Constitution
Amandacurls
Registered Users Posts: 6,252 Curl Neophyte
in Politics
What (if any) amendments should be made to the Constitution in your opinion?
0
Leave a Comment
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.
Quick Links
Categories
- 174.9K All Categories
- 11.8K Taking Care of Business
- 128 Announcements
- 8.2K Information for Newbies
- 152 Introductions
- 486 News from SHOP NaturallyCurly
- 1.8K Feedback
- 33.8K Hair Types
- 7.5K Hair Type 2
- 10.7K Hair Type 3
- 15.6K Hair Type 4
- 71.6K Hair
- 42.1K General Discussion about Curly Hair
- 1.7K Salon/Stylist Chatter
- 2.8K Transitioning
- 468 Thin/Thinning hair
- 6.8K Readers' Product Reviews
- 775 Hall of Shame
- 82 Hall of Fame
- 77 Curly Hairstyles
- 2.1K Coloring Your Hair
- 3.1K Trying a Shampoo-Free Method?
- 1.5K Straightening/Relaxing
- 552 Keratin Services and Treatment
- 340 Health-Related Hair Issues
- 1.2K Recipes — For Hair and Body
- 368 Protein-Sensitive
- 261 Protein-Craving
- 673 Parents of Curlies
- 513 Curly Men
- 2.2K Curly Teens
- 758 Over 40
- 115 Going Gray
- 1.3K Growing out
- 964 All-Natural Hair Care
- 244 Celebs' Hair
- 43 Locs
- 250 High Porosity
- 21 Normal Porosity
- 349 Low Porosity
- 24 Fine-Width Hair
- Medium-Width Hair
- 10 Coarse-Width Hair
- 10.1K Swap boards
- 8.5K Swap Board
- 294 Swap Board for Canadians
- 457 Swap board for Eurocurlies
- 266 Aussie Swap Board
- 541 Other Beauty Products Swap Board
- 119 Book Swap Board
- 48.8K Life
- 39.8K Non-hair discussion
- 731 Recipes -- stuff to eat
- 809 Curly Fitness
- 297 Curl gatherings
- 3.3K Makeup/skin care
- 268 The CurlyBook Club
- 681 Politics
- 2.8K Pregnancy & Parenting
Comments
I agree with that too! It's stupid, it should be popular vote!
Electoral college was built into the Constitution simply to avoid having larger towns (at the time) from deciding how the entire country should be run, leaving those in more rural populations out of the entire process. How is that fair?
The older I get, the less patience I have with cleverness. Thomas Sowell.
Resolve to perform what you ought. Perform without fail what you resolve. Benjamin Franklin.
Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you nothing. It was here first. Mark Twain.
IMO they should just count all the votes no matter where they are from. Each individual person's vote would stand on it's own.
Your statement operates on the supposition that you (as an urban dweller) knows what is the best legislation for me (a rural dweller) when you have no idea what things would affect me.
And if we do go by popular vote, Clinton would have lost both times and President Bush still would have won both times.
The older I get, the less patience I have with cleverness. Thomas Sowell.
Resolve to perform what you ought. Perform without fail what you resolve. Benjamin Franklin.
Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you nothing. It was here first. Mark Twain.
low populated states were given the two-vote bonus by the founders, and imho that is fair. but the winner-take-all method gives individuals in low population states a lot more votes each than individuals in large populations states. that isn't fair.
i don't know why one would say Bush would have won the popular vote in '00; he didn't.. (but that's not the point of this topic anyway..)
Where are you getting this? The FEC says otherwise.
In the 1996 presidential election a few months later, Clinton was re-elected, receiving 49.2% of the popular vote over Republican Bob Dole (40.7% of the popular vote) and Reform candidate Ross Perot (8.4% of the popular vote), becoming the first Democrat to win reelection to the presidency since Franklin Roosevelt. The Republicans lost a few seats in the House and gained a few in the Senate, but overall retained control of the Congress. Although he did not win a clear majority of the popular vote, Clinton received over 70% of the electoral college vote.
http://www.uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?f=0&year=1992
Presidential
Candidate Vice Presidential
Candidate Political
Party Popular Vote Electoral Vote
William Clinton Democratic (Popular) 44,909,806 43.01% (Electoral) 370 68.77%
George Bush Republican (Popular) 39,104,550 37.45% (Electoral)168 31.23%
H. Ross Perot Independent (Popular) 19,743,821 18.91% (Electoral)0 0.00%
Truth News
In fact, Clinton is the only U.S. president to be elected twice without receiving a majority of the popular vote either time.
WHere did you find it on the FEC? I looked and couldn't find it there. Talk about confusing!
But in the popular vote, more populous states would dictate what states with fewer populations get or do not get. How is that fair?
The older I get, the less patience I have with cleverness. Thomas Sowell.
Resolve to perform what you ought. Perform without fail what you resolve. Benjamin Franklin.
Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you nothing. It was here first. Mark Twain.
I'm sorry but that's not true. Bill Clinton won more votes in both elections than any other candidate running for president. He did not win the majority, but that is because we do not limit the race to two candidates. He still won the popular vote.
And Al Gore won more of the popular vote than George W. Bush in 2000. The founding fathers intended for a disputed presidential election to be determined by the House of Representatives, like it was in 1824. However, that did not happen in 2000 and it was instead effectively determined by the Supreme Court.
There have only been four elections in which the winner of the popular vote did not win the most electoral votes. 1824, 1876, 1888 and 2000. That many other presidents lost the popular vote, such as Bill Clinton, is patently false, and I have to wonder if that rumor was started by right-wing folks like Fox News, to lend legitimacy to a president who was put into office in a disputed election and controversial Supreme Court ruling.
The NYT own investigation showed that Bush would have won the election anyway. Gore just dragged it out. But that is not the topic anyway.
Every vote gets counted but does every vote count? THe US was designed as a republic and the electoral college was created to prevent an uneducated majority rule. The concern of majority rule was that once the majority grew complacent and learned out to vote themselves. power.
The Founding Fathers didn't double public intelligence. They were concerned that the complacent voting themselves to power could happen in the future and the electoral college could help prevent it. What was concerning at the time was the 'favorite son' scenario. It is that w/o sufficient information about candidates running for president from outside their own state, most voters would have no reason to vote for an outsider, so they would always votes for the favorite son from their own hometown region. No president would ever be elected with a popular majority of the votes to govern the whole country w/o someone being upset and bitter. THe popular majority choice of president would always be from teh largest and/or most densely populated states which would render the votes of the smaller states irrelevant. The largest concentration of population has been traditionally in the NE and CA, although that is changing as a lot of companies relocate to the Sun Belt.
So the electoral college is still the best and most fair way of deciding a president. Although more and more hissy fits are being pitched in recent memory over election results. Seems like the more advanced technology gets for voting, the more it is disputed!
S
The older I get, the less patience I have with cleverness. Thomas Sowell.
Resolve to perform what you ought. Perform without fail what you resolve. Benjamin Franklin.
Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you nothing. It was here first. Mark Twain.
You cannot be serious about Fox News being impartial. :?
The NY Times never said "Gore just dragged it out." Gore sued to allow the votes to be recounted, the sensible thing to do in a disputed election and what most other democracies do when the results are unclear. How is that dragging it out? And when the Supreme Court decided against him, Gore conceded the election. He did not drag it out. He fought to make sure the election was fair. Would any of us do something different in the same situation?
Here's what the New York Times did say about the recount:
(link)
The NY Times also found irregularities like that black precincts had three times as many votes discarded in the recount than white precincts, and most of the ballots in Florida discarded because voters accidentally selected two candidates (either Gore or Bush plus a minor party candidate) had Gore selected. Of course those votes could not be counted. But it's just impossible to say who "really" won Florida. However, the certified 2000 election results show that Gore won more of the national popular vote than Bush, so what I said is still accurate. Bush did not win the popular vote according to the counted votes.
And in case you still believe what they spew on the "impartial" Fox News Channel about Bill Clinton not really winning:
The only way to require a candidate to win over 50% of the popular vote, which seems to be your criteria for saying if they "really won" would be to ban all third party candidates, which I don't think is very democratic.
I'm not in favor of majority win (50% or more). I don't see where you got that one, but abolishing the electoral college is a bad idea. It is a balance of power issue. Areas with larger urban population areas cannot be allowed to dictate to the rest of the nation who is in office. Majority within each state wins, then that state takes those votes to the electoral college. Its all about a balance of power that the FF tried to do in the Constitution and which our lawmakers seem to think is no longer relevant, or that we need to be bound by 'international law' (I don't think so). Our Constitution has done a pretty good job for over 200 years in being the law of the land and I abhor judges who try to change it by certain rulings that are constantly overturned ((9th Circuit Court for instance)
The older I get, the less patience I have with cleverness. Thomas Sowell.
Resolve to perform what you ought. Perform without fail what you resolve. Benjamin Franklin.
Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you nothing. It was here first. Mark Twain.
:laughing9: :laughing9: :laughing9: :laughing9: :laughing9: :laughing9:
seriously?
I didn't say you were in favor of majority win. What I said was that when you said Bill Clinton did not win the popular vote, that was erroneous. He did not win a majority of the popular vote. He still received a larger percentage of the popular vote than any other candidate in that election. So you seem to be defining "win" as having a majority. The only way to ensure that one candidate wins a majority of the popular vote is to limit the election to two candidates only.
I don't consider any network that balanced. I try to get my news from a variety of sources. And I'm not trying to tell you who would have voted for whom in 2000, I was just posting what the NYT said at the time.
To put Fox News in the same sentence with impartial is absolutely disgusting.
2c/3a; CG/Mod since 5/07
Counting down!:
Shooting my 1st wedding - May 17th
Portfolio Review - May 23rd (wish me LUCK!)
Graduation - June 20th
Move back to MAINE!! - Late July
Pictures of me: http://public.fotki.com/thataliciagirl/
Pictures by me: http://www.alicialanephotography.com/
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
They are all one sided... it depends on what you want to hear and what you don't want to hear.
That statement fits perfectly with your sig line.
Do you guys think any news orginization is impartial or more impartial than Fox? I haven't seen anything on Fox (but I admit I seldom watch it), that seems less impartial than CNN or any of the other news networks. What have they done that makes them so right wing? I'm asking with sincere curiosity.
http://freedocumentaries.org/film.php?id=43
My work blocks that site. However, I would like to know who financed the documentary.
Also, what news organization do you think is impartial if any (this was part of my original question).
Also, as I am not able to view that documetary until I get home (if I remember), what has Fox done in your opinion (not based on the documentary), that makes them less impartial than the other news organizations?
I don't really think any one news source is impartial. They all have an agenda. Even if they don't have a specifically right-wing or left-wing agenda, they have the agenda of selling papers or getting people to tune in. So they inflate stories that are ridiculous instead of really being analytical and objective. So in presidential races they latch on to stupid things a candidate said and run with it instead of really analyzing where candidates stand on the issues, their records, etc.
I think it's important to try and think about what's going on when the media latches on to a story and if they are being fair. And try to get info from multiple sources or do your own research.
Ah, I see. The documentary is from a progressive film maker named, I think, Robert Greenwald. Of course it is biased, but Fox was unable to refute most of the info in the documentary.
In my own opinion, not based on anyone's else's, Fox gives the vast majority of its airtime to conservative hosts and guests. Fox also employs conservatives in its highest positions - Brit Hume, John Moody, etc. Their panelists and pundits are conservatives. And, worst of all to me, is that they have presented incorrect information as fact more than once...false information that promotes their own positions and damages what they see as opposing positions.
In the end there is of course no truly unbiased news source. What I try to rely on is news that does not lean heavily to one side. Journalistic reputation is important to me. I listen to NPR for my local news, and the BBC for my world news. On television, ABC is good at reporting "real news" instead of fluff (you'll see a lot more Paris Hilton-type stories on CNN and Fox than you'll ever see on ABC).
If you mean the US Constitution, I'd remove the right to bear arms.
As for the electoral college, I have no interest in changing it. What you must first realize is that the citizens do not elect a president. STATES elect the president. States get to decide how to deal with their electors, and if particular states want to split their electors based on their populations, their citizens are entitled to change their own laws to do that. The Constitution does not require that all electors from a state vote to give all electors to the side that wins the vote in that state. It's just that all except two states have chosen to handle it that way. Big states like it, because candidates pay them a lot of attention. Little states like it because candidates can't ignore them. So very few states are interested in changing how their votes are counted.
Your point?
The older I get, the less patience I have with cleverness. Thomas Sowell.
Resolve to perform what you ought. Perform without fail what you resolve. Benjamin Franklin.
Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you nothing. It was here first. Mark Twain.
Why?
The older I get, the less patience I have with cleverness. Thomas Sowell.
Resolve to perform what you ought. Perform without fail what you resolve. Benjamin Franklin.
Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you nothing. It was here first. Mark Twain.
bwah ha ha ha hahahaha. :laughing9:
*sigh*
Thanks, I needed that laugh!
Also, popular vote ≠ majority vote. Not at all.
P.S. What flavor Kool-Aid was it?
Any network that doesn't claim to be "fair and balanced" is a good start.
So by pointing out an impossible ideal that no news organization run by humans could ever meet, you hope to exonerate your endorsed network of blatant, widely recognized extreme bias?
Nice try.
No news outlet is unbiased. Some come closer than others. Faux News isn't even trying, so please don't pretend they are.
The only reason you think they are unbiased is because you agree with their angle.
At least have the cajones to be honest about that, for crying out loud. I have news orgs that I get a kick out of because they confirm what I believe, but I can be realistic and acknowledge that there are always sides to any argument.