Electoral College vs. Popular vote - Page 11 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

H2O2 · #**151** 03-23-2006, 10:19 PM

Hey, you ain't from around here, is ya? Where's yer ribbon?

peragro · #**152** 03-23-2006, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by H2O2

Hey, you ain't from around here, is ya? Where's yer ribbon?

See, you left out "boy". Perhaps you should not go where you have no knowledge. You're too sophisticated.

dlssmith · #**153** 03-24-2006, 12:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

What is the advantage of electing electors? Well, the counting error is distributed over the number of electors partialed over the several states. This distributes the measurement error (which is an 'honest' source of uncertainty) and mistakes (often a dishonest source of uncertainty) over a large area and under greater scrutiny than can be exacted on a voter population of perhaps 100 million or so.

This is the best mathematical reasoning for the EC I've ever read. I don't know if the founders were thinking along these lines, but maybe. Regardless, the result is giving voice to the various states. Interestingly, in larger states, the vote is often well predicted by polling prior to the election. I've wondered if it was a good idea to do that at all. Maybe polls should be stopped for 48 hours before the elections and until after they close.

Remember what happened in 2004 with the early exit polls that were made up by some news heads?

dannym · #**154** 03-24-2006, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikemover

Wrong.

The Second Amendment (which IS part of the Constitution, as indicated by the self-explanatory term "constitutional amendment") quite clearly defines it.

Perhaps you should brush up on it.

Mike

Your the one whose wrong......mister know-it-all.

The second amendmant does not give you the right to own a firearm. That amendment was made to allow the Continental Congress the right to form a militia to oppose the British. Actually it gave the states the right to form a militia.
There is no resolution by the supreme court on exactly what the second amendment means but all court rulings seem to affirm individual protection ONLY in the context of maintaining a militia or other public force.
The amendmant is focused on Federal action and is not extended to State or private matters.

Maybe you should brush up yourself.

Danny

Botnst · #**155** 03-24-2006, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dannym

Your the one whose wrong......mister know-it-all.

The second amendmant does not give you the right to own a firearm. That amendment was made to allow the Continental Congress the right to form a militia to oppose the British. Actually it gave the states the right to form a militia.
There is no resolution by the supreme court on exactly what the second amendment means but all court rulings seem to affirm individual protection ONLY in the context of maintaining a militia or other public force.
The amendmant is focused on Federal action and is not extended to State or private matters.

Maybe you should brush up yourself.

Danny

Here's a great place to start if you want to learn about the 2nd Amendment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Wikipedia does a good job of presenting a comprehensive analysis. You will find your position is represented there. It is not the only position nor is it the dominant argument.

dlssmith · #**156** 03-24-2006, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dannym

The second amendmant does not give you the right to own a firearm. That amendment was made to allow the Continental Congress the right to form a militia to oppose the British. Actually it gave the states the right to form a militia.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed."

This is the text of the second amendment included in the bill of rights. ...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms..., what on earth does that mean if not that you have the right to own a firearm. Your statement above is the height of revisionism - commonly known as 'say whatever you want' even if it's not true.

dannym · #**157** 03-24-2006, 10:14 AM

Your taking sample quotes and using them out of context. Try reading the whole thing.

BTW I believe you should be able to own a firearm under certain conditions. No convicted felons, people under psychiatric care, etc...

But my or your opinion does not change the facts.

Danny

Lebenz · #**158** 03-24-2006, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Instead of electing the prez directly, we elect electors. The election of them is certified by the state legislature. This is a check on poor voting technique. We then empower an exact and finite number of them to to vote on a certain date and then count all of the ballots. This is a check on corruption since the chances of corrupting 535 electors without a whiff of suspicions is extremely small.

What is the advantage of electing electors? Well, the counting error is distributed over the number of electors partialed over the several states. This distributes the measurement error (which is an 'honest' source of uncertainty) and mistakes (often a dishonest source of uncertainty) over a large area and under greater scrutiny than can be exacted on a voter population of perhaps 100 million or so.

This message brought to you by the ideology of yesterday. Still putting the fun in dysfunctional today.

dlssmith · #**159** 03-24-2006, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dannym

Your taking sample quotes and using them out of context. Try reading the whole thing.

BTW I believe you should be able to own a firearm under certain conditions. No convicted felons, people under psychiatric care, etc...

But my or your opinion does not change the facts.

Danny

I quoted the entirety of Amendment 2: again:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed.

That is the whole thing.

crash9 · #**160** 03-24-2006, 12:53 PM

This is definitely a case of being able to see what you want. The constitution can be amended to cover situations as they change over time, but it's clear that at the time of its writing the intent was to try to insure that citizens could own weapons in order to form their own state Militias. Obviously hunting was a way of putting food on the table back then and the types of discussions we have today about owning weapons just weren't pertinent.
Buy my understanding assault weapons should be legal and sporting arms be suspect. So so much for the strict wording. The problem is that there's a different kind of folk attending gun shows and fly casting shows. Not all gun owners are loons, but the concern is that most loons are into guns. Those loons being your basic apt to go postal type.
We should try to find a way to identify these loonies and get them out of the gene pool.

dlssmith · #**161** 03-24-2006, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crash9

We should try to find a way to identify these loonies and get them out of the gene pool.

One of the scariest things I've read, ever in this forum.

Your sweeping generalizations are exposing the true nature of your argument: A typical liberal approach to a problem, identify the thought pattern of an individual, marginalize it and then make it illegal.

That's just what Hitler did between 1933 and 1945. Identified what he and his henchmen described as "loons" and tried to get them out of the gene pool

I will buy a gun to protect myself from the likes of a government supported by people with this attitude.

If there had been a Jewish NRA in Europe do you think the Nazis would have been able to steal it? No, the Jews and other so called progressive thinkers said, "guns are a blight on society and should be removed". Look where it got them.

You must recognize the nature of people and deal with the natural tendancy that they will seek power by any means, including telling you what's best for you.

Botnst · #**162** 03-24-2006, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebenz

This message brought to you by the ideology of yesterday. Still putting the fun in dysfunctional today.

It works as designed so what's dysfunctional?

B

mikemover · #**163** 03-24-2006, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dannym

Your taking sample quotes and using them out of context. Try reading the whole thing.

BTW I believe you should be able to own a firearm under certain conditions. No convicted felons, people under psychiatric care, etc...

But my or your opinion does not change the facts.

Danny

No, it is YOU who are choosing bits out of context, and ignoring others, to suit your purposes.

The amendment reads as follows:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed.

This specifically protects two things: The right of the state to maintain a militia, as you pointed out, and it ALSO specifically protects "the right of the PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS".

This is not difficult to decipher. It's right there in black and white.

What part of "right of the people to keep and bear arms" is confusing you?.....

Mike

H2O2 · #**164** 03-24-2006, 01:44 PM

It's the height of delusion to think that owning a few wimpy guns is going to somehow keep the gov from a wholesale usurpation of your rights. The pen is indeed mightier than the sword...er uh, barrel. This freakish fetishization of the second amendment is an amusing farce. You should be far more worried about third amendment abuses.

mikemover · #**165** 03-24-2006, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

It works as designed so what's dysfunctional?

B

It's "dysfunctional" because it doesn't yield the results HE wants.

Mike