Bob The Great

That's a good point. Using IRV to determine who the electors of each state choose would be a good system, so far as I can tell.

__________________
"A well-educated electorate, being necessary to the continuance of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."
Is this hard to understand? Then why does it get unintelligible to some people when 5 little words are changed?

dwolsten

Yeah, if I recall correctly, the founders were quite wealthy men of that time. They could have stayed wealthy even if they remained British subjects. They had lots to lose, not just their lives (as if that weren't enough).

dwolsten

Of course, being a State issue, this would have to be decided independently in each state. I highly recommend everyone start writing their State legislators about this. I'm going to. I think it's the least I can do to help bring about a more fair election system, at least in my own state. And once it's in force in one state, it's that much easier to get other states to adopt it.

SelfDefense

I think the reference to lesser of two evils is extraordinarily misleading. I do not consider anyone who has been President of the United States to be evil. Clinton was not evil; Bush is not evil; and neither Gore nor Kerry could in any way be considered evil. To effectively use the lesser of two evils analogy you would actually need two evil candidates, e.g. Saddam Hussein vs Fidel Castro. Personally, I vote for the better of the two candidates.

I never consider voting a compromise. No candidate will match your every thought, your every belief, or your every decision. We are voting for leaders to take responsibility for the duties and responsibilities of office.


Actually, that is not required. The system chosen was clearly written in the Constitution, which was based on the Federalist Papers. The anti-Federalists system was not chosen to be our form of government. It is, of course, interesting to read the differing views as they were debated at the time but it is not relevant today.


That is incorrect. We are electing leaders. We do not simply install someone that samples public opinion to make decisions. By electing a President we are empowering him, through the Constitution, to fulfill the duties of the office. He does not represent you personally. You are electing a person to lead the nation using his best judgement. An analogy is the police. They are tasked with protecting society, not you in particular.

To put it in perspectve, I vehemently disagreed with virtually everything Clinton did as President. He did not represent me or my views at all. But he was the President and I respect the office. He was my leader.

I find it interesting that you wrote we don't need leaders. We need leadership now more than we have needed it since Reagan was President. We absolutely need leadership otherwise we are simply an anarchy or a democracy.

I have no problem with testing your voting scheme in the marketplace of ideas. I think it will weaken our system but every state can choose their electors as they decide.

SelfDefense

No substantial difference? How about taxation policies? How about national defense policies? How about gun control policies? How about welfare and other handout programs? How about educational choice policies? How about equal opportunity vs. equal outcome issues? And other important issues that demonstrate the distinct differences.

The differences in the two parties could not be more well defined.

LastManOut

Actually, that is not required. The system chosen was clearly written in the Constitution, which was based on the Federalist Papers. The anti-Federalists system was not chosen to be our form of government. It is, of course, interesting to read the differing views as they were debated at the time but it is not relevant today.

The Federalist Papers, they were written from 1787-1788. The U.S. Constitution was signed in 1787. How did the FP influence the USC?

A full understanding of the U.S. Constitution and how far off the mark our current NATIONAL government is from it's original intent would have the Founding Fathers ashamed of us for allowing their sacrifice to be discounted like we have allowed. We have not even the moral fortitude to vote for the "correct" candidate nor to fight for our hard-won liberties.

LastManOut

Maybe YOU can articulate the differences. Taxation, 33% vs. 35%? National defense, are our borders secure? Gun control (subject of the original thread, Moderator) not a Dem/Rep issue as I see it. Welfare, what Article of the Constitution give Congress the ability to pay personal or corporate welfare? Show me the difference!

SelfDefense

First, when I wrote 'minority party,' I was referring to the out of power party in a two party system. Certainly the fringe parties have no power at all, nor should they have any.

As I wrote in another post, the President does not represent Americans, he represents America. I certainly don't agree with candidates on every issue. I vote for the candidate that both best aligns with my views and can be a leader. There is a reason the Senators rarely win the Presidency (I think it is only twice.) They do not have leadership skills.

You are free to vote for anyone on the ballot or write in yourself if you want. However, that course of action is futile in furthering our future. The Constitution enables a two party system. To effect change one must work within the system.

I will not comment on specific candidates as the mods have made it clear that is not welcome. The fact is the primaries are the means to put forth the party candidates. If you feel strongly about crtain candidates then you should volunteer time and/or money to sway other to your point of view.

My problem with all of this is that people who are unfamiliar with the issues and the candidate positions are allowed to vote at all. The Constitution does not provide a 'right to vote.' In fact, the Founders assumed that only land owners would be alowed to vote. Two Amendments made it clear that the right to vote could not be infringed based on race or gender (or poll tax,...) There is nothing that says we could not have issues tests to determine who could vote. There is nothing that says we cannot limit voting to those that have a stake in America: landowners, job holders, students, citizens. It is obvious that people will always vote themselves money. Welfare recipient and those that live on the largess of the government should never be allowed to vote.

SelfDefense

The Federalist Papers were written after the Constitution was signed to influence it being ratified by the states. There was opposition. The Constitution did not come into effect until June of 1788, after nine states ratified. The Federalist Papers were quickly,(and eloquently) written to explain why the Constitution was written as it was. That is why thr Federalist Papers are the preemptive resource to understanding the thinkink behind it.


I agree with this for the most part. I don't think their sacrifice or accomplishments has been discounted, rather, time inexorably dilutes memory. Even today, many people do not understand WWII, what it was fought for, what was defeated and what was gained. That is why the Consitution is so great. It is inarguably the most successful government on Earth, even with all of our faults.

SelfDefense

Yes, I can articulate the differences. Consider the rate of taxation before Reagan. The highest tax rate was near 90%. Now, it is 30+%. Further, one party wants to tax excessively those who are successful in our society. To me, that is backwards. We should put incentives to succeed on the weakest members of society. One party supports wealth redistribution. The ther does not. Keep in mind, change is slow, very slow. Social security is the worst program ever adopted in the country. Still, Bush was trying to educate the public that change is not only necessary, but it is a better direction. Over time, I am convinced Social Security will be as much a relic of our society as slavery. Certainly not in my lifetime but eventually. Whichparty seeks to facilitate the end od socialist programs. Which party encourages and celebrates 'working as a community?'

As to the borders, the party difference is distinct. One party is for open borders and no enforcement. The other is for defending our borders. Yes, individuals do not exactly align withany set of views. That is politics. The difference though is very clear.

Gun control is a party distinction. One party wants overarching governmental control. The only way to achieve that is gun grabbing. One party believes the Constitution can be twisted to suit their political agnda, i.e. a living Constitution. The other believes in a strict interpretation.

Do you think you can determine which party is which from my post?

In our current time, the Judicial branch has more power than in our entire history. The Marbury v Madison decision should not rule our nation. It was flat out wrong. That is why it is more important than ever to elect a President that has the best opportunity of appointing originalist Justices like Alito, Scalia, Thomas and Roberts. If your conscience is clear to enable someone to appoint activist Jurors to the Supreme Court by voting for Pat Paulsen then I submit you are doing harm to the future of America.