ADVERTISEMENT

Time to get rid of the Electoral College

801canesmxer

SuperCane
Gold Member
Dec 22, 2010
9,127
12,173
113
That was the title of a letter to the editor today in the Salt Lake Tribune. Most of you know by now that I detest both parties. I also hate hypocrisy and that's why I responded to that letter. I simply pointed out that the Dems were in favor of the process when they thought that Hillary had locked up the 270 electoral votes needed to win. In fact they were counting on that as Trump's popularity was rising. Now all of a sudden they want to change the rules. How convenient. I can't wait to see all the names I will be called when I go back later to see the responses.
 
Last edited:
That was the title of a letter to the editor today in the Salt Lake Tribune. Most of you know by now that I detest both parties. I also hate hypocrisy and that's why I responded to that letter. I simply pointed out that the Dems were in favor of the process when they thought that Hillary had locked up the 270 electoral votes needed to win. In fact they were counting on that as Trump/s popularity was rising. Now all of a sudden they want to change the rules. How convenient. I can't wait to see all the names I will be called when I go back later to see the responses.
Link?
 
The electoral college cannot be done away with. States joined a Union they are not provinces of one "state". That is the difference between our system and other places around the world. They confuse having different provinces inside their nations to having sovereign states decide to join or form part of a union which creates a nation.
 
The electoral college cannot be done away with. States joined a Union they are not provinces of one "state". That is the difference between our system and other places around the world. They confuse having different provinces inside their nations to having sovereign states decide to join or form part of a union which creates a nation.
I don't care for some of the things that our country does but at the same time there is no better place to live on the entire planet. To me it's just part of the give and take of living in the USA. I didn't like either candidate but was willing to support whoever won. For the next four years Trump is my President and deserves my support and prayers. It certainly isn't the easiest job in the world.
 
I don't care for some of the things that our country does but at the same time there is no better place to live on the entire planet. To me it's just part of the give and take of living in the USA. I didn't like either candidate but was willing to support whoever won. For the next four years Trump is my President and deserves my support and prayers. It certainly isn't the easiest job in the world.
I believe you will see the true meaning of being a lib...Democrat....coming very soon. Frankly if I was a Democrat..... I would be ashamed now with everything they are tying to do.
 
I believe you will see the true meaning of being a lib...Democrat....coming very soon. Frankly if I was a Democrat..... I would be ashamed now with everything they are tying to do.

You are implying they understand the things that they do and thus should be ashamed of their own actions. THEY DON'T (YOU would feel that way because you have a soul)!! Therefore they will continue down this long path towards destruction taking our very country with it kicking and screaming. Regardless of what happens with Trump there is something coming for our country and it ain't good. Scary times brother.
 
I believe you will see the true meaning of being a lib...Democrat....coming very soon. Frankly if I was a Democrat..... I would be ashamed now with everything they are tying to do.
Like I said, I don't like either side as I think they've both gone too far to the extremes. With that said, I get a daily dose of the worst of the libs in The Salt Lake Tribune letters and comments section. Delusional is too nice of a term for some of what I read there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IHeagledriver
Like I said, I don't like either side as I think they've both gone too far to the extremes. With that said, I get a daily dose of the worst of the libs in The Salt Lake Tribune letters and comments section. Delusional is too nice of a term for some of what I read there.

Yep, I agree. Considering they're supposed to be the party or ideology of "tolerance" there seems to be a lot of hatred inside of them. Sometimes I have to shake my head in disbelief when I see and hear what they say, it's utterly astounding. They throw figurative rocks at the people that are opposite of what they believe, but now amidst all of the election stuff they are out rioting and burning shit to the ground!!! WTF!! Because the system did what? Robbed them of what they thought was a certainty? Because the system that has been in place for a long, long time worked, and elected the other guy? Unreal!

I am tired of both sides as well. But the hypocrisy on the left is laughable. I am hoping someone will stand up and defend the constitution. If that is done it will be a good start.
 
Yep, I agree. Considering they're supposed to be the party or ideology of "tolerance" there seems to be a lot of hatred inside of them. Sometimes I have to shake my head in disbelief when I see and hear what they say, it's utterly astounding. They throw figurative rocks at the people that are opposite of what they believe, but now amidst all of the election stuff they are out rioting and burning shit to the ground!!! WTF!! Because the system did what? Robbed them of what they thought was a certainty? Because the system that has been in place for a long, long time worked, and elected the other guy? Unreal!

I am tired of both sides as well. But the hypocrisy on the left is laughable. I am hoping someone will stand up and defend the constitution. If that is done it will be a good start.
Yeah the new mayor of Salt Lake is a lesbian. I have nothing against gay people but one of her pet projects was to shut down the smoking rooms at the airport here. Isn't that being discriminative of a group of people that are using a legal product? Another thing that I read a lot out here is that anyone who has ever flown a flag or worn something with a rebel flag on it are racists and bigots. I don't put that flag on a pedestal or anything but that is as ignorant as someone saying that all blacks are crack dealers and thugs. Painting a group of people with the same brush is not being very tolerant in my book. The unknown of Trump scares me a bit but he was legally elected and again deserves our support. At least lets wait and see what he does or doesn't do before passing judgment on him as I don't see how he could be any worse than the last two that held the job.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IHeagledriver
Yeah the new mayor of Salt Lake is a lesbian. I have nothing against gay people but one of her pet projects was to shut down the smoking rooms at the airport here. Isn't that being discriminative of a group of people that are using a legal product? Another thing that I read a lot out here is that anyone who has ever flown a flag or worn something with a rebel flag on it are racists and bigots. I don't put that flag on a pedestal or anything but that is as ignorant as someone saying that all blacks are crack dealers and thugs. Painting a group of people with the same brush is not being very tolerant in my book. The unknown of Trump scares me a bit but he was legally elected and again deserves our support. At least lets wait and see what he does or doesn't do before passing judgment on him as I don't see how he could be any worse than the last two that held the job.

Yep, if you want to be gay, whatever. But, if I quietly chose to disapprove of the lifestyle, but allow you to do what you want, is there a need to be in my face about my choice? Seems like it's freedom of speech as long as you don't say anything "they" don't like. There is a real assault on people's right to exercise their first amendment right. If it isn't progressive then you're a bigot or racist.

As for the smoking, North Carolina passed a bill years ago that banned smoking in restaurants and bars. I argued with some conservative friends that the government has no business telling restaurant and bar owners if they can allow smoking in the business they own. They argued that smoking was nasty, and the government should step in because they hated going to those places. I said if you don't like it, don't go. But there it is, even some conservative people expect government to step in when they don't like something. You can't have it both ways......

It's always fun!! Lol.
 
Of course the Dems would be in favor of it if it benefits them. That is a people thing. Not a party thing. Trump himself despised it until it benefited him. Now he loves it. I don't blame him for that either. This comes down to what is in it for me. That is just how the real world works though. You see it in politics and that is not every going to change because again, this hypocrisy is a people thing. Not party thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 801canesmxer
That was the title of a letter to the editor today in the Salt Lake Tribune. Most of you know by now that I detest both parties. I also hate hypocrisy and that's why I responded to that letter. I simply pointed out that the Dems were in favor of the process when they thought that Hillary had locked up the 270 electoral votes needed to win. In fact they were counting on that as Trump's popularity was rising. Now all of a sudden they want to change the rules. How convenient. I can't wait to see all the names I will be called when I go back later to see the responses.
and ya know she's behind Jill Stein with those big money donors{GEORGE SOROS} pushing this recount vote cause hell, you really could give Stein votes & she still don't come close to winning. Trump was gonna give her a break if she would have just kept her mouth shut & stayed in the bed but now.... She's used up her get out of jail free card- LOCK HER UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
I agree. Most of the country would never get to see the candidates except for when they are on TV.
Vermont-Rhode Island would become 1 state & would mesh others. Hell if the electoral college wouldn't have been in play this year Trump would have still kicked her azz. He didn't even bother in Cali-Oregon or Washington which she won all 3 handily. They better be careful what they wish for, they already fked up when they put Pelosi's azz back at the front-TY DEMS-LOL
 
Jill Stein should be hung and then shot. What a selfish piece of shit for a nobody loser.
all it is is just another money making scam come up with by the Modern Day Bonnie & Clyde cuz they know now They ain't never getting another speech for close to that BS Bill was getting paid to spew his BS . And Hillary will have to go back to sucking 1 like she did in ARKANSAS
 
all it is is just another money making scam come up with by the Modern Day Bonnie & Clyde cuz they know now They ain't never getting another speech for close to that BS Bill was getting paid to spew his BS . And Hillary will have to go back to sucking 1 like she did in ARKANSAS
There are 4 carpetbaggers Hillary, Bill, Jill and Bernie. They are all old and dead.
 
Hamilton's understanding of the Electoral College[edit]
Federalist No. 68 is the continuation of Hamilton's analysis of the presidency, in this case concerned with the mode of selecting the United States President. He argues for our modern conception of the Electoral College, though in the case of an Electoral tie, the power would be given to the House of Representatives to vote on the election of the president.

In justifying the use of the Electoral College, Hamilton focuses on a few arguments dealing with the use of the Electoral College instead of direct election. First, in explaining the role of the general populace in the election of the president, Hamilton argues that the, "sense of the people", through the election of the electors to the Electoral College, should be a part of the process. The final say, however, lies with the electors, who Hamilton notes are,

"Men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice."

Therefore, the direct election of the president is left up to those who have been selected by the voters to become the electors. This indirect election is justified by Hamilton because while a republic is still served, the system allows for only a certain type of person to be elected president, preventing individuals who are unfit for a variety of reasons to be in the position of chief executive of the country.

This is reflected in his later fears about the types of people who could potentially become president. He worries that corrupted individuals could, particularly those who are either more directly associated with a foreign state, or individuals who do not have the capacity to run the country. The former is covered by Article II, Section 1, v of the United States Constitution, while the latter is covered by Hamilton in Federalist 68, where he notes that the person who will become president will have to be a person who possesses the faculties necessary to be a president, stating that,

"Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States"

Hamilton, while discussing the safeguards, is not concerned with the possibility of an unfit individual becoming president, instead he says,

It will not be too strong to say, that there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue
 
Hamilton's understanding of the Electoral College[edit]
Federalist No. 68 is the continuation of Hamilton's analysis of the presidency, in this case concerned with the mode of selecting the United States President. He argues for our modern conception of the Electoral College, though in the case of an Electoral tie, the power would be given to the House of Representatives to vote on the election of the president.

In justifying the use of the Electoral College, Hamilton focuses on a few arguments dealing with the use of the Electoral College instead of direct election. First, in explaining the role of the general populace in the election of the president, Hamilton argues that the, "sense of the people", through the election of the electors to the Electoral College, should be a part of the process. The final say, however, lies with the electors, who Hamilton notes are,

"Men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice."

Therefore, the direct election of the president is left up to those who have been selected by the voters to become the electors. This indirect election is justified by Hamilton because while a republic is still served, the system allows for only a certain type of person to be elected president, preventing individuals who are unfit for a variety of reasons to be in the position of chief executive of the country.

This is reflected in his later fears about the types of people who could potentially become president. He worries that corrupted individuals could, particularly those who are either more directly associated with a foreign state, or individuals who do not have the capacity to run the country. The former is covered by Article II, Section 1, v of the United States Constitution, while the latter is covered by Hamilton in Federalist 68, where he notes that the person who will become president will have to be a person who possesses the faculties necessary to be a president, stating that,

"Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States"

Hamilton, while discussing the safeguards, is not concerned with the possibility of an unfit individual becoming president, instead he says,

It will not be too strong to say, that there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue
Simple it's the United States not the state of Northern Mexico.
 
Hamilton's understanding of the Electoral College[edit]
Federalist No. 68 is the continuation of Hamilton's analysis of the presidency, in this case concerned with the mode of selecting the United States President. He argues for our modern conception of the Electoral College, though in the case of an Electoral tie, the power would be given to the House of Representatives to vote on the election of the president.

In justifying the use of the Electoral College, Hamilton focuses on a few arguments dealing with the use of the Electoral College instead of direct election. First, in explaining the role of the general populace in the election of the president, Hamilton argues that the, "sense of the people", through the election of the electors to the Electoral College, should be a part of the process. The final say, however, lies with the electors, who Hamilton notes are,

"Men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice."

Therefore, the direct election of the president is left up to those who have been selected by the voters to become the electors. This indirect election is justified by Hamilton because while a republic is still served, the system allows for only a certain type of person to be elected president, preventing individuals who are unfit for a variety of reasons to be in the position of chief executive of the country.

This is reflected in his later fears about the types of people who could potentially become president. He worries that corrupted individuals could, particularly those who are either more directly associated with a foreign state, or individuals who do not have the capacity to run the country. The former is covered by Article II, Section 1, v of the United States Constitution, while the latter is covered by Hamilton in Federalist 68, where he notes that the person who will become president will have to be a person who possesses the faculties necessary to be a president, stating that,

"Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States"

Hamilton, while discussing the safeguards, is not concerned with the possibility of an unfit individual becoming president, instead he says,

It will not be too strong to say, that there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue
FOULKES- U DEEP MY FRIEND & I DIG IT
 
Hamilton's understanding of the Electoral College[edit]
Federalist No. 68 is the continuation of Hamilton's analysis of the presidency, in this case concerned with the mode of selecting the United States President. He argues for our modern conception of the Electoral College, though in the case of an Electoral tie, the power would be given to the House of Representatives to vote on the election of the president.

In justifying the use of the Electoral College, Hamilton focuses on a few arguments dealing with the use of the Electoral College instead of direct election. First, in explaining the role of the general populace in the election of the president, Hamilton argues that the, "sense of the people", through the election of the electors to the Electoral College, should be a part of the process. The final say, however, lies with the electors, who Hamilton notes are,

"Men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice."

Therefore, the direct election of the president is left up to those who have been selected by the voters to become the electors. This indirect election is justified by Hamilton because while a republic is still served, the system allows for only a certain type of person to be elected president, preventing individuals who are unfit for a variety of reasons to be in the position of chief executive of the country.

This is reflected in his later fears about the types of people who could potentially become president. He worries that corrupted individuals could, particularly those who are either more directly associated with a foreign state, or individuals who do not have the capacity to run the country. The former is covered by Article II, Section 1, v of the United States Constitution, while the latter is covered by Hamilton in Federalist 68, where he notes that the person who will become president will have to be a person who possesses the faculties necessary to be a president, stating that,

"Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States"

Hamilton, while discussing the safeguards, is not concerned with the possibility of an unfit individual becoming president, instead he says,

It will not be too strong to say, that there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue
 
  • Like
Reactions: foulkes
Hamilton's understanding of the Electoral College[edit]
Federalist No. 68 is the continuation of Hamilton's analysis of the presidency, in this case concerned with the mode of selecting the United States President. He argues for our modern conception of the Electoral College, though in the case of an Electoral tie, the power would be given to the House of Representatives to vote on the election of the president.

In justifying the use of the Electoral College, Hamilton focuses on a few arguments dealing with the use of the Electoral College instead of direct election. First, in explaining the role of the general populace in the election of the president, Hamilton argues that the, "sense of the people", through the election of the electors to the Electoral College, should be a part of the process. The final say, however, lies with the electors, who Hamilton notes are,

"Men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice."

Therefore, the direct election of the president is left up to those who have been selected by the voters to become the electors. This indirect election is justified by Hamilton because while a republic is still served, the system allows for only a certain type of person to be elected president, preventing individuals who are unfit for a variety of reasons to be in the position of chief executive of the country.

This is reflected in his later fears about the types of people who could potentially become president. He worries that corrupted individuals could, particularly those who are either more directly associated with a foreign state, or individuals who do not have the capacity to run the country. The former is covered by Article II, Section 1, v of the United States Constitution, while the latter is covered by Hamilton in Federalist 68, where he notes that the person who will become president will have to be a person who possesses the faculties necessary to be a president, stating that,

"Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States"

Hamilton, while discussing the safeguards, is not concerned with the possibility of an unfit individual becoming president, instead he says,

It will not be too strong to say, that there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue

Excellent post.

Article I Section 2 created the First Version of the Electoral College, and the 12th Amendment created the Second Version. The framers of the constitution expressly rejected a popular vote during the 1787 Convention in Philadelphia, and instead advocated for a system which would allow the smaller colonies to be represented in electing the President.

too many of these far left liberals spend too much time hollering in the streets like little ignorant bitches instead of picking up either a law degree, political treatise, or the Constitution
 
  • Like
Reactions: CFSteve and foulkes
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT