100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
| Topic: Voting | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Are you ok with the electoral college determining the winners in an election or do you prefer the popular vote to determine an election..?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Checks and balances I prefer the college.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i prefer popular vote.....1-man...1-vote.......each vote given equal weight...
the state in which you reside should have no bearing on a federal election...imo a democrat voter in Texas, tough cookies... the State of Texas cast it's votes for the republican candidate... same tough cookies for the republican voter living in California.... the State of California cast it's votes for the democratic candidate... 1-man....1-vote............anything less is bull.... |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
alleoops
on
Mon 12/21/15 01:28 PM
|
|
i prefer popular vote.....1-man...1-vote.......each vote given equal weight... the state in which you reside should have no bearing on a federal election...imo a democrat voter in Texas, tough cookies... the State of Texas cast it's votes for the republican candidate... same tough cookies for the republican voter living in California.... the State of California cast it's votes for the democratic candidate... 1-man....1-vote............anything less is bull.... Agree. I think that it also discourages some from voting. Except for Argo, he votes 3 or 4 times. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Are you ok with the electoral college determining the winners in an election or do you prefer the popular vote to determine an election..? Since the POTUS is President of the United States, the States should continue doing the electing. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Are you ok with the electoral college determining the winners in an election or do you prefer the popular vote to determine an election..? Since the POTUS is President of the United States, the States should continue doing the electing. All 57 states?  I miss hanging Chads.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Are you ok with the electoral college determining the winners in an election or do you prefer the popular vote to determine an election..?
I don't think it really matters. The people that win are the ones that either spend the most money, or are simply the best liars. Or both. Electoral college, mob rule democracy, doesn't matter when looking at who has been president. Especially with winner take all laws. I think at this point a random lottery to determine political positions would be better. "Holder of ticket b-17, J. Zapatowski, you're up for president. Take this test, you have an i.q. of at least 75 so you can enter into contracts, lived in the u.s. for at least 20 consecutive years, are at least 35, never been convicted of a felony? Great. There you go. Have a fun 4 years Mr. or Mrs. President." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the whole Electoral College deal, was part of the same fundamental distrust of the common people and real democracy that our ancestors in power had. It's the same reason why originally, we weren't allowed to elect our own Senators.
I think that a decision on something like this, requires appreciation of the full ramifications and consequences. I prefer real democracy, myself. Even when a majority of the people around me are clearly idiots masquerading as grown up human beings, I'd rather have our fate be determined by our own willingness to at least pretend to take responsibility for ourselves. I know that a bunch of Presidential elections would have been a lot closer, had there been none of this winner-take-all stuff (only two states apportion electors proportionally), and only one in recent memory would have been reversed (Bush Gore). It MIGHT, or MIGHT NOT stop some Presidents from deluding themselves that they have a 'mandate from the people' which they clearly don't have. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
alnewman
on
Wed 12/23/15 02:16 PM
|
|
Are you ok with the electoral college determining the winners in an election or do you prefer the popular vote to determine an election..? If one understood what was being asked, it wouldn't need to have been asked!! The founding fathers were not experts on voting power. Many wanted an electoral college simply because they distrusted the mob. A large electorate, they believed, falls prey to passions, rumors, and "tumult." Electors were supposed to consider each candidate's merits more judiciously, not blindly follow the popular will. Nowadays, of course, whoever wins the popular vote in any state wins all the electoral votes in that state automatically (except in Maine, which divides its electoral votes). We no longer need human bodies to cast electoral ballots, Natapoff says. That part of the system is indeed archaic. But it has worked beautifully, he insists, as a formula for converting one large national contest into 51 smaller elections in which individual voters have more clout. The Madisonian system, by requiring candidates to win states on the way to winning the nation, has forced majorities to win the consent of minorities, checked the violence of factions, and held the country together. "We have stumbled onto something that not everyone appreciates," Natapoff says. "People should understand it before they decide to change it." Math Against Tyranny by Will Hively, Discover magazine, November, 1996 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the whole Electoral College deal, was part of the same fundamental distrust of the common people and real democracy that our ancestors in power had. It's the same reason why originally, we weren't allowed to elect our own Senators. I think that a decision on something like this, requires appreciation of the full ramifications and consequences. I prefer real democracy, myself. Even when a majority of the people around me are clearly idiots masquerading as grown up human beings, I'd rather have our fate be determined by our own willingness to at least pretend to take responsibility for ourselves. I know that a bunch of Presidential elections would have been a lot closer, had there been none of this winner-take-all stuff (only two states apportion electors proportionally), and only one in recent memory would have been reversed (Bush Gore). It MIGHT, or MIGHT NOT stop some Presidents from deluding themselves that they have a 'mandate from the people' which they clearly don't have. Two totally different reasons for election of Senators and the election of a President and Vice President. Not even remotely related. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the whole Electoral College deal, was part of the same fundamental distrust of the common people and real democracy that our ancestors in power had. It's the same reason why originally, we weren't allowed to elect our own Senators. I think that a decision on something like this, requires appreciation of the full ramifications and consequences. I prefer real democracy, myself. Even when a majority of the people around me are clearly idiots masquerading as grown up human beings, I'd rather have our fate be determined by our own willingness to at least pretend to take responsibility for ourselves. I know that a bunch of Presidential elections would have been a lot closer, had there been none of this winner-take-all stuff (only two states apportion electors proportionally), and only one in recent memory would have been reversed (Bush Gore). It MIGHT, or MIGHT NOT stop some Presidents from deluding themselves that they have a 'mandate from the people' which they clearly don't have. 'splain "Real Democracy"! We have a System here in Switzerland that comes about as close to Direct Democracy as you want to go,and it's mostly a Pain in the Butt! While it has it's advantages,Amendments ,or a total Revision of our Constitution is far too easy! So,think before you wish! You were given a Constitutional Republic,If you can Keep it,to paraphrase one of your Founders! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
alnewman
on
Wed 12/23/15 03:04 PM
|
|
Well, the whole Electoral College deal, was part of the same fundamental distrust of the common people and real democracy that our ancestors in power had. It's the same reason why originally, we weren't allowed to elect our own Senators. I think that a decision on something like this, requires appreciation of the full ramifications and consequences. I prefer real democracy, myself. Even when a majority of the people around me are clearly idiots masquerading as grown up human beings, I'd rather have our fate be determined by our own willingness to at least pretend to take responsibility for ourselves. I know that a bunch of Presidential elections would have been a lot closer, had there been none of this winner-take-all stuff (only two states apportion electors proportionally), and only one in recent memory would have been reversed (Bush Gore). It MIGHT, or MIGHT NOT stop some Presidents from deluding themselves that they have a 'mandate from the people' which they clearly don't have. 'splain "Real Democracy"! We have a System here in Switzerland that comes about as close to Direct Democracy as you want to go,and it's mostly a Pain in the Butt! While it has it's advantages,Amendments ,or a total Revision of our Constitution is far too easy! So,think before you wish! You were given a Constitutional Republic,If you can Keep it,to paraphrase one of your Founders! "Real Democracy", the rule of the mob, the establishment of a ruling class and a ruled class, the stamping on the rights of others by popular proclamation. As to the US, you are mistaken, a Republic was what was taken by the so called founders that met for a purpose they had no authority to do and enslaved the people. Or as so well explained by Lysander Spooner in No Treason #2, The Constitution: The Constitution says:
"We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." The meaning of this is simply We, the people of the United States, acting freely and voluntarily as individuals, consent and agree that we will cooperate with each other in sustaining such a government as is provided for in this Constitution. The necessity for the consent of "the people" is implied in this declaration. The whole authority of the Constitution rests upon it. If they did not consent, it was of no validity. Of course it had no validity, except as between those who actually consented. No one's consent could be presumed against him, without his actual consent being given, any more than in the case of any other contract to pay money, or render service. And to make it binding upon any one, his signature, or other positive evidence of consent, was as necessary as in the case of any other-contract. If the instrument meant to say that any of "the people of the United States" would be bound by it, who did not consent, it was a usurpation and a lie. The most that can be inferred from the form, "We, the people," is, that the instrument offered membership to all "the people of the United States;" leaving it for them to accept or refuse it, at their pleasure. The agreement is a simple one, like any other agreement. It is the same as one that should say: We, the people of the town of A––––, agree to sustain a church, a school, a hospital, or a theatre, for ourselves and our children. Such an agreement clearly could have no validity, except as between those who actually consented to it. If a portion only of “ "the people of the town of A––––," should assent to this contract, and should then proceed to compel contributions of money or service from those who had not consented, they would be mere robbers; and would deserve to be treated as such. There are but 39 signatures on that document, now all dead. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the whole Electoral College deal, was part of the same fundamental distrust of the common people and real democracy that our ancestors in power had. It's the same reason why originally, we weren't allowed to elect our own Senators. I think that a decision on something like this, requires appreciation of the full ramifications and consequences. I prefer real democracy, myself. Even when a majority of the people around me are clearly idiots masquerading as grown up human beings, I'd rather have our fate be determined by our own willingness to at least pretend to take responsibility for ourselves. I know that a bunch of Presidential elections would have been a lot closer, had there been none of this winner-take-all stuff (only two states apportion electors proportionally), and only one in recent memory would have been reversed (Bush Gore). It MIGHT, or MIGHT NOT stop some Presidents from deluding themselves that they have a 'mandate from the people' which they clearly don't have. 'splain "Real Democracy"! We have a System here in Switzerland that comes about as close to Direct Democracy as you want to go,and it's mostly a Pain in the Butt! While it has it's advantages,Amendments ,or a total Revision of our Constitution is far too easy! So,think before you wish! You were given a Constitutional Republic,If you can Keep it,to paraphrase one of your Founders! "Real Democracy", the rule of the mob, the establishment of a ruling class and a ruled class, the stamping on the rights of others by popular proclamation. As to the US, you are mistaken, a Republic was what was taken by the so called founders that met for a purpose they had no authority to do and enslaved the people. Or as so well explained by Lysander Spooner in No Treason #2, The Constitution: The Constitution says:
"We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." The meaning of this is simply We, the people of the United States, acting freely and voluntarily as individuals, consent and agree that we will cooperate with each other in sustaining such a government as is provided for in this Constitution. The necessity for the consent of "the people" is implied in this declaration. The whole authority of the Constitution rests upon it. If they did not consent, it was of no validity. Of course it had no validity, except as between those who actually consented. No one's consent could be presumed against him, without his actual consent being given, any more than in the case of any other contract to pay money, or render service. And to make it binding upon any one, his signature, or other positive evidence of consent, was as necessary as in the case of any other-contract. If the instrument meant to say that any of "the people of the United States" would be bound by it, who did not consent, it was a usurpation and a lie. The most that can be inferred from the form, "We, the people," is, that the instrument offered membership to all "the people of the United States;" leaving it for them to accept or refuse it, at their pleasure. The agreement is a simple one, like any other agreement. It is the same as one that should say: We, the people of the town of A––––, agree to sustain a church, a school, a hospital, or a theatre, for ourselves and our children. Such an agreement clearly could have no validity, except as between those who actually consented to it. If a portion only of “ "the people of the town of A––––," should assent to this contract, and should then proceed to compel contributions of money or service from those who had not consented, they would be mere robbers; and would deserve to be treated as such. There are but 39 signatures on that document, now all dead. Holy Moly,in that Case,you are actually living in Nowhere-Land! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the whole Electoral College deal, was part of the same fundamental distrust of the common people and real democracy that our ancestors in power had. It's the same reason why originally, we weren't allowed to elect our own Senators. I think that a decision on something like this, requires appreciation of the full ramifications and consequences. I prefer real democracy, myself. Even when a majority of the people around me are clearly idiots masquerading as grown up human beings, I'd rather have our fate be determined by our own willingness to at least pretend to take responsibility for ourselves. I know that a bunch of Presidential elections would have been a lot closer, had there been none of this winner-take-all stuff (only two states apportion electors proportionally), and only one in recent memory would have been reversed (Bush Gore). It MIGHT, or MIGHT NOT stop some Presidents from deluding themselves that they have a 'mandate from the people' which they clearly don't have. 'splain "Real Democracy"! We have a System here in Switzerland that comes about as close to Direct Democracy as you want to go,and it's mostly a Pain in the Butt! While it has it's advantages,Amendments ,or a total Revision of our Constitution is far too easy! So,think before you wish! You were given a Constitutional Republic,If you can Keep it,to paraphrase one of your Founders! "Real Democracy", the rule of the mob, the establishment of a ruling class and a ruled class, the stamping on the rights of others by popular proclamation. As to the US, you are mistaken, a Republic was what was taken by the so called founders that met for a purpose they had no authority to do and enslaved the people. Or as so well explained by Lysander Spooner in No Treason #2, The Constitution: The Constitution says:
"We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." The meaning of this is simply We, the people of the United States, acting freely and voluntarily as individuals, consent and agree that we will cooperate with each other in sustaining such a government as is provided for in this Constitution. The necessity for the consent of "the people" is implied in this declaration. The whole authority of the Constitution rests upon it. If they did not consent, it was of no validity. Of course it had no validity, except as between those who actually consented. No one's consent could be presumed against him, without his actual consent being given, any more than in the case of any other contract to pay money, or render service. And to make it binding upon any one, his signature, or other positive evidence of consent, was as necessary as in the case of any other-contract. If the instrument meant to say that any of "the people of the United States" would be bound by it, who did not consent, it was a usurpation and a lie. The most that can be inferred from the form, "We, the people," is, that the instrument offered membership to all "the people of the United States;" leaving it for them to accept or refuse it, at their pleasure. The agreement is a simple one, like any other agreement. It is the same as one that should say: We, the people of the town of A––––, agree to sustain a church, a school, a hospital, or a theatre, for ourselves and our children. Such an agreement clearly could have no validity, except as between those who actually consented to it. If a portion only of “ "the people of the town of A––––," should assent to this contract, and should then proceed to compel contributions of money or service from those who had not consented, they would be mere robbers; and would deserve to be treated as such. There are but 39 signatures on that document, now all dead. Holy Moly,in that Case,you are actually living in Nowhere-Land!
Not actually I live upon the land that has always been here, since the big bang, much nicer now than then but still the same. As to the usurpers, they have authority extending from the barrel of a gun, a gun that is paid for by the victims as are the ones holding the guns. Nowhere-Land, that fictional space where the slaves live under the impression they are actually free while bowing to their servants calling them masters. Such a confusing place. Sort of like Switzerland and that mythical "Direct Democracy" thing. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the whole Electoral College deal, was part of the same fundamental distrust of the common people and real democracy that our ancestors in power had. It's the same reason why originally, we weren't allowed to elect our own Senators. I think that a decision on something like this, requires appreciation of the full ramifications and consequences. I prefer real democracy, myself. Even when a majority of the people around me are clearly idiots masquerading as grown up human beings, I'd rather have our fate be determined by our own willingness to at least pretend to take responsibility for ourselves. I know that a bunch of Presidential elections would have been a lot closer, had there been none of this winner-take-all stuff (only two states apportion electors proportionally), and only one in recent memory would have been reversed (Bush Gore). It MIGHT, or MIGHT NOT stop some Presidents from deluding themselves that they have a 'mandate from the people' which they clearly don't have. 'splain "Real Democracy"! We have a System here in Switzerland that comes about as close to Direct Democracy as you want to go,and it's mostly a Pain in the Butt! While it has it's advantages,Amendments ,or a total Revision of our Constitution is far too easy! So,think before you wish! You were given a Constitutional Republic,If you can Keep it,to paraphrase one of your Founders! "Real Democracy", the rule of the mob, the establishment of a ruling class and a ruled class, the stamping on the rights of others by popular proclamation. As to the US, you are mistaken, a Republic was what was taken by the so called founders that met for a purpose they had no authority to do and enslaved the people. Or as so well explained by Lysander Spooner in No Treason #2, The Constitution: The Constitution says:
"We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." The meaning of this is simply We, the people of the United States, acting freely and voluntarily as individuals, consent and agree that we will cooperate with each other in sustaining such a government as is provided for in this Constitution. The necessity for the consent of "the people" is implied in this declaration. The whole authority of the Constitution rests upon it. If they did not consent, it was of no validity. Of course it had no validity, except as between those who actually consented. No one's consent could be presumed against him, without his actual consent being given, any more than in the case of any other contract to pay money, or render service. And to make it binding upon any one, his signature, or other positive evidence of consent, was as necessary as in the case of any other-contract. If the instrument meant to say that any of "the people of the United States" would be bound by it, who did not consent, it was a usurpation and a lie. The most that can be inferred from the form, "We, the people," is, that the instrument offered membership to all "the people of the United States;" leaving it for them to accept or refuse it, at their pleasure. The agreement is a simple one, like any other agreement. It is the same as one that should say: We, the people of the town of A––––, agree to sustain a church, a school, a hospital, or a theatre, for ourselves and our children. Such an agreement clearly could have no validity, except as between those who actually consented to it. If a portion only of “ "the people of the town of A––––," should assent to this contract, and should then proceed to compel contributions of money or service from those who had not consented, they would be mere robbers; and would deserve to be treated as such. There are but 39 signatures on that document, now all dead. Holy Moly,in that Case,you are actually living in Nowhere-Land!
Not actually I live upon the land that has always been here, since the big bang, much nicer now than then but still the same. As to the usurpers, they have authority extending from the barrel of a gun, a gun that is paid for by the victims as are the ones holding the guns. Nowhere-Land, that fictional space where the slaves live under the impression they are actually free while bowing to their servants calling them masters. Such a confusing place. Sort of like Switzerland and that mythical "Direct Democracy" thing. I doubt you are in a Position to judge ANY political System from where you are sitting! Say,what are you,a Constitutional Anarchist,or an anarchistical Constitutionalist? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You guys don't have to have me define democracy. There's plenty of dictionaries in the world.
And yes, you are wrong again, the reason why we used to be unable to vote for our senators is the same reason they set up the electoral college. The peasantry is trusted to vote for who they want locally, but are assumed to be too ignorant and greedy (like the upper classes aren't) to establish national leadership. It's a very commonly held belief, which is still very influential today, all over the world. Here in the US especially, there are people high up in both of the main parties, who are completely sure that most Americans aren't up to the task of guiding the country, and have to be lied to and bribed in various ways, for their own good. I do NOT myself favor a move to 100% direct democratic government. I prefer elected leaders (hopefully reasonably wise and or knowledgeable) who act for us. Because I read polls, and know how capricious mobs can be. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the whole Electoral College deal, was part of the same fundamental distrust of the common people and real democracy that our ancestors in power had. It's the same reason why originally, we weren't allowed to elect our own Senators. I think that a decision on something like this, requires appreciation of the full ramifications and consequences. I prefer real democracy, myself. Even when a majority of the people around me are clearly idiots masquerading as grown up human beings, I'd rather have our fate be determined by our own willingness to at least pretend to take responsibility for ourselves. I know that a bunch of Presidential elections would have been a lot closer, had there been none of this winner-take-all stuff (only two states apportion electors proportionally), and only one in recent memory would have been reversed (Bush Gore). It MIGHT, or MIGHT NOT stop some Presidents from deluding themselves that they have a 'mandate from the people' which they clearly don't have. 'splain "Real Democracy"! We have a System here in Switzerland that comes about as close to Direct Democracy as you want to go,and it's mostly a Pain in the Butt! While it has it's advantages,Amendments ,or a total Revision of our Constitution is far too easy! So,think before you wish! You were given a Constitutional Republic,If you can Keep it,to paraphrase one of your Founders! "Real Democracy", the rule of the mob, the establishment of a ruling class and a ruled class, the stamping on the rights of others by popular proclamation. As to the US, you are mistaken, a Republic was what was taken by the so called founders that met for a purpose they had no authority to do and enslaved the people. Or as so well explained by Lysander Spooner in No Treason #2, The Constitution: The Constitution says:
"We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." The meaning of this is simply We, the people of the United States, acting freely and voluntarily as individuals, consent and agree that we will cooperate with each other in sustaining such a government as is provided for in this Constitution. The necessity for the consent of "the people" is implied in this declaration. The whole authority of the Constitution rests upon it. If they did not consent, it was of no validity. Of course it had no validity, except as between those who actually consented. No one's consent could be presumed against him, without his actual consent being given, any more than in the case of any other contract to pay money, or render service. And to make it binding upon any one, his signature, or other positive evidence of consent, was as necessary as in the case of any other-contract. If the instrument meant to say that any of "the people of the United States" would be bound by it, who did not consent, it was a usurpation and a lie. The most that can be inferred from the form, "We, the people," is, that the instrument offered membership to all "the people of the United States;" leaving it for them to accept or refuse it, at their pleasure. The agreement is a simple one, like any other agreement. It is the same as one that should say: We, the people of the town of A––––, agree to sustain a church, a school, a hospital, or a theatre, for ourselves and our children. Such an agreement clearly could have no validity, except as between those who actually consented to it. If a portion only of “ "the people of the town of A––––," should assent to this contract, and should then proceed to compel contributions of money or service from those who had not consented, they would be mere robbers; and would deserve to be treated as such. There are but 39 signatures on that document, now all dead. Holy Moly,in that Case,you are actually living in Nowhere-Land!
Not actually I live upon the land that has always been here, since the big bang, much nicer now than then but still the same. As to the usurpers, they have authority extending from the barrel of a gun, a gun that is paid for by the victims as are the ones holding the guns. Nowhere-Land, that fictional space where the slaves live under the impression they are actually free while bowing to their servants calling them masters. Such a confusing place. Sort of like Switzerland and that mythical "Direct Democracy" thing. I doubt you are in a Position to judge ANY political System from where you are sitting! Say,what are you,a Constitutional Anarchist,or an anarchistical Constitutionalist? Judge, what needs judging? It would seem history makes it self evident. Constitutional Anarchist and anarchistical constitutionalist are both oxymoronic. I would say that you have provided conclusive proof that any seeming judgement on your part about political systems would be the one in question. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Conrad_73
on
Thu 12/24/15 07:09 AM
|
|
Well, the whole Electoral College deal, was part of the same fundamental distrust of the common people and real democracy that our ancestors in power had. It's the same reason why originally, we weren't allowed to elect our own Senators. I think that a decision on something like this, requires appreciation of the full ramifications and consequences. I prefer real democracy, myself. Even when a majority of the people around me are clearly idiots masquerading as grown up human beings, I'd rather have our fate be determined by our own willingness to at least pretend to take responsibility for ourselves. I know that a bunch of Presidential elections would have been a lot closer, had there been none of this winner-take-all stuff (only two states apportion electors proportionally), and only one in recent memory would have been reversed (Bush Gore). It MIGHT, or MIGHT NOT stop some Presidents from deluding themselves that they have a 'mandate from the people' which they clearly don't have. 'splain "Real Democracy"! We have a System here in Switzerland that comes about as close to Direct Democracy as you want to go,and it's mostly a Pain in the Butt! While it has it's advantages,Amendments ,or a total Revision of our Constitution is far too easy! So,think before you wish! You were given a Constitutional Republic,If you can Keep it,to paraphrase one of your Founders! "Real Democracy", the rule of the mob, the establishment of a ruling class and a ruled class, the stamping on the rights of others by popular proclamation. As to the US, you are mistaken, a Republic was what was taken by the so called founders that met for a purpose they had no authority to do and enslaved the people. Or as so well explained by Lysander Spooner in No Treason #2, The Constitution: The Constitution says:
"We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." The meaning of this is simply We, the people of the United States, acting freely and voluntarily as individuals, consent and agree that we will cooperate with each other in sustaining such a government as is provided for in this Constitution. The necessity for the consent of "the people" is implied in this declaration. The whole authority of the Constitution rests upon it. If they did not consent, it was of no validity. Of course it had no validity, except as between those who actually consented. No one's consent could be presumed against him, without his actual consent being given, any more than in the case of any other contract to pay money, or render service. And to make it binding upon any one, his signature, or other positive evidence of consent, was as necessary as in the case of any other-contract. If the instrument meant to say that any of "the people of the United States" would be bound by it, who did not consent, it was a usurpation and a lie. The most that can be inferred from the form, "We, the people," is, that the instrument offered membership to all "the people of the United States;" leaving it for them to accept or refuse it, at their pleasure. The agreement is a simple one, like any other agreement. It is the same as one that should say: We, the people of the town of A––––, agree to sustain a church, a school, a hospital, or a theatre, for ourselves and our children. Such an agreement clearly could have no validity, except as between those who actually consented to it. If a portion only of “ "the people of the town of A––––," should assent to this contract, and should then proceed to compel contributions of money or service from those who had not consented, they would be mere robbers; and would deserve to be treated as such. There are but 39 signatures on that document, now all dead. Holy Moly,in that Case,you are actually living in Nowhere-Land!
Not actually I live upon the land that has always been here, since the big bang, much nicer now than then but still the same. As to the usurpers, they have authority extending from the barrel of a gun, a gun that is paid for by the victims as are the ones holding the guns. Nowhere-Land, that fictional space where the slaves live under the impression they are actually free while bowing to their servants calling them masters. Such a confusing place. Sort of like Switzerland and that mythical "Direct Democracy" thing. I doubt you are in a Position to judge ANY political System from where you are sitting! Say,what are you,a Constitutional Anarchist,or an anarchistical Constitutionalist? Judge, what needs judging? It would seem history makes it self evident. Constitutional Anarchist and anarchistical constitutionalist are both oxymoronic. I would say that you have provided conclusive proof that any seeming judgement on your part about political systems would be the one in question. 
well,as long as it makes sense in your own mind! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You guys don't have to have me define democracy. There's plenty of dictionaries in the world. It would seem from your statements that you do need to define democracy as what you imply seems to defy any dictionary. And yes, you are wrong again, the reason why we used to be unable to vote for our senators is the same reason they set up the electoral college. The peasantry is trusted to vote for who they want locally, but are assumed to be too ignorant and greedy (like the upper classes aren't) to establish national leadership.
Wrong again, you would be correct in the overall correlation but not in the party you claim to be wrong. For the real party in error, you need but find a mirror. As to the Senators I would suggest you start with the Federalist Papers, No 62, to wit: "In this spirit it may be remarked, that the equal vote allowed to each State is at once a constitutional recognition of the portion of sovereignty remaining in the individual States, and an instrument for preserving that residuary sovereignty. So far the equality ought to be no less acceptable to the large than to the small States; since they are not less solicitous to guard, by every possible expedient, against an improper consolidation of the States into one simple republic." As to the chief magistrate, I would suggest you read the Federalist Papers, No. 68, to wit: It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture. It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief. The choice of several, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of one who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes. And as the electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place. Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention. They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment. And they have excluded from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the President in office. No senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States, can be of the numbers of the electors. Thus without corrupting the body of the people, the immediate agents in the election will at least enter upon the task free from any sinister bias. Their transient existence, and their detached situation, already taken notice of, afford a satisfactory prospect of their continuing so, to the conclusion of it. The business of corruption, when it is to embrace so considerable a number of men, requires time as well as means. Nor would it be found easy suddenly to embark them, dispersed as they would be over thirteen States, in any combinations founded upon motives, which though they could not properly be denominated corrupt, might yet be of a nature to mislead them from their duty. It's a very commonly held belief, which is still very influential today, all over the world. Here in the US especially, there are people high up in both of the main parties, who are completely sure that most Americans aren't up to the task of guiding the country, and have to be lied to and bribed in various ways, for their own good. I do NOT myself favor a move to 100% direct democratic government. I prefer elected leaders (hopefully reasonably wise and or knowledgeable) who act for us. Because I read polls, and know how capricious mobs can be.
What democratic government, do you live in Switzerland also? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the whole Electoral College deal, was part of the same fundamental distrust of the common people and real democracy that our ancestors in power had. It's the same reason why originally, we weren't allowed to elect our own Senators. I think that a decision on something like this, requires appreciation of the full ramifications and consequences. I prefer real democracy, myself. Even when a majority of the people around me are clearly idiots masquerading as grown up human beings, I'd rather have our fate be determined by our own willingness to at least pretend to take responsibility for ourselves. I know that a bunch of Presidential elections would have been a lot closer, had there been none of this winner-take-all stuff (only two states apportion electors proportionally), and only one in recent memory would have been reversed (Bush Gore). It MIGHT, or MIGHT NOT stop some Presidents from deluding themselves that they have a 'mandate from the people' which they clearly don't have. 'splain "Real Democracy"! We have a System here in Switzerland that comes about as close to Direct Democracy as you want to go,and it's mostly a Pain in the Butt! While it has it's advantages,Amendments ,or a total Revision of our Constitution is far too easy! So,think before you wish! You were given a Constitutional Republic,If you can Keep it,to paraphrase one of your Founders! "Real Democracy", the rule of the mob, the establishment of a ruling class and a ruled class, the stamping on the rights of others by popular proclamation. As to the US, you are mistaken, a Republic was what was taken by the so called founders that met for a purpose they had no authority to do and enslaved the people. Or as so well explained by Lysander Spooner in No Treason #2, The Constitution: The Constitution says:
"We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." The meaning of this is simply We, the people of the United States, acting freely and voluntarily as individuals, consent and agree that we will cooperate with each other in sustaining such a government as is provided for in this Constitution. The necessity for the consent of "the people" is implied in this declaration. The whole authority of the Constitution rests upon it. If they did not consent, it was of no validity. Of course it had no validity, except as between those who actually consented. No one's consent could be presumed against him, without his actual consent being given, any more than in the case of any other contract to pay money, or render service. And to make it binding upon any one, his signature, or other positive evidence of consent, was as necessary as in the case of any other-contract. If the instrument meant to say that any of "the people of the United States" would be bound by it, who did not consent, it was a usurpation and a lie. The most that can be inferred from the form, "We, the people," is, that the instrument offered membership to all "the people of the United States;" leaving it for them to accept or refuse it, at their pleasure. The agreement is a simple one, like any other agreement. It is the same as one that should say: We, the people of the town of A––––, agree to sustain a church, a school, a hospital, or a theatre, for ourselves and our children. Such an agreement clearly could have no validity, except as between those who actually consented to it. If a portion only of “ "the people of the town of A––––," should assent to this contract, and should then proceed to compel contributions of money or service from those who had not consented, they would be mere robbers; and would deserve to be treated as such. There are but 39 signatures on that document, now all dead. Holy Moly,in that Case,you are actually living in Nowhere-Land!
Not actually I live upon the land that has always been here, since the big bang, much nicer now than then but still the same. As to the usurpers, they have authority extending from the barrel of a gun, a gun that is paid for by the victims as are the ones holding the guns. Nowhere-Land, that fictional space where the slaves live under the impression they are actually free while bowing to their servants calling them masters. Such a confusing place. Sort of like Switzerland and that mythical "Direct Democracy" thing. I doubt you are in a Position to judge ANY political System from where you are sitting! Say,what are you,a Constitutional Anarchist,or an anarchistical Constitutionalist? Judge, what needs judging? It would seem history makes it self evident. Constitutional Anarchist and anarchistical constitutionalist are both oxymoronic. I would say that you have provided conclusive proof that any seeming judgement on your part about political systems would be the one in question.
well,as long as it makes sense in your own mind! So you have no clue nor can defend as to what you speak but you still feel free to ridicule that which you can't comprehend? |
|
|
|
|
