A very very big mistake that shows a total lack of understanding our system.
Mass. Legislature approves plan to bypass Electoral College
Mass. Legislature approves plan to bypass Electoral College
Mass. Legislature approves plan to bypass Electoral College
- Thread starter xiggi
- Start date
That link is FUBARed.
This one works.
Dumping the Electoral College is bad, bad, bad. People think candidates will spread their attention more evenly, like across the Plains states the same way they would campaign in California or Ohio or Pennsylvania. But they won't. All this would accomplish is for candidates to focus solely on highly populated states, while dismissing as irrelevant the lower populated states. The Electoral College actually gives the little guy the same vocal weight as the big dog. A purely democratic popular vote silences the minority, as the majority rules with an iron fist. Bad, bad, bad.
This one works.
Dumping the Electoral College is bad, bad, bad. People think candidates will spread their attention more evenly, like across the Plains states the same way they would campaign in California or Ohio or Pennsylvania. But they won't. All this would accomplish is for candidates to focus solely on highly populated states, while dismissing as irrelevant the lower populated states. The Electoral College actually gives the little guy the same vocal weight as the big dog. A purely democratic popular vote silences the minority, as the majority rules with an iron fist. Bad, bad, bad.
When political climates change, and Blue States become Red States, are they going to change their election laws back again to compensate for it?
Massachusetts is a real hoot when it comes to this stuff. They used to have it where the governor could appoint an open seat for the US Senate, but when a Republican governor was in office, they were afraid he'd appoint a Republican to replace an exiting democrat, so the legislature passed a law that said it had to happen via a statewide vote. Then, when Ted Kennedy had to be replaced, they were afraid a Democrat wouldn't be elected in a statewide vote, so while there was a Democrat in the governor's office, they changed the law back so that the governor could appoint the new Senator. They just change the rules as they go along to keep things the way they want them.
Massachusetts is a real hoot when it comes to this stuff. They used to have it where the governor could appoint an open seat for the US Senate, but when a Republican governor was in office, they were afraid he'd appoint a Republican to replace an exiting democrat, so the legislature passed a law that said it had to happen via a statewide vote. Then, when Ted Kennedy had to be replaced, they were afraid a Democrat wouldn't be elected in a statewide vote, so while there was a Democrat in the governor's office, they changed the law back so that the governor could appoint the new Senator. They just change the rules as they go along to keep things the way they want them.
chefdennis
Veteran Expediter
Like the article said, Mass isn't a lone on this. It pointed out 5 states, I think i read that there are maybe 12 other states looking at this...
As Turtle said, Bad Bad Bad.....
As Turtle said, Bad Bad Bad.....
We are no longer a republic. The next step, and this bunch in power is working on it, is a military dictatorship. The left is the left, they never change. 
I see 2 things wrong with the electorial college.
1st is almost all of the states have a all or nothing system, If a Candidate who wins most of the votes in the state gets all of the electoral college votes in the state so the voice of the minority is drowned out anyway.
2nd the states districts can be manipulated to benefit one party or another party. I think we need a change but I'm not sure a direct vote would be the answer. Although, considering our Bicameral Legislature is the most powerful branch of government, we would still maintain our beloved republic if the President was elected by direct vote
1st is almost all of the states have a all or nothing system, If a Candidate who wins most of the votes in the state gets all of the electoral college votes in the state so the voice of the minority is drowned out anyway.
2nd the states districts can be manipulated to benefit one party or another party. I think we need a change but I'm not sure a direct vote would be the answer. Although, considering our Bicameral Legislature is the most powerful branch of government, we would still maintain our beloved republic if the President was elected by direct vote
Then the President would be elected by 6 cities only. The college should be changed. Each state gets 1 vote. A candidate has to win a majority of states. To win a state's vote the candidate must win a majority of the counties in that state. That would allow farmers etc to have a voice. Otherwise, they have none under any other system.
We need to do something. I think a more pressing issue is the overused misunderstood process of executive order. That should be restricted as soon as possible.
This congress is a Soviet Style rubber stamp congress. Obama is becoming a dictator fueled by their inaction and/or support.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Really? Where?
If you know your soviet history, you know that the Politburo had control of the country but still followed a set of rules. Even under Stalin there were limits what could be done, Stalin didn't have 100% absolute control and like Obama, ruled by fear on all kinds of levels.
This congress is no where near it, just look around, it was a hard fight to get health care passed with political maneuvering and some shaky skating near the edge of congressional ethics. I haven't see cap and trade or more bailouts or even immigration reform, just a poorly run congress with kids playing house. I surely don't see jobs being created or any attempt to make that magical 10% of unemployed go down to 5%.
If we had a rubber stamp congress, we would have a lot of changes but as it seems Obama may be the one who will beat carter as one of the worst presidents we ever had.
We are headed in that direction every day. Mark my word, if Obama is reelected that will be the last free (if we have had such a thing in a long time) free election this country will ever see. Obama is NOT interested in jobs, just control. The best was to control is keeping people out of work and on government hand outs. These people cannot be trusted. I would LOVE to giver everyone of the a polygraph.
Also, Stalin would just have anyone who did NOT do his bidding killed. I would be willing to bet that is coming here soon. I put NOTHING past Obama.
Last edited:
Executive Order 13233
Executive Order 13440
Executive Order 13292
Executive Order 13303
Executive Order 13438
Just to name a few, the link below gives the EO and the reason its constitutionality is in question. I'm not picking on Bush there is just a ton of stuff out there to reference from his 2 terms.
The top Bush executive orders that Obama should scrap immediately. - By Emily Bazelon and Chris Wilson - Slate Magazine
I never said Bush was any better. This is a continuing problem that is just getting worse with each new bum. Obama is now the bum in office at this time. He is, how ever, one of the worst I have ever seen and by far the most radical to the point of criminal.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
I still don't see the need to restrict or mess with the constitution on the grounds that something was amiss with executive orders.
If anything, there should be a redefining moment for the federal courts based on the roll they have played shaping our country, like negating legitimate legislation passed by the representatives of voters - i.e. state laws.
If anything, there should be a redefining moment for the federal courts based on the roll they have played shaping our country, like negating legitimate legislation passed by the representatives of voters - i.e. state laws.
Exactly laws come from the legislative branch. The courts interpret laws, and the president is the executive that runs things day to day. Executive Orders are not in the Constitution and the courts should be ashamed of some of the interpretations they have made in the past.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
But see here is the thing, the executive order is not replacing laws but defining it within the executive branch - this is how the supreme court has ruled. The court sometimes oversteps its boundaries when it takes a law and nullifies it for more than a constitutional issue. Just today, the Arizona law so hotly hated wasn't struck down but the judge issued an order restricting it because it may trigger racial profiling but also and more importantly that legal residents who are not US citizens and immigrants (what ever that means now) do not have to carry papers to prove they are here legally, which I think goes against federal law. SO to me people like OVM does not have to show a green card to anyone for any reason thanks to this judge (OVM, did you read what she said?).
It comes down to this, as you mention, the problem is when a president decides to make laws (truman was one who did exactly this and triggered the SC definition of the constitution), it becomes the problem.
It comes down to this, as you mention, the problem is when a president decides to make laws (truman was one who did exactly this and triggered the SC definition of the constitution), it becomes the problem.