**2012 Election Day thread**

[Soxbadger]

And in case you dont believe me, Factcheck.org doesnt even mention states rights as a reason for the electoral college:

 

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-reaso...ctoral-college/

 

The reason that the Constitution calls for this extra layer, rather than just providing for the direct election of the president, is that most of the nation’s founders were actually rather afraid of democracy. James Madison worried about what he called "factions," which he defined as groups of citizens who have a common interest in some proposal that would either violate the rights of other citizens or would harm the nation as a whole. Madison’s fear – which Alexis de Tocqueville later dubbed "the tyranny of the majority" – was that a faction could grow to encompass more than 50 percent of the population, at which point it could "sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens." Madison has a solution for tyranny of the majority: "A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking."

 

As Alexander Hamilton writes in "The Federalist Papers," the Constitution is designed to ensure "that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications." The point of the Electoral College is to preserve "the sense of the people," while at the same time ensuring that a president is chosen "by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice."

 

I previously linked the federalist paper that fully explains it. But this was to keep down regular joes.

Edited November 7, 2012 by Soxbadger

[southsider2k5]

Disagree completely.

 

The US is to large to govern well with 1 body, thus you need smaller entities to govern smaller sections of land.

 

That being said, the President is a position that governs all people, and thus a state line should make no difference on his selection. If I live in Southern IL across from Missouri, should my vote really be that different? Just because there is an imaginary line on the Mississippi?

 

If the lines are imaginary, why the hell are we spending billions to support those lines? Either they matter, or they don't. We do all have local (City/County/Township) governments. If you are saying that states don't matter, take it to its logical conclusion.

 

For my two cents, historically we are the United STATES of America, and our history is such that states rights are an important historical consideration. There are many things that are constitutionally granted to the individual state. I have no problem with our elections reflecting that.

[RockRaines]

Ugh just watched Akin's concession speech. So anyone who didnt vote for him doesnt appreciate god, their family, and America.

[Soxbadger]

If the lines are imaginary, why the hell are we spending billions to support those lines? Either they matter, or they don't. We do all have local (City/County/Township) governments. If you are saying that states don't matter, take it to its logical conclusion.

 

For my two cents, historically we are the United STATES of America, and our history is such that states rights are an important historical consideration. There are many things that are constitutionally granted to the individual state. I have no problem with our elections reflecting that.

 

Just to be clear, Im not arguing against states rights. I have no intention of stripping the rights in the senate or house that give them a larger impact.

 

What I am arguing against is the electoral college, and saying that states rights are not the main reason for the electoral college. That the actual intention of the electoral college is to deprive regular individuals the ability to directly elect the president, which is why I am against the electoral college.

 

They are 2 completely different arguments. But for some reason the group that supports the electoral college has been able to cloak their support as "states rights" when really its not.

 

I am generally pro-states rights, its just different with the President. As I said, if this model makes sense, why dont counties elect the Governor? Why should a county in southern Illinois not get better representation than Cook? Why does each Illinois vote count the same?

 

The answer, because the electoral college is about direct voting, not about the rights of small states, minorities, etc.

[CrimsonWeltall]

Ugh just watched Akin's concession speech. So anyone who didnt vote for him doesnt appreciate god, their family, and America.

 

And hates the Constitution.

[cabiness42]

I have a question: Florida is still listed as too close to call and I believe they have a provision that automatically triggers a recount if the vote is within 1%. Since it doesn't really matter who wins Florida, is there any way to save the taxpayers money and not have the recount?

[NorthSideSox72]

you're just wrong man.

 

I am overwhelmed by the staggering profundity of your artfully crated retort.

 

If states really don't matter, let's get rid of the state level governance, as it is a waste of money then. Get rid of all of the boundaries, rules, etc. Either you have to honor that states are there, or don't. You can't rely on states for somethings, and then ignore them for others.

 

For the record, I was never saying states don't matter. I have said that for the purpose of electing the President, a single national office, states should not matter. There is a huge difference.

 

[Soxbadger]

For the record, I was never saying states don't matter. I have said that for the purpose of electing the President, a single national office, states should not matter. There is a huge difference.

 

Exactly. Especially as electoral college wasnt even a states right issue when it was started.

[Jenksismyhero]

And in case you dont believe me, Factcheck.org doesnt even mention states rights as a reason for the electoral college:

 

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-reaso...ctoral-college/

 

The reason that the Constitution calls for this extra layer, rather than just providing for the direct election of the president, is that most of the nation’s founders were actually rather afraid of democracy. James Madison worried about what he called "factions," which he defined as groups of citizens who have a common interest in some proposal that would either violate the rights of other citizens or would harm the nation as a whole. Madison’s fear – which Alexis de Tocqueville later dubbed "the tyranny of the majority" – was that a faction could grow to encompass more than 50 percent of the population, at which point it could "sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens." Madison has a solution for tyranny of the majority: "A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking."

 

As Alexander Hamilton writes in "The Federalist Papers," the Constitution is designed to ensure "that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications." The point of the Electoral College is to preserve "the sense of the people," while at the same time ensuring that a president is chosen "by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice."

 

I previously linked the federalist paper that fully explains it. But this was to keep down regular joes.

 

Yeah, so basically what we have now, except that it's one majority of basically the same people with different letters next to their names, that govern for themselves and rig the system for their friends.

 

And I'm not sure Reddy is making the point clear enough, and given he's a liberal i'm not sure he even realized he's arguing to protect conservatives, but getting rid of the EC would shift the political spectrum in this country. Presidential candidates will devote the vast majority of their time to urban problems and ignore the rural. That would be their focus, so the "rural" candidate that would normally look to protect small town america would go extinct.

 

And yes, it's easy to say that Congress should be the ones looking out for the rural people, but Presidents promote policy in today's system, not Congress. Without a President as their voice, the little guy would get screwed in just about every policy argument.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Just to be clear, Im not arguing against states rights. I have no intention of stripping the rights in the senate or house that give them a larger impact.

 

What I am arguing against is the electoral college, and saying that states rights are not the main reason for the electoral college. That the actual intention of the electoral college is to deprive regular individuals the ability to directly elect the president, which is why I am against the electoral college.

 

They are 2 completely different arguments. But for some reason the group that supports the electoral college has been able to cloak their support as "states rights" when really its not.

I am generally pro-states rights, its just different with the President. As I said, if this model makes sense, why dont counties elect the Governor? Why should a county in southern Illinois not get better representation than Cook? Why does each Illinois vote count the same?

 

The answer, because the electoral college is about direct voting, not about the rights of small states, minorities, etc.

 

Interesting you say this because that's a problem in most states, including Illinois. Tally up every non-Chicagoan vote and you still can't beat the Chicago vote for governor. Hence why 95% of the policy initiatives in the state are done with Chicago/Chicago Metro area in mind.

[southsider2k5]

Exactly. Especially as electoral college wasnt even a states right issue when it was started.

 

The argument is things change, right? States rights have become an endangered concept more and more as time as gone on and we have received a stronger and stronger federal government that is willing to take extreme measures to keep influence state law. The extent that states have been marginalized in the last 100 years or so is pretty extreme.

[Quin]

And hates the Constitution.

 

And hate's illegitimate rape.

 

Seriously, it's been great down here. One of my friends saw Akin's cousin throwing a fit.

[Jenksismyhero]

The argument is things change, right? States rights have become an endangered concept more and more as time as gone on and we have received a stronger and stronger federal government that is willing to take extreme measures to keep influence state law. The extent that states have been marginalized in the last 100 years or so is pretty extreme.

 

And it's getting worse EVERY year.

 

"Disaster funds? Emergency infrastructure? Pssh, f*** that! The nanny state will pay for it all!"

[Soxbadger]

Yeah, so basically what we have now, except that it's one majority of basically the same people with different letters next to their names, that govern for themselves and rig the system for their friends.

 

And I'm not sure Reddy is making the point clear enough, and given he's a liberal i'm not sure he even realized he's arguing to protect conservatives, but getting rid of the EC would shift the political spectrum in this country. Presidential candidates will devote the vast majority of their time to urban problems and ignore the rural. That would be their focus, so the "rural" candidate that would normally look to protect small town america would go extinct.

 

And yes, it's easy to say that Congress should be the ones looking out for the rural people, but Presidents promote policy in today's system, not Congress. Without a President as their voice, the little guy would get screwed in just about every policy argument.

 

Can you name an example of the tyrannical urban class ruling the rural?

 

I just dont see it happening, and I dont even know what past President youd call a "rural" President. There is just no way to give the rural people more say in the system, unless you change the system to make urban votes meaningless. Otherwise population always rules, and urban has beat agrarian. Its not a contest, 200 years ago it may have been, but in the 21st century urban is what won, and there is no changing that.

[iamshack]

Yeah, so basically what we have now, except that it's one majority of basically the same people with different letters next to their names, that govern for themselves and rig the system for their friends.

 

And I'm not sure Reddy is making the point clear enough, and given he's a liberal i'm not sure he even realized he's arguing to protect conservatives, but getting rid of the EC would shift the political spectrum in this country. Presidential candidates will devote the vast majority of their time to urban problems and ignore the rural. That would be their focus, so the "rural" candidate that would normally look to protect small town america would go extinct.

 

And yes, it's easy to say that Congress should be the ones looking out for the rural people, but Presidents promote policy in today's system, not Congress. Without a President as their voice, the little guy would get screwed in just about every policy argument.

I think everyone understands the premise...more campaign time in urban areas = exposure to more people = more votes.

 

I fail to see how this would be the obvious equation in a popular vote scenario when it isn't the case in the electoral scenario, when the same basic principles hold true.

 

What we are seeing now, and I don't know why this would not continue, is the following equation....more campaign time in "swing" populations = exposure to swing voters = more swing votes.

 

Where the resources will be expended is where the votes come at a premium. The votes that come at a premium are the votes that are truly up for grabs. Thus the resources seemingly would continue to be spent on the votes that are truly up for grabs, not the ones that were already in the bag.

 

I'm not sure why this would not continue...

[Soxbadger]

Interesting you say this because that's a problem in most states, including Illinois. Tally up every non-Chicagoan vote and you still can't beat the Chicago vote for governor. Hence why 95% of the policy initiatives in the state are done with Chicago/Chicago Metro area in mind.

 

If thats a problem then people should be arguing for more electoral colleges. Less direct voting.

 

What I see is that urban areas are growing because that is where people are choosing to live. It makes sense that the politics should shift to where people are. It does not make sense to hold onto an antiquated notion of agrarian ideals, just because at one point that was something popular.

 

The argument is things change, right? States rights have become an endangered concept more and more as time as gone on and we have received a stronger and stronger federal government that is willing to take extreme measures to keep influence state law. The extent that states have been marginalized in the last 100 years or so is pretty extreme.

 

I agree states should get more rights. But that is from Congress, not from the President. And unfortunately no one in Federal Congress wants to give up their power. Id love for congress to vote that guns, drugs, etc were all state rights.

 

But thats not going to change, regardless of how the President is voted.

[RockRaines]

Good debates BTW guys, civil and informative.

[southsider2k5]

And it's getting worse EVERY year.

 

"Disaster funds? Emergency infrastructure? Pssh, f*** that! The nanny state will pay for it all!"

 

The ones that bother me are when states don't get an option, such as passing a law or they lose a specific kind of funding.

[RockRaines]

I agree states should get more rights. But that is from Congress, not from the President. And unfortunately no one in Federal Congress wants to give up their power. Id love for congress to vote that guns, drugs, etc were all state rights.

 

But thats not going to change, regardless of how the President is voted.

I wouldn't mind this either. I think some states rights should supersede some of the national laws i.e. marijuana, gay marriage etc.

[southsider2k5]

I agree states should get more rights. But that is from Congress, not from the President. And unfortunately no one in Federal Congress wants to give up their power. Id love for congress to vote that guns, drugs, etc were all state rights.

 

But thats not going to change, regardless of how the President is voted.

 

The President is the last check on federal power.

[NorthSideSox72]

The ones that bother me are when states don't get an option, such as passing a law or they lose a specific kind of funding.

 

Fun fact: do we all know who the father of conditional block grants to states was? Hint: the President that conservatives fawn over more than any other, and make into something he wasn't.

 

The President is the last check on federal power.

 

That would be SCOTUS.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Can you name an example of the tyrannical urban class ruling the rural?

 

I just dont see it happening, and I dont even know what past President youd call a "rural" President. There is just no way to give the rural people more say in the system, unless you change the system to make urban votes meaningless. Otherwise population always rules, and urban has beat agrarian. Its not a contest, 200 years ago it may have been, but in the 21st century urban is what won, and there is no changing that.

 

Um, Chicago? Chicago has a stranglehold on the rest of the state.

 

And are you kidding? That's one of the main difference currently between Dems and Republicans. It's rural v. urban. It's "get off my lawn and out of my wallet" versus "we need to provide people with more!"

[Soxbadger]

And regardless of electoral college or direct vote, the President is likely going to want to keep the power for himself.

 

Based on your own statements states rights are being eroded away, and the current system is electoral college. It just makes no difference to states rights.

 

The only thing it does, is it completely bastardizes the Presidential election into a race where most people's vote really didnt mean much. And those people are mainly the minority party in a given state. Which is another problem, because the electoral college is winner take all in the state, it actually doesnt reflect the states real attitude.

 

Electoral college, no electoral college, it wont change states rights. All it will do is change the election and force candidates to appeal to all people, which should mean all states. No longer can the Democrats just punt the confederacy.

 

[RockRaines]

Um, Chicago? Chicago has a stranglehold on the rest of the state.

 

And are you kidding? That's one of the main difference currently between Dems and Republicans. It's rural v. urban. It's "get off my lawn and out of my wallet" versus "we need to provide people with more!"

The rest of Illinois is pretty barren of population. Most of the population is concentrated in the chicagoland area (not chicago proper). Thats not always the case in every state that has more than one dominant urban area.

[Soxbadger]

Um, Chicago? Chicago has a stranglehold on the rest of the state.

 

And are you kidding? That's one of the main difference currently between Dems and Republicans. It's rural v. urban. It's "get off my lawn and out of my wallet" versus "we need to provide people with more!"

 

In my opinion, main difference between democrats and republicans is social issues like abortion (get out of my bedroom), marriage (get out of my life), drugs (dont tell me what I can consume.)

 

Of the Democrats I know, none of them want big govt, they just hate big govt social conservatism.