AlGore calls for end of Electoral College

[quietguy]

Doesn't that happen anyways?

Actually, it is just the opposite.

[greenego]

Does anyone besides Algore care what Algore says?

[Erik88]

Actually, it is just the opposite.

How so? We have certain states, CA, NY, etc that have the biggest impact on the election because of the large amount or liberals that live there. Wouldn't that mean that these population centers are controlling the race already?

[hipower]

Yeah, losing Tennessee had to hurt. At least I hope it did.

Tennesseans knew better. We'd had to endure him for too long to vote him president.

[quietguy]

How so? We have certain states, CA, NY, etc that have the biggest impact on the election because of the large amount or liberals that live there. Wouldn't that mean that these population centers are controlling the race already?

They do have a large impact, but you are only talking about a few states. California, New York, and Illinois combined are only 104 Electors.

[Guest TNLC9]

If Al ran for dog catcher against Michael Vick in Tennessee, Vick would win.

sent from ...

[RobertNashville]

Doing away with the electoral college process would hand the decision of every Presidential election to a few of our largest cities such as NYC, LA, Chicago...it isn't surprising that a left-wing loon Democrat like Mr. Tree would think that's a good idea.

Edited September 1, 2012 by RobertNashville

[RobertNashville]

That's exactly what the GOP did this election cycle.

No, the GOP acted to keep a handful of Paulbot cooks from disrupting the convention for the sole purpose of disrupting the convention.

[Chucktshoes]

No, the GOP acted to keep a handful of Paulbot cooks from disrupting the convention for the sole purpose of disrupting the convention.

You mean delegates that were duly elected by the citizens and IAW the rules of the RNC and their individual states?

Manufactured unity for the sake of appearances is no unity at all. By disenfranchising the Paul delegates, and by proxy the libertarian wing of the Republican party along with a sizable contingent of folks like myself who are not, and never were Republicans, the RNC has opened itself up to be bit in the ass by us.

I don't presume to speak for others, but I can tell you how I view the events surrounding the convention controversy. I see no substantive difference between the Republican and the Democratic Parties. They both want an overly large and intrusive federal government. The R s want to achieve it on a balanced budget while the D is willing to deficit spend to get there. That's the only real difference and to someone like me who is concerned with freedom and personal liberty, it is the difference between deciding whether you want corn or peanuts in your sandwich.

There were only 2 reasons I was considering voting R. The USSC was the first and Roberts did a good job of letting me know that battle was already lost. The second reason is that for a minute, it appeared the the R party was vulnerable to being reformed from the inside. What happened with the RP delegation firmly closed the door to that idea. So, I am walking away. We tried it, it didn't work out I'm not going to drive myself crazy trying to force my ideals on a party that doesn't want me, or people like me.

To those that would appeal to the libertarian minded folks to vote Romney for the reason of "anybody but Obama" aka "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Sorry, barking up the wrong tree there, bucko. I view both the R and the D parties as unmitigated enemies of individual freedom and personal liberty. It doesn't matter which party is in power the Republic is dead and it is all over but the shooting.

Edited September 1, 2012 by Chucktshoes

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Just discussing pros/cons here-- Not making recommendations-- Winner takes all for most states, and most states reliable-red or reliable-blue-- Only a handful of swing states, states that ain't a lock, are the only ones that matter n the election. You can see it in the campaigning-- They don't spend much time wooing states they think are lost causes, and they don't spend much time wooing states they think are sewed up. Either would be a waste of resources when they could be shaking hands and kissing babies in Ohio or Florida, the citizens who will actually decide the election.

Dunno if it is overt, but the system would encourage certain attitudes of a president-- A D prez, if a red state is having trouble, might say "Screw em, they didn't vote for me anyway and there is nothing I can do to win that state next time." An R would have the opposite attitude. In addition, a prez wouldn't have to work excessively hard to keep any "solid supporting" states happy, because they are in the bag unless you routinely beat them so mercilessly they finally get enough pride to leave. The only states you would want to go over and above to support, are the ones that matter in the re-election bid.

Additionally, a D's prez vote in TN doesn't even matter, and an R's prez vote in CA is irrelevant.

The small states get slightly more representation by "everybody gets 2 free electors" one for each senator. If states had apportioned electors, the small states would still have those "two for free". So they would retain the slight "extra clout" against NY, FL, TX and CA. So it wouldn't be identical in result to a pure national popular vote without the electoral college. However, everybody's vote would be counted. In a state that is 45 percent R and 55 percent D, the R's would get their share of electors and their vote would get "counted".

Additionally, candidates couldn't take any state for granted any more. An R candidate couldn't ignore CA, because maybe the winning elector will come from CA if he tries hard enough in CA. Similarly, the R can't ignore TN because it is "in the bag" because unless he tries hard enough in TN, the losing elector might come from TN. With apportioned electors, ALL the states would be swing states. The major parties wouldn't like that because they would have to work harder, and the candidates wouldn't like that because they would have to do a good job for everybody, not just their friends and people "on the fence".

[RobertNashville]

You mean delegates that were duly elected by the citizens and IAW the rules of the RNC and their individual states?

No, I meant exactly what I said. The Paulbots disenfranchised themselves by making it abundantly clear that their only goal at the convention was to be disruptive in the cause of their loser candidate.

What they couldn't do in Main, for example, they were perfectly willing to do by deception...it was they who refused to follow the will of the voters who voted overwhelmingly for Romney.

Edited September 1, 2012 by RobertNashville

[Chucktshoes]

Your devotion is admirable. I hope you enjoy the peanut flavor.

[RobertNashville]

Your devotion is admirable. I hope you enjoy the peanut flavor.

So now you are down to insulting my position?

My only devotion is to unseating a communist who will destroy the country.

You've already stated that you weren't Republican; so why you care what the Republican party did or didn't do or why they did it is curious.

More curious, however, is that you seem to feel that those who wanted to disrupt the party and the party's convention should be accomodated.

They shouldn't have been and, thankfully, there were not.

Edited September 1, 2012 by RobertNashville

[Chucktshoes]

As I stated, for a brief second it looked like the Republicans were open to reform from within. I am under no illusions that raising a 3rd party to relevence is easy, or even likely in the short term. If it had been possible to make substantive changes to the R party to more closely resemble my libertarian ideals I was willing and wanting to be onboard. The party establishment has made it abundantly clear that they have no interest in hearing from the party's libertarian wing, including those like me willing to join the party, but unwilling to sell out our principles.

It is that partisan devotion which concerns me. If Romney does win and becomes president, will you speak up when he engages in the same sort of policies that W. did? Or will he get the same sort of pass because he is on your team? If Romney abuses executive privilege because congress won't pass his agenda, will you still raise hell? Or is is ok because you agree with what he is trying to do.

My whole point is that when you step back and look at the actions of both parties over the last few decades, neither one has acted with any sort of integrity. Both parties are corrupt to their rotten, diseased cores. When in power both do the same thing. They spend too much money, pass too many intrusive laws and regulations and hand out favors to their friends at the taxpayer expense R v D has become about having your side win instead of differing visions of what is best for the country.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Sometimes cheerleaders will raise a stink, but too often they cut their own side "too much slack". Ferinstance before Y2K Boortz and Limbaugh were both budget hawks, and deficits were the worst sort of evil. Then during GWB's term, especially the first few years, all of a sudden deficits weren't so bad as long as they are "in a good cause". And then after Obama, deficits were the devil again. They were drifting in the direction of being budget hawks again in the latter years of GWB, but didn't return "whole hog" that "deficits are the devil" until BHO.

I'm of the opinion that deficits are almost always the devil, but whatever opinion ought to be held constant unless someone just has a revelation and change of heart on an issue.

If Romney wins and keeps running big deficits, it will be very disappointing if the typical suspects once again decide that deficits ain't so bad after all.

[RobertNashville]

As I stated, for a brief second it looked like the Republicans were open to reform from within. I am under no illusions that raising a 3rd party to relevence is easy, or even likely in the short term. If it had been possible to make substantive changes to the R party to more closely resemble my libertarian ideals I was willing and wanting to be onboard. The party establishment has made it abundantly clear that they have no interest in hearing from the party's libertarian wing, including those like me willing to join the party, but unwilling to sell out our principles.

This is not a "party support" issue; I'm not a Republican...I stopped calling myself one more than 20 years ago. That said, any organization, including a political party, has the absolute right to run that organization any damn way they chose (without braking the law of course). I've no illusions about "reforming" the Republican party...as I've said before, there is nothing wrong with either party that good candidates can't fix. You can change all the rules you want but it will change nothing unless men and women of good character are willing to run for office.

When did the Republican establishment become obligated to hear from any particular "wing"? Why does the Republican party need a "libertarian" wing at all? Parties are irrelevant (except in the mind of those who run then)...their only real function and only real importance is as a vehicle to vet and chose a candidate and run the election process so that a candidate can be chosen and take office.

We need a whole lot less concern about the "parties" and a lot more concern and effort in finding and supporting good candidates.

It is that partisan devotion which concerns me. If Romney does win and becomes president, will you speak up when he engages in the same sort of policies that W. did? Or will he get the same sort of pass because he is on your team? If Romney abuses executive privilege because congress won't pass his agenda, will you still raise hell? Or is is ok because you agree with what he is trying to do.

My whole point is that when you step back and look at the actions of both parties over the last few decades, neither one has acted with any sort of integrity. Both parties are corrupt to their rotten, diseased cores. When in power both do the same thing. They spend too much money, pass too many intrusive laws and regulations and hand out favors to their friends at the taxpayer expense R v D has become about having your side win instead of differing visions of what is best for the country.

You are never going to stop party devotion (or devotion to one candidate) of some; if nothing else, the Paulbots have proven that beyond any shadow of doubt. However, many, me have included have been been vocal about positions and the actions of office holders regardless of what party they belonged to...my support or lack of support for a President or any other office holder has never been about "party"...it's been about what he/she did or didn't do. GWB did plenty wrong; he also did plenty right.

Frankly, I'm getting tired of those who claim everyone was silent about Bush's (both) transgressions; that they were somehow given a pass is an opinion based on no evidence. Moreover, it just didn't happen...plenty of people, me included called them out for their bad decisions.

[Chucktshoes]

Calling them out does no good if you continue to vote for them,those like them, or for those that have the ability to hold them accountable and don't.

What happened this year with the Maggart primary is an example of what needs to be done wholesale.

Robert, I like how you say parties are irrelevant, and in the next breath speak about exactly why they aren't. Nice trick.

[Wingshooter]

Calling them out does no good if you continue to vote for them,those like them, or for those that have the ability to hold them accountable and don't.

What happened this year with the Maggart primary is an example of what needs to be done wholesale.

Robert, I like how you say parties are irrelevant, and in the next breath speak about exactly why they aren't. Nice trick.

The libertarian party must feel they are more like the R party otherwise they would be trying to speak at the D convention. If that's the case, wouldn't future reform towards the L party be easier if the R's win? An R or a D will be elected this time around... that will be fact.

Back to the EC topic, I just thank God that Al didn't put that idea into obama's head during his first two years of presidency. Otherwise he would have rammed it through too or simply attached it to the healthcare bill.

Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk 2

[seez52]

Funny how he overlooks that fact, isn't it.

Rather than eliminate the electoral college, I would much rather see the 17th Amendment repealed. Our founding fathers were genius in how they set things up. Most of our mistakes have come in how we have tried to "fix" their system.

amen, brother!!

[RobertNashville]

Calling them out does no good if you continue to vote for them,those like them, or for those that have the ability to hold them accountable and don't.

What happened this year with the Maggart primary is an example of what needs to be done wholesale.

Robert, I like how you say parties are irrelevant, and in the next breath speak about exactly why they aren't. Nice trick.

I don't vote for "them"...I vote for the best candidate that's running and can win the election; to do otherwise is, in my opinion, a worthless gesture at best.

As someone who donated a lot to Col Rodgers, I concur but if you'll note, that happened in PRIMARY; not a general election...we are no longer in a primary season, we have a general election to vote in and a clear choice to make between communism or capitalism.

There is no "trick" about it...the parties are irrelevant...in particular, their internal rules which is what this line of posts has been discussing; but yes, they serve a function; that is not a contradiction; it's just the way it is.

Edited September 1, 2012 by RobertNashville

[Chucktshoes]

their only real function and only real importance is as a vehicle to vet and chose a candidate and run the election process so that a candidate can be chosen and take office.

I would say the above quote of yours does accurately describe one of the primary party functions. I would also posit that we both know that if you aren't an R or a D, then your chances of getting elected to national office are pretty slim. Taking those two facts into consideration, I'd say that makes political parties pretty damn relevant, no?

If the parties are that important, then their internal rules that determine who gets to have input on shaping the party platform are pretty damn important as well.

You can legimately argue the position that the RNC was right to take the actions they did in changing their internal rules, or just outright ignoring them all day long. To argue that political parties are irrelevant is more than just a bit disingenuous, and in my opinion beneath you. You normally bring more honest arguments to the table.

Edited September 2, 2012 by Chucktshoes

[Guest 6.8 AR]

The libertarian party must feel they are more like the R party otherwise they would be trying to speak at the D convention. If that's the case, wouldn't future reform towards the L party be easier if the R's win? An R or a D will be elected this time around... that will be fact.

Back to the EC topic, I just thank God that Al didn't put that idea into obama's head during his first two years of presidency. Otherwise he would have rammed it through too or simply attached it to the healthcare bill.

Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk 2

Obama considers all of his political tribe as useful idiots. In the same vain, all of that political tribe consider him as the

useful idiot, probably like Soros does. The difference being that "herr leader" is a tad more narcissistic than the tribe. I doubt

seriously Algore has any influence with Obama. Thankfully!

[RobertNashville]

I would say the above quote of yours does accurately describe one of the primary party functions. I would also posit that we both know that if you aren't an R or a D, then your chances of getting elected to national office are pretty slim. Taking those two facts into consideration, I'd say that makes political parties pretty damn relevant, no?

If the parties are that important, then their internal rules that determine who gets to have input on shaping the party platform are pretty damn important as well.

You can legimately argue the position that the RNC was right to take the actions they did in changing their internal rules, or just outright ignoring them all day long. To argue that political parties are irrelevant is more than just a bit disingenuous, and in my opinion beneath you. You normally bring more honest arguments to the table.

'm not sure why you are so hung up on how "relevant" the parties are...if you wish to claim they are relevant or very relevant or extremely relevant that's fine.

They serve a function; how much relevance you want to ascribe to that function is purely a matter of opinion.

[Chucktshoes]

'm not sure why you are so hung up on how "relevant" the parties are...if you wish to claim they are relevant or very relevant or extremely relevant that's fine.

They serve a function; how much relevance you want to ascribe to that function is purely a matter of opinion.

Here is why I took such issue with your position of irrelevancy for the parties. If the parties are irrelevant, then not only what they do is irrelevant, but HOW they do it as well. The RNC changed and or ignored its own rules in an attempt to present unity behind Romney. As an example, the Socialist Party USA (no, I'm not referring to the DNC) is irrelevant on the national stage. Nobody knows or cares who their candidate is, or how they were chosen because they don't have a chance in hell of getting elected. Right now to get elected you have to come from one of two major parties. If how the Republican party chooses its nominee is irrelevant then the subject of the entire debate we were having becomes a moot point, thereby allowing you to sidestep having to deal with whether or not the actions taken by the RNC to silence dissent within the party were ethical. That has been what stuck in my craw this whole time. The RNC was underhanded and wholly unethical in the manner in which it handled the RP "problem". I was willing to go along with the Rs and vote for Romney to hopefully get rid of Obama. This whole debacle only reinforced for me (and others that I know) that at the end of the day, the Republican party is no better or even different than the Democratic Party. The current and future well being of the nation are not their priority. All either party is concerned with is accumulating and maintaining power, money and influence. They are equally corrupt, diseased and rotten in their cores.

[RobertNashville]

Here is why I took such issue with your position of irrelevancy for the parties. If the parties are irrelevant, then not only what they do is irrelevant, but HOW they do it as well. The RNC changed and or ignored its own rules in an attempt to present unity behind Romney. As an example, the Socialist Party USA (no, I'm not referring to the DNC) is irrelevant on the national stage. Nobody knows or cares who their candidate is, or how they were chosen because they don't have a chance in hell of getting elected. Right now to get elected you have to come from one of two major parties. If how the Republican party chooses its nominee is irrelevant then the subject of the entire debate we were having becomes a moot point, thereby allowing you to sidestep having to deal with whether or not the actions taken by the RNC to silence dissent within the party were ethical. That has been what stuck in my craw this whole time. The RNC was underhanded and wholly unethical in the manner in which it handled the RP "problem". I was willing to go along with the Rs and vote for Romney to hopefully get rid of Obama. This whole debacle only reinforced for me (and others that I know) that at the end of the day, the Republican party is no better or even different than the Democratic Party. The current and future well being of the nation are not their priority. All either party is concerned with is accumulating and maintaining power, money and influence. They are equally corrupt, diseased and rotten in their cores.

I think the RNC's move was entirely ethical - it was the actions and stated purpose of the Paulbots who have an ethical problem here.

The Paulbot delegates made it perfectly clear that they didn't care who had won their state's primary (thereby ignoring the vote of the people) and they made it clear that they intended to cause a disturbance. Under the circumstances, the RNC had to act and had I been in charge of the RNC I would have done the same thing.