T1B

Papa Willie wrote:I'd also say that you'd have to be a LEGAL alien with at least 20 years in the USA before you could vote as well.

Dude, I don't know if you caught this, but there's actually an Amendment in the Constitution that covers this. The Supreme Court actually took a gander at it, and agreed.

But the people who actually wrote those election laws are even more draconian than you -- they even require US citizenship.


Nice job campaigning for the Retard-of-the-Day Award, though.


You might... just maybe wanna familiarize yourself with current voting requirements BEFORE you propose changes to the current system... just a thought.

How come every thread here worth a shit is a glass dick from weeks ago at thetrolls.net?

http://www.thetrolls.net/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=24038" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Bennish wrote:How come every thread here worth a shit

Irony much?

Or was it the lack of RACKs and smilies that put you off? But then again you did ask why the smackoff forum is locked ...

Try reading outside the main forum, dipshit.

Actually these days, the main forum does have glimpses of old times. And gimpses of old times, of course.

mvscal wrote:

Dinsdale wrote:You might... just maybe wanna familiarize yourself with current voting requirements BEFORE you propose changes to the current system... just a thought.

There are no meaningful voting requirements when you aren't even obligated to prove your identity before pulling the lever.

What, are you saying that providing a phone bill that shows your name and address on it aren't proof of your identity and proof of citizenship?

Papa Willie wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

Papa Willie wrote:until America finally gets the balls to understand that there is more to life than 2 shitty political parties, fuck it. There should be about 10 different parties, and people SHOULD have enough fucking sense to figure out the differences and what they like. Those who are dumb enough just to push "D" or "R" shouldn't even be allowed to vote.

If you truly fell that way, Spray, you should be pushing like crazy for a Constitutional Amendment abolishing the Electoral College.

The existence of the Electoral College is the single biggest impediment to the emergence of third parties in this country. And there's nothing else that's even close.

I'd be happy to do that - ONLY if people on welfare and all jailers were prohibited were not allowed to vote. I'd also say that you'd have to be a LEGAL alien with at least 20 years in the USA before you could vote as well. I would also probably say that the voting age should be raised to 21....

They should just swap the drinking and voting ages. Old enough to vote (but probably shouldn't be), hold a job, serve in the military...

But not have a beer?

As far as the first statement, I'd go further. If taxation without representation is tyranny, then representation without taxation is anarchy. The franchise should be limited to those who pay more in taxes than they recieve from the government. There was a reason that property holding (and paying property taxes) was originally a requirement to vote- those who pay the bills should have the say in who runs the show. Of course, maybe Robert Heinlein had the right idea- only veterens vote, ewveryone else is pretty much a freeloader to begin with.

And while you're at it, anyone who doesn't vote for two election cycles should be required to re-register and then wait four years. Use it or lose it would serve as an incentive.

But leave the EC alone. The Founders knew there would be demagougic vermin like Gore in the future who would focus on highly populous states and ignore the rest of the country. When the constitution was written, three states (Pennsylvania, New Yory and Virginia) had a majority of the population. Since 1913 the EC is the last protection the individual states have against dominance by the federal government

And yes, Dims has always been an ankle-biting twit.

OCmike wrote:

mvscal wrote:

Dinsdale wrote:You might... just maybe wanna familiarize yourself with current voting requirements BEFORE you propose changes to the current system... just a thought.

There are no meaningful voting requirements when you aren't even obligated to prove your identity before pulling the lever.

What, are you saying that providing a phone bill that shows your name and address on it aren't proof of your identity and proof of citizenship?

Really. Back in college I had my phone listed under "August West" for a couple of years.

The electoral college with it's ridiculous winner take all way of doing things actually promotes pandering to large states.

Even though it might mean having a simpleton like algore in office, a straight vote is the only way to ensure that your vote counts as much as someone in another states.

Explain to me why it makes sense to count 35 million votes (california) for the winner, whe they might have only won by a few hundred thousand?

The EC made sense when info traveled at the speed of horse. Today it is dumb.

smackaholic wrote:The electoral college with it's ridiculous winner take all way of doing things actually promotes pandering to large states.

Not at all. The smaller states votes are weighted MUCH heavier. For example, including the Senate seats for Delaware's EC total increases the weight of their vote by 200%. Adding the 2 Senate seats for California's EC vote to their 53 House seats only increases California's weighted vote by 3.6%.

Even though it might mean having a simpleton like algore in office, a straight vote is the only way to ensure that your vote counts as much as someone in another states.

Explain to me why it makes sense to count 35 million votes (california) for the winner, whe they might have only won by a few hundred thousand?

The EC made sense when info traveled at the speed of horse. Today it is dumb.

On that I think we all can agree. Well, except for Mace. He's from Iowa and thinks the American election system is set up just fine.

BSmack wrote:

smackaholic wrote:The electoral college with it's ridiculous winner take all way of doing things actually promotes pandering to large states.

Not at all. The smaller states votes are weighted MUCH heavier. For example, including the Senate seats for Delaware's EC total increases the weight of their vote by 200%. Adding the 2 Senate seats for California's EC vote to their 53 House seats only increases California's weighted vote by 3.6%.

Agree that the EC causes the smaller states' votes to be weighed more heavily, but imho, the winner-take-all system employed by every state except Maine and Nebraska more than makes up for the disadvantage the EC otherwise would foist upon large states. Win California, even by the narrowest of margins, and you're already more than 20% of the way to the required number of electoral votes for a victory.

I'm not so sure that I'd go as far as Smackaholic, though. California had relatively little campaigning in the last Presidential election, given that the polls all projected a Kerry victory there by a substantial margin. What the Electoral College actually does is promote pandering to the states where the polls predict a relatively close outcome.

Fwiw, the difference between a popular majority and an electoral majority -- essentially the combined populations of the states of North Carolina and Georgia -- is minute relative to the overall population of the U.S.

BSmack wrote: Not at all. The smaller states votes are weighted MUCH heavier. For example, including the Senate seats for Delaware's EC total increases the weight of their vote by 200%. Adding the 2 Senate seats for California's EC vote to their 53 House seats only increases California's weighted vote by 3.6%.

IF the EC votes were not winner take all, your arguement would make sense. Trouble is, most states are not that way.

Let's say you are competitive in california. Let's say the polls show it a 1-2% race. You are god damn well gonna go there and suck as much calicahk as you can stuff in your piehole. Or would you rather spend that time in delaware so you can lock up their 3 votes?

If a fukking state votes 51-49, it should be tllied that way, not 100-0. This is sooooo fukking obvious it shouldn't even be up for debate. Trouble is, the fukking republicrats running the show know that it is in their best interest to keep things as they are.

One other thing. Why should some fukk in wyoming or delaware have a greater say in who runs the country?

Make it a regular election and the red folks in hopelessly blue states might still show up at the polls. Actually if you really want to break the 2 party monopoly, you would require run off elections. Have a general election, top 2 then run mano a mano. This would bring out alot of support for libertarian or other candidates

smackaholic wrote:

BSmack wrote:Not at all. The smaller states votes are weighted MUCH heavier. For example, including the Senate seats for Delaware's EC total increases the weight of their vote by 200%. Adding the 2 Senate seats for California's EC vote to their 53 House seats only increases California's weighted vote by 3.6%.

IF the EC votes were not winner take all, your arguement would make sense. Trouble is, most states are not that way.

Actually, they are almost all like that. Only 2 apportion electors by Congressional district with at large delegates also. Those would be Maine and Nebraska.

Let's say you are competitive in california. Let's say the polls show it a 1-2% race. You are god damn well gonna go there and suck as much calicahk as you can stuff in your piehole. Or would you rather spend that time in delaware so you can lock up their 3 votes?

Your logic is obviously correct on the face of it. However, in reality, both major candidates know going in that California and New York are solid Dem states and Texas is a solid GOP state. In 2004, during the last 5 weeks of the general election, the 3 most populous states in the union were visited a total of THREE times by either Bush/Cheney or Kerry/Edwards. The state of New Mexico and it's paltry 5 electoral votes doubled that with 6 visits.

No, the way for a state to matter in a general election is simply to be so closely divided that neither party is willing to take you for granted. It has very little to do with population.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2004 ... ention.png" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If a fukking state votes 51-49, it should be tllied that way, not 100-0. This is sooooo fukking obvious it shouldn't even be up for debate. Trouble is, the fukking republicrats running the show know that it is in their best interest to keep things as they are.

One other thing. Why should some fukk in wyoming or delaware have a greater say in who runs the country?

Make it a regular election and the red folks in hopelessly blue states might still show up at the polls. Actually if you really want to break the 2 party monopoly, you would require run off elections. Have a general election, top 2 then run mano a mano. This would bring out alot of support for libertarian or other candidates

I can't disagree with a thing you said there. But good luck getting anyone in flyover country to buy into it.

smackaholic wrote:The electoral college with it's ridiculous winner take all way of doing things actually promotes pandering to large states.

Even though it might mean having a simpleton like algore in office, a straight vote is the only way to ensure that your vote counts as much as someone in another states.

Explain to me why it makes sense to count 35 million votes (california) for the winner, whe they might have only won by a few hundred thousand?

The EC made sense when info traveled at the speed of horse. Today it is dumb.

The 'winner-take-all' nature of the EC could be changed without screwing with the Constitution. And personally, I would be nin favor of it. It would put states in play that are currently written off and make mit more of a national campaign.

BTW, that poll sucked. Not a single question on either of my top two issues, school choice or judicial nominees.

smackaholic wrote: One other thing. Why should some fukk in wyoming or delaware have a greater say in who runs the country?

Make it a regular election and the red folks in hopelessly blue states might still show up at the polls. Actually if you really want to break the 2 party monopoly, you would require run off elections. Have a general election, top 2 then run mano a mano. This would bring out alot of support for libertarian or other candidates

A) without the EC, deleware and Wyoming would have no say.

B)instead of runoffs, have a first and second choice on the ballot. If your first choice is in the top two, it counts. If not, they count the second instead. This would let idiots who support Nader vote Green with Hitlery as insurance, and morons who vote Losertarian vote for whatever clown they put up and still have their second vote count. Not only would it increase third party votes, it might increase turnout over all.

Diogenes wrote:A) without the EC, deleware and Wyoming would have no say.

What's wrong with one person, one vote? A person in Delaware should have no more power than a person from Texas.

BSmack wrote:

Diogenes wrote:A) without the EC, deleware and Wyoming would have no say.

What's wrong with one person, one vote? A person in Delaware should have no more power than a person from Texas.

A person in Deleware doesn't have any more say than one in Texas. The EC just lets the state of Deleware have an extra vote, and the same for Texas.

It's called checks and balances. And we're still a Republic, not a democracy.

The Big Pickle wrote:TRUST THE WISDOM OF THE FOUNDING FATHERS, YOU FUKKEN DIMWITS!!!!!

I do.

The Founding Fathers hoped that the system of government they created would be around long enough that they couldn't possibly anticipate every problem that might occur. That's why there's an entire article of the Constitution dedicated solely to the amendment process.

WITHOUT THE EC, THE ENTIRE NATION WILL BE AT THE MERCY OF NEW YORK CITY OR CALIFORNIA POLITICS!

You might want to try a little research before you spout off so idiotically.

The nine most populous states -- California, Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan and New Jersey -- combined have a majority of the population of the U.S. That's a far cry from "NEW YORK CITY OR CALIFORNIA," as you put it. The eleven most populous states -- the above plus North Carolina and Georgia -- together form an electoral vote majority; hence, my previous statement that the difference between a popular majority and an electoral majority was essentially the combined population of North Carolina and Georgia.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

The Big Pickle wrote:WITHOUT THE EC, THE ENTIRE NATION WILL BE AT THE MERCY OF NEW YORK CITY OR CALIFORNIA POLITICS!

You might want to try a little research before you spout off so idiotically.

Now that was funny.

We've already changed the way we elect the President once. Twelfth Amendment out front should have told you so.

Diogenes wrote:A person in Deleware doesn't have any more say than one in Texas. The EC just lets the state of Deleware have an extra vote, and the same for Texas.

Ah, so now "the state" is a living breathing thing?

Get your head out of your ass.

BSmack wrote:

Diogenes wrote:A person in Deleware doesn't have any more say than one in Texas. The EC just lets the state of Deleware have an extra vote, and the same for Texas.

Ah, so now "the state" is a living breathing thing?

No, it is a political entity.

Dumbfuck.

Diogenes wrote:No, it is a political entity.

And who exactly does this political entity represent?

Oh yea, the PEOPLE of said states. Who now have a weighting factor built into their vote.

Thanks for playing

Dumbfuck.

poll told me Joe Biden, which is who I would have preferrd to vote for anyway.

Main issue we disagreed with is "hair plugs".