Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

Sapphire Flames · 01-28-2012 08:38 AM

He has to get the electoral college vote, which I'm iffy on if he's going to get it.

It wouldn't surprise me either way if all of you knew how the election works or some don't, I expect at least some members like Ayliana to know.

The president isn't elected by the people, he's elected by an elected group of people. Basically, we vote for who votes for us. The Electoral College are the ones who vote.

It has happened before that the popular vote (people's vote) didn't get the president elected, Like Gore vs. Bush.

So all I'm saying is not to get your hopes up for Ron Paul too much, you all know the government can be pretty corrupt at times, so while I still want Ron Paul 2012, I doubt it will happen.

Stadium · 01-28-2012 08:41 AM

There are people on this site that don't know how the voting system works?

Prince Rilian · 01-28-2012 08:41 AM

Ron Paul is anti-freedom. Fuck him.

The · 01-28-2012 09:26 AM

I'm confused about Ron Paul. Hes all libertarian but hes voted for all this authoritarian shit in the past. Is he cool or not?

Prince Rilian · 01-28-2012 09:30 AM

He wants each state to be able to make any fucking laws it wants to. I mean, the bill of rights, whatever. But if the state of texas decides that people of the same legal gender can't fuck each other, Ron Paul is totally fine with that. Then they'll start making lists of suspected fags, like they did with da commies, and they'll burst into your house to check if you are blowing each other, and then take you to jail forever. and Ron Paul is fine with that. And then they'll make abortion illegal and Ron Paul would love that because he is 100% opposed to abortion. See, Ron Paul believes that the state gubments should "regulate social issues" and somehow he thinks that what kind of sex people have in the privacy of their own homes, somehow that's a "social" issue.

UnschoolShqiponjë · 01-28-2012 09:49 AM

(01-28-2012 08:41 AM)StadiumArcadium Wrote: There are people on this site that don't know how the voting system works?

Well I knew how it worked. In the end it really doesn't matter what the people want.

Sapphire Flames · 01-28-2012 09:52 AM

(01-28-2012 08:41 AM)StadiumArcadium Wrote: There are people on this site that don't know how the voting system works?

I don't know. I said it wouldn't surprise me either way.

Stadium · 01-28-2012 09:56 AM

People on here seem to be above average intelligence...not some people...but for the most part. I would think most people realize that their vote means nothing at all if the people that actually vote don't want it to.

Oh and the president isn't really the one who makes the decisions.

Prince Rilian · 01-28-2012 09:58 AM

(01-28-2012 09:56 AM)StadiumArcadium Wrote: People on here seem to be above average intelligence...not some people...but for the most part. I would think most people realize that their vote means nothing at all if the people that actually vote don't want it to.

What do you mean by "actually vote"? Is that different from normal voting?

magikarp · 01-28-2012 10:03 AM

But the reason that popular vote and who gets elected is different isn't necessarily (and historically, has never been to date) because the electors vote for somebody other than who they were 'supposed' to. It's because each state gets a certain number of electors, and typically all of those electors vote for whoever has the popular vote in that state--so a candidate could have barely more than 50% of the popular vote in that state, but all of the state's electoral college votes.

Prince Rilian · 01-28-2012 10:07 AM

My dad said there was one time when one electoral whatever voted differently than they were aposta, but it didn't change the outcome and they knew it wouldn't, just did it for giggles or something.

Thought Criminal · 01-28-2012 10:59 AM

I'm voting for Paul in the primary. He won't get the nomination though, Rommney will. I hope Paul runs as a third party. I will vote for him if he does that. Even if he doesn't win he will split the vote enough to give Obama a big boost.

Sunbourn · 01-28-2012 12:33 PM

Electoral votes are determined by who has the most votes in a given state. Most of them are winner take all, so a candidate could theoretically have only a single vote above the other in California and gain fifty five electoral votes. This applies to every state except for Nebraska and Maine. So it's very easy to see how a candidate can gain more popular votes than the other but still lose the electoral vote - which happened in the 2000 election. In the end it came down to recounting the popular vote of Florida, who had 25 electoral votes, which swung George Bush's way. Despite Al Gore narrowly winning the popular vote, George Bush won the election.

I'd agree with the statement that the electoral college system is pretty archaic. Even though the electoral college has decided an election by voting for somebody other than who the state had elected, they theoretically could in the future. This is a major threat to the concept of democracy.

Absnt · 01-28-2012 01:08 PM

^ And to expand on that, and this is good stuff, we must take note of the reasons for it's inception. The reason it's set up like that is to avoid mob rule, and factious groups throwing off elections and voting someone completely incapable/crazy/whatever into office. That is just as dangerous to democracy as the electoral college fags not voting for the popular person.

Plus, decision rules are fucking crazy. Who even knows who the "popular" person is. Every decision rule garners a different result lol. Personally, I think the one we are using now sucks dick.

UnschoolShqiponjë · 01-28-2012 02:36 PM

(01-28-2012 01:08 PM)Absentinsomniac Wrote: ^ And to expand on that, and this is good stuff, we must take note of the reasons for it's inception. The reason it's set up like that is to avoid mob rule, and factious groups throwing off elections and voting someone completely incapable/crazy/whatever into office. That is just as dangerous to democracy as the electoral college fags not voting for the popular person.

Plus, decision rules are fucking crazy. Who even knows who the "popular" person is. Every decision rule garners a different result lol. Personally, I think the one we are using now sucks dick.

Meh I prefer the mob rule or incapable person!

But then I'd truly prefer a minarchy/anarchy.

Sunbourn · 01-28-2012 03:09 PM

(01-28-2012 02:36 PM)UnschoolShqiponjë Wrote:
(01-28-2012 01:08 PM)Absentinsomniac Wrote: ^ And to expand on that, and this is good stuff, we must take note of the reasons for it's inception. The reason it's set up like that is to avoid mob rule, and factious groups throwing off elections and voting someone completely incapable/crazy/whatever into office. That is just as dangerous to democracy as the electoral college fags not voting for the popular person.

Plus, decision rules are fucking crazy. Who even knows who the "popular" person is. Every decision rule garners a different result lol. Personally, I think the one we are using now sucks dick.

Meh I prefer the mob rule or incapable person!

But then I'd truly prefer a minarchy/anarchy.

I can't foresee anarchy working for a country as large as the United State for a long period of time. People will always try to gain power, and there will always be followers. We must settle for minarchy.

Prince Rilian · 01-28-2012 03:46 PM

(01-28-2012 01:08 PM)Absentinsomniac Wrote: factious groups throwing off elections and voting someone completely incapable/crazy/whatever into office. That

.... but isn't that exactly what the electoral college could do?

Absnt · 01-30-2012 02:31 PM

^ Pretty much. At the time of the laws writing, everyone was fucking stupid and most of the people in the government were highly educated white men who thought they knew best. And I guess they did on SOME issues. The masses could very easily get tricked by some new hyped up shit and would all go out and vote for someone retarded just because they are against/for it. Like, to give a modern day example, everyone could get worked up in a frenzy about some mythical threat like Y2K and fuck shit up in the computing world by spending billions putting retarded and unrealistic laws into action. Or something.

Sapphire Flames · 02-04-2012 10:56 AM

Eh, again it wouldn't surprise me if Ron Paul didn't get elected because of backroom political stuff, as my teacher puts it.

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread:		Author	Replies:	Views:	Last Post
	Republican lie marathon tonight	Sunbourn	34	20,027	10-10-2015 04:39 AM Last Post: ComradeDaryl
	What do you think is going to happen to the republican party?	IamNoone	13	6,015	03-05-2013 11:17 AM Last Post: Ky
	LET'S TAKE RON PAUL TO THE WHITE HOUSE	Moneyfuskie935	107	49,965	05-12-2012 09:43 AM Last Post: Sociopath
	Ron Paul confirmed for wizard: all his 2002 predictions come true	aaaaaaasd	38	18,606	04-02-2012 10:59 AM Last Post: Sociopath
	Ron Paul Openly Calls GOP Election Fraud	UnschoolShqiponjë	4	2,799	03-13-2012 07:36 AM Last Post: thewake
	Intelligent YouTube quote about Ron Paul.	Sapphire Flames	33	19,248	02-04-2012 11:21 AM Last Post: The
	Ron Paul Should Be The Next President Of The United States	Luizao876	21	10,303	01-30-2012 02:19 PM Last Post: Absnt
	Rand Paul detained by TSA	Sunbourn	11	4,932	01-25-2012 09:02 AM Last Post: Sapphire Flames
	I watched the Republican debate today.	UnschoolShqiponjë	2	1,890	01-24-2012 04:58 PM Last Post: gore goroth
	2012 Republican candidates	The Desert Fox	24	13,062	12-07-2011 09:27 AM Last Post: Stadium

Threaded Mode \| Linear Mode Even if Ron Paul gets Republican Nomination
Author	Message