplying arms to Iraqi insurgents. Its more than likely more falsified reports to justify a chance to invade that country to.

If Bush was wanted to save face, he could have arranged a small nuclear weapon to go off when we first dropped "bombs" on Baghdad.

"Well looky there people, looks like one of our "bombs" set off one of Saddam's "nuclear weapons". See, I, the Great President Bush was right all along."

Edited February 15, 2007 by Dark_Raven

[Tale]

If I could dissuade someone from joining the military then that would be great. I have no problem in fighting for a cause that is just. The invasion of Afganistan was just because al Qaeda and the Taliban attacked us first. The Iraqi invasion was not because they had no WMDs, no ties to al Qaeda, and ultimately no threat to the U.S.. Now Bushie is trying to rattle the sabre against Iran claiming that they are supplying arms to Iraqi insurgents. Its more than likely more falsified reports to justify a chance to invade that country to.

If Bush was wanted to save face, he could have arranged a small nuclear weapon to go off when we first dropped "bombs" on Baghdad.

"Well looky there people, looks like one of our "bombs" set off one of Saddam's "nuclear weapons". See, I, the Great President Bush was right all along."

I know it's only a joke. Well, I don't know you mean that as a joke, but it would be very hard to convince people that a nuclear bomb was set off by another bomb. That's got to be a one in a million shot right there.

[Dark_Raven]

Hypothetical situation of course.

[~Di]

I agree that the electoral college has gotta go. It's an archaic remnant, a compromise by the founding fathers between election of the president by Congress and election by popular vote. This was a time when the colonies were scattered, and it took weeks for local votes to be tabulated and the results "carried" by a representative (Elector) who chugged via horseback to cast their Electoral vote in person. Even if the Electors vote exactly as they promised to vote (which doesn't always happen, mind you), the end result is that the number of Electors assigned to each state insures that the vote of an individual from a low-population state like Iowa is worth ten times the vote of a person in a high-population state like California or New York. Does that sound fair? Only to the folks whose vote is worth ten times what my vote is worth. The theory is that if the vote of an Iowan isn't given more weight than the vote of a Californian, then California with its huge population would always dominate every election. Well, yeah. Hello... that's called democracy.

 

Anyway, I hate the damned electoral college. Always have. Anyway, I suspect taks will be here shortly to explain why the Electoral College is a gift from God, and should never, ever be repealed, amen.

Edited February 15, 2007 by ~Di

[metadigital]

The theory is that if the vote of an Iowan isn't given more weight than the vote of a Californian, then California with its huge population would always dominate every election. Well, yeah. Hello... that's called democracy.

Actually, it's called tyranny of the majority.

If I could dissuade someone from joining the military then that would be great. I have no problem in fighting for a cause that is just. The invasion of Afganistan was just because al Qaeda and the Taliban attacked us first. The Iraqi invasion was not because they had no WMDs, no ties to al Qaeda, and ultimately no threat to the U.S.. Now Bushie is trying to rattle the sabre against Iran claiming that they are supplying arms to Iraqi insurgents. Its more than likely more falsified reports to justify a chance to invade that country to.

If Bush was wanted to save face, he could have arranged a small nuclear weapon to go off when we first dropped "bombs" on Baghdad.

"Well looky there people, looks like one of our "bombs" set off one of Saddam's "nuclear weapons". See, I, the Great President Bush was right all along."

Haven't you seen The Sum of All Fears?

 

It is straightforward to determine which nuclear plant created the fissile material in a bomb. In other words, that cheap parlour trick would need to be backed up with some heavy-duty lying from the US, and not just the President ... you'd need the media state of Russia to get away with it ... "

I might observe that if one is aware one's arguments are daft one could always not make them.

 

For example, if the electoral college is the blockage, how on earth do you propose fixing it if not by voting? Moreover, I believe I am correct in thinking that the electoral college only applies to the big two main parties. You can always vote for an independent. I mean for heaven's sake you have an untapped 50% of the vote going free.

When Joh Bjelke-Petersen gained power, he asked the Queensland Upper House (the state Senate), which was also controlled by the National Party, to be a suicide squad; they all voted to abolish the Queensland Senate! (There are three levels of government: Federal, State and local, and the first two have both upper and lower houses.)

 

:D

[Sand]

Bah! Tyranny of the majority is a lame excuse to use against democracy. The wishes of the majority should be honored over the wishes of the minority. Otherwise we get policies in which the majority of people want nothing to do with. Why should the majority of people cater to the whims of the minority? They are the minority and if they don't like it then they need to convicne people on the majority side on their way of thinking so that they can become the majority.

Edited February 15, 2007 by Sand

[alanschu]

Right.

 

And in just the other thread you were talking about how much work was needed to be done to ensure equal rights.

Edited February 15, 2007 by alanschu

[Sand]

There is equality of each citizen, but each citizen should have one vote to determine policy and the direction this country goes. One person, one vote.

[alanschu]

If only we lived in your fantasy world.

 

 

I guess then, you'd have no problems accepting a majority ruling that enacted policy that discriminated against a minority?

[Sand]

Discrimination is not what I am advocating so no. Everyone has the same and equal rights under the law.

[metadigital]

So how do you prevent a majority discriminating against a minority?

[alanschu]

Discrimination is not what I am advocating so no. Everyone has the same and equal rights under the law.

 

 

And this stops tyranny of the majority how?

[Sand]

How does it start it?