As if we Americans care what foreigners think about how WE elect the President any more than you care what we think of your King and Queen and House of Lords. It's not the disagreement its the basis of yours that is lacking. Of how our government was formed and why it was formed under this system you are else you wouldn't keep asking why. Sorry mistook for EU. No you don't else you would understand the beauty of it. He is head of the federal government, not the states. Head of state is a ceremonial position, most citizens have far more interaction with the state than the federal which has limited powers and duties. That is how our government is SUPPOSED to work although liberals have tried for the past few decades to change that, federal power is strictly limited as outlined in the Constitution with all other power reserved for the states. The Senate was originally designed to represent the States and the House the People with the Senators appointed by the state government, something to which many of us would like to return.
You're still acting like I care about your technicalities. Lol you aren't even listening to me. I can't tell anyone what to do, I can only offer my opinion as to what I think you should do. What's wrong with it? I honestly do not see a problem with it being a popular vote, nor have you convinced me in any way to want it not to be. I suggest you actually try to convince me that your system is a good idea.
And I'm the ignorant clueless one? I'm not British you twit. You don't have to care - that's not a defence of your position. You've offered no reason as to why a popular vote is a bad idea. Thank you for proving my point. Why is this so difficult for you to understand: the arguments in favour of using an electoral college do not convince me. I do not think it a good idea. Your founders' opinions are not infallible enough that there's no way I can be unconvinced of the need for an EC. I don't see it as a beauty, I see as an unfair, unnecessarily complicated system that doesn't need to exist and makes voters feel cheated. Or are you still convinced it's impossible to understand it and still dislike it? Because as I said before, that just means you're full of yourself. Your head of state is most certainly not a ceremonial position. He is the head of the executive branch and commander in chief of your military. States' power has nothing to do with what I think about the way the POTUS is voted in.
nothing in life is free, not healthcare, not retirement, not food, nothing. poor liberals afraid they may have to pay for something
Strawman. This is not debatable. Poll taxes are unconstitutional via the 24th Amendment. When an ID must be PURCHASED to vote, it is in DIRECT VIOLATION of the 24th Amendment. Unconstitutional.
no it is not, it is no different that have to purchase a gun permit to carry a gun which is already allowed by the constitution. Just admit you are a lying cheating (*)(*)(*)(*) when it comes to voting, we won't argue
Insult noted. This is an example of hypocrisy. The 24th Amendment is EXPLICIT. There are no poll taxes, literacy tests, or any obstacles from making the voting process more difficult. This was in response to tactics employed by Southern legislatures to prevent blacks from voting. Are we moving back in time, Republicans? Don't be a hypocrite. If you cite the constitution for anything.. don't cry about voter IDs. Provide them free of charge for all citizens, or it is 100% UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
That is not an excuse. Voter ID laws are unconstitutional unless provided by the state free of charge. What part of SHALL NOT BE DENIED do you not understand?
The Second Amendment was written in the late 1700's shortly after the Revolution. I think it is obvious it was intended as a check against government abuse of power. The rest of the Bill of Rights all have the same ideology. Like the Third Amendment is a product of the time period, and has little relevance to the current environment. Warring factions in the 1700's would both be armed with the same weaponry. The Founders obviously did not anticipate tanks, airplanes, heavy article, and predator drones. The idea that regular citizens could face down an army with that kind of fire power with AR-15's is ridiculous. Personally, I have no problems if people own firearms. I actually liked shooting black powder rifles. They just have to do a background check on all gun purchases, and register the gun. I don't care about AR-15's, because someone can easily do as much damage with a .357 and multiple rounds. That being said, the idea that the Second Amendment is being violated by those regulations is wrong. I stated it above, but the intention was to maintain a militia. Any militia formed today to fight the US Army would get stomped on. It's an archaic amendment.
The people of Afghanistan do not share your view, how long has all of our armed forces been there without a win?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawford_v._Marion_County_Election_Board#cite_note-1 The Supreme Court ruled on this, and you can ask for an ID. The state has to provide a provisional ballot, which the person goes to another government office signing that they can't afford one. Seems like a huge pain in the ass. I wouldn't even bother voting. I guess that's kind of the point, though. How do you even commit voter fraud? I live in Florida, so you fill out your name, address, and last four of your social security number. They mail you the card, you bring it to the precinct, they verify you, and then you vote.
How is a militia with semi-automatic rifles in anyway comparable to the Mujahideen? Also, how do we even win that war?
Voter fraud is bull(*)(*)(*)(*). It is so rare (something like single digits out of a million votes). It is exclusively to place extra burden on lower income voters, which happen to NOT vote Republican. Republican legislatures are the only ones passing these crooked laws. It is just another way for them to cheat the system. It is funny how Voter ID laws are accompanied by more limited poll hours (like North Carolina closing Sunday voting hours). Hopefully this has nothing to do with the amount of blacks that attend church in the south that would be encouraged by their congregations to go vote (those who don't have cars carpool).
Even if you wanted to manipulate votes with phony registrations, you'd have to mobilize thousands of people in order for it to have some sort of impact. Seems like a highly inefficient way to rig an election.
The 2000 election was determined by 537 votes, all in one state, when there was a lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide.
And in that state 8,000 black men were disenfranchised, "by accident", for the 2000 election. That is they were removed from the voter rolls, which they only discovered on election day, too late to reregister, by "mistake", when their names matched those of black people convicted of misdemeanors in Texas. (That's another mistake, they were only supposed to remove felons). The original list was considered "too small" by the Florida Secretary of State (and Bush state campaign chair) so the "exact match" was changed to 80% match on the last name, middle initials and suffixes were removed from consideration too, to get the numbers of blacks removed from the voting rolls increased. Now if those 8000 black men were allowed to vote, and if half of them did vote, and they voted like Black people in Florida usually vote, the would have broke 3200 for Gore and 800 for Bush. So election fraud does work. Just not voter impersonation.......
Does this militia have a hidden stash of RPG's, machine guns, and other heavy weaponry? Leave that aside for a moment. Has this militia had 30 years of experience fighting in Afghanistan? Does this militia meet regularly and plan on how they would thwart a despotic government? How many members are in this militia? Actually, here's a better question. Does this militia even exist?
I'm not a particular fan of those who go overboard on the 2nd amendment and I myself don't own a gun and I'm not interested in having one. I also agree with you that the idea of an armed citizen's "militia" somehow keeping a government with a large and well-armed military in check is at best fancifull. That being said, the fact that the 2nd amendment dates from the 1700's doesn't have anything to do with the question if it's relevant or not. It obviously is just as relevant as any other part of the Constitution that hasn't been amended away. After all, what other rights enshrined in the Bil of Rights do you feel are irrelevant today?
If you bothered to read everything I wrote you will realize that I know very well that the winner-take-all system depends on state legislation. That is not what the discussion was about. I was writing about the electoral college system and that is very much in the Constitution.
I am getting at the fact that the number of Senators a State has is not determined by its population. Therefore, the Senate is in no way a reflection of the popular vote nationwide. it is a reflection of the popular vote State by State, very much like the electoral college system for electing the President.
Some rights are timeless. The First Amendment has clear meaning to everyone in 2014, or 1789. Others like the Third Amendment, are antiquated. Everything needs to be read in context.
