Comments Posted By Fritz
Displaying 41 To 50 Of 146 Comments
Tlaloc,
Thank you, it is what we are and it takes 3/4ths of the "states" to change it. While leftists may like the 5 people on the bench to change the Constitution, Bush has done an excellent job of appointing true Constitutional adherents.You should be against the Senate. Why California has 20% of the population yet only 2% of the Senators? Even worse, California has the same power as New Hampshire to call a Constitutional convention?
Fountain,
World governance is your forte, India and China should govern us.Andy,
I LOVE and CHERISH the Electoral College, it was designed to eliminate political parties. It is no accident that we have only 2 major parties.Rail,
Under law, inaction does not constitute an action. Saddam had compulsory voting. If anything, weekday voting hinders working property owners.Soccer Dad,
Comment Posted By Fritz On 30.08.2006 @ 07:11
Political parties were considered treason in 1789. They NEVER considered majority rule as good.
"States don’t matter. People matter. A person in Oregon should count exactly as much as a person in Wyoming"
That is what you may desire, but this is a Federal Republic where states are given the power to elect Presidents. It is not a matter of "counting" more or less, it is a matter of each state and its citizens an equal place at the table to determine the President of the United States. As I had mentioned before, the Prime Minister is not elected by popular vote, each MP is elected like an elector, and the majority coalition of those pick the Prime Minister. Are the people of Great Britain disenfranchised because they don't cast a vote for Prime Minister? Unlike a Prime Minister, a President is not beholding to a coalition, has a fixed term, and always represents a majority of the states in the Republic. President Clinton may have won only 43% of the popular vote in 1992, but he commanded a healthy majority of the states.
Your #28 Oregon example makes no sense. The election was for Oregon electors, Gore won by 7,000. The will of the people to send Oregon's slate of electors to vote for Gore was done. No different than xyz MP won by 7,000 to cast his support to Tony Blair.
Comment Posted By Fritz On 29.08.2006 @ 17:12
I really don't think the President of the United States should be elected by 30-35% of Americans, the result of this California type elector award. The office is too powerful, extreme candidates would arise and our pluralism would diminish.
Comment Posted By Fritz On 29.08.2006 @ 15:40
Not liking a law passed by duly elected representatives is not disenfranchisement. Winner take all is perfectly acceptable. We don't have proportional Presidencies. The winner gets the office, takes all.
If anything, Electoral College guarantees each state its representation, regardless of turn-out.
Comment Posted By Fritz On 29.08.2006 @ 15:15
Tlaloc,
Comment Posted By Fritz On 29.08.2006 @ 14:39
Winner take all rules could be changed by the legislature, there is no disfranchisement from such laws. Nebraska awards proportionally. I think this new law is really stupid to award on how the rest of the county votes. What if there is a major storm in the North East and turn out is low? California may not have enough votes to make up for low turnout, the Democrat won New York, New Jersey and if awarded California would win the Electoral College, but the Republican gets California's electors for having greater popular vote.
Hey direct electors, how do you feel that Tony Blair was not elected by popular vote as Prime Minister?
Comment Posted By Fritz On 29.08.2006 @ 14:07
Chatterbox,
Comment Posted By Fritz On 29.08.2006 @ 13:52
"Fair" is a subjective term. California "joined" the Union under a Constitution that selects a President by state electors. The California legislature allows its citizens to vote for those electors, thus every vote counts. The state has electors based on population and each state gets 2 extra electoral votes for being a state. To amend the Constitution, each state is equal, should we just have referendums to change the Constitution too?
The Electoral College is like the NFL's revenue sharing & salary cap. It provides equal chance for all teams to compete and has resulted in a much larger audience and higher revenues. The Senate & Electoral College have served us well.
Comment Posted By Fritz On 29.08.2006 @ 13:03
The Electoral College is why our democracy has endured for so long. We are after all talking about an entire branch of government controlled by a single individual with a fixed term. I think it is important that that individual appeals to a broad consensus of his fellow countrymen. This results in our pluralism, uniquely American.
Comment Posted By Fritz On 29.08.2006 @ 11:24
REDEFINING THE ALREADY DEFINED
Greenwald wrote: "The war in Afghanistan was supported by roughly 90% of Americans, as was the first Persian Gulf War,"
This is the bottom line. This is why we have a debate about Iraq. Settled wars have a funny way of re-writing history. The first Gulf War was not popular, 64% of Americans opposed it. In fact, the resolution authorizing it was not agreed to until AFTER the mid-term elections in 1990. Many top Democrat presidential hopefuls for 1992 openly opposed it. The reason Bill Clinton was able to win the nomination in 92, was because he had been on both sides of the issue. The Left's goal is to settle Iraq as a failure.
Comment Posted By Fritz On 26.07.2006 @ 07:39
