Electorial College: Is this BS or what???

[Gilly]

I will modify title after thread is started.

Gilly

How about that Martha Stuart, or is that Screwart!

Isn't she just wonderful! Cheating pay's off! Don't you think she should be a good candidate for "personality of the year" just like George W????

It's OK to cheat, just don't get caught! But in this case, just the opposite!

Well.........................?

[MTI]

You have to be amused at the clamor over Martha Stewart. She was convicted of a relatively minor violation, got sentenced under the appropriate guidelines and seemingly is "paying her debt to society." Given the screw ups by the Justice Department, this was hardly their best showing in a high profile case. One only hopes that they can muster a better effort against the "big fish."

Speaking of the US Justice Department, did anyone catch the news report that they have decided to purchase Corel's Wordperfect software for their employees . . . could a 10 year anti-trust litigation have anything to do with that?

[GermanStar]

Is Martha Stewart a religious figure? Scratches head...

[Gilly]

Yeah, you can do better than Martha Stewart.........

Gilly

[H2O2]

Is she really worthy of contemplation?

[Michael K]

I agree that the U.S. Electoral College is antiquated and could benefit from a refresh. However, when they wrote our Constitution, the framers, taking examples of what they did not want from the then World powers, wrote our Constitution, and in particular the presidential election process, with a distinct goal in mind: avoiding tyranny of the majority. In short, they were very, very concerned about a majority of the people electing the functional equivalent of a king. (Keep in mind the two term limit did not happen until about fifty years ago). In short, they did not trust "the people" to directly elect their presidnet. There are many more nuances to it, but the electoral college essentially does two things: one, puts back up electors in place to check the potential whim of a majority the people electing a leader who disregards the liberty of the minority, and two, balances the people's rights against state's rights (even the lowest population states get a minimum of three electoral college votes). Personally, I think Maine and Colorado are on to something. That's not to say our government does not work well. The framers would be shocked our Country's government has lasted this long.

If the framers were framing today, what new considerations might there be for a more fare electoral system. It's becoming more obvious now that the system needs a change as the current system is more obsolite than applicable! People need to agree change is needed, and then act on it. So far, there has only been little more than talk about it.

[boneheaddoctor]

THe only people complaining are the liberals.....................

The system has worked very well since its start...and there is no reason to change it.

[Michael K]

I'd personally like to see a hybrid of the parliamentary form. Its primary benefit would be reining in the recently-evolved, overwhelming power of the president in foreign affairs. The framers did not foresee this, and, frankly, it's dangerous.

[Botnst]

Originally Posted by Michael Kerley

I'd personally like to see a hybrid of the parliamentary form. Its primary benefit would be reining in the recently-evolved, overwhelming power of the president in foreign affairs. The framers did not foresee this, and, frankly, it's dangerous.

If Congress doesn't like what the Prez does, they have a whole bunch of options. Like spending bills originate in the House. They could write anything they want OUT of a bill and nobody can stick it back except the House. Or the Senate could fail to ratify treaties, like Kyoto. Doesn't matter what the Prez signs, what matters is what the Senate ratifies.

The stupidest thing the Congress has done is to cede to the executive the power to make war. It says right there (soemwhere) in the Constitution that Congress declares war, but every president since T Roosevelt has plopped military muscle helter-skelter without an act of Congress authorizing it by resolution.