Right, so it's just a hypothetical point. I'm not sure I really see the point in discussing hypotheticals that are all but impossible, but ok. You say things like "People seem to forget that we are governed by the Constitution" but that is a somewhat empty statement unless you're actually saying we should act upon it. You seem to be saying now that nothing should change, so …

Of course voting is not required, nor should it be. However, if you choose not to vote (for whatever reason), *I* don't want to hear you whine about how badly the people in charge are doing.

To put it simply, if you vote and somebody else gets in, you can complain about people not listening to you. If you vote and your guy gets in, you can complain about them not doing what you "hired" them to do. If you don't vote, you obviously don't care who's in charge, and thus shouldn't care what they do.

I voted. I like to blame my leaders for all my problems. :)

I view voting the way I view vaccination. Your opinion as
to whether your kid should be vaccinated isn't relevant
to me. The vaccination isn't for the benefit of your kid.
It's for the benefit of everyone's kid.

Similarly, that vote isn't "for you".

That's my opinion. Your mileage may vary.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net

You can find things however you want.

I am not attempting to be disingenuous. I was pointing out that states have great latitude in conducting their own elections.

You would admit that our current method of elector selection has not always been the way the elections are currently held, no? The method I described is not only based in reality, but looking at history was the way it used to be done.

If every segment within a population has the exact same ability to elect a president it has nothing, repeat nothing, to do with civil rights.

It is up to each state to decide how their electors are chosen.

Of course they would do so. Since the citizens directly elect their state legislators (in most normal cases) they would very likely vote them out in the next election, and restore their ability to vote for president.

Some have even called for a direct election by popular votes of our presidents, something which I am not only adamantly opposed to but which is also unconstitutional.

That's all I was stating. That it was hypotheitically possible for the situation, and within the bounds of the US Constitution.

I don't really see it that way myself.

Obviously, I feel voting is important, and is why I voted, even though I live in a state that is decidedly red and I voted blue and thus my vote doesn't really count. I also did my part to remind people to go vote (but really, like anyone could possibly forget today is election day). But, I doubt anyone actually takes any steps to "take responsibility" for the candidate they vote for.

I would love to see some form of "taking responsibility" for everyone that voted for Bush, considering the direction he's led the country. Clearly with such low approval ratings, numerous people who voted for him are clearly not happy with how his Presidency turned out. Unfortunately, it's just the rest of the country that has to take the brunt for others' choice for an irresponsible President.

As far as my part, I've already declared that if Obama wins and screws the country up, I'll be the first in line with a bumper sticker saying "Obama 08… My Bad!"

Why? The constitution doesn't say you can't do this. Each state agrees to assign electoral votes to be exactly proportional to the popular vote and you're done. None of this winner-takes-all business. The only problem is in rounding error.

To HK: I wasn't referring to taking responsibility for the choices post-facto: I don't know how you could really implement something like that. I was talking about having the responsibility of examining the choices as you make the choice, and making some decision (hopefully reasonable and informed based on the facts) about how the country should be governed going forward.

That is why I stated "A state could decide" not "states should decide".


Your welcome to discuss it or not. Since I was not addressing you, or quoting your post in my response, I am unsure why you felt you entering the discussion was needed, especially in light that you do not see the point of discussing it.


It is hardly an "empty statement". Presidential elections are governed by the Constitution.

I didn't realize you were having a private conversation. Sorry, my bad. :rolleyes:

FWIW, I do have an interest in not seeing pointless discussions, though: they clutter away useful discussion. I was mainly trying to work out if some point was being made as to how we should act in practice; it would appear not, so I'm content to stop looking.

As for empty statements, well, any statement that is made without any action being taken on it is kind of an empty, useless statement. You don't seem to be advocating that anything change based on your statement, so, again, I'm content that there's no point to look for here. :shrug:

Ok.



Forgive me if I avoid making arguments supported
by how things used to be.




Ok. But this was in response to my assertion that a
state which arbitrarily interfered with people's
votes would have federal trouble. I thank you for your
hypothetical, but I guess I'm left with the conclusion
that it was non-sequitur to what I said.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net

The adversity of several of our founders to direct popular elections for president was the reason the Constitution set the election of presidents as it did.


That is still not a direct popular election of a president, as it would be representative, not to mention some would claim it possibly unfair to less populated areas within a state.

Nebraska and Maine, for instance, select electors by congressional district and add two electors by total state popular vote. This ensures each district its own representative say in the election of president.

Don't worry, you won't get the chance. He's actually not a natural
born American, and this has all been an elaborate ruse to get
"Say it ain't so" Joe Biden into the oval office.

Haha suckers!

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net

And, err, so what? The constitution doesn't say that you can't make the electoral vote directly proportional. You seem to want to interpret the constitution very literally at some points and not-so-literally at others…


I'll agree that it's not a direct election, but it'd be a whole lot more accurately representative of the popular vote than today's system.

http://maps.google.com/help/maps/electio...

I agree! I rocked the vote, along with my entire family. Did you? :unclesam:

Mind pointing out these posts were I have interpreted the Constitution "not-so-literally", please? As an Originalist I do not believe I have ever done so, and if I have in any posts you can reference I would be glad to address and correct the statements.

If any "points"of this nature even exist.

As soon as you start talking about the intention of the authors, you leave the world of literal interpretation. When you use their intention to argue against something, e.g. making the electoral college vote proportional to the popular vote, you're not being literal anymore. (I'm assuming that you actually were making that argument since you were replying to me in disagreement by making that statement.)

Those are fine words, but mean absolutely nothing when dealing with how I view the Constitution.

I will state again; I am an Originalist.

Either quote the exact statements in the posts where I (in your view) have strayed from this viewpoint, or realize that you are incorrect.

YOU HAVE 20 SECONDS TO COMPLY

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net

btw:

Crat: it doesn't count when you quote something I already quoted! Fail!

Mabus: I already told you what I was talking about. Given that you apparently think you were saying something else, I'll have to go with Crat's previous assessment that you were making a non sequitur reply to my comment. :shrug: Not something I'm terribly interested in further discussing… I have more important things to do and watch right now. :smirk: