Texas coming up with a immigration law similar to Arizona

[Princess Doreen]

Originally Posted by letswastemoney

I like Obama in respects to almost
Most of the Electoral College technically does not have to follow what the states vote for!!! It's only tradition that they do. If they really felt someone was going to ruin this country, they'd vote for whoever they want.

I'm for doing away with the Electoral College. There really isn't a need for it any longer - it is a tradition, not a need.

The problem with electing a President is we don't know what a truly F****** moron he/she is until AFTER elected - despite all the warnings beforehand.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Princess Doreen

"In God we trust" has been on coins since the 1800's.

Only since the Civil War, I believe.

As the Government of the United States...is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion--as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity of Musselmen--and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. ....

1797 - Treaty of Tripoli.

[Princess Doreen]

Originally Posted by Riot

Only since the Civil War, I believe.

I do believe the Civil War was in the 1800's.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Princess Doreen

I'm for doing away with the Electoral College. There really isn't a need for it any longer - it is a tradition, not a need.

The problem with electing a President is we don't know what a truly F****** moron he/she is until AFTER elected - despite all the warnings beforehand.

Good point, we'd be in Dem control for something close to 20 years now if we hadn't had it!

Three cheers for Doreen!

[hi_im_god]

all this talk of changing the constitution and national id's is way too much work and completely misses the point.

what we really need is an easy way of distinguishing brown people that are here legally from those that are here illegally.

i propose small yellow fabric sombrero's that anyone with brown skin or a strange sounding surname has to pin to their outer clothing if they're a citizen. the government can provide these and no one who isn't breaking the law could possibly object.

we can tattoo numbers on the arms of those here illegally, just to make sure they don't come back, and ship them somewhere away from us.

problem solved.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

Only since the Civil War, I believe.

the first coin it appeared on was in 1864. at any rate, the 1950's is when it first appeared on paper money. so, i guess up to 1864 we were a godless country...

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Princess Doreen

I'm for doing away with the Electoral College. There really isn't a need for it any longer - it is a tradition, not a need.

The problem with electing a President is we don't know what a truly F****** moron he/she is until AFTER elected - despite all the warnings beforehand.

do you understand why the electoral college was put in place? it certainly wasn't so the founding fathers could create a tradition! now, if many are in favor of no longer giving each state equal say in who leads the federal govt, then there could be a change. but i think many say get rid of it because they just don't understand why it's there, or what it was created for.

[Danzig]

Also, if anyone could direct me to the part of the constitution that discusses god, and where it states we are formed as a christian nation, I would appreciate it.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Good point, we'd be in Dem control for something close to 20 years now if we hadn't had it!

Three cheers for Doreen!

Putting aside for a minute that "in Democratic control" is the opposite of what most of us would call "freedom", I doubt it. We would have had this disaster of a Democratic president sooner, and then the country would have went on a Republican voting spree, like with Carter and Reagan.

In 1984, 49 states went Red for Reagan, so the Electoral College didn't mean anything.

Or, if you're right, the dollar would have already collapsed...then the Dems can take off the masks and be the communists they really are.

For what it's worth I agree with both sides that the Electoral College is an anachronism, but to eliminate it the first thing you'd need is a foolproof way to get the fraud out of the system. No more voting multiple times and/or preventing the authorities from requiring ID.

In the interim, the system would be made better by getting rid of the "winner take all" rules in the states, where, if 49% of people vote for a candidate, their vote is basically ignored in favor of the 51% in terms of electoral votes. That's just ridiculous.

If I had the power to shape the system, I would proportionately award the electoral votes from the House seats based on the popular vote within the state, but would award the two Senate electoral votes to the winner of that state. So if California went 60% Democrat, 40% Republican, the Democrat would get the 2 Senate electoral votes, and 60% of the House electoral votes, (round up for the winner): which is 0.6*53 = 31.8 -> 32. The Republican would get 19.

This would at least be a better approximation to the popular vote, and it still satisfies the Constitution on using an electoral college, since I don't think the Constitution tells any state how to award their votes, and in fact 2 states currently do not use "winner take all".

[Nascar1966]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Good point, we'd be in Dem control for something close to 20 years now if we hadn't had it!

Three cheers for Doreen!

This country would be really screwed if the Dems controlled it for close to 20 years.

[Nascar1966]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

all this talk of changing the constitution and national id's is way too much work and completely misses the point.

what we really need is an easy way of distinguishing brown people that are here legally from those that are here illegally.

i propose small yellow fabric sombrero's that anyone with brown skin or a strange sounding surname has to pin to their outer clothing if they're a citizen. the government can provide these and no one who isn't breaking the law could possibly object.

we can tattoo numbers on the arms of those here illegally, just to make sure they don't come back, and ship them somewhere away from us.

problem solved.

The only way to solve the problem is to get rid of the worthless illegals.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Nascar1966

This country would be really screwed if the Dems controlled it for close to 20 years.

not really. Bush was basically a Dem fiscally.. and also pandered to the religious right. I doubt Gore would have done much worse.

We just need a real fiscal conservative.. & one who doesnt give a damn about the religious right.. to be in office.

[Princess Doreen]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Good point, we'd be in Dem control for something close to 20 years now if we hadn't had it!

Three cheers for Doreen!

You're assuming Gore would have been re-elected? HAH! That's a real knee slapper. I think the Dems would have been laughed out of the two elections since 2000 had we had that bozo for President. Bush did get the popular vote in 2004.

But, it doesn't change my mind about the Electoral College.

And, my comment about a godless nation was in response to whomsoever it was and those who agreed about deporting religious people from the USA

And, please stop trying to teach history lessons. I'd accept them if y'all didn't make so many mistakes.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by joeydb

If I had the power to shape the system, I would proportionately award the electoral votes from the House seats based on the popular vote within the state, but would award the two Senate electoral votes to the winner of that state. So if California went 60% Democrat, 40% Republican, the Democrat would get the 2 Senate electoral votes, and 60% of the House electoral votes, (round up for the winner): which is 0.6*53 = 31.8 -> 32. The Republican would get 19.

This would at least be a better approximation to the popular vote, and it still satisfies the Constitution on using an electoral college, since I don't think the Constitution tells any state how to award their votes, and in fact 2 states currently do not use "winner take all".

This has always struck me as a better way of doing it.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

This has always struck me as a better way of doing it.

agreed

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

This has always struck me as a better way of doing it.

I agree

[joeydb]

Maybe we will see something like that someday. The key is that the Senate votes go to the vote leader in the state, as it helps to keep the vote decisive, which, despite its flaws, is one of the goals of the current electoral college system.

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Maybe we will see something like that someday. The key is that the Senate votes go to the vote leader in the state, as it helps to keep the vote decisive, which, despite its flaws, is one of the goals of the current electoral college system.

we'll never see anything like this because election laws, including the way a state's presidential electors are selected, are up to the individual states.

it's in the interest of each state to have a winner take all system to maximize their influence in the election. as a candidate, are you going to campaign in the populous state with a few competitive districts or the less populous state with a winner take all system? a handful of electors in california or everyone in iowa?

no populous state is going to unilaterally disarm. they're already underrepresented in the senate. they aren't going to throw away whatever marginal benefit is extracted from the current system.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

we'll never see anything like this because election laws, including the way a state's presidential electors are selected, are up to the individual states.

it's in the interest of each state to have a winner take all system to maximize their influence in the election. as a candidate, are you going to campaign in the populous state with a few competitive districts or the less populous state with a winner take all system? a handful of electors in california or everyone in iowa?

no populous state is going to unilaterally disarm. they're already underrepresented in the senate. they aren't going to throw away whatever marginal benefit is extracted from the current system.

you're probably right. plus, not having winner take all could cause more issues than it solves. what if there were no candidate that received enough votes? a very real possibility if states split their vote, and didn't have winner take all.

then, there's what i thought of earlier this evening. look at the name of our country-not for nothing is it called the united states. no state is supposed to be more powerful than any other-no doubt the main reason there is an electoral college.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Putting aside for a minute that "in Democratic control" is the opposite of what most of us would call "freedom", I doubt it. We would have had this disaster of a Democratic president sooner, and then the country would have went on a Republican voting spree, like with Carter and Reagan.

Would have gone.