SVreX wrote:
Xceler8x wrote:
It would seem that someone on the Obama team is crafty like Karl Rove, but less evil.
Your bias is obvious.
Well...YEAH!
I said Karl Rove was evil! I'd say that's pretty biased. 
SVreX wrote:
Is there a reason that instead of posting the link to the entire factual page, you specifically directed to the portion of the page which discusses the arguments against the Electoral College?
Sorry. That wasn't on purpose. I was attempting to post a wiki on the Electorial college to punctuate my point on how elections can be manipulated therefore thwarting the will of the people.
To me, most popular votes won = majority rule. The simple rule of Democracy. The most votes is the person who should run things as he has the most support as proven by a national election.
SVreX wrote:
The election wasn't stolen. It was strategized within the given set of rules. Why is it that we can applaud when someone finds the holes in the Challenge rules (like Andy's fenders, or Guido's headlights), yet fail to give credit when others do the same thing in the political arena (if they are on the wrong side)?
My opionion of Mr. Bush's team's ability to strategize is the same as my opinion of Mr. Obama's. Both showed leadership ability. Mr. Kerry's inability to understand the way our government is structured and develop a winning plan catagorically disqualified him to lead, as far as I am concerned. Whining won't change that.
We could discuss that all day. Would have beens. Should have beens. It could go on and on about the election results that happened more than a term ago. It's in the past. I'd rather forget it for now.
SVreX wrote:
We do not live in a Democracy, but in a Democratic Republic. Our government has always been that way, and it is a distortion to suggest the "majority vote" is all that matters. A few history and government classes will easily explain the significance of the Electoral. While I agree that it could stand to be re-vamped, I thoroughly disagree that it should be thrown away.
I disagree that we should keep the Electorial College. This could be a flounder but...
The Electorial college was originally created because some of our founding fathers didn't think people were smart enough to make their own decisions. They needed help from the educated elite. If some jerk won the election our intellectual supermen would vote "faithlessly" and put in the "right" person instead of the charlatan elected by popular and ignorant vote.
I think it's wrong. We vote who we want in. That's the way it should be. Not we vote and then our choice is reviewed by connected politico's and either rubber stamped or disregarded.
The Electorial college is nothing but institutionalized elitism. It is past it's prime and should be abolished.
You can argue that people are stupid. I won't win that discussion. 
Some of them are. Bell curve suggests as such. I would like to think that our current population is smart enough to drown out the choice of the dull tools in the shed. I think our average intelligence is such that we can make a wise decision collectively.
If you agree with my statement about our collective wisdom then why do we need political nannies patting us reassuringly on the back and confirming our choice? It's unnecessary and condescending. Just count our vote, install new political leader. No middle man is needed.
This could also be an argument for education funding. With an intelligent and learned citizenry our election process can do nothing but improve. If everyone is better educated, well read, and experienced critical thinkers we will choose leaders that reflect that populace.
We are sidetracked. Obama's strategy seems to be very shrewd. With a super majority he can push his political agenda basically unhindered. As Bush did before the Congressal majority changed while he was in office. It was bound to happen. The pendulum has swung back the other way.
