|
|
|
#1
10-04-2008, 11:03 AM
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
The Electoral College
I was looking up the functions and composition of the Electoral College today, and I found this at http://www.archives.gov/federal-regi....html#popular:
Quote:
Quote:
In the FAQ on the website, it states: Quote:
Quote:
I don't mean to gripe about our political system, and I put this on here so I can fill in the holes. I'm just very confused as to why the popular vote isn't directly used in determining the leader of the country. Why even bother choosing electors? Why not just count all the popular votes and use that? If somebody can clear this up, I'd appreciate it.
__________________
“Men of integrity, by their very existence, rekindle the belief that as a people we can live above the level of moral squalor. We need that belief; a cynical community is a corrupt community.” - John W. Gardner 
|
|
#2
10-04-2008, 11:11 AM
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Thanks for posting this Tim. I am confused and blown by what I have read... Are you saying that in the above listed states that the Electoral College does NOT have to go by the vote of the people when casting their ballot?
__________________
|
|
#3
10-04-2008, 11:13 AM
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
That's what that website seemed to imply, and that's a government website. I realize we're a respresentative democracy, but I don't understand why there's room in the election process for the will of the people to be ignored.
__________________
“Men of integrity, by their very existence, rekindle the belief that as a people we can live above the level of moral squalor. We need that belief; a cynical community is a corrupt community.” - John W. Gardner Last edited by SlightlyCatholic; 10-04-2008 at 11:17 AM.
|
|
#5
10-04-2008, 11:28 AM
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
That's what I'm trying to figure out. According to that list, my state (Rhode Island) has four electoral votes that determine the new POTUS. The electors in my state have no obligation to vote according to the popular decision, and that's something I don't understand. We're a small state so it's not really an issue, but that list represents half the country's electors that (apparently) can vote however they want no matter what the people want. Even if the electors usually DO go with the people, the problem I have is the fact that they're not obliged to do so. My other problem is the lack of information on these electors. Why don't we know more about who these electors are so we can make an informed decision about them? Now that I reread this:
Quote:
__________________
“Men of integrity, by their very existence, rekindle the belief that as a people we can live above the level of moral squalor. We need that belief; a cynical community is a corrupt community.” - John W. Gardner Last edited by SlightlyCatholic; 10-04-2008 at 11:33 AM.
|
|
#6
10-04-2008, 11:36 AM
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Uh, Tim...it's not supposed to be 'democratic': This was intended to be a 'representative republic' with the members of the House being elected by the people and those of the Senate appointed by the legislatures of the individual States - under the supposition that those representatives were to constitute the Electoral College. Of course, thanks(?) to Amendment XVII, the greatest step taken toward 'democracy' (i.e. mob rule), we have two 'people's houses', one serving for two years, one for six.
The rationale for the original makeup of both the Senate and the Electoral College was similar: That the most populous States not have undue influence in either the Senate or the choice of President, that the individual States composing the Union exercise their powers as sovereign and equal entities in both the governance of the United States and in deciding the individual to preside over such central government. As to 'why the popular vote' may have less influence on the Presidency than mere numbers would suggest, consider the dumbing down and socialist indoctrination overwhelmingly prevalent in in the 'education' establishment over the past half-century or more, the near deification of the President who instigated a sea of socialist policies and laid the groundwork for generations more, even the rise of the current jackass party qandidate, and ask yourself if you truly want the leadership of this nation dependent on their vote.
|
|
#7
10-04-2008, 11:45 AM
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Quote:
__________________
“Men of integrity, by their very existence, rekindle the belief that as a people we can live above the level of moral squalor. We need that belief; a cynical community is a corrupt community.” - John W. Gardner Last edited by SlightlyCatholic; 10-04-2008 at 12:35 PM.
|
|
#8
10-04-2008, 12:25 PM
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Son, it's fairly obvious you have either not read the Constitution, or not understood it. You also fail to comprehend my point, instead choosing to interpret it through a myopic lens.
I understand your theological studies may preclude the time necessary to study the Constitution and the history surrounding its drafting, a deprivation that may well have influenced your perspective. That is the purpose of 'free and open discussion', and of the links 03Shooter has posted to such relevant documentation. This nation was never intended to be a 'democracy'; 'fair' is a place you go to eat cotton candy, gawk at animals and go on rides; and the fact that one may possess a college degree means only that one spent a specified number of years at an institute of 'higher education': Such degrees are awarded in or for areas such as 'black studies', 'womens studies' and '(semi-professional) athletics'; many of those - especially in the latter category - cannot even read their 'diplomas'...and the presence or absence of such degree has less bearing on 'intelligence' or 'common sense' than the color of one's (civilian) socks has on the hair color of one's spouse. We are all ignorant in some areas. We do, however, have the option of educating ourselves or continuing to argue from ignorance and prejudice.
|
|
#9
10-04-2008, 12:53 PM
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
If you could show me where I don't understand the Constitution and how that relates to my view of the Electoral College, I would appreciate it. I realize such documents are on this forum, but with my blurred vision, I'm not sure looking at them would do much good anyway. I'm a philosophy major in my second year of undergraduate work, and I realize I have a lot to learn. However, it seems to me that in many states the popular vote is a scharade. If that's not the case, again, please correct my bifocals.
Quote:
Just so everybody knows: I have a great respect for everyone on this forum. I am simply debating what I feel is a correct view and I am more than willing to learn. However, I like to debate and I can get pretty heated. Please don't take this as disrespectful behavior, because that's not what's intended. I would also request that I be treated as an adult here. I realize that I'm a college student and that I'll be turning 20 in January, and that may lend itself to some here thinking I may be have work ahead of me in the areas of life experience and attitude. While that may be true, where I'm from the word "son" is used in one of two ways: in a familial context from a male parent to a male child or as a label for someone regarded as intellectually childlike. I assure all of you that I am not the latter. Thanks, God bless, and I look forward to debating with everyone.
__________________
“Men of integrity, by their very existence, rekindle the belief that as a people we can live above the level of moral squalor. We need that belief; a cynical community is a corrupt community.” - John W. Gardner Last edited by SlightlyCatholic; 10-04-2008 at 01:06 PM.
|
|
#10
10-04-2008, 02:03 PM
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
First, some clarification: 'Son' can be used interchangeably with 'young man' or a number of other pronouns without the pejorative tone of 'sonny', 'kid' or similar. In this case, it's 'old and experienced (and conceivably wise, to some extent) speaking to younger, less experienced'. A college degree at any level does not confer wisdom or knowledge, and doing the work to actually earn one does not make one any more 'intelligent', merely more knowledgeable (and perhaps capable of more abstract logic). The presence or absence of such 'formal recognition', however, is no indication of competence in a given area: I cannot (nor would not) speak for anyone else, but I have more than 'held my own' in discussions on many aspects of the Constitution and the theory of law with degreed scholars long before receiving an undergraduate degree, and have enlightened individuals with degrees in 'law' on aspects of the legislative process and the history and meaning of 'the law' as well as specific laws - because I was interested enough to research the subjects on my own, consult legal writings from Blackstone on, and peruse the writings of the Founding Fathers. I have no doubt others have paralleled such inquiry in areas of their interests.
As to the popular vote being a 'charade' (note spelling), it might benefit you to research precisely the clause of the Constitution authorizing any individual capable of being led to a polling place and making his mark on the register having some nebulous 'right' to cast a ballot...or, you can accept my assurance that no such provision exists. In that sense, the entire campaign process is little more than a raree, an entertainment performed for the public. The conceit that any one individual's vote, however uninformed and dependent on what motivation it may be, should have equal weight with that of an informed individual who actually contributes to the well-being of the nation is a legalized absurdity. If you understood my prior references to the Electoral College and the members of the Senate, you would also understand why both were established as they were, and the fear and repugnance the Founders had of mob rule (aka 'democracy') and the tyranny of the majority. Casting a ballot for federal office was reserved, in the early days of the nation, for those males - of any 'class' - who owned property. The underlying rationale was that they were 'responsible', that they contributed, through efforts on their own behalf, to the fiscal and moral advancement of the community - by employing others, by paying taxes to finance the public good, and by setting a positive example: One need only read the early history of Virginia's starving 'gentlemen' prior to the mandated responsibility of one's own land to grasp the connection. Had you understood the reference therein to 'academic degrees', you would have comprehended that the conferral of such was not a valid indication of 'intelligence' by any means, nor of 'knowledge': A certain number of graduates do, indeed, 'earn' them through the traditional method of acquiring and demonstrating knowledge , some have them awarded for 'other reasons'. Additionally, 'intelligence' is no standard: 'Brilliant' individuals have succeeded without high school diplomae, others of lesser 'intelligence' have, through hard work and desire, achieved advanced degrees and 'success' as measured by society. You are not being mocked for your ignorance of a subject you choose to express opinions on; if that be your inference. As you are aware, there are people here who are knowledgeable in areas others of us may not be, and who are willing to share that knowledge. If you have contrary opinions, you are certainly free to express them, but you might also consider posting the basis for those conclusions, as well as the method followed leading from those 'facts' to those conclusions.
|
 |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
