Quote:
Originally Posted by Ixtellor";p="
Two things you left out:
1) The founding father didn't trust the American people with voting for the President because A] They were uneducated and B] They had limited access to information.
I think you could argue this is no longer the case, thus the electoral college has out lived its usefulness on that front.
|
It is more true now than ever. You had to be a land owner at one time to vote. Of course that has been changed which I agree with.
In the U.S. to are free to use your talents to become rich. On the other hand (and many people don't like to talk about this) you are also free to make stupid decisions and be a total loser. All that is fine with me. The problem comes in when that loser demands that as a tax payer I have to subsidize his stupidity. Once he starts getting a welfare or some other check in the mail every month then he is fat, stupid, and happy without any incentive to work hard for any goal. The rich at the the top are because its one less person they have to worry about who might get fed up with being poor and decides to do something about it.
Thus you have created a class of people who vote for a living instead of having any incentive to do anything. Here is what I believe. Anyone who goes to the government and gets handouts should never be allowed to vote. It is a conflict of interest for them to vote. They are going to naturally vote for the person who promises to keep their government checks coming. Once they get off the taxpayer dole then and only then should they be allowed to vote again.
Also anyone who works for the government should never be allowed to vote. It is also a conflict of interest for them to vote. My point is proven by the fact that government workers get much more than the private sector in pay and retirement. They are supposed to be our servants but it is the other away around now because of the way they are allowed to vote.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ixtellor";p="
2) You argue that the fly over part of america would be beholden to the large cities and that is mostly true. I think you are not taking into account that there are in fact a number of large cities sprinked all across America. Kansas City, St. Louis, Minnapolis, etc etc. Politicians would still have to campaigne in those parts of middle America. You are right, no candidate would ever step foot in South Dakota, which is why it wouldn't get ratified to being with.
|
You need to check that out a little bit. If the voting was by just popular vote alone you could win the Presidency by only winning New York, SF, Miami, Chicago, Dallas, and LA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ixtellor";p="
Also as the system exists today, votes in middle America count more than votes in New York. This goes against the whole "one man one vote" supreme court decision. And in a way, the large cities are being held hostage by rural areas who are the least affected by governmental policies. So your logic of the large cities running the show is countered by the fact that some dim wit nebraska farmer gets to help determine environmental policy and off shore drilling policy, etc etc.
|
Only in the Presidential election, nothing else.
06-25-2006, 11:29 AM
well
Linear Mode
