| Author |
Message |
Knight_of_BAAWA
Philosophical Prodigy
Joined: Mar 09, 2003
Posts: 4517
Location: USA
|
 Posted:
Fri Jun 13, 2008 8:43 am |
 
|
Once more from the top:
It's not a national election.
The US is not a single "nation". It is a federation of sovereign states.
The elections are STATE-BY-STATE for that reason. |
|
|
 
|
|
Cygnus
Resident
Joined: Mar 26, 2008
Posts: 361
|
| Posted:
Fri Jun 13, 2008 1:08 pm |
|
If the US isn't one single nation already, then it should be. |
_________________
"The Jewish-Christian-Muslim is waiting to be free" |
|
|
|
|
Knight_of_BAAWA
Philosophical Prodigy
Joined: Mar 09, 2003
Posts: 4517
Location: USA
|
| Posted:
Wed Jun 18, 2008 11:15 am |
|
| Cygnus wrote: |
| If the US isn't one single nation already, then it should be. |
Why? |
|
|
|
|
|
Mr_C
Intern
Joined: Jun 27, 2006
Posts: 200
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Posted:
Wed Jun 18, 2008 12:58 pm |
|
| Cygnus wrote: |
| Seekah wrote: |
Currently I support the electoral college system.
Let us say that we switched to a "one person, one vote" system. There would be only a handful of states (those with the highest population) that would really matter in an election.
Let us say also that candidate A is running for president and a state with a high population (California) wants something that a state that has a low population (Wyoming) also wants. Let us further state that such a wanted resource is finite and can only be given to one state or the other.
In such a case, to whom do you think candidate A will give their support? Certainly not Wyoming with it's comparatively puny voter base. Why would candidate A support them if they can't get him/her elected? |
Doesn't it already work like this, anyway? I think the electoral college should be abolished. People should get who they vote for. |
It is odd how Seekah seems to be arguing against the EC 
I'm confused as to how someone could state a position and then argue the opposite position, but not seem to understand either. |
|
|
|
|
|
Gerard
Grand Poster
Joined: Nov 19, 2003
Posts: 1740
Location: Groningen, the Netherlands
|
| Posted:
Thu Jun 19, 2008 7:31 am |
|
| Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: |
Once more from the top:
It's not a national election.
The US is not a single "nation". It is a federation of sovereign states.
The elections are STATE-BY-STATE for that reason. |
A federation of sovereign states is usually called a confederation. I don't think the US has been a true confederation since the constitution was approved.
Gerard |
|
|
|
|
|
Seekah
Newbie
Joined: May 20, 2008
Posts: 14
Location: Massachusetts
|
| Posted:
Thu Jun 19, 2008 2:41 pm |
|
| Mr_C wrote: |
| Cygnus wrote: |
| Seekah wrote: |
Currently I support the electoral college system.
Let us say that we switched to a "one person, one vote" system. There would be only a handful of states (those with the highest population) that would really matter in an election.
Let us say also that candidate A is running for president and a state with a high population (California) wants something that a state that has a low population (Wyoming) also wants. Let us further state that such a wanted resource is finite and can only be given to one state or the other.
In such a case, to whom do you think candidate A will give their support? Certainly not Wyoming with it's comparatively puny voter base. Why would candidate A support them if they can't get him/her elected? |
Doesn't it already work like this, anyway? I think the electoral college should be abolished. People should get who they vote for. |
It is odd how Seekah seems to be arguing against the EC
I'm confused as to how someone could state a position and then argue the opposite position, but not seem to understand either. |
How am I arguing against the electoral college? I thought I was making the point that if we had a "one person, one vote" system, it would be bad. |
_________________
SIKə |
|
|
|
|
|
|
* You can syndicate our news and blog using the file