1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

US population and electorial votes

Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by Salty, Oct 22, 2009.

  1. Spear

    Spear New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    236
    Likes Received:
    0
    From an external point of view, i find it great to be able to have 1 man = 1 vote.

    Would it be strictly impossible to have a federal state with a president elected directly by the people ?
     
  2. Salty

    Salty 20,000 Posts Club
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    38,982
    Likes Received:
    2,615
    Faith:
    Baptist
    NO, it is not impossible, but the US was a nation of States. In fact, some countires (I think France was one) was debating whether to send one ambassador to the US, or 13 seperate ambassadors to each State.

    Second, and what I see as a major problem would be that candidates would concreate their campaigns to large cities .

    I go into detail on posts # 7 (on pg 1) & 22 (on pg 3) of this thread.
     
  3. Winman

    Winman Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    2
    And Bush was not the first President to lose the popular vote, but win the Electoral College.

    Rutherford B. Hayes (1876), Benjamin Harrison (1888), and George W. Bush (2000) all lost the popular vote but won by the Electoral College.

    John Quincy Adams lost both the popular vote and the Electoral College to Andrew Jackson in 1824 in a three-way race. Because no candidate won a majority of the electoral votes, the election was decided by the House of Representatives who selected Adams.
     
  4. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    80
    Do you think the President of Europe will ever be chosen by the direct popular vote of the people of Europe?

    I doubt it - the election of the new European President is MUCH more complicated that the Electoral College.
     
  5. billwald

    billwald New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    2
    >From an external point of view, i find it great to be able to have 1 man = 1 vote.

    If that was the case then why would a presidential candidate care what anyone in N&S Dak, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico. Wisconson
    . . . thought about anything?
     
  6. Nonsequitur

    Nonsequitur New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    637
    Likes Received:
    0
    This quote shows how you have know idea how this works. "Nuff said.
     
    #46 Nonsequitur, Oct 27, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 28, 2009
  7. Nonsequitur

    Nonsequitur New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    637
    Likes Received:
    0
    Again, you have no idea how this works.
     
    #47 Nonsequitur, Oct 27, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 28, 2009
  8. Nonsequitur

    Nonsequitur New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    637
    Likes Received:
    0
    Of course not.
    Try checking out a library book about your country's history.
    (WARNING: Not to be read to your children as a night-time story!)
     
  9. Spear

    Spear New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    236
    Likes Received:
    0
    The fact is i never know if you're joking or pushing me :smilewinkgrin:

    I understand C4K, if i consider the states as different nations.

    It is interesting to me, because it helps me understand better what people have in mind, and how their consider themselves.
    We, europeans, tend to see US people as 1) american people and citizen of the USA country, and 2) american people and citizen of the USA country living in regions called " states ".
    I never really felt the importance of the " state " and all the stuff (laws, independance on many things, ....) compared to the " country " in people's mind and heart.
    I don't criticize, i just understand better (and by the way that " federal taking all the powers " i read very often here).

    To come back to your reply C4K, i think we would be in a different case here about a true European president. It would be hard for me to admit we would not elect directly our european president. Of course, little countries would have less " weight " in his election, but i think it's the principle of universal suffrage.

    I'll check this back and digest the explanations, thanks ;)
     
  10. Nonsequitur

    Nonsequitur New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    637
    Likes Received:
    0
    Americans want freedom.
    There are very few reasons that we even need a Federal government, or a State government.
    But we all want to live our lives as we see fit, and not how someone else thinks that we should.
    That is why we hold elections so often, so that if the ones that have been elected do not do a good job, or not what we want them to, we kick them to the curb.
    That is why a politician will not be successful in San Francisco running on a platform of making the gay life-style illegal.
    This is why a politician wil not be successful in a hunting state on a platform of getting rid of hunting.
    This is why a politician will not be successful in trying to bring unions to a right-to work state.
    And this is why some of the political situations here are so heatedly debated, because no one wants anothers beliefs to become a federal law, covering the U.S., that they think is unfair, un-ethical, illegal, unjust, or what they consider to be against their religion, or way of life.
    Full circle to freedom.
    Freedom to live life as one chooses without others telling them how to do it.
    That is one of the reasons for your, 'federal taking all the powers...".
    Simply put....they ain't got the right.
    That's why we have what is called 'States Rights' here.
    I know this is a VERY simplified explanation, but if you don't like what is happening in one state, there are 49 others to go to.
    For example, the majority of the other people I live with in Texas mostly believe in free interprise, right-to-work (no unions), hunting, fishing, church, God, and family.
    In California, a lot of them believe in, 'doing what feels good', unions, that hunting and fishing are killing their 'brothers', homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle, and massive government hand-outs.
    I have no problem with that. But just as I don't go to California and try to get them to pass laws, they have no right to do the same in Texas.
    For example, the majority of my meat that I eat during the year comes from deer, dove, quail, fish, shell-fish, that I hunt and gather myself.
    The last thing I need is a law made in California telling me that I am killing my 'brothers' and that I only need to eat vegetables.
    Same as I don't go to California and try to pass a law on bean curd.
    That is (very) simplified 'states rights'.
    :sleep:
    Yeah, I dang near put myself to sleep but I hope this helps.
     
  11. billwald

    billwald New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    2
    The states WERE nations before Lincoln's Revolution.
     
  12. rbell

    rbell Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's not accurate.

    I mourn the loss of the rights reserved for the states as well...but they weren't nations.
     
  13. Winman

    Winman Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    2
    That's not true. Texas was an independent republic, and still retains the right of an independent republic. This is one reason it is called the "Lone Star State". Here is part of the annexation of Texas.

     
  14. Salty

    Salty 20,000 Posts Club
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    38,982
    Likes Received:
    2,615
    Faith:
    Baptist
    On the other hand, during the signing of the Constitution, Rhode Island was consdering not do so,

    but evidently, the Feds said if they didnt they would be considered a foreing nation (cant find a reference for this off hand, any help would be appreciated)

    Salty
     
  15. billwald

    billwald New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    2
    Before Lincoln's Revolution, "state" was defined as "nation." The peace treaty with England was signed by each of the 13 states.
     
  16. Salty

    Salty 20,000 Posts Club
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    38,982
    Likes Received:
    2,615
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Where does the Constitution say one man - one vote. If that were the case, then the US Senate would be unconstitutional.
     
  17. billwald

    billwald New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    2
    Do away with the electoral college and the US will be controlled by the New York, Chicago, Houston-Fort Worth, LA, and San Francisco metro areas. At least the rest of us would not be pestered by presidential electioneering.
     
  18. Salty

    Salty 20,000 Posts Club
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    38,982
    Likes Received:
    2,615
    Faith:
    Baptist
    You do have a point
     
  19. rbell

    rbell Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Currently the election isn't controlled by these locales...but the "finalists" for the election are decided by the media outlets in the NY-DC corridor. By refusing air time for some candidates, or unfair coverage, they effectively give us the "final round" of choices.

    Take the EC away, and it becomes much worse.

    Just MHO.
     
Loading...