And you can always count on you to provide an internet insult. Obviously you are a great thinker. I choose to give information in words everyone can easily understand. If you would like I can give it to you in other languages or even words you probably couldn't understand.

 

Gentlemen please.
I posted this for informational purposes only.
I didn't advocate a Constitutional change.
In that the Popular vote winner and the Electoral vote winner were not one in the same in the 2000 election, I thought it would be educational to present the extremes the process could reach, considering the fact that the country seems to be even more polarized now than it was in 2000.

There is a possibilty that a Popular/Electoral discrepancy could occur in an even greater proportion this time.

It was just food for thought.
I hate to see blood letting in a thread I authored.

(now that I've washed my hands, you can kill each other)

 

Personally, I think the election is going to be so close it will come down to Flafonmans' vote in Forida.

I figure he'll show up five minutes before the polls close, drunk as usual...
and there teeters the future of the entire civilized world.

 

Your welcome, that’s what I am here for which is to bring out good logically thought that makes sense and gets others to actually think with their OWN mind…

Who is this ”Just about everyone agrees that voter apathy is a problem”? There is NOTHING new about how this country was founded and WHY they did it the way they did which is the RIGHT and FAIR way of doing it.

Oh, wait a minute, that’s right since the liberals have been in charge of schools for so damn long most children and many adults have no DAMN CLUE about what the United States Constitution is, what’s in it and WHY it was written the way it was…

You ONLY know how your state is going to go, like most states do because MANY American are to damn STUPID and LAZY to get off their *** and actually vote. Many Americans don’t have a clue about any candidates except little clever sound bites they hear on the news. It is truly sad and if you had 75% or more of the population VOTING you would just about ALWAYS guarantee that who every got the popular vote would also win the Electoral College.

Yes, if you have ever done any studying of the United States Constitution you would have learned the MAIN reason for the Electoral College is just what Frank and I “factually” stated…

Again go and study the facts behind the scenes about how the United States Constitution came to be in the form it is and the real reasons behind it.

IF and WHEN the vast majority of Americans get off their whinny lazy *** and VOTE there would be no problems and the majority would get want they wanted.

However the liberals would NEVER want to see this because they would lose power everywhere since it is a small percentage of Americans that even give liberals and their stupid ideas any time of day.

If the majority of Americans had voted in 1992 and 1996 we would have never had Bill Clinton in office to screw so much up.

Therefore, be careful what you wish for because it could bite you in the ***…

Absolutely, I couldn’t think of a better place for my tax money to go. Time now to cut ALL socialist programs in half. That way it won’t affect anything.

Problem is you liberals continue to GROW the national debt with all your socialist programs…

This is WWIII, pretty simple to see for those that take the time to understand what is happening in the world. DOES ANYONE REMEMBER 911? HELLO AMERICA!!!!!

There was absolutely NOTHING we did to bring that on it was simple the terrorist that have an agenda and that is to end our way of life here and anywhere else in the free world. We are simple fighting on a main front at the moment which is in Iraq.

If we lose Iraq, if we pull and run like a bunch of wuss’s as the liberals and socialist are then it will be ALL OVER, mark my words, IF WE LOSE IRAQ WE ARE DONE AS A FREE NATION.

Liberals don’t seem to grasp the facts, and the main fact is if we lose Iraq there will be NO NEED for any social programs and women had better start thinking about how their lives will be to go back to the 40’s and 50’s in where they do EVERYTHING THE MAN TELLS THEM WITH NO LIP….

That is the backwards *** world these terriost live in and believe in, basically like the 6th Century. We either CRUSH them now or they will indeed CRUSH US that my friend is the FACT’S and that is one of your buddy Bill Clintons legacies he left for his 8 years of hanging around in the White House. He made America very weak and let the terrorist grow STRONG…

So you tell me, how much is your, your family, your children’s freedom worth?

That’s the real world question so can you put a price tag on what a child’s life is worth?

 

Another thing to think about is the FACT that DEFENDING the United States is a RESPONSIBILITY of the Federal government and therefore the federal government is to PROVIDE money for the defense of the United States by collecting taxes from the population.

There is NO WHERE in the United States Constitution that states the federal government is suppose to fund ANY socialist programs.

Therefore you have an extremely WEAK point and very naive argument about any cost towards the defense of America. As long as there is plenty of money for it in federal revenue then why is there a problem.

Your argument should be about what social program should we drastically cut or get rid of to fund what is MANDATED by the United States Constitution…

 

When we're debating whether some aspect of the Constitution makes sense, it's useful sometimes to think of the Constitution as an experiment — as a work in progress. Some of its original framers referred to it that way, as a Great Experiment in democracy. In 1787, no republic like the United States existed anywhere in the world. The "founding fathers" were making things up as they went along, looking at history, philosophy, and what they did and didn't like about existing governments in Europe and America. And not all of them agreed — in fact, many of them disagreed completely, even on important issues such as how much power the people should have.

The electoral college was a compromise on two important issues. The first was how much power the people should have, and the second was how much power small and large states should have.



Power to the people?

In 1787, it wasn't at all clear whether democracy would work. In fact "democracy" was a bit of a dirty word in some people's minds: it raised fears of mob rule, as in fact had happened in a few places during and after the Revolution. The United States was intended as a republic, in which the people would govern themselves only through elected representatives.

Because the role of the president was so important, most of the framers thought that the people couldn't be trusted to elect the president directly. Instead, they should elect electors, who would convene as a "college of electors" to consider the available candidates and pick the best man for the job.

Power to the states!

Before the Revolution, the British colonists didn't have much consciousness of being Americans. They may have identified themselves instead with the British Empire and with their own colonies. Even after the Revolution, loyalty to one's state often still came first. The Constitution was intended to unite the states under a single national government — but not entirely. Small states like New Jersey feared that if they formed a union with the other twelve states, they'd be swallowed up under the influence of more populous states like Virginia and New York. Virginia and New York, of course, thought that they should have the most influence. That's why the states have equal representation in the Senate but representation by population in the House of Representatives: it's a compromise that allowed large states to get their due but still allowed small states to keep their identities and fight for their interests.

When it came to voting for president, the framers of the Constitution decided that the states should do the voting, not the people. Remember, there was no consciousness of the United States as a single nation; it was, literally, a union of separate states. So voting for president was to take place by state, so that each state could have its say. The compromise between big and small states was extended to the electoral college, so that each state has as many electors as it has senators and members of the House of Representatives combined. Big states still have the most influence, but small states aren't completely lost in the national vote.

 

I had a calculator once. It was the greatest thing, did all those dang number things real quick
If you didn't punch-in any numbers, after 25 secs, it would beep. It glowed in the dark!
Heck, it even floated at the lake.

sure wish I could find that thing