why do you guys think Ricky wont do very good.

[DoctorFeelgood]

but we will have to agree to disagree about our government being this thing representative of the people. one thing to add, nader wasn't allowed in the presidential debates televised to the world.

Neither were Michael Badnarik, David Cobb, or Michael Peroutka. :cry:

and unfortunately most Americans are brainwashed by our public school system to believe that we have a "two party system" in the US, and so they don't bother putting any effort into learning about the other candidates. By shutting them out of the debates, the election is essentially rigged.

And of course the plurality, first-past-the-post, winner-takes-all voting system used in most states, along with blatant gerrymandering, doesn't help either. If we used approval voting, IRV, or Cordocet voting, we might have a fighting chance to break the Demopublican hegemony.

 

[Doktor Ivel]

That's not quite technically correct. The American people don't elect the President at all, the Electoral College does. All the general election does, is determine's which party's pool of electors goes to DC to vote in the "real" vote. And in most states the law does not require an elector to vote for his/her party's candidate at all. So in theory, the Republican candidate could win a state, and out of the pool of electors selected by the Republican Party in that state, one or more could cast their vote for the Democrat, the Libertarian, or somebody else altogether.

thats b*llsh*tt how that works. i hate this government.

 

[DoctorFeelgood]

thats b*llsh*tt how that works.

There are historical reasons why we have an Electoral College system, instead of basing the choice on the popular vote. Well... that's not quite right and shows my own bias. I consider the reasons that most people cite for having an EC, to be a historical legacy, but other people believe they still hold up.

It has to do with the way the population of the country is largely clumped into a couple of highly populous areas (New York and California, namely) and the rest is spread out over the rest of the country. THe idea was, a candidate could win the election by only campaigning in the two or three "major" population centers, and ignoring the rest of the country, thus supposedly "disenfranchising" those voters.

I think that idea is bogus, and even more so in modern times. Largely because of media like TV, radio, and the Internet, information flows much more freely than it did in the 1700's and 1800's. Even if a candidate only *physically* campaigns in a few areas, the speeches will be televised, or recorded and put on the 'net, or transcipts will be on the 'net, etc. And the candidate website with their positions, etc. are always available everywhere. And with newspapers, blogs, etc. reporting every little detail about the candidates, I just don't see the scenario where any voters are disenfranchised because a candidate doesn't visit their area to campaign.

So yeah, I think we should switch to electing the President based on popular vote. Then again, I also think the President should be able to exercise a LOT less power than he actually does (ditto for the entire Federal government, come to think of it).

i hate this government.

Good, good. This government has been stepping all over your rights since the day you were born, so you have good reason to hate it. :fire:

 

[Doktor Ivel]

Neither were Michael Badnarik, David Cobb, or Michael Peroutka. :cry:

and unfortunately most Americans are brainwashed by our public school system to believe that we have a "two party system" in the US, and so they don't bother putting any effort into learning about the other candidates. By shutting them out of the debates, the election is essentially rigged.

And of course the plurality, first-past-the-post, winner-takes-all voting system used in most states, along with blatant gerrymandering, doesn't help either. If we used approval voting, IRV, or Cordocet voting, we might have a fighting chance to break the Demopublican hegemony.

thats true, very good point

 

[Doktor Ivel]

There are historical reasons why we have an Electoral College system, instead of basing the choice on the popular vote. Well... that's not quite right and shows my own bias. I consider the reasons that most people cite for having an EC, to be a historical legacy, but other people believe they still hold up.

It has to do with the way the population of the country is largely clumped into a couple of highly populous areas (New York and California, namely) and the rest is spread out over the rest of the country. THe idea was, a candidate could win the election by only campaigning in the two or three "major" population centers, and ignoring the rest of the country, thus supposedly "disenfranchising" those voters.

I think that idea is bogus, and even more so in modern times. Largely because of media like TV, radio, and the Internet, information flows much more freely than it did in the 1700's and 1800's. Even if a candidate only *physically* campaigns in a few areas, the speeches will be televised, or recorded and put on the 'net, or transcipts will be on the 'net, etc. And the candidate website with their positions, etc. are always available everywhere. And with newspapers, blogs, etc. reporting every little detail about the candidates, I just don't see the scenario where any voters are disenfranchised because a candidate doesn't visit their area to campaign.

So yeah, I think we should switch to electing the President based on popular vote. Then again, I also think the President should be able to exercise a LOT less power than he actually does (ditto for the entire Federal government, come to think of it).



Good, good. This government has been stepping all over your rights since the day you were born, so you have good reason to hate it. :fire:

i agree.............back in the day, (1800s) you know the cannidates would go to each state, and lie to them, telling them what they want to here, then they will go to the next state, and tell them the exact opposite.......but theirs know way this can happen now, because of radio and tv.
popular vote is the best way to go

 

[enigmatics]

Is this conversation really going on in this thread? .........c'mon guys, take it to the designated sub-forum.

Here...........I will make this easy on you .......Political-War Forum

 

[DoctorFeelgood]

Is this conversation really going on in this thread? .........c'mon guys, take it to the designated sub-forum.

Here...........I will make this easy on you .......Political-War Forum

Heh.. I didn't even know there was a Political-War sub-forum. Thanks.

 

[Doktor Ivel]

i knew it was their.
i'm surprised no ones talking about ricky in here

 

[DoctorFeelgood]

What more is there to say about Ricky right now anyway? I think everybody's eagerly waiting for week 5 when he can suit up and play in a real game...

Or at least waiting to see him play in the pre-season opener. That'll be interesting. I wonder if Ricky will start that game?

 

[Doktor Ivel]

What more is there to say about Ricky right now anyway? I think everybody's eagerly waiting for week 5 when he can suit up and play in a real game...

Or at least waiting to see him play in the pre-season opener. That'll be interesting. I wonder if Ricky will start that game?

i bet he will, u think he'll do fine.

 

[yankeehillbilly]

What more is there to say about Ricky right now anyway? I think everybody's eagerly waiting for week 5 when he can suit up and play in a real game...

Or at least waiting to see him play in the pre-season opener. That'll be interesting. I wonder if Ricky will start that game?

Actually week 6. Game 5.

 

[jtoomuch]

are you always so glullible? Ricky didn't smoke weed for his health, why he smoked I don't know but it wasn't for his health. Weed is good for your body in moderations. But Ricky used it for awhile and when you use it long enough it is bad. he left to smoke weed for months and to be selfish and satisfy what he wanted. this guy is not the kind of guy to be your role model. he has made some big mistakes in life.

So, are you saying that anyone who has made mistakes would be a bad role model?
Who do you feel that would leave?

 

[jtoomuch]

If everybody just "respected the law of the land" the United States would still be a British Colony, and we'd all be drinking overpriced tea for breakfast. Screw that, the "law of the land" deserves no respect, because no man has authority to subject another man to laws, rules, or restrictions, unless the subject of those rules accepts them willingly.

Remember, governments have NO POWER, NO AUTHORITY, NOTHING, except for what "We The People" **allow** them to have.

So, this is a FOOTBALL site, right? Hard to tell....

 

[Doktor Ivel]

So, this is a FOOTBALL site, right? Hard to tell....

yea, and its rellavent, in the sense that ricky williams smoked, weed, and some think that its the governments fault.....which lead to the whole government talk in here.

 

[Doktor Ivel]

Who do you feel that would leave?

wat do you mean by that?