Put me a box and wrap me up...poll

[readyaimduck]

I am not saying abolish it.  I am suggesting re looking at it for the  methods.  It was looked at in the late 60'-71.  However, Nixon forgot to speak up!
   

[redcliffsw]

The communists would love for us to surrender or change the electoral college.

Let's speak up for states' rights, after all it's our individual liberty that's at stake.

How about State nullification?  Let's encourage that too.

[readyaimduck]

whoa there red.  I asked a simple question with no intention  of insinuating a specific group.
Generalize and emote much?

We used to be a collective country, now we re just  bunch of little groups saying their crayon box hs more colors in their box!
Individullism?  I believe in it for personal life.  As  country, let's eat at the sme table together and not bitch about the beef.  If someone is a vegetrian, then eat more vegetables....I don't have to accomodate you.

Is the Electoral vote fair to compenste for the popular vote?   That is my question.
ready

[mtcookson]

Let just say, if the electoral college were removed you would likely be horrified to see what the end result would bring.

[Patriot]

Let just say, if the electoral college were removed you would likely be horrified to see what the end result would bring.

I agree.  Rather than abolishing it (and instituting the dangerous pure democracy) , perhaps there's another way of improve the balance... since the # of electoral votes a state has is ultimately based on population, perhaps encouraging more conservative voters to improve the balance by a review of their right to free assembly... and exercising their liberty to move to red states.  That would further improve the balance in the House of Reps as well.

While we're at it, let's repeal the travesty foisted upon us by Fabian Socialists like Woodrow Wilson and William Jennings Bryan... the 17th Amendment, thereby returning proper representation of the individual States to Congress.

[mtcookson]

While we're at it, let's repeal the travesty foisted upon us by Fabian Socialists like Woodrow Wilson and William Jennings Bryan... the 17th Amendment, thereby returning proper representation of the individual States to Congress.

Couldn't agree more.

Maybe even add an amendment that says welfare recipients can't vote due to conflict of interests... Wishful thinking I know. Plus, it would look kind of silly if you read the constitution, saw that the government doesn't actually have the power to give welfare, then see an amendment like that. Silly indeed.  

andI believe if that person is incompetent of making 'sane' choices (deemed by society), then they will be punished by ?.

As Warph said, based on what you believe you would definitely be a conservative. Anymore, I don't really like the term right or left. The idea has been around for a while but its truly up and down instead of left or right. Up being liberty, simply maximizing your freedom and down being tyranny, or simply put the loss of your freedom. There's actually a pretty good quote from Reagan along those same lines:

You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man's age-old dream — the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order — or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. Regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would sacrifice freedom for security have embarked on this downward path. Plutarch warned, "The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits.

I do take slight issue what your idea that I quoted though. If you allow society to deem someone incompetent, especially if you do so using democracy, what you will eventually get will be a nightmare. A simple majority could deem anyone who believes in capitalism incompetent and punish them for doing so. Believe in God? Same thing. Believe you should own firearms? Same thing. It would be VERY dangerous to allow such power. This actually also fits with the electoral college thing above. If you get rid of it, you would have a simple majority rules democracy and that would spell disaster.

Allowing society to dictate such things is actually why we have lost so much of our liberty. They use law to control us or punish us in the worst ways possible. They even make the laws themselves difficult to understand in most cases, and on purpose usually as well. Law should actually be quite simple... if you violate someone's rights you get punished. There is simply nothing worse than violating others' rights... and there is something quite horrifying about that statement... The people ALLOW the government to violate their rights and ALLOW the government to PUNISH them for exercising their rights. I mean... how sad is that?

Its actually why I've been avoiding politics lately. I've come to the realization that we have lost so many of our God given rights to our own government that it would literally take an act of God to fix it. After the horrible election I've been thinking, well maybe a state (or even better the red states) should secede but then I come back to the realization that our states are as guilty as the federal government of taking away our rights. Even our counties, our cities... the City of Howard even... is guilty of taking away our rights. It makes me sad and sick to my stomach thinking about it. I've lost thousands of dollars, yes indeed folks... thousands of dollars... because Howard thinks it can take away my property rights. The State of Kansas won't even allow me to exercise one of my most basic and cherished rights of being able to bear arms to defend myself without having a permit... a PERMIT otherwise known as... a PERMISSION SLIP from the State saying I'm "legally allowed" to exercise MY RIGHT. Excuse me? Are you serious? I have to PAY the State to get a piece of paper that says I'm ALLOWED to exercise MY RIGHT to conceal a firearm?

Oh... because concealing it is just SO much more dangerous than not concealing it? Because it somehow violates the rights of others? Because concealing it somehow doesn't "technically" fall under the term "to keep and bear" and therefore can be outlawed? Ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous. What's next? Do I next have to pay the state for a piece of paper that says I'm allowed to exercise my right to pray to my God? Well... with the course this country is heading that actually could very well happen. Rather, we would simply end up being attacked for it, punished for it, and will be outlawed from being able to exercise our religious beliefs because it doesn't fit with the "majority".

The reason I bring up the firearms one is because that particular attack on that particular right is so incredibly horrible in the sense that it is an ENUMERATED RIGHT... meaning, the Founders thought this right was so absolutely important that they specifically wrote it down, in plain English, for the WORLD to see... and these politicians have the AUDACITY to think they can restrict that right. Its absolutely sickening... even more sickening is they are allowed to get away with it. Not a single one of them has been punished for an absolute minimum of perjury, for violating their oath to protect the Constitution... the oath they are required to take to get into office once they have been voted for. They break the law before they are even capable of writing them. Now... just imagine how many rights you've lost that aren't enumerated. You probably don't even know how many rights you've actually lost, they've been gone for so long.

Have you ever tried starting your own business? Did you know that many businesses are required to obtain a license before doing so? Did you know that requiring a business license is a violation of your rights? "But... but... but... requiring a license keeps businesses honest and protects the people from businesses screwing people!" Uh huh... that's why there are no bad car dealerships, no bad banks, no bad nurses, no bad doctors.... that's why every business in this country is 100% honest because requiring businesses to obtain a license keeps people protected. Please... how utterly pathetic of our government to think they can give us permission to do one of the most basic things in our lives... work. To offer our services or buy and sell property.

Did you know the statement "driving is a privilege" is actually not true? You actually have a right to travel. Constitutionally you can drive your car without a license, registration, license plate, and insurance. The roads out there... you paid for them, with your taxes. Public roads are the peoples' roads and we have a right to use them. The only time the State can require you to carry a license, registration, license plate, and/or insurance is if you are using the roads for commercial purposes... if you are using them to make money. That's the ONLY time they can require it.

Its been so ingrained into us that I'm sure people of any political stance would absolutely freak out on this one but just think for a moment... first of the most basic part of it... do you not believe you have the most basic, God given right, to travel where you please, when you please, on non-private land? I mean, first of all you pay for the land... why should you not have the right to use it? You pay for the roads to be paved... even though there is nothing in the Constitution that requires the government to give us nice paved roads for automobiles... yet you somehow don't have the right to use what you pay for? Come on... really? From there, think of what the founders would have thought. Do you seriously believe they would have wanted the people to be restricted from going anywhere without first paying the government? Do you think they would have thought it ok for the states to require you to carry a license to ride a horse or pull a carriage? A license plate for your boat or ship? Absolutely not. Licensing of vehicles wasn't started until around 1901 in the U.S. Why? Well, most importantly because people didn't fight for their rights but one state (cough California cough) said one reason, naturally, was due to "safety" because these new contraptions were "dangerous". You know... there are many things dangerous in life but I find the most to be a government willing to take away the rights of the people... and equally a people willing to allow such government take away their rights... but I digress.

Back to the right to travel (i.e. drive). Some people on both sides might go absolutely insane over the thought that insurance can't be required. Yeah, it can be a scary thought but like a great man once said "Any people that would give up liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety." If you don't have a lot of money to pay for someone's car and medical bills should you fail at driving and wreck into them you should indeed carry insurance simply because that is the... wait for it... wait for it... RESPONSIBLE thing to do (oh hell, I just brought personal responsibility into this conversation... there goes the world). From there people might ask, well what happens if they don't have the insurance and something like that happens? That's where the law comes in. You know? The actual proper law where if you violate others' rights you are punished accordingly? Its quite simple really; if you know you can't afford to pay for a worst case scenario, choose to drive anyway without insurance to protect against the worst case scenario, the worst case scenario by chance happens, and you ruin someone's property and harm their health should you not be punished in some way? Now I'm not talking about act of God accidents here, I'm talking negligent driving, where someone simply fails at driving and causes these problems. In a case of a true, non-negligence accident, if you don't have insurance and your car is ruined or you're hurt its up to you to pay for your car and your medical bills... because, well you know... (warning... R word coming), that is simply your own responsibility to fix it. Likewise, if the other person in the accident is without insurance they are responsible only for themselves. Quite simply... requiring insurance isn't actually required when proper, constitutional law, is used. See how that works?

I could keep going but I'm sure people will already have veins popping out of their heads right now at how "ridiculous" my claims are and others will probably be even more depressed, like I, once they come to the realization of just how many rights they've lost so I'll just leave everything at that for now.

On a couple final notes...

"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so." - Thomas Jefferson

Not to end on yet another downer but, this is where I'm currently sitting. Can the country be fixed, can we regain our natural, God given rights? I believe that it certainly is possible, not without an incredible amount of time and work... but highly unlikely unfortunately. I believe currently it would take nothing short of an act of God to pull us out of this, yet at the same time there are signs starting to point towards the "end times" meaning this is the direction God is willing the country to go to fulfill the requirements for the end times. It could quite simply be that we will never see our natural rights again until we are finally with God. To say that I hope not would be absolutely silly as there would truly be nothing greater than to be with Him... but I certainly would not complain if I were wrong and we were able to turn this country around, to get it back to its former glory.

Really, all we can do right now is prepare for the worst and hope for the best. I would seriously start "prepping". Saving up food, water, necessities, preparing for the worst. Do that; all the while trying to do what you can to change the country back, even if it is so simple as voting for the right candidate in future elections.

That's where I sit and I'm sticking to it.


Edit:

I have a correction to my statement above, about lots of time and work to fix the country. It could potentially be sped up significantly using an incredibly silly method I concocted. Crash the country and get in an oxymoronic "Constitutional Dictator". Basically, a dictator that would forcefully take the country back to its constitutional roots but eliminating all unconstitutional law then forcing a new election of the standard U.S. government setup... hoping like hell the constitutional conservatives take a majority. Though I would probably consider putting into law more visible and extremely harsh punishment to those politicians who think they can take away our rights. Currently they should all be convicted of perjury but I would probably step it up a notch to make sure history doesn't repeat itself.

All just a hypothetical of course.

Edit 2:

I forgot some important information in my driving is a right argument. I forgot to include the fact that our very own State of Kansas has a statute on automobile law that specifically says driving on the public roads in a right.... then naturally further down in the statutes they have law that violates that very right by requiring all of the above requirements and "permission" to drive.

Also, to further the argument... I don't believe the state can even prohibit that right based on age, meaning if your child is capable of driving (you know... reach the pedals, can see over the dash, has the **WARNING WARNING R word coming WARNING WARNING... responsibility to do so), you give them permission to drive, and are willing to accept the responsibility (oh crap, sorry forgot to warn you ) and risk for doing so... I actually see no reason why that would be able to be outlawed. Same with firearms, same with anything else. I actually know there are children out there that could 100% drive better than many adults out there. Sad but true.

[readyaimduck]

Now THAT was the best political advise and scenario I have red thus far.

I am planning ahead MtC.  And, I think down deep I am a Rebel for the good cause.....Freedom.

Slap me silly and paint me giggly!
Thank you for that!
ready

[Bullwinkle]

     Not bad, not bad at all. Many excellent points. I especially like the no vote for those on welfare. Santa Obuma would have lost a ton of votes there.

[Warph]

       I agree with you as to needing to change the electoral college, Ready, as well as many of your initial feelings about the whole mess. I would guess we were raised in similar thinking households.

      I'd like to hear what the Warph-meister would suggest we do about the electoral " thingy" , if anything, and why it exists.

The answer to this is simple.  If you want the major metropolitan areas to control this country, then opt for popular vote.  (But remember this: If presidential elections were decided by popular vote instead of the Electoral College, Al Gore would have been elected president in 2000).

If you want the vote weighted so that everybody's vote counts State-wide, then go with the Electoral College.
 
But let me say this first.

A great document we all love begins: "We, the People,"...That's us..."of the United States of America, in order to form a more perfect Union..." Union of what... People or States?  Obviously it is talking about states.  The election of President has gone from a leader of a Union of States to a leader of WELFARE REFORM structured to the passion of the people.  A switch to a popular vote seems like the next domino to fall and it scares me to death.  I'm by no means an expert, but the history strikes me: It seems ever since the close of the Civil War, a push away from true Federalism (a collection of states united under a federal government with both state of Federal governments possessing certain powers) to a Nationalist system  (a single government directing the lives of the people) has and is taking place. (check out the Civil War Amendments [13-15].... Progressive Era Amendments [16-17,19], etc.)  The way I see it, when they dissolve the state lines, that is when we can go to a straight popular vote because that is when it would be the United People and not the United States.  With the turbulent times foreseen ahead... and there will be many with Obuma... now is not the time to test out a drastic change in election of the most powerful position on earth.  I do see the constitution as a work-in-process and times will perhaps necessitate alteration.  I would like to see laws implemented where welfare recipients on government "gimmies" should not be qualified to vote and voter ID cards made mandatory in all States, as a beginning.  However, I do not see a change to a straight popular vote as a wise alteration. 
 
The "Father of our Nation" in his farewell address warned about changes in government, saying that we should "resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious [OR alluring] the pretexts." He went on to say, "In all the changes to which you may be invited, remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments, as of other human institutions; that experience is the surest standard..." *As George Washington would know, time, habit, and experience are vital.  Sadly most Americans lack the experience to say which is better for the nation and those that do may be out voiced... (I'm not saying I do).

*http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/farewell/text.html (see verse 19)


 

[flintauqua]

The Electoral College came about as a compromise during the drafting of the Constitution.  One faction wanted Congress to elect the President, in a manner very similar to how a lot of Prime Ministers are selected.  Another faction wanted a direct popular vote.  Please remember at the time the right to vote in many states was tied to a certain level of property ownership, and varied from state to state.  States could and most probably would have changed their individual proportion of the total electorate by enlarging the number of citizens allowed to vote.  Small states feared a direct popular vote would allow the large states of Virginia and New York to control who would be President.  Large states feared a one state, one vote election by Congress would give too much power to the small states. 

So, just as having a bicameral Congress with a Senate made up of two members per state and a House of Representatives based on population was one of the largest compromises made by the Founding Fathers, the Electoral College was crafted as a way to allow each state to have its existence counted (one vote representing each Senator) and also to have its population taken into account (one vote for each Representative).

Now, since the Electoral College essentially re-creates each states representation in Congress, why didn't they just have the Senators and Representatives as individuals, or as a state delegation, vote for President?  Well, that would make the President beholden to those who elected him, and that would weaken the Balance of Power aspects of the Constitution.  They also didn't want Senators or Representatives serving as Electors, as expressed very plainly in the Constitution:

"Article II

Section 1. The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."


Also, it should be pointed out that nothing in the Constitution forces states to send an "all or nothing" vote of the Electors to be counted.  How a states electoral votes are distributed is determined by each state legislature.   In Nebraska and Maine, the state winner receives two Electors and the winner of each congressional district receives one Elector. This system permits the Electors from Nebraska and Maine to be awarded to more than one candidate.

So, in summary, IMHO if you are a Constitutionalist and/or a states rights advocate, especially if you are from a small state, you should be behind the Electoral College 100%, as I am. 

Charles