electorial idea...

[mg1942]

There's no need to disenfranchise the urban vote with even more complicated rules that most americans don't understand.

There is a new trend by the way...  there are more people moving out of blue city/states and settle to sunbelt states (excluding the PDRK).  This means the number of electoral votes will shift to red states' favor.

[Simaril]

Polls of professional historians, ranking US presidents:

C-SPAN poll of academic historians in 1999 found Lincoln ranked as best president of all time.
Harvard (research by Schlesinger, a liberal) in 1948, 1962 -- Lincoln #1 both times
Also ranking Lincoln #1 were surveys by Chicago Tribune (1982), and the Murray-Blessing survey of 842 historians.
Siena Research Institute found Lincoln ranked #2 in surveys performed in 1990, 1994, 2000, and 2002


As I said, those who spend their lives understanding politics and history think he was among the best of all time. Sailor, I appreciate that you're trying to enjoy the BBS by trolling your way to another purse fight, but you're backing a losing position...and the subject of the thread is the electoral college, not presidential rankings. So I'll decline to become further involved in a "battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."

[lasersailor184]

While I might think highly of their research, by placing FDR anywhere but the bottom 5 they lose all credibility.


Lincoln was still one of the worst presidents.

[Simaril]

While I might think highly of their research, by placing FDR anywhere but the bottom 5 they lose all credibility.


Lincoln was still one of the worst presidents.

Not sure what you're looking at, but all those polls put FDR in the top 3.

BTW, I think you ought to write to all those professionals and tell them how wrong they are about Lincoln. I'm sure they'd appreciate your insight.

[AKIron]

I think the best idea is too reduce the federal government to the point that it really doesn't matter who wins a national election because they have little influence over us.

[Toad]

There is a new trend by the way...  there are more people moving out of blue city/states and settle to sunbelt states (excluding the PDRK).  This means the number of electoral votes will shift to red states' favor.

That might be true, haven't checked. The problem with the ones moving out is that they bring their blue baggage with them. They move to rural areas and expect to pass all their old city laws on their neighbors. Just because they move doesn't mean they change their screwed up we need a nanny attitude.

[john9001]

I think the best idea is too reduce the federal government to the point that it really doesn't matter who wins a national election because they have little influence over us.

thats a good idea, but the govt never gives up power it only wants and takes more.

[lazs2]

holden.. in the first page of this thread..  you will notice that when I said "I agree but"  it was not in response to your post but the one above it.   I did not see yours in time.. it was to zooms.

I responded to you later..  with "holden any"

I do agree with the founders and the intent of the original idea of the electorial.. I responded to you as such.   I do agree that the founders recognized that the states needed some power no matter how small in population.

I believe that the spirit of this is as I have said.. they did not want large population centers who produced no food to run the country in a lopsided way.. I believe that a cursory glance at a federal "blue/red" map will show that further adjustments are needed.   

lazs

[lazs2]

ok.. shamus...  you propose that income tax be based on property?   It already is.    so far as the two meet that is.   any income you make off of the property is taxed.  Are you asking for a tax that is not income tax?

On a state level.. They already do... property is taxed based on worth.  The million dollar condo is taxed more than 100 acres of desert..this all seems very fair to me.

moray.. read my reply.. go to the first page and you will see that my first response was not to holden.. I did not see his post till after I replied..  My reply to holden was later and while I ignored his sarcasm, I did speak to the spirit of the thing.. that the founders..  and I... think that some form of keeping power soley out of the hands of the population centers needs to exist.    The founders idea worked but it needs to be modified to work in the modern world.

In the founders time the constitution was more states rights.. laws were far fewer and states with small populations and different needs and desires were not hampered so much by large urban city laws.

lazs

[bcadoo]

The problem with Lazs original is that all you would have to do is win AK, MT, and WY.

It would lessen the required funding for the pres run tho.

don't forget Texas...

[bcadoo]

I think the best idea is too reduce the federal government to the point that it really doesn't matter who wins a national election because they have little influence over us.

I'll second that.  Strong defense....build roads and bridges.....leave us alone.

[lazs2]

well..  states should be the most important thing represented in a presidential election not pure population.

the original idea.. after some modifications.. never really anticipated that one state would have almost TWENTY  TIMES more of a say than others.   There was a minimum for a reason.  the minimum was two.. or two plus one more likely.   A minimum should have a maximum..  I would be happy with the current idea or.. as holden so sarcaticaly put it...  2 plus an adjustment for more population if....

If there were a maximum.. say 3 minimum but no more than a dozen max.. that would still mean that some states would have FOUR TIMES as much say as others.

Look at the election maps folks.. is it working now?   the vast majority of the land mass and states want to not be ruled by the same laws as some rat hole metrosexual cesspool dwellers.

Neither side know much about the other and most certainly.. neither side knows what is best for the life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness of the other.

It's not working folks..  when was the last time either side got a pres to vote on that they didn't think was the lesser of two evils?  least not the red side anyway.

lazs

[Sandman]

I think the best idea is too reduce the federal government to the point that it really doesn't matter who wins a national election because they have little influence over us.

Winner!

[68ZooM]

What's this Electorial College you speak of?  You must be a "Rocky"...errr... I mean Hillary supporter.  Replace the "Electoral College" with something that sounds almost like it but is somehow more in your favor.

Either that, or you flunked American Government class in college.

Please tell me where i said i like billary??   you must be a.... nevermind

[lazs2]

sandy.. are you saying what I think you are saying?

That a smaller federal government with less power over the states.. to the point where the feds make very little difference... is what you want?

If so.. it may be one of the first times we have agreed.

lazs