- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: If you believe in 1 person 1 vote
Posted on 3/20/19 at 8:54 pm to CountOnMe15
Posted on 3/20/19 at 8:54 pm to CountOnMe15
quote:
you are violating a major principle of a democracy.
We aren't a democracy.
1
Posted on 3/20/19 at 8:59 pm to thebigmuffaletta
quote:
If you say it's because of population then you agree with the electoral college.
Yes, Representatives in the House are based on population, as called for in Article I of the Constitution.
Yes, electors in the Electoral College are numbered the same as number of members of Congress a state has.
Both of those are outlined in the Constitution, and so I believe in them.
I think your point is that if one does not believe in an Electoral College based on population, one cannot believe in House seats being delegated based on population. One cannot believe in electing a person to represent each district if one does not believe in electing electors for the Electoral College. Is that the gist of it?
This post was edited on 3/20/19 at 9:04 pm
Posted on 3/20/19 at 9:07 pm to thebigmuffaletta
quote:
We aren't a democracy.
Ok. So what do you call the way we elect mayors, governors, legislators, etc. across the country?
Posted on 3/20/19 at 9:15 pm to Dale51
quote:
Why should the world series be won by the baseball team that won the most games when the losing team actually scored more runs in the series?
quote:
You're trying to compare a series of games to a 1 "game" election.
Last I checked you had to win 51 individual games to be elected president, no matter what your total runs were.
This post was edited on 3/20/19 at 9:18 pm
Posted on 3/20/19 at 9:17 pm to EA6B
quote:
Last I checked you had to win 50 individual games to be elected president, no matter what your total runs were.
Winning people, not states, is much more fair and logical.
Posted on 3/20/19 at 9:17 pm to thebigmuffaletta
Pickle Sandwiches
Posted on 3/20/19 at 9:18 pm to thebigmuffaletta
Huh?
Posted on 3/20/19 at 9:23 pm to EA6B
quote:
Last I checked you had to win 51 individual games to be elected president, no matter what your total runs were.
How so?
Posted on 3/20/19 at 9:24 pm to thebigmuffaletta
What in the frick are you talking about?
Posted on 3/20/19 at 9:30 pm to CountOnMe15
quote:He is one of those people who cannot grasp that “democracy” and “direct democracy” are not synonyms..quote:Ok. So what do you call the way we elect mayors, governors, legislators, etc. across the country?
We aren't a democracy.
Posted on 3/20/19 at 9:32 pm to CountOnMe15
quote:
Winning people, not states, is much more fair and logical.
Now that your queen lost you feel this way.
Posted on 3/20/19 at 9:35 pm to CountOnMe15
quote:
Ok. So what do you call the way we elect mayors, governors, legislators, etc. across the country?
A representative democracy within a federal constitutional republic with separation of powers.
We aren't a direct democracy like you think we are.
Using your logic we should just be able to have a popular vote on constitutional rights. If 51% of the people think you shouldn't have free speech then it should be so, right?
Posted on 3/20/19 at 9:41 pm to thebigmuffaletta
I might would be ok with a strict democratic vote if liberal/Democrats would agree to deport every single illegal alien in the country
deal?
deal?
This post was edited on 3/20/19 at 9:52 pm
Posted on 3/20/19 at 9:43 pm to thebigmuffaletta
quote:
Using your logic we should just be able to have a popular vote on constitutional rights. If 51% of the people think you shouldn't have free speech then it should be so, right?
Absolutely not. We have the courts to settle constitutional issues. I like for the people to decide who wins elections.
It really isn’t that complicated.
Posted on 3/20/19 at 9:44 pm to CountOnMe15
Courts don't amend the constitution, states do.
BTW, the supreme court isn't seated by popular vote either.
BTW, the supreme court isn't seated by popular vote either.
This post was edited on 3/20/19 at 9:47 pm
Posted on 3/20/19 at 9:48 pm to thebigmuffaletta
quote:
Courts don't amend the constitution, states do.
I know that. You’re example of getting rid of free speech as stupid.
Posted on 3/20/19 at 9:50 pm to thebigmuffaletta
BTW, the supreme court isn't seated by popular vote either.
I also know that which is why I said congressmen, governors, etc in the previous posts.
I also know that which is why I said congressmen, governors, etc in the previous posts.
Posted on 3/20/19 at 9:51 pm to thebigmuffaletta
Who cares what anyone believes?
We have a Constitution that dictates how all this will work. What we want or don’t want is irrelevant.
We have a Constitution that dictates how all this will work. What we want or don’t want is irrelevant.
This post was edited on 3/20/19 at 9:52 pm
Posted on 3/20/19 at 9:53 pm to SquatchDawg
quote:
Who cares what anyone wants? We have a Constitution that dictates how all this will work. What we want or don’t want is irrelevant.
There were many things the Founding Fathers either got wrong or didn’t address, which is why we can amend the Constitution.
Posted on 3/20/19 at 9:53 pm to CountOnMe15
quote:
You’re example of getting rid of free speech as stupid.
No it's not.
Constitutional amendments are an example of the separation of powers just like the EC and USSC.
You have a direct vote. It's called the United States house of representatives.
Page 2 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News