While this is a spoof I can't help but wonder how far off from the truth something like this is when you consider a President in the US is not actually elected by the popular vote but that of the Electoral College. This Electoral College was created because the voting public was considered to stupid to make the right choice for President so the College was set up to make sure "the people" got it right.

Perhaps in today's day and age it's time to get back to the popular vote not so much because people are smarter today but because the Electoral College has actually gotten it wrong and gave the Presidency to the wrong guy in the past.

If you read into this you will read that in March 2008 United Technologies Corporation, the large engineering and defense conglomerate, announced it had made a $2.63 billion bid to buy Diebold. This is comforting when you consider one candidate for President of the US wants to pull the troops out of Iraq and the other candidate wants us to stay in Iraq. Gee I wonder how this will pan out.

It's kind of eerie how up front the owner's of America are with their oil agenda and the lengths they will go through to keep things as they are. Great financing on Hummers this week!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBrDzZCOQtI

Dude, I couldn't agree with you more. It's funny, yes, but it's also indicative of our current administration's uncanny effort to get elected in spite of public support. Still, you gotta stay positive and remember to vote!

SHEEESH Hopefully not another Florida Voting Fiasco again!!!!!!! And another president who is not doing his or her job....lining their pockets with oil money no doubt...

Yes this country has gone to the dogz...thats being polite. I mean instead of pumping more gas offshore give us incentives to not buy gas.....like instead of giving us IRS checks (that people will spend on gas) give us mountian bikes......or an $800 credit towards skooters!!!!!!Creative solutions to an age old problem.....

Oh well,,,at least I can still jam my Les Paul into my Marshall....

We should go back to horses

Since you bring it up... ...I've been wondering just how far past fixable things are...do you think with or without a electoral coledge(sp) that it is possible to have a "fair" election here anymore...I will admit paranoia here for the record...will drilling offshore anywhere help the price of gas any time soon? well, it depends first on wether they find any, then how long it will take to get it set up to be pumped, and then how the relativley small amount that is pumpable will effect the global oil market, because that is the dirty little secret they don't mention is that there is no US oil market we are meerley consumers in the global market. and that will not make it necessarily "cheaper" just more of it for speclators to play with the price of...of course the US Senator with the worst record fror showing up for votes is saying it's a kind of "hope we can believe in", but he doesn't work weekends so he won't be saying it again till Monday...maybe if the govt stopped subsidizing corporate farms NOT to grow corn we could get the price down on that enough to make it a viable fuel sourse...but that would cut into oil profits...If Col. Sanders was President and the price of chicken went up over 300%, would you think something was fishy?...( gets down off soapbox)...I like the scooter credit idea, Ive always wanted a Vespa...

quote:

Originally posted by PedalworX dude:
This Electoral College was created because the voting public was considered to stupid to make the right choice for President so the College was set up to make sure "the people" got it right.

I think you fell asleep during 8th grade civics class.

I think you fell asleep during 8th grade civics class.[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure I follow your disagreement with the offending quote on the electoral college?

My reading of the "Federalist Papers" seems to endorse such a philosophy, but what I find more frightening is Madison's correlating fears of factions and the lengths we must go to diffuse unified "political spirits" in order to protect the sovereignty of the state. Hamilton, Madison, and Jay certainly read their Plato and admired his Republic, so an elitist electoral college would certainly solve our problems of an "engaged populace". Reference here, Plato's ship metaphor and how destructive democracy can truly be.

Don't you think?

Cheers.

quote:

I'm not sure I follow your disagreement with the offending quote on the electoral college?

My reading of the "Federalist Papers" seems to endorse such a philosophy, but what I find more frightening is Madison's correlating fears of factions and the lengths we must go to diffuse unified "political spirits" in order to protect the sovereignty of the state. Hamilton, Madison, and Jay certainly read their Plato and admired his Republic, so an elitist electoral college would certainly solve our problems of an "engaged populace". Reference here, Plato's ship metaphor and how destructive democracy can truly be.

Don't you think?

Cheers.

I fail to see the connection between your argument and pedalworx's statement.

The electoral college was established as a measure to allow the vote of smaller population states to count measureably more toward electing a President. If only a popular vote mattered, then NY, CA, PA, OH, and a few other states could easily settle the contest - campaigners would only need to pander to the needs of the large population centers - at the expense of the needs of lower population states.

It was a states rights issue from the beginning and still has a place in our system today.

quote:

Originally posted by LFB Incorporated:
It was a states rights issue from the beginning and still has a place in our system today.

I'm not trying to play devil's advocate (or be disagreeable), but is that what we really want to worry about in the process of electing a President? For example, it's not so much an electoral college issue, but why should Iowa and New Hampshire play such a vital role in our primaries? Both states are overwhelmingly white, and Iowa is a caucus, for god's sake. Why not let other smaller states play a role every 4 years? Or, scrap the entire thing and hold ONE primary, and be done with it.

Perhaps I'm wrong (I often am), but I'd wager that if we read about a country like Zimbabwe that continued to elect a despot like Mugabe because of some sort of arcane electoral college, we'd shake our heads. I realize it's apples and oranges, but our system of an electoral college has just never seemed very smart to me, regardless of its best intentions.

I've lived in big states (CA, NY), and very small ones (ME), and it's always felt, to my mind, that the popular vote is what really ought to matter. Then again, I'm pretty much convinced that corporations run this country, and that almost any President is the same as the next. Sure, there may be slight differences regarding abortion rights, or gun control, et al, but as cynical or jaded as it might sound, I'm just not buying the notion that one millionaire or another running for POTUS really cares about the plight of the average American struggling to gas up the car and navigate a stumbling economy.

quote:

Originally posted by StratoMac'r:

quote:

Originally posted by LFB Incorporated:
It was a states rights issue from the beginning and still has a place in our system today.

I've lived in big states (CA, NY), and very small ones (ME), and it's always felt, to my mind, that the popular vote is what really ought to matter.

That was the Federalist's argument.

well an unsolicited bid does not mean the transaction will go through. If the sale DOES go through, that will be super duper spooky and scary. I have serious doubts that the sun will ever rise again. If Obama gets in there at least there will be lots and lots of talk of false hope as opposed to lots and lots of talk of real fear. I will take fake optimism any day.

quote:

Originally posted by TY:

quote:

I'm not sure I follow your disagreement with the offending quote on the electoral college?

My reading of the "Federalist Papers" seems to endorse such a philosophy, but what I find more frightening is Madison's correlating fears of factions and the lengths we must go to diffuse unified "political spirits" in order to protect the sovereignty of the state. Hamilton, Madison, and Jay certainly read their Plato and admired his Republic, so an elitist electoral college would certainly solve our problems of an "engaged populace". Reference here, Plato's ship metaphor and how destructive democracy can truly be.

Don't you think?

Cheers.

I fail to see the connection between your argument and pedalworx's statement.

The connection that I intended is that the origins of our founders' philosophy for an electoral college is based in the political philosophy of Plato which felt that the average citizen was too stupid to be relied upon to have a say in government. The electoral college is a protection for the government from me and you, as it was seen. So, I'm agreeing with Pedalworx on the issue. I just wanted some more info on your disagreement.

quote:

Originally posted by laschfan:I just wanted some more info on your disagreement.

I would just be quoting some textbook on the purpose of the electoral college. I have read about many advantages and disadvantages of our system; reducing it to 'the people are too stupid' doesn't jive with my education.

quote:

Originally posted by LFB Incorporated:
That was the Federalist's argument.

So, in all likelihood, we disagree.


Which is fine, as universal agreement would be dull, no?


Perhaps, though, we might find common ground on some issues: The tendency, unfortunately, is for liberals and conservatives to demonize one another ad nauseum. While I probably could not disagree more with those on the right, I do believe they love this country as much as I do- we just see the solutions to our problems differently. Or perhaps not- maybe the Left sees problems that the Right thinks are trivial/etc, and vice versa.


Still, I always have this faint glimmer of hope that somehow we can work through our differences and be a country that inspires others, that our hard work and dedication can make a difference, ya know? It's not this land, this soil and its people that often causes me to wince, but the actions of those in power, regardless of party, who betray us and our goodwill. I believe, maybe like you, that we deserve better.

With that, I'll raise a glass and bid you all good night.

quote:

Originally posted by StratoMac'r:
While I probably could not disagree more with those on the right, I do believe they love this country as much as I do- we just see the solutions to our problems differently. Or perhaps not- maybe the Left sees problems that the Right thinks are trivial/etc, and vice versa.

I disagree. I think that the left and right have a fundamentally different understanding of the COUNTRY itself; i.e. it's values, ideals, purpose, etc. And this divergence is become greater and greater, I believe.

I humbly disagree with your disagreement...I think there is money to be had and power and influence to be accumulated ( in the intrest of gathering more money)...and the fundumental difference of ideals is who should get it...the right/left, liberal/democrat, lableing is a distraction...like the wizard of Oz...and while the electoral colledge may have been, in it's inception, a tool to mitigate the disproportionate influence of larger states( and stupid populace) that same system is being used instead to actively reduce/eliminate the effect of the popular vote...look at any election coverage and the talk of "important " swing states...in ref. to KeefRiffers post... I'm not sure the "fear" is any more real than the hope, ever read "1984"? Gotta have a war and an enemy so the populace can be controled...man, maybe I should switch my meds , ( of course that is also a great way to control the populace no? turn them into sedated addicts...why feel any pain or stress? or think clearly? ...but of course the only opption has to be a domestic pharmasutical NO NATURALS! MARIJUANA ( unlike oxycontin, et al) is a slippery slope!!...oh man couldn't we just argue about religion...this is depressing me

quote:

Originally posted by TY:

quote:

Originally posted by PedalworX dude:
This Electoral College was created because the voting public was considered to stupid to make the right choice for President so the College was set up to make sure "the people" got it right.

I think you fell asleep during 8th grade civics class.

That's funny and I understand the other perception of why it was created quite well. This is what we all were told in grade school and my statement was my take on what the bottom line to the creation of the E.C. was for and not something I was indoctrinated with. While all states may have an equal say on who gets elected President not all states are equal.

A large state, like New York, has a financial center called Wall Street and the money Nazis that work there have created a strangle hold on all of us. They have lovely second homes out in the Hamptons and employ illegal aliens to cook, clean and maintain their lovely properties. They are manipulating all of us so a state like New York has much more power, in real terms, than a state like Idaho or Wyoming.

Do you not find it at all strange that we do not even have a clue as to who these E.C. people are?
At least you and I do not know who makes up the E.C. but I would bet those in the large Military Industrial Complex and the fine folks at Exxon/Mobile know exactly who they are and it appears that they may have gotten to them.

This is my argument for electing a President by popular vote because those checks we get are not enough money to buy our vote.

Yeah, to me it's not a Republican/Democrat, black/white, left/right or Conservative/Liberal issue at all and is all about control,power and influence. So far it appears to be a coup d’état for big oil, Wall Street and Haliburton. Nice!

quote:

Originally posted by PedalworX dude:
Do you not find it at all strange that we do not even have a clue as to who these E.C. people are?
At least you and I do not know who makes up the E.C. but I would bet those in the large Military Industrial Complex and the fine folks at Exxon/Mobile know exactly who they are and it appears that they may have gotten to them.

2004 Electoral College

It's easy to find who they were and how they voted. It's not some clandestine society. They don't even all get together. Each state's electoral college electors meet in their own state capitals and vote.

You can't find out who they are before the election, because they aren't elected until after. They are usually people from the political party of the candidate that won the popular vote from their state, who have pledged to vote for that candidate. They face not only being ostracized and sanctioned by their party, but in many states, legal consequences, for changing their vote from what they had pledged.

In every state that I check for the 2000 election and the 2004 election, all of the states electoral votes went to the candidate that won the popular vote in that state.

Whether or not the electoral college is a good thing, or a popular vote is a good thing, can be debated forever. And, both sides have some very good points. But, it's not like the electoral college is some secret clandestine group that is fixing elections for the evil power mongers.

quote:

Originally posted by Blues Lyne:

quote:

Originally posted by PedalworX dude:
Do you not find it at all strange that we do not even have a clue as to who these E.C. people are?
At least you and I do not know who makes up the E.C. but I would bet those in the large Military Industrial Complex and the fine folks at Exxon/Mobile know exactly who they are and it appears that they may have gotten to them.

2004 Electoral College

It's easy to find who they were and how they voted. It's not some clandestine society. They don't even all get together. Each state's electoral college electors meet in their own state capitals and vote.

You can't find out who they are before the election, because they aren't elected until after. They are usually people from the political party of the candidate that won the popular vote from their state, who have pledged to vote for that candidate. They face not only being ostracized and sanctioned by their party, but in many states, legal consequences, for changing their vote from what they had pledged.

In every state that I check for the 2000 election and the 2004 election, all of the states electoral votes went to the candidate that won the popular vote in that state.

Whether or not the electoral college is a good thing, or a popular vote is a good thing, can be debated forever. And, both sides have some very good points. But, it's not like the electoral college is some secret clandestine group that is fixing elections for the evil power mongers.

Thank you for facts, and not more tinfoil-hattery.