So drwho does that mean the People should have less say in their governance? Should we gut the Voting Rights Act even more? You don't think that would lead to a Politburo style of government? Either run by the Left or the Right? Are you afraid of the will of the People? Or are you hoping for a totalitarian leadership that will allow the unregulated Free Market to create Oligarchs that will dictate policy and laws?
Done. 1 guess.
Done 1 guess
drwho: The link you provided to Bernie Sander's top donors is not really what that shows. The list of companies are employers of folks who donated to Sanders. See https://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/include/co\nntribmethod_pop.php
To be a little more clear. The page drwho linked to is not a list of companies that gave large donations. Instead it is a list of companies whose employees individually made small contributions to Sanders. There were no big donors in the traditional sense.
unike: Other than the blathering of know-nothing pundits, has there been any indication that Sec. Clinton might drop out of the race? (Neither a cough nor pneumonia are usually grounds for leaving a race).
Done. NG. EZPZ. Easier than stumping American liberals with facts but less entertaining.
Penguin if physical or mental health were grounds for holding elected office we would have a lot of empty seats in Congress and neither FDR or GWB would have been President. ;-)
kaosangel there is a reason why conservatives court non-educated white males.
Sorry, non-college-educated white males.
Fundamentally the only reason the US president is not elected directly by the people is fear by those who control the current undemocratic system that they would not like the results of holding nationwide democratic presidential elections.
Those who argue that the electoral college system is preferable to a democratic nationwide election seem to think that explaining the history of how the electoral college came to be provides a full and complete justification for undermining people's confidence in their ability to cast a meaningful vote.
Concerns about regional issues getting a fair hearing are already overcompensated for by strange arrangements such as allowing the 1 million people who live in Rhode Island to send two senators to Washington. The country certainly would not benefit from any such weird distortions of political influence in selecting its president.
I would have thought that slamming uninformed voters as unworthy of the right to vote for their president would only appear in a historical footnote, but I see that drwho even includes that in his current arguments against elections by the populace.
I believe that most Americans want the US to be what many people wrongly believe it already is, a country where everybody's voice matters because everyone has the right to have their vote carry as much weight as anyone else's. Especially when it comes to selecting a president.
We see the disdain for the voter in the voter suppression laws being passed under the guise of protecting against voter fraud.
It is time that Americans stand up for the right to be counted, and counted equally, when it comes to choosing their practical and symbolic leader. In my opinion, that far outweighs the objection that a change could only be accomplished through a constitutional amendment. The constitution is not cast in stone, it was always intended to be a malleable creation, to be amended as needed.
unfortunately there are a lot of powerful interests that believe as this gentleman does. http://money.cnn.com/2014/02/14/investing/tom\n-perkins-vote/
How are Americans going to be counted equally if Democrats are permitted to be counted multiple times?
Cute Unike but less likely to happen than Republicans throwing votes away or not counting opposing votes at all.
Or Diebold flipping results in electronic voting machines.
Unike: No one should be counted multiple times, Democrats or Republicans. And fraud is rampant ... except that it is not. https://www.brennancenter.org/publication/tru\nth-about-voter-fraud
Also mandatory voting would cure any type of multiple votes by one person. If the vote totals more than the number of mandatory voters you have a problem.
One of the reasons I am a dues paying member of the IWW. If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal. Emma Goldman This sentiment is due to our broken electoral system. If voting was mandatory and not restricted we would see more change and possibly a better educated electorate.
The reason we do not is that powerful special interests are afraid for their livelihood. 89% of americans support background checks for all guns even though the supporters of the gun lobby say that is false. If there was a vote the gun lobby would fall apart.
We would have a National Health Care system better than anywhere else on the planet. Instead of the blood suckers in the Health Care Insurance, Hospital Conglomerate, Big Pharma lobby bleeding us dry. 70% of the American people favor some form of National Health Care with 58% favoring Medicaid for All. What would happen if that came to a vote?
The problem is exactly as TallMike pointed out.
TallMike: Fundamentally the only reason the US president is not elected directly by the people is fear by those who control the current undemocratic system that they would not like the results of holding nationwide democratic presidential elections.
done, no greens but a guess and a couple of interruptions.
tuco, your most recent post is formatted as a message from you to me, rather than being identified as what it is, an exact quote of one of my previous posts.
That's just plain antisocial. Cut it out, please.
I know what you meant, but a lot of people will not read it that way.
Penguin: The open secrets list is people who gave through the organization listed or employees of the organization. You cannot state that it was entirely employees of the companies listed any more than I can assert it was entirely the organizations listed.
drwho: I have never seen evidence of Sanders taking large donations from any organization. What I have seen are articles like http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/bern\nie-sanders-took-money-big-lobbying-groups-ret\nurned-corporate-pac-donations
Tuco: like the people who designed our government, I fear and loath democracy. It is one of the worst forms of government ever devised. We are a republic. Our government is not a national government, but a federal government. The ultimate source of all authority in a republic is the people, but most decisions in a republic are made indirectly by the people via their representatives.
If you are looking for someone who really despises the voters and the idea that they have the right to govern themselves see Hillary:
Just in case you missed the importance of the distinction between a national and a federal government, here it is. In a national government the people have a direct say via national elections, in a federal government the people have an indirect say in the federal government via their state governments.
Tuco, making sure that only legal voters vote does not disenfranchise anyone. Letting people vote who are not legally qualified does. It dilutes the legitimate vote.
Difficulty score 66.
Sorry TallMike, I didn't mean it as such. I meant it as a direct quote. It will never happen again.
drwho it is to our founders credit that they devised a system that could undue the evils it allowed.
Penguin has posted info about the myth of voter fraud in this country. It is well known that high voter turnout hurts the Republicans and benefits Democrats. But that would make sense seeing as how Republicans fear and loathe Democracy. And we have already been through the debate about the U.S. being either a Republic or a Democracy. It is both.
What would someone who fears and loathes Democracy consider a legal voter?
The following is from
http://www.americantraditions.org/Articles/Wh\ny%20Our%20Founders%20Feared%20a%20Democracy.h\ntm Our Founders very much feared creating a government that had too many aspects of a pure democracy. They feared the destructiveness that a majority might have in trying to make everyone equal, and in the process taking away property, rights of property, and with it our basic freedoms which they considered "God given Freedoms." They very much feared the development of the Robin Hood mentality we are seeing today – soak the rich and give to the poor. It is a democratic drift toward socialism. Such a program as the proposed "Universal Healthcare" is a prime example.
The problem with this argument is no one is trying to make everyone equal. That is just a scare tactic used to further their greed. Much like calling the estate tax a Death Tax. It scares those who may receive less than $5 million from an estate into thinking they will lose it to taxes.