Anyone else switiching parties this election?

[Eupher]

The whole purpose of the electoral college is to give the small states a say in things. This is not a democracy we are a Republic and for good reason. No conservative in their right mind would suggest we go by the popular vote. Its bad enough they screwed up the Senate by going to electing Senators by the popular vote. In reality giving us 2 houses representing the people and none the states.

I completely agree.

h5

[BigTex]

The whole purpose of the electoral college is to give the small states a say in things. This is not a democracy we are a Republic and for good reason. No conservative in their right mind would suggest we go by the popular vote. Its bad enough they screwed up the Senate by going to electing Senators by the popular vote. In reality giving us 2 houses representing the people and none the states.

As i pointed out the small states have the same amount of power in either system. They only thing the EC does is it gives the SWING states more importance. You wouldnt call Ohio, Florida, and Virginia "small states" would you? But they have by far more power over which candidate gets elected this election than the other states bigger or smaller.

[rich_t]

As i pointed out the small states have the same amount of power in either system. They only thing the EC does is it gives the SWING states more importance. You wouldnt call Ohio, Florida, and Virginia "small states" would you? But they have by far more power over which candidate gets elected this election than the other states bigger or smaller.

Do you want to know the real problem with the popular vote as you seem to desire?

I'll let the words of my favorite author point it out:

"The America of today is a laboratory example if what can happen to democracies, what has eventually happened to all perfect democracies throughout history.  A perfect democracy, a 'warm body' democracy in which every adult may vote and all votes count equally, has no internal feedback for self-correction.  It depends solely on the wisdom and self-restraint of citizens... which is opposed by the folly and lack of  self-restraint of other citizens.  What is supposed to happen in a democracy is that each sovereign citizen will always vote in public interest for the safety and welfare of all.  But what does happen is that he votes his own self-interest as he sees it... which for the majority translates as 'Bread and Circuses'.

Bread and Circuses is the cancer of democracy, the fatal disease for which there is no cure.  Democracy often works beautifully at first.  But once the state extends the franchise to every warm body, be he producer or parasite, that day marks the beginning of the end of the state.  For when the plebs discover that they can vote themselves bread and circuses without limit and that the productive members of the body politic cannot stop them, they will do so, until the state bleeds to death, or in it's weakened condition the state succums to an invader - the barbarians enter Rome." ~ Robert Heinlein

[BigTex]

Do you want to know the real problem with the popular vote as you seem to desire?

I'll let the words of my favorite author point it out:

"The America of today is a laboratory example if what can happen to democracies, what has eventually happened to all perfect democracies throughout history.  A perfect democracy, a 'warm body' democracy in which every adult may vote and all votes count equally, has no internal feedback for self-correction.  It depends solely on the wisdom and self-restraint of citizens... which is opposed by the folly and lack of  self-restraint of other citizens.  What is supposed to happen in a democracy is that each sovereign citizen will always vote in public interest for the safety and welfare of all.  But what does happen is that he votes his own self-interest as he sees it... which for the majority translates as 'Bread and Circuses'.

Bread and Circuses is the cancer of democracy, the fatal disease for which there is no cure.  Democracy often works beautifully at first.  But once the state extends the franchise to every warm body, be he producer or parasite, that day marks the beginning of the end of the state.  For when the plebs discover that they can vote themselves bread and circuses without limit and that the productive members of the body politic cannot stop them, they will do so, until the state bleeds to death, or in it's weakened condition the state succums to an invader - the barbarians enter Rome." ~ Robert Heinlein

Im not talking about a popular vote for everything as the quote you posted is clearly talking about. Im talking about just for the presidential election and even in the electoral college system people still vote in their own self interest and since there are almost never faithless electors it is essentially a full democratic vote directly representing what the people want and not a vote of elected representatives.

[rich_t]

Im not talking about a popular vote for everything as the quote you posted is clearly talking about. Im talking about just for the presidential election and even in the electoral college system people still vote in their own self interest and since there are almost never faithless electors it is essentially a full democratic vote directly representing what the people want and not a vote of elected representatives.

Let's see....  We already have the popular vote for the House, and thanks to the atrocity of the 17th Amendment the Senate also.

Are there any other portions of the original Constitution (includes the Bill of Rights) that you would like to do away with?

[rich_t]

Here are some of their telling statements from the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

    "A popular election in this case is radically vicious. The ignorance of the people would put it in the power of some one set of men dispersed through the Union, and acting in concert, to delude them into any appointment." -- Delegate Gerry, July 25, 1787

    "The extent of the country renders it impossible, that the people can have the requisite capacity to judge of the respective pretensions of the candidates." -- Delegate Mason, July 17, 1787

    "The people are uninformed, and would be misled by a few designing men." -- Delegate Gerry, July 19, 1787

Still seems rather true to me.

How else can you explain the current President winning the popular vote? 

[Penrod]

Im not talking about a popular vote for everything as the quote you posted is clearly talking about. Im talking about just for the presidential election and even in the electoral college system people still vote in their own self interest and since there are almost never faithless electors it is essentially a full democratic vote directly representing what the people want and not a vote of elected representatives.

So now you oppose our representative system?  The founders knew what they were doing. They had disdain for a direct democracy

“It had been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience had proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity.”
Alexander Hamilton June 21, 1788

A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.
A writer claimed it was Thomas Jefferson, but it's not in his style.

The Founding Fathers Rejected Democracy
June 25th, 2010

By Dr. Harold Pease

The Founding Fathers universally rejected democracy and hoped that posterity would never turn the United States into one.  The word they used was “Republic,” which is not synonymous with “Democracy.”  The word “Democracy” is not in the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights.  Even the Pledge of Allegiance is “to the Republic for which it stands.”

Benjamin Franklin defined democracy as “two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.”

So why did they reject Democracy?  Because it is inherently flawed with the “share the wealth” philosophy, which only works as long as there is someone else’s money to share.  Those receiving are quite pleased with getting something for nothing. But those forced to give are denied the right to spend the benefits of their own labor in their own self-interest, which creates jobs no matter how the money is spent.  They also lose a portion of their incentive to produce.

Founders rejected Democracy
http://www.libertyunderfire.org/2010/06/the-founding-fathers-rejected-democracy/

[BigTex]

Here are some of their telling statements from the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

    "A popular election in this case is radically vicious. The ignorance of the people would put it in the power of some one set of men dispersed through the Union, and acting in concert, to delude them into any appointment." -- Delegate Gerry, July 25, 1787

    "The extent of the country renders it impossible, that the people can have the requisite capacity to judge of the respective pretensions of the candidates." -- Delegate Mason, July 17, 1787

    "The people are uninformed, and would be misled by a few designing men." -- Delegate Gerry, July 19, 1787

Still seems rather true to me.

How else can you explain the current President winning the popular vote? 

If you think that you are to ignorant to choose who should be president then why are you even on a political forum? Or do you just think that you are educated enough but others arent?

[Penrod]

He didnt say he was to ignorant lol

[BigTex]

So now you oppose our representative system?  The founders knew what they were doing. They had disdain for a direct democracy

We dont have a really have representative system though, If an EC voter thinks Romney would be the best president but the people of his state voted for Obama in most states he is legal bound to vote for Obama. So you can talk all you want and founding fathers and a the "original" constitution but you ignore reality.

[Penrod]

We dont have a really have representative system though, If an EC voter thinks Romney would be the best president but the people of his state voted for Obama in most states he is legal bound to vote for Obama. So you can talk all you want and founding fathers and a the "original" constitution but you ignore reality.

What the reality that we have trashed it? And you would further wreck it? We dont have a representative system because the jerks in charge do what they like not what we want.Its our fault for taking it. Vote all these bums out. We need to get rid of laws not pass new ones at this point. Get back to the really upholding the constitution.

[rich_t]

If you think that you are to ignorant to choose who should be president then why are you even on a political forum? Or do you just think that you are educated enough but others arent?

I know for a fact that many others aren't.  I give you Peggy Joseph:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI&feature=fvwrel

This is just one example.

Now I may not be the most politically informed person in the country, but I'm willing to bet that I am more politically informed than the majority of voters.

[rich_t]

Let's see....  We already have the popular vote for the House, and thanks to the atrocity of the 17th Amendment the Senate also.

Are there any other portions of the original Constitution (includes the Bill of Rights) that you would like to do away with?

Repeat post for BigTex.

[BigTex]

What the reality that we have trashed it? And you would further wreck it? We dont have a representative system because the jerks in charge do what they like not what we want.Its our fault for taking it. Vote all these bums out. We need to get rid of laws not pass new ones at this point. Get back to the really upholding the constitution.

That has no meaning and not because people have stripped it of its meaning, It is because the constitution strictly limits the powers of the federal govt but vaguely defines them. The constitution has always been an interpretation. We condem that now because we dont like most of the things that have been interpreted by progressive liberals but we just gloss over the stuff we do like such as the supreme court granting itself the power to strike down unconstitutional laws.

[BigTex]

Let's see....  We already have the popular vote for the House, and thanks to the atrocity of the 17th Amendment the Senate also.

Are there any other portions of the original Constitution (includes the Bill of Rights) that you would like to do away with?

Repeat post for BigTex.

Sure why not, amend the supremacy and commerce clauses to strictly define and limit their powers. There's probably others but thats off the top of my head.

[rich_t]

Sure why not, amend the supremacy and commerce clauses to strictly define and limit their powers. There's probably others but thats off the top of my head.

Ok...  I'm game.

In what fashion would you like to see them amended.

Write out the actual text of the amendments you would like to see implemented.

[thundley4]

As i pointed out the small states have the same amount of power in either system. They only thing the EC does is it gives the SWING states more importance. You wouldnt call Ohio, Florida, and Virginia "small states" would you? But they have by far more power over which candidate gets elected this election than the other states bigger or smaller.

Curious thing about swing states.  They are called that because they have a mostly balanced electorate. Liberals and conservatives make up most of the voters in those states, but not enough to tip the scales. It's up to the candidates to woo the undecideds in those states. 

So, by your thinking the ones with the power to elect a president are a very small minority of voters.

[BigTex]

Ok...  I'm game.

In what fashion would you like to see them amended.

Write out the actual text of the amendments you would like to see implemented.

Im not a legislator or a lawyer so I dont know the exact verbiage necessary to make them happen.  For the supremacy clause I would like to see a limit on how much US law can be forced by the treaties we make and when treaties get modified that we arent forced into changing US law. For the commerce clause I would like the see specific limits set and limit it specifically to commerce.

[rich_t]

Im not a legislator or a lawyer so I dont know the exact verbiage necessary to make them happen.  For the supremacy clause I would like to see a limit on how much US law can be forced by the treaties we make and when treaties get modified that we arent forced into changing US law. For the commerce clause I would like the see specific limits set and limit it specifically to commerce.

I can't argue against that.

[Penrod]

That has no meaning and not because people have stripped it of its meaning, It is because the constitution strictly limits the powers of the federal govt but vaguely defines them. The constitution has always been an interpretation. We condem that now because we dont like most of the things that have been interpreted by progressive liberals but we just gloss over the stuff we do like such as the supreme court granting itself the power to strike down unconstitutional laws.

Better tell that to those in charge . Liberals see it as a living document with few limits on federal power. The only reason Obuma uses the constitution is to find ways to go around it. As long as we elect people who dont uphold the constitution were screwed.

[txradioguy]

Pardon my blunt honesty, but **** that.  Direct democracy was a recipe for disaster in prior governments and (thank the Almighty) our Founding Fathers understood it with diamond like clarity.

QFT.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[Penrod]

I can understand not liking Pauls foreign policy but he has many good ideas and is the father of the TEA party movement. On monetary issues hes one of the best. And he at least believes in the constitution. I think however most libertarians like myself realize whats at stake in this election. If Obuma is re elected America as we know it will be a thing of the past. We will be the United State of America.

[Eupher]

I can understand not liking Pauls foreign policy but he has many good ideas and is the father of the TEA party movement. On monetary issues hes one of the best. And he at least believes in the constitution. I think however most libertarians like myself realize whats at stake in this election. If Obuma is re elected America as we know it will be a thing of the past. We will be the United State of America.

[thundley4]

The only ones I've heard claiming Paul is the father of the TEA Party movement are Paulbots. No sane people so far.

[txradioguy]

but he has many good ideas and is the father of the TEA party movement.

No...he's not.  You cultists stole that title and gave it to him to try and make him look like he had the full force of the TEA party patriots behind him...when clearly he doesn't.

On monetary issues hes one of the best.

He wants to destroy the economy of this nation and that of others that invest in America.

How is that "the best"?

And he at least believes in the constitution.

Only the parts that suit him.

I think however most libertarians like myself realize whats at stake in this election. If Obuma is re elected America as we know it will be a thing of the past. We will be the United State of America.

IF you truly care about this country...why support a complete loon like Ron Paul?