100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Ron Paul for president | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
The popular vote is meaningless. It's all done via the electoral college and the only ones who have a say in how they vote are the Republican and Democratic parties. If people actually paid attention and knew how our electoral system worked, we would have had this done away with fifty plus years ago.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The popular vote is meaningless. It's all done via the electoral college and the only ones who have a say in how they vote are the Republican and Democratic parties. If people actually paid attention and knew how our electoral system worked, we would have had this done away with fifty plus years ago. I have been one for going soley with the popular vote for a while now. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's laughable every time they come out and say "Every vote counts."
The 2000 election was more than enough proof that "no, your vote doesn't count...." But then, people don't remember things like that very well... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The popular vote is meaningless. It's all done via the electoral college and the only ones who have a say in how they vote are the Republican and Democratic parties. If people actually paid attention and knew how our electoral system worked, we would have had this done away with fifty plus years ago. This has been my point for the last 5 posts, haha. I'd prefer a two-tiered popular vote, with the first being a run-off and the top two candidates from the first election competing head to head in a second election. That way no votes are wasted, since voting for a candidate who ultimately loses the run-off will still preserve your vote for one of the two final candidates in the second election. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Or they could just do away with the political parties entirely, since once they're elected they pretty much do whatever they want anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hmm yeah they "could" do that, although the resistance would be enormous. The entire fundraising network exists through the party affiliation, and as we've learned again this year, candidates get vicious if you try to take away their private fundraising.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If elections were held under the process described in the Constitution, it would be solely a popular vote with the winner being President, and the runner-up being Vice President. Those founding fathers were pretty smart back in their day.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If elections were held under the process described in the Constitution, it would be solely a popular vote with the winner being President, and the runner-up being Vice President. Those founding fathers were pretty smart back in their day. and the truth shall set us free, keep it comin with the dissent |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re-Legalize Freedom Ron Paul 2008
"JUST COME HOME" Ron Paul 2008 Jokes Over Bring Back the Constitution Win A Free Country Vote Ron Paul In the Primaries Offer Expires May 2008 Ron Paul/ Get a Free Country AND Your Money Back Who Owns YOUR Candidate? opensecrets.org We All Support the Troops/ Who Do the Troops Support? STOP Corporate Welfare & Political Corruption RonPaul2008 Straight Talk Not Double Talk RonPaul2008 An Honest Paulitician Democrats For Ron Paul Washington Needs a Dr. Not a Lawyer RonPaul2008.com Vote Like the Constitution Matters Ron Paul Protect Our Borders Not Iraq's History Will Remember 2008 As the Year The People Saved America RonPaul2008.com JOIN US RonPaul.Meetup.com you can defeat a candidate, but they can't defeat his ideas |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
his ideas will permeate the american collective forever..thanx dr. paul
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If elections were held under the process described in the Constitution, it would be solely a popular vote with the winner being President, and the runner-up being Vice President. Those founding fathers were pretty smart back in their day. This is a formula for inefficiency, since it would result in a President possibly having polar opposite views from his/her VP. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If elections were held under the process described in the Constitution, it would be solely a popular vote with the winner being President, and the runner-up being Vice President. Those founding fathers were pretty smart back in their day. This is a formula for inefficiency, since it would result in a President possibly having polar opposite views from his/her VP. You say that like it's a bad thing... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In my opinion, it would be a bad thing. I enjoy when at least one house of Congress is controlled by the party opposite the President, but I'd like to see the Executive branch able to stick with some solidarity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Today is the day. I'm going to vote for my man Ron in about an hour.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Today is the day. I'm going to vote for my man Ron in about an hour. If only everyone in this country had your ambition for voting! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well Ron's getting at least 1 vote.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm voting Ron Paul 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Today is the day. I'm going to vote for my man Ron in about an hour. If only everyone in this country had your ambition for voting! Yeah I really wish that were the case. But funny thing, my brother has been talking with all my family and friends about Ron Paul, and today I called him after I voted to ask him if he had went yet and he told me he wasn't even registered.  Just makes me sick.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well Ron's getting at least 1 vote. Well I'm proud to say that maybe I was the ONE. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm voting Ron Paul
|
|
|
|
|
