Amount of debt... Hmmm rich, wealthy, heaven... Such foolishness, I was hoping that dominionist christian would be defined in this article, what a blowhard.
ASA WAAA thats the way it is. My personal thoughts on Trump are beginning to show themselves and its going to be a long painful 4 years. But regardless of my personal feelings it is what it is. The same thing I said to all the yahoos that didnt want Obama. In my opinion the only fair way is the EC. If ya didnt want him or Bush in office find someone that will appeal to everyone in this Country. Someone that can get the EC votes so every voice can be heard. You gripe because your person got more votes and lost the election well everyone in the less populated parts of this Country would gripe if they lost every election. How else would you or anyone else make it happen without someone getting the short end? Get over it man fight and voice your opinion with what were working with not what you think should be. Should be wont get a thing done.
alternative reality is the new administrations objective...
So are you looking for comments in regard to stories because I have many that I have vetted that don't seem to be making any kind of coverage at all. I am very concerned about CNN and other cable news channels and Backpage stories of what I would consider significant corrupt indications power politics that we need to focus attention on if we want to make this country better. What is this column willing to do about that.?
Rocky Smith writes:
"The only way the smaller population can have a say about that seat is the EC."
Well, we just watched "the smaller population" select the President. We watched as "the smaller population" was allowed to pick the President in 2000. After those two debacles, why would any reasonable person continue to think that the President of All of us should (again?) be selected by a minority number of voters?
ALL Americans should have a say in who our President is, not just "the smaller population".
We don't need your redundant lecture about the organization of our government.
We need to have a democratic vote wherein ALL Americans have equal representation when we choose a person to fill the ONLY office that represents ALL Americans.
There is no longer any rational reason for the Electoral College to continue to exist in 21st Century America.
And thanks, Mr. K, for pointing out the irony of Hamilton's advocacy for the EC. The very condition Hamilton sought to prevent via the EC has come to pass BECAUSE of the EC.
ASA Did I not say those were not States? Also Representation in Congress is already voted on by a Democratic vote by State were not talking of Congress were talking the office of President. One seat the top seat at a massive table of 3 branches of Govenment. The only way the smaller population can have a say about that seat is the EC. The only seat that is elected by the EC. They at one time allowed Congress to pick the President and vice President. Now we the people vote by State with so many electoral votes then those votes are calculated to pick the two who sit at the top seat. The President represents all of us Congress represents each State. Two different things, two different parts of Government. Congress and the President get to pick our Justice thats the 3rd part of our Government we dont get a vote on them.
I find it ironic that the institution designed originally to prevent a demagogue from ever becoming president, instead facilitated it.
Boulder's population is growing at a much slower rate than Colorado Springs, and yet, its economy continues to diversify and attract new business. Remember the scorn that Colorado Springs elite heaped on Boulder for its growth boundaries, and yet:
Foodies Know: Boulder Has Become a Hub for New Producers
Rocky Smith writes:
"I disagree with you about the EC then the States with the most population would win every election."
No, WITHOUT the EC the PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE with the most VOTES would win elections.
"Thats why the EC was put in place so the voters in Wyoming and Montana and Alaska still have a voice."
Wyoming, Montana and Alaska did not exist when the EC was put in place.
The Founders had NO idea how many States there would be, or how the nation's population would be dispersed.
The idea that each State, regardless of population, would have adequate representation was accommodated by each state having TWO Senators. The EC was NOT inserted into the Constitution to give greater voice to States with small populations.
"that was the intention so small populations around our Country still have a voice."
Every Individual American should have an EQUAL voice in the selection of the ONLY office that represents ALL Americans, not some amalgamation of population created by arbitrary lines drawn on a map.
"I don't want that voice taken from anyone in America no matter who it puts in the White House."
The EC LITERALLY disenfranchised MOST of the voters in the last Presidential Election, and youre worried about the MINORITY of voters not having a voice? Really?
In 21st Century America, the issues facing any U.S. Administration (the Presidency) are issues concerning ALL Americans. We no longer live in a world where news and information travel at the speed a horse.
The EC is an anachronism, a dead albatross, hanging from the neck of our aspirations for democracy.
Asa We are with out a doubt both. We vote in an election that is without a doubt Democratic but we are Represented as a Republic. I disagree with you about the EC then the States with the most population would win every election. Thats why the EC was put in place so the voters in Wyoming and Montana and Alaska still have a voice. They dont have the population as California or Florida or New York. But they have a voice. We vote each State then calculate the EC votes. Now granted those were not States when all this started but that was the intention so small populations around our Country still have a voice. I dont want that voice taken from anyone in America no matter who it puts in the White House. I have very strong feelings toward the Rights to all Americans not just the ones I agree with but all Americans. Even those that has no idea how our Government works. That was what our Founders wanted from the start and I wish everyone felt the same. But alas the selfishness in this Country wont allow many to see the true intent behind the founding of our great Nation. All are Created Equal. ALL!
The fact that we vote for our representatives does not mean we are a democracy.
Republics are rule by law, are always representative, and have an executive position which is not a monarch.
Democracies are rule by vote, can be direct or representative, and do not have an executive position.
We are a nation which operates on laws, we don't have our representatives vote on everything. We have an executive position. We are a republic.
As for any problems with the Electoral College goes, the real issue is not the Electoral College itself, the problem is that most states choose to use a "Winner Take All" methond of assigning electors. That is something determined by each individual state and is not something required or even recommended by the Constitution or federal law.
The only positive of the winner take all system is that it becomes much less likely that Congress will have to choose the president and VP in the case of neither set of candidates achieving the 270 majority.
Two observations about the "republic" / "democracy" discussion.
First: The indefinite nature of the term "Republic". The "R" in the old U.S.S.R. stood for "Republic". And then there's the "Peoples 'Republic' of China". Neither reflect what Americans might view as the definition of "Republic".
And, of course, were NOT a pure democracy, as We the People don't vote on every piece of federal legislation, or state law, or city ordinance.
BUT we DO exercise democracy when we elect our representatives to D.C., and to our State, and local governments.
Without fundamental democratic principles, our government would not exist in the form it does today.
Now, when our Founders gave us the charge to: "form a more perfect union", they were encouraging the expansion of the Constitution's fundamental democratic principles. Historically, this is the tack America has taken. Senators are now elected democratically, not chosen, and, over the last 200 or so years the voting franchise has been drastically expanded.
Today, however, we are witnessing a trend toward making voting harder, and THAT may be at the heart of what I see as an effort to demean/diminish the ideal of democracy as America's first principle. Those of the right-wing persuasion tend toward writing such declarations as: "We are NOT a democracy", as if THAT is the end of the discussion. I have come to understand why conservatives do NOT like democracy. (but that is for a different post).
I suggest we suspend the semantics discussion and focus on how we can expand our Constitutions democratic principles as our Founders intended.
In regard to Mr Durlands letter, considering my above opinion, I am of the notion that to expand democratic principles we must eliminate the Electoral College. It is patently absurd that the ONLY "elected" official, that represents, and is voted on by ALL Americans, is NOT determined by an equally direct democratic election. In the 21st century the reasons for the Electoral College no longer exist, and the Electoral College has become not only a detriment to democracy, but much LESS a mechanism to prevent "oppression". The value of an individual American Citizen's vote should NOT be a function of geography. And the last election embodies a cruel irony to WHY Hamilton advocated the EC.
This argument over "democracy" versus "republic" has turned the discussion into an exercise in semantics. I am sure that everyone participating knows the organization and mechanisms of our government in excruciating detail. Yet, everyone is expending lots of words trying to establish what is the best or most correct label for the overall process. I feel pretty sure no two university professors of political science can actually agree on a satisfactory label, much less we laymen. In the meantime, very few substantive points about the process have been raised.
Just for fun, I looked up the definitions of "democracy" and "republic" in the online Merriam-Webster Dictionary. This is what I found:
One is "a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law."
The other is "a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections."
Can you tell, without any doubts or guesswork, which definition belongs to which word without looking them up?
The online Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines beachhead as "an area on a hostile shore occupied to secure further landing of troops and supplies." Not a hint of the phrase "starting point," but the phrases "hostile shore" and "landing of troops" does imply somebody is at war.
You are correct, Mr. Tannim, in saying this is not a particularly significant piece of information, but you are the one throwing it into the spotlight. It seems to be something you "...tend to do: blowhard about nothing."
Several decades of liberal mumbo jumbo has brainwashed people into that a representative democracy and a republic are the same thing. THEY ARE NOT. A country can be either a democracy or a republic, NOT BOTH. Those of us old enough to remember know better than to fall for this attempt to merge the two systems. The US is not and never has been a democracy.
Mr. Tannim, while your thoughts are murky, your methods are crystal clear. Since you cannot refute any arguments using facts and logic, you resort to the crudest form of name-calling, and think you are so clever no one notices your deficiencies.
Furthermore, as I have affirmed many times in this blog, I am not a liberal. I appreciate the fact that your entire rant depends on stereotyping liberals. That is your problem.
"And those tweaks are what Dave"
The main one was change from the state legislatures selecting Senators to public vote for Senators. This upset the system of checks and balances and took some power away from the states, however, our form of government has not changed.
"a Democratic Representative Republic"
There is no such thing. We are a Constitutional Federal Republic and have been since the Articles of Confederation were replaced.
"No were not a full Representative Democracy but we are also not a full Representative Republic we are both. "
You have no idea what you are talking about.
"It means you and the rest of us get to pick who speaks for us in Washington."
You are completely hung up on the "representative" part of the issue and are confusing yourself. That has squat to do with whether or not we are a republic or a democracy. Refer back to my original post.
And those tweaks are what Dave. O yea a Democratic Representative Republic. In case you havent noticed We vote the people in to represent us we dont just let a small group appoint them like they did when this Country started. Thats the tweak Dave No were not a full Representative Democracy but we are also not a full Representative Republic we are both. Have been for a very very long time and no Dave it dont mean your a Democrat it just means you vote that way it means you get a voice. It means you and the rest of us get to pick who speaks for us in Washington.
Rocky, despite some small tweaks our form of government has not changed. We are still a Republic, not a representative democracy.
Patience, really glad you addressed systemic issues in SE in your article. We need more news media that gets to the roots of things, for example, instead of just talking about crime- talking about the root causes of higher crime rates. Thanks for writing!
All content © Copyright 2017, The Colorado Springs Independent
Website powered by Foundation