Electoral College next in the crosshairs?

[JVB]

No, we would have cities that vote Democratic and rural areas that vote Republican, just like we do now. In the electoral college system, the redness or blueness of most states is basically determined by whether they get more votes in cities or rural areas. Illinois is a blue state because it has Chicago in it. Indiana is a red state because it doesn't have Chicago in it. Ohio is a swing state because the rural Republican areas roughly balance out the urban Democratic areas.

If we abolished the electoral college, Republicans would win by appealing to rural voters nationwide, and Democrats would win by appealing to urban voters nationwide, and both parties would try to peel off as many moderate suburban voters as possible. Right now, Republicans in upstate New York or inland California and Democrats in Austin or St. Louis are completely ignored by presidential campaigns, because their home regions happen to be included in states whose mix of voters is tilted strongly against them, and elections get decided by idiosyncratic local issues in states that happen to have swingable mixes of voters.

I think you're missing the point of a Presidential election. The President does not represent you, his job is to militarily protect the states and administer the federal government in relation to the states of the union. He answers to the states, not the people. The states answer to their people and act accordingly. You also have a representative voice in Congress. That is not the job of the President.

[Scottathew]

I think you're missing the point of a Presidential election. The President does not represent you, his job is to militarily protect the states and administer the federal government in relation to the states of the union. He answers to the states, not the people. The states answer to their people and act accordingly. You also have a representative voice in Congress. That is not the job of the President.

The President does represent you.

Imagine if you had a huge pro-war, barely literate idiot in the White House. He might accidentally go to war with countries such as, let's say, Iraq, and kill 200,000 innocent Iraqi civilians.

Now imagine you have a much less pro-war president that brings troops home, avoids wars, and promotes diplomacy.

A president most certainly represents the people. S\He also appoints judges and justices and has the power to veto leglistation.

[JVB]

The President does represent you.

Imagine if you had a huge pro-war, barely literate idiot in the White House. He might accidentally go to war with countries such as, let's say, Iraq, and kill 200,000 innocent Iraqi civilians.

Now imagine you have a much less pro-war president that brings troops home, avoids wars, and promotes diplomacy.

I don't know if that was meant as a comparison between Bush and Obama, but if it was it was highly flawed since they are both clearly pro-war and Obama has even begun to assassinate US citizens without due process using drones [[Al-Awlaki for instance).

But if your point was simply that the election of a President affects us then yes you are correct. But it is not his job to represent us.

A president most certainly represents the people. S\He also appoints judges and justices and has the power to veto leglistation.

That is not representing the people, it is in fact the exact opposite.

The whole point of a veto is to undo the will of the people since the bills were voted on by our direct representatives in Congress. That is also why the Constitution gives Congress [[ie the People's Representatives) the ability to override his veto.

And that is also why he can appoint judges, but Congress [[The People's actual representatives) has to approve them or they don't get on the bench and they can also impeach them if they see fit.

[Gistok]

But if your point was simply that the election of a President affects us then yes you are correct. But it is not his job to represent us.

That is not representing the people, it is in fact the exact opposite.

The whole point of a veto is to undo the will of the people since the bills were voted on by our direct representatives in Congress. That is also why the Constitution gives Congress [[ie the People's Representatives) the ability to override his veto.

And that is also why he can appoint judges, but Congress [[The People's actual representatives) has to approve them or they don't get on the bench and they can also impeach them if they see fit.

Every one of us who was educated in Michigan was required to take a Civics or Government class in High School.... so why are you preaching to the choir about things we already know?

[JVB]

Every one of us who was educated in Michigan was required to take a Civics or Government class in High School.... so why are you preaching to the choir about things we already know?

You may be part of the choir, but if you read the thread you'll see not everyone was paying attention in class.

[Gistok]

You may be part of the choir, but if you read the thread you'll see not everyone was paying attention in class.

That's true... but apparently you weren't paying attention to History Class when the Civil War happened.... apparently some states felt that the Constitutional contract was broken then... bu as you may or may not know Secession of states is not really a political possibility in the USA.

And as modern Geography and Political Science classes would tell us... with the influx of democratic leaning southwest, Texas and Floriday, a plurality of people are less and less Republican. And in those red states [[especially not the mountain or upper great plains states)... secession is hardly a topic of conversation. That would leave the bible belt... and if 1/3 of those are African Americans... they trust the Federal Government to protect them much more than the "Starts and Bars" flying over the statehouses to do so.

So besides Hannity, Beck and Limbaugh and their minions... "it ain't gonna happen".... except of course if you get your dose of "truth" from Fox News...

And as far as you hair splitting "the president doesn't represent us" argument... who was it that was there REPRESENTING all of America in Connecticut this week as the nation was mourning the loss of so many innocents... certainly not the people who REPRESENT you... but OUR president....

[jerrytimes]

The President does represent you.

Imagine if you had a huge pro-war, barely literate idiot in the White House. He might accidentally go to war with countries such as, let's say, Iraq, and kill 200,000 innocent Iraqi civilians.

Now imagine you have a much less pro-war president that brings troops home, avoids wars, and promotes diplomacy.

A president most certainly represents the people. S\He also appoints judges and justices and has the power to veto legislation.

You are joking.... please tell me that you are either joking, or that you don't pay attention to current events.

[Gistok]

I think you're missing the point of a Presidential election. The President does not represent you.

You know you're preaching to the choir, don't you?? We've all taken a civics lesson or two... not to mention Political Science 101... so your comment comes across as a rather narrow minded perspective...

Time to look at the bigger picture...