Supreme Court Incorporated the 2nd amendment!

[flop-shank]

Great posts guys.

In a nutshell, the house was meant to be directly accountable to the people.

The Senate was meant to be accountable to the state's legislatures (read that as the politically savvy) and was thus insulated from the fickleness and oftentimes ignorance of the people.

It blows my mind that the 17th was ever passed. What were people thinking? It takes a certain kind of idiot to think that without years of study one could even stand a chance knowing how to structure a government better than the framers of the U.S. Constitution.

As for Woodrow Wilson, he was pure evil and one of the worst presidents the United States ever had.

[SirBrass]

PJTV's trifecta crew chimes in on the ruling and specifically Clarence Thomas' separate opinion:

http://pjtv.com/v/3818

[Devereaux]

It blows my mind that the 17th was ever passed. What were people thinking? It takes a certain kind of idiot to think that without years of study one could even stand a chance knowing how to structure a government better than the framers of the U.S. Constitution.

As for Woodrow Wilson, he was pure evil and one of the worst presidents the United States ever had.

?Wondering what people were thinking. Consider the proposals for changing how we elect the president from the electoral college to a straight populace vote. THAT would make the president elected by New York and California, since the populace centers there outweight much of the rest of the nation. Look back at the first Bush vs Gore election. Bush won just about every county in the nation but the small number that are "true blue". Yet Gore got a plurality of votes in the election. Had we just counted votes, it would have been Gore that was president while most of the country didn't want him - just some of the concentrated population centers. It would make voting in Montana, Idaho, Colorado, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, Vermont (well, maybe we don't want to count them anyway), New Hampshire, Delaware, Kansas, Iowa, N & S Dakota - just to name some - irrelevant.

[Daeglan]

what I want is for the Electorial college vots to be divided by the voting districts. IE if a district voted mostly republican that district goes to the republicans. if the district is mostly democrat it goes dem. That way california does not automatically go democrat because of san fran and LA. it would be split. I think that was the way the college was supposed to work.

[SirBrass]

I want the electoral college to actually VOTE, not just rubber stamp the popular election.  We elect representatives to vote for the president, and trust them to represent us correctly, but not rubber stamp things.

[flop-shank]

It blows my mind that the 17th was ever passed. What were people thinking? It takes a certain kind of idiot to think that without years of study one could even stand a chance knowing how to structure a government better than the framers of the U.S. Constitution.

As for Woodrow Wilson, he was pure evil and one of the worst presidents the United States ever had.

?Wondering what people were thinking. Consider the proposals for changing how we elect the president from the electoral college to a straight populace vote. THAT would make the president elected by New York and California, since the populace centers there outweight much of the rest of the nation. Look back at the first Bush vs Gore election. Bush won just about every county in the nation but the small number that are "true blue". Yet Gore got a plurality of votes in the election. Had we just counted votes, it would have been Gore that was president while most of the country didn't want him - just some of the concentrated population centers. It would make voting in Montana, Idaho, Colorado, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, Vermont (well, maybe we don't want to count them anyway), New Hampshire, Delaware, Kansas, Iowa, N & S Dakota - just to name some - irrelevant.

Oh yeah, I totally agree! The Electoral College is there for a reason and like I said, shame on those who think they know better than the men who wrote the U.S. Constitution.

[xmunckx]

Yeah.  Allot of people seem to think the electoral college is outdated.  But that is a very half educated view of the situation.   In and of itself direct democracy is really just a fancy way of saying "mob rule". 

And that being said the voters of the electoral college need to remember that they represent the people of their districts and will have to answer to them but ultimately they are required to vote their conscience.

[Daeglan]

thats why i want the college to not be the whole state goes the the most popular. i want it divided by voting district. Because I am sick of the whole state going dem when most voting districts in Cali are conservative. we get over ruled by san francisco and LA

if the electorial college actually represented their voting district republicans in cali would get counted.

[Panhead Bill]

It would require a Constitutional amendment, which I believe in today's political climate would be next to impossible.

Bill

[Devereaux]

Correct me if I'm wrong, someone, but I believe each state sets the rules for how its votes in the college are apportioned. Some states have a winner-take-all approach, some split it according to popular vote within the state. NOT district, as was suggested, but total numbers of voters. Still, I believe it could be a simple state decision on how to "spend" its electoral votes.

[Daeglan]

correct. Colorado calculates the percentage and that percentage is how the electorial votes are apportioned.