Electoral College (Revised)

[font=verdana][color=green]I was talking about your example of having X be in charge of hunting and Y being in charge of farming. I agree that that's an anarchy.



[font=verdana][color=green]Ah, I see. Kinda like a charity then. I suppose that with the tax benefits being a charity entails, it would certainly be a lot easier to fund such a scheme. But, I suppose I agree in the hypothetical sense; if it was to be so simple in real life, then I'd undoubtedly support it. But, as we know full well, people can be remarkably apathetic to politics, so the idea of them having to takes tests to vote on something they don't care for...sure it ensures that uneducated people can't vote, but it would be a serious hit to democracy.

See, we have this mistaken philosophy of "Everyone must be allowed to vote, otherwise it's not democracy." Rather, the flaws within the system is the idea of the parties. The way the Democratic and Republican parties are ran now, they are more of an organizational business, then they are a political party. For an example, some of you may be inclined to call yourself a Republican or Democrat. A question: What has your dutiful service to the party in question EVER given you? Perhaps, the slim chance of having the government that you want in power.

Since it is so slim, since the majority of the people could vote for a different candidate all together AND the undiscussed elephant in the room: That a Democratic-representative(take Obama "change" for example) could be just the same, if not worse then a republican-representative. And I'll quote our president when he was then running for our votes:

"It's not just Main Street that's going to have to make sacrifices, but Wall Street and Washington as well." Pretty words, if you didn't just spend the first three years of your administration strengthening the Fed, strengthening Wall Street and crushing Main Street. Oh, and we can neglect the millions of dollars in debt that you've spent Mr.President that's just adding icing to the cake.

The only way you and I will EVER gain anything from being associated with the Democratic and Republican Parties, is if we're socially accepted and then moved up in the higher rankings of the party. Oh wait, that sounds like an aristocracy to me...it is one!

Only, we're not ruled by kings and queens, which is actually preferred to the current system since the king and queen has a personal motive for wanting to represent his/her people to the highest level. Lest he get overthrown by his own people, or lately the so-called international community is playing political police all across Asia.

Our aristocrats are lawyers and businessmen and CEO'S who can tap into the political pool of lobbyists. These people, simply don't care about Americans. They don't respect the due process of law because it inhibits their law breaking activities. The Founding Fathers didn't deal with the mafia or the criminal elements of our society in their time, so they couldn't have possibly anticipated this development(which would lend credence to a ruling representative or at the very least, a majority rule.) But what the Founding Fathers could have anticipated instead of idealizing a world where the American People would be as much of an intellectual as they themselves is that the majority of Americans would probably NOT be that interested in politics.

Our Political Apathy has led to the corrosion of politics in America, and such apathy comes from the fact that our nationalism is little to none.(Quite to the contrary of the nation's beginnings ironically). But no, really we look at this nation like it's an accessory rather than our homeland. The "land of the home and the brave" simply doesn't appeal to us because we weren't a part of the civil war, what national emotions can it arise in us?

Similarly, the statue of liberty was a gift from France but how many people know that? Every New Year's, we throw out the garbage and we start over anew. It's time we did the same here. Our former Constitutional Republic died due to Political Apathy, the so-called democracy was and is an aristocracy and is now getting rid of all of it's facades and revealing it's true demonic nature to the loads of uninformed masses who believed in the mythology of "democracy".

Demons, generally aren't a good thing. This aristocratic, borderline dictatorial government system isn't a good thing either and must be laid to rest. And so, what do we replace it with? Well, we Americans take pride in calling ourselves the world's lone superpower, and we expect dominance in our economics, our social and our athletic lives. It's time to match that up politically, we are an empire. Our spirits and souls today long for that Nationalism, that place where we can defend our fellow brethren to the teeth and enjoy a long spirited communication with our fellow man. It's time that whenever we see our flag, we become so aroused as to clap on-end and cheer like maniacs like we do for our sports teams. That we feel as though our representation is representing us in all facets of political and social life. That we feel, simply as though we cannot lose.

My greatest dream, is the rise of the Holy American Empire. An Empire, that will have the political and social bite to ensure the people's rights are being protected from those lobbyists, those CEO'S and those who would game the system. They are as much of a nemesis today as they were in the 17th-18th century and they will continue to be one until we rein them in, and our aristocratic-dictatorial social system is not going to do that, the current system is their best friend.

If they are apathetic enough to let a test discourage them. Do we really want their vote? Sure, it won't be a "true democracy" but, I personally disdain Ochlocracy. Democracy is nothing more than mob rule and hinges on the flawed concept that a positions popularity equals correctness.

I'm sure you're familiar with the quote about Democracy being two wolves and a sheep, etc.

While i think who gets elected should come down to votes by the people, i understand the need to make sure the small states count as much as the bigger states. That said, i would support altering it a bit to it so it can't override the majority

Okay, so who gave me a -1 and why did they give me a -1? There's only one flaw I can see in my argument, and I'm thinking of a rebuttal currently but it's kind of hard at the moment.

It was way too long to get to the point and sounded like a rant which is why I de-repped. I would not derep for disagreeing with an argument; that's the premise of this section.

So on an unrelated note, I disagree with strong nationalism because there are tendencies throughout history to misconstrue it as having superiority over other nations and as justification for war. It is by definition a condescending attitude towards other nations because you think that your nation is superior.

It is great that Americans have always distrusted their government because it's a form of power balance to keep the government in check. It allows us to address problems with our government and no government can be correct forever. The needs of society change with time and so should the government.

But, who doesn't think their nation is superior? Hell, I bet there are even Africans that believe that Africa will have great national times ahead. Should we reject our capabilities and our potential, just so we wouldn't hurt the other nations's feelings? And that's assuming that it is a "condescending attitude towards other nations because you think your nation is superior." Wars happen not out of trivial feelings, but out of geopolitical/political misalignments that after repeated negotiations could not be resolved through talks.

That mistrust is the reason there's political apathy today! "My politicians are corrupt, so why should I bother?" is the sentiment of over 50% of the American Population! Furthermore, do you change your philosophies as often as the U.S. Government changes parties?(Every four years). I believe in political stability and in fact stability in general.

Why can't a government be correct forever? Why can't a government, in following the wishes of it's people has a geopolitical and a political philosophy that brings prosperity and peace to the homeland? The dignity and honor with which an Empire stands, would bring great and dramatic change to America for the better. A Ruling Empire has the pressure and responsibility to govern, whereas those beloved CEO'S and those beloved politicians only have four years to mess up, and if so they can pass the baton to the next guy. And Americans? Won't give two craps, why should they?

Wars start because someone has something to gain, usually banks or weapon manufacturers.




Nobody can agree on what will "bring prosperity and peace to the homeland". Democrats believe in heavy taxation on producers and a large welfare state A.k.a "safety net" as the method to bring prosperity. Libertarians view that as tyranny, blatant theft and vote buying. Republicans believe that peace will be secure when every nation is a Democratic state (usually installed through the violent toppling of non-democratic regimes). Democrats and Libertarians think this is wrong and that negotiations and mutual understanding will bring peace.

Warhawks and Doves will never agree on what methods bring peace. While big Government and limited Government supporters will never agree on what brings prosperity.

Ironically enough, despite the proclamation that the current foreign policy is one of the Republicans, a democrat is currently heralding the White House and is heralding that same foreign policy agenda. So in other words, it doesn't look like it's limited to a Democrat V Republican argument. In fact, this goes to what you said earlier about banks and weapons masnufacturers gaining a lot through war, not just geopolitically but political and social warfare as well.

Outside of the Political Spectrum however, let us think about what the people generally want: Peace, well-being as well as pride in their country. I was at once a Liberal so I know how these two parties work and even we as affiliates of these corporate monsters: "Vote for us, we'll change Washington!"....Four years later, Washington never changes.

And it's like we hit our head over and over with a brick wall, believing it'll be that ONE guy or that one policy change in party that will change it(and of course, it doesn't change.) How can it change when ONE/FIFTH of our parliament upholds it's constitutional oath, one/fifth!?

I rejected the Neo-Con view immediately, not even bothering with the slightest idea of becoming one with that borghive which would be all the same and for me to be accepted I would have to adhere to their accepted view of life in America like a blind sheep. My Political Life changed, as I remembered the stories of Napoleon Bontaparte. The man rose from nothing to France's prominence. I then remembered Alexander the Great and his heroic deeds. And then, with mixed results obviously, NS Germany's rise in the early 30's.

There was something that those men had, that inspired millions of people to follow them and I knew through basic political science that it couldn't be the use of exclusive force alone, for eventually a despotic power is always risen against. And then the concept of Nationalism became clear to me: Not as some mere warcry, but as a cry for self-service for our own countrymen and dignity. Men, throughout history want a leader whose willing to lead and whose willing to take a stand. And these men throughout history through centralized government were always able to deflate those banks and those weapon manufacturers, those who would game the system.

The horrors of the world war sparked a turn against Nationalism, but what we really needed to take a turn against was bankers and corporations, we needed more Nationalism not less. More respect for the cultural rights of individual nations, not forcefeeding our so-called democratic-aristocratic system on the rest of the world.

As I read auto biographies on these men and what they've done in their time, I noticed it wasn't that much different from what the Founders did. The Founders believed in their fellow countrymen and they believed that bankers and corporations should no longer have an influence in people's lives. They thought however, that giving the power and responsibility to the majority of the citizens would counteract this power. They neglected the potential for political apathy, as you and I know it to be Penguin.

How different would America be today, if it were a noble standing Empire who virtually commands political respect and bestows political respect upon every American Citizen? Can you say immigration problem solved? Who wouldn't want to be an American Citizen now!? We can regain our tourist base, faith in the economy, etc. We can make a massive recovery by recovering our Political Existence.

I like this guy. ^

When I see someone advocating strong nationalism I think back to George Orwell's 1984 and the nation he imagined - one blinded by propaganda that makes them believe that even when they're wrong, they're right. Strong nationalism brings with it the belief that one's government is infallible. I, for one, would not hesitate to point a finger at people who are responsible for wrong doing no matter if it brings the trust of a nation down with them.

Can whoever derepped me tell me why? Was it because of the 2 minor typos, or was it the content of my post?

I am genuinely curious

'twas not me. I find it impossible to understand how one could live oneself knowing that one had derepped the Almighty, Which Is, Which Was, and Which is to Cum in yo mama, Black Jesus himself.

Honestly I think that America should do away with the entire idea of a republic and instead use a direct democracy where the people vote on laws and have the right to repeal them, and don't have to worry about representatives being bribed into voting for internet censorship.
However, this system has its flaws, especially difficulties in setting a such a government up across such a large population base.

Well I consider this. The election of Abraham lincoln, one of the president to win by getting "the right states" was one of the reasons that the southern states broke off of the union. This was also due to the fact that they still wanted slavery and knew that lincoln would probably use his power to keep slavery unenforced, but no matter, in a direct popular vote, there would have to be a recount, or some candidates eliminated or perhaps a different candidate might have won. Either way the fact that the popular vote was not satisfied, that the people were not satisfied, cuased the civil war or that's the way I see it, at least.

On that ground, I say remove the college.

I see what you are saying here, but the American Civil War was probably going to happen anyway. Secession was already being discussed in the Carolinas. The option had been laid on the table, and the conflict in the expanding, western frontier was speeding the nation toward an ugly ultimatum. With these things considered, I think that the electoral college played a negligible role in the sparking of the civil war. Congress was already doing a juggling act in an attempt to balance free states with slave states. Representation in Congress, enough of which the South felt that they were not receiving, was more important to both sides.
The election was the breaking point, but only because the South saw their representation in Congress being threatened. In reality, were they being correctly represented? Probably not. But I think that it would be unfair to attribute the American Civil War in any large part to the electoral college.

I think a better argument could be made using the egregious example of an election in which a candidate wins whilst not receiving the majority of the popular vote.

Also, @TheEpicSock, a direct democracy would be ruinous if put into place in the current environment, one in which even the basic wants of the population are fabricated.

I can understand why the electoral college is there. Instead of relying on a general popular vote, each candidate actually has to try and succeed in each state individually; it's like having to win the election enough times in enough states to actually become President.

It places emphasis on the voting power of the state as a whole instead of each individual person, which makes sense; unlike a lot of other countries with small populations and few or no states, the US is huge. The country itself is broken up into fifty states. Most countries don't even have one. Breaking up the vote like that actually makes sense in that light. Especially considering that it's a vote to place a guy into one of the most powerful positions in the government.

If they got rid of it I wouldn't really care, I'd still vote come election day, but I also don't think it's a system that's completely without merits.

*facepalm*

I failed to see anything that backed up your point. Please elaborate.

The point I was trying to make is that the US is so large, it's basically like 50 semi-independent countries existing under one roof. The electoral college exists to allow each state the right to decide how their popular vote gets counted into the overall election.

It's a somewhat old-fashioned system, to say the least, but it's a trademark of the federalist way the US has been run since it was born. It may seem unfair, but look at the bright side; the last time the popular vote didn't coincide with the electoral vote [before 2000] was in 1888. So the system hasn't been too shabby, yea?

Either way, this method leads to candidates campaigning in "important" states where they can rack up the most electoral votes. Also, arguing for the continuation of a system based on tradition won't get this discussion very far. I don't think that you were, but it almost looked like you were going to.



What "may seem unfair" is all of the electoral votes of a state going to the candidate who received the majority of the state's popular vote, and the state scrapping the rest of its citizen's votes. Sure the state decides whether to divide its votes proportionately or not, but not many states are going to subject their sway to such diminution. Only 2 have.
Elections in which a candidate wins whilst not receiving the majority of the popular vote are only a symptom of the root problem that is the inaccurate representation of a nation's people.

This point remains largely unchanged if it were a popular vote; candidates would campaign the most heavily populated cities and states.



Either way you do it, you're still scrapping tons of votes. And you know it. That's the nature of a one-seat election. I can say this much; even if we were to switch to a popular vote, I don't think the people who voted for the losing candidate would be content with saying "at least it was fair".

So to me, it honestly makes no difference. I'm simply playing the devil's advocate in this argument.

EDIT: I wish there was a "It doesn't matter if we get rid of it" poll option.