This is what T.G. was preparing for

[JoDo]

So I've been wondering what this great opportunity that came Golisano's way that pushed him into selling the team. I guess this is it I'm not sure what I think of it, but I'm glad it came to him.

[dumb_dumb88]

So I've been wondering what this great opportunity that came Golisano's way that pushed him into selling the team. I guess this is it I'm not sure what I think of it, but I'm glad it came to him.

In my opinion, it should be done by popular vote. I can understand the need for the college back in the early days to help smaller states impact national elections, but with State's powers diminished in the modern age, I don't think it's necessary anymore.

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

but with State's powers diminished in the modern age, I don't think it's necessary anymore.

 

Which is why this will never happen. The whole foundation of the UNITED STATES is to give balance and power to the states. We're at a tipping point already. Something like this would only make the wick to the powderkeg that much shorter.

 

I don't know what Golisano's motive is since he seems to funnel money through political loser ideas. Maybe he likes the writeoffs.

[dumb_dumb88]

Which is why this will never happen. The whole foundation of the UNITED STATES is to give balance and power to the states. We're at a tipping point already. Something like this would only make the wick to the powderkeg that much shorter.

 

I don't know what Golisano's motive is since he seems to funnel money through political loser ideas. Maybe he likes the writeoffs.

It's a good portion of it, but not the entire foundation.

Since Nationalization has really taken hold at the turn of the last century and built upon itself as the 20th century went along, I am less inclined to agree with the Electoral College. Just my thoughts though.

[korab rules]

Which is why this will never happen. The whole foundation of the UNITED STATES is to give balance and power to the states. We're at a tipping point already. Something like this would only make the wick to the powderkeg that much shorter.

 

 

+1. It will never happen, and shouldn't happen - one of the foundations of our government was checks and balances. That why we have a bicameral legislature with the house based on population and an equal number of senators for every state. The electoral college system isn't going anywhere.

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

It's a good portion of it, but not the entire foundation.

Since Nationalization has really taken hold at the turn of the last century and built upon itself as the 20th century went along, I am less inclined to agree with the Electoral College. Just my thoughts though.

 

Most democrats would love this plan. Keep the borders open, grant immunity, hand out entitlements, make voting mandatory and allow it on the internet, abolish the electoral college.....BOOM! Utopia.

 

It would be easier, sure.....but you might as well just not have a president and justlet the UN run the country. Whoops....too late!

 

In researching the Golisano thing last month, he's got his former running mate for Lt. Governor as the head of the corporation. She also is a real estate broker in Florida. I was trying to find out where he bought his ranch. Sort of looks like TommyBoy may be drilling a few wells of his own looking at her pictures.

[dumb_dumb88]

Most democrats would love this plan. Keep the borders open, grant immunity, hand out entitlements, make voting mandatory and allow it on the internet, abolish the electoral college.....BOOM! Utopia.

 

It would be easier, sure.....but you might as well just not have a president and justlet the UN run the country. Whoops....too late!

 

In researching the Golisano thing last month, he's got his former running mate for Lt. Governor as the head of the corporation. She also is a real estate broker in Florida. I was trying to find out where he bought his ranch. Sort of looks like TommyBoy may be drilling a few wells of his own looking at her pictures.

Well, it could be viewed this way as well. We are, after all, a union of states. But I wouldn't go so far as to say the UN bit, that's reaching in my opinion.

Regionalization is bound to happen at some point and time in history. It's been repeated over and over again as history itself has shown us. Is it successful? More often than not it leads to more problems than it was intended to solve, this is true.

 

I won't inject politics into the conversation, given that I was a Republican and am now an Independent (have been for 10 years), I would error on the side of conservatism but at the same time wouldn't immediately close the door on any and all viable options to some of the issues we face.

 

I don't view the popular vote as a society pariah as others do. I view it as virtual democracy, most likely something that cannot take place here currently in the US as we are a Republic. I don't always agree also that the majority is always correct, I do however already see an alarming trend of larger populas states gaining more attention and therefore, resources at the federal level due to thier "Electoral" vote count. Ohio, Florida, New York, California and Texas to name the main ones.

That to me shows that indeed, the process is flawed from the outset as individuals exploit the larger possibilities in those arena's by throwing various promises at them.

 

Utopia has nothing to do with this in my opinion, you want Utopia then clearly the message would be that those that enter public service do so with the true belief that they will sacrifice for the betterment of all. This clearly does not happen in a majority of cases.

 

Is disbanding the Electoral College really a step in the right direction? I don't see how it changes the current political landscape given it wouldn't change the populas numbers. Is it something different to try? Maybe, but then, as I've already attested to, the Electoral College's very existance wouldn't make a difference one way or the other given the populas numbers.

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

I meant Utopia for the Democrat elected officials in the sense that a popular vote would get them to promise more bologna for all, assuring election, and making the system even more corrupt and on autopilot.

 

Maybe Golisano should have taken a popular vote of the people in Buffalo on who should have been running the team?

[Taro T]

Well, it could be viewed this way as well. We are, after all, a union of states. But I wouldn't go so far as to say the UN bit, that's reaching in my opinion.

Regionalization is bound to happen at some point and time in history. It's been repeated over and over again as history itself has shown us. Is it successful? More often than not it leads to more problems than it was intended to solve, this is true.

 

I won't inject politics into the conversation, given that I was a Republican and am now an Independent (have been for 10 years), I would error on the side of conservatism but at the same time wouldn't immediately close the door on any and all viable options to some of the issues we face.

 

I don't view the popular vote as a society pariah as others do. I view it as virtual democracy, most likely something that cannot take place here currently in the US as we are a Republic. I don't always agree also that the majority is always correct, I do however already see an alarming trend of larger populas states gaining more attention and therefore, resources at the federal level due to thier "Electoral" vote count. Ohio, Florida, New York, California and Texas to name the main ones.

That to me shows that indeed, the process is flawed from the outset as individuals exploit the larger possibilities in those arena's by throwing various promises at them.

 

Utopia has nothing to do with this in my opinion, you want Utopia then clearly the message would be that those that enter public service do so with the true belief that they will sacrifice for the betterment of all. This clearly does not happen in a majority of cases.

 

Is disbanding the Electoral College really a step in the right direction? I don't see how it changes the current political landscape given it wouldn't change the populas numbers. Is it something different to try? Maybe, but then, as I've already attested to, the Electoral College's very existance wouldn't make a difference one way or the other given the populas numbers.

If you think the smaller population states are ignored currently, what do you think would happen to their 'voice' if they weren't guaranteed 3 votes? They'd be even more quickly "flown over."

 

There is no way we ever get rid of the EC as the small states have far too much to lose.

 

And, I just see a massive increase in voter fraud if the system is changed to popular vote.

[dumb_dumb88]

If you think the smaller population states are ignored currently, what do you think would happen to their 'voice' if they weren't guaranteed 3 votes? They'd be even more quickly "flown over."

 

There is no way we ever get rid of the EC as the small states have far too much to lose.

 

And, I just see a massive increase in voter fraud if the system is changed to popular vote.

I didn't say I thought they were ignored,I did state that I felt a larger portion of resources go into the states with more Electoral votes, not proportioned by populas alone either, but also by the amount that can be "bought" through those type of policies.

 

I did also state that I don't see it changing, but not for the reason of loosing 3 Electoral votes from, let's say Rhode Island for example. I see it not changing because it would not change where the resources flow, the populas numbers wouldn't change.

I also stated that I don't think it would change because we are not a virtual Democracy, but a Republic.

 

I find the Electoral College relegated to a secondary position compared to the draw for population numbers.

There would be no need to change it if say, for example once again, the State of Rhode Island could fit 25 million people within it's borders. That would put Rhode Island on par with other large E.C. vote holders. That will most likely never happen.

 

I just don't see a need to change it, but, as I stated, we should be open to atleast listening to any and all possibilities to enhance the system for the people.

[X. Benedict]

If you think the smaller population states are ignored currently, what do you think would happen to their 'voice' if they weren't guaranteed 3 votes? They'd be even more quickly "flown over."

 

There is no way we ever get rid of the EC as the small states have far too much to lose.

 

And, I just see a massive increase in voter fraud if the system is changed to popular vote.

Right.

 

Do we really want to see entire campaigns moved to the 30 miles on either side of I-95?

[gregkash]

lol, guys, a president winning the electoral college but losing the popular vote has only happened 3 times.

 

Rutherford B. Hayes (1876), Benjamin Harrison (1888), and George W. Bush (2000).

 

Two of those are in the 1800s before we even had 50 states and I believe that GW run in 2000 is the closest popular vote in history. So let's not get carried away in thinking this is a huge deal.

[korab rules]

lol, guys, a president winning the electoral college but losing the popular vote has only happened 3 times.

 

Rutherford B. Hayes (1876), Benjamin Harrison (1888), and George W. Bush (2000).

 

Two of those are in the 1800s before we even had 50 states and I believe that GW run in 2000 is the closest popular vote in history. So let's not get carried away in thinking this is a huge deal.

Reason has no place in a political discussion :nana:

[X. Benedict]

lol, guys, a president winning the electoral college but losing the popular vote has only happened 3 times.

 

Rutherford B. Hayes (1876), Benjamin Harrison (1888), and George W. Bush (2000).

 

Two of those are in the 1800s before we even had 50 states and I believe that GW run in 2000 is the closest popular vote in history. So let's not get carried away in thinking this is a huge deal.

Nothing comes to mind with Ben Harrison, but if you are Nez Perse, or Iraqi, 1876 and 2000 turned into pretty big deals.

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

lol, guys, a president winning the electoral college but losing the popular vote has only happened 3 times.

 

Rutherford B. Hayes (1876), Benjamin Harrison (1888), and George W. Bush (2000).

 

Two of those are in the 1800s before we even had 50 states and I believe that GW run in 2000 is the closest popular vote in history. So let's not get carried away in thinking this is a huge deal.

 

It is a huge deal when borders aren't enforced, immunity is being talked about, and benefits are given. If they lose the electoral college, mandatory voting like in Auzzieland can't be far behind. Internet? Why not? We have supposed revolutions being started on Facebook. Why not have a picture of Obama and Christie on your newsfeed and you just click the "like" button on one of them?

 

That's why the issue is important.

[Weave]

I'm on the fence re: eliminating the Electoral College. I don't want to see a further erosion of states rights. And small states are already getting ignored.

 

But on the other hand.... the Electoral College system goes a long way towards furthering the current 2 party mess we have. It is damned near impossible for a 3rd party to get an electoral vote as it is. And solid red or solid blue states get ignored too. Why bother campaigning if you already know the outcome of that state. One man, one vote changes that immediately.

 

The question becomes, is the downside of the Electoral College great enough to justify changing the very system our government was founded on, a Representative Democracy? There are sound, logical reasons why our founding fathers didn't want to have the publics' vote directly counted. We need to carefully consider whether or not the conditions of today really warrant changing to a direct vote.

 

How's that for waffling? :blush:

[gregkash]

It is a huge deal when borders aren't enforced, immunity is being talked about, and benefits are given. If they lose the electoral college, mandatory voting like in Auzzieland can't be far behind. Internet? Why not? We have supposed revolutions being started on Facebook. Why not have a picture of Obama and Christie on your newsfeed and you just click the "like" button on one of them?

 

That's why the issue is important.

 

With respect to your political views, you must know I think you're freaking insane.

[Taro T]

I didn't say I thought they were ignored,I did state that I felt a larger portion of resources go into the states with more Electoral votes, not proportioned by populas alone either, but also by the amount that can be "bought" through those type of policies.

 

I did also state that I don't see it changing, but not for the reason of loosing 3 Electoral votes from, let's say Rhode Island for example. I see it not changing because it would not change where the resources flow, the populas numbers wouldn't change.

I also stated that I don't think it would change because we are not a virtual Democracy, but a Republic.

 

I find the Electoral College relegated to a secondary position compared to the draw for population numbers.

There would be no need to change it if say, for example once again, the State of Rhode Island could fit 25 million people within it's borders. That would put Rhode Island on par with other large E.C. vote holders. That will most likely never happen.

 

I just don't see a need to change it, but, as I stated, we should be open to atleast listening to any and all possibilities to enhance the system for the people.

You said the big states get more than their fair share, which is the same as stating that the little ones get less than their fair share. I said 'ignored,' which is the same as stating that the little ones get less than their fair share. Po-tay-toe, Po-tah-toe. (And for the record, those states don't necessarily get ignored in Congress; they just oftentimes are ignored in Presidential elections.)

 

And Rhode Island actually gets 4 EC votes and given it's the size of a postage stamp, they don't have too much to complain about. I was referring moreso to the Rocky Mountain states, Plains states, and Alaska as being the ones that would get totally ignored in campaigns if the President were elected by popular vote.

 

IF Rhode Island did have 25MM residents, then it would get more Congresscritters than NY does. (And it would have the corresponding increase in the EC.)

 

And I do not know what you mean by the bolded statement above.

[MattPie]

I meant Utopia for the Democrat elected officials in the sense that a popular vote would get them to promise more bologna for all, assuring election, and making the system even more corrupt and on autopilot.

 

Fixed that for you.

 

Let's face it, all politictians are doing the same thing: giving away money. Democrats via social programs, Republicans via tax cuts. The determining factor for most is which side is going to benefit you more.

[korab rules]

It is a huge deal when borders aren't enforced, immunity is being talked about, and benefits are given. If they lose the electoral college, mandatory voting like in Auzzieland can't be far behind. Internet? Why not? We have supposed revolutions being started on Facebook. Why not have a picture of Obama and Christie on your newsfeed and you just click the "like" button on one of them?

 

That's why the issue is important.

 

I don't pretend to speak for Greg Kash,but I didn't take his post to mean the potential elimination isn't important. I took his post to mean that since it has only happened once in modern history there wouldn't be much in the way of the popular support necessary to create and pass a constitutional amendment doing away with the Electoral College. Golisano is tilting at windmills, which is what he does best, and now that he longer owns my Sabres I couldn't give a ######.

I'm on the fence re: eliminating the Electoral College. I don't want to see a further erosion of states rights. And small states are already getting ignored.

 

But on the other hand.... the Electoral College system goes a long way towards furthering the current 2 party mess we have. It is damned near impossible for a 3rd party to get an electoral vote as it is. And solid red or solid blue states get ignored too. Why bother campaigning if you already know the outcome of that state. One man, one vote changes that immediately.

 

The question becomes, is the downside of the Electoral College great enough to justify changing the very system our government was founded on, a Representative Democracy? There are sound, logical reasons why our founding fathers didn't want to have the publics' vote directly counted. We need to carefully consider whether or not the conditions of today really warrant changing to a direct vote.

 

How's that for waffling? :blush:

 

That is an outstanding job of waffling! :thumbsup:

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

I don't pretend to speak for Greg Kash,but I didn't take his post to mean the potential elimination isn't important. I took his post to mean that since it has only happened once in modern history there wouldn't be much in the way of the popular support necessary to create and pass a constitutional amendment doing away with the Electoral College. Golisano is tilting at windmills, which is what he does best, and now that he longer owns my Sabres I couldn't give a ######.

 

I understand his point. My point is the current administration would LOVE to fast-track immunity. What a thank you present it would be for 20 million new voters to come in and count in a popular vote.

[dumb_dumb88]

You said the big states get more than their fair share, which is the same as stating that the little ones get less than their fair share. I said 'ignored,' which is the same as stating that the little ones get less than their fair share. Po-tay-toe, Po-tah-toe. (And for the record, those states don't necessarily get ignored in Congress; they just oftentimes are ignored in Presidential elections.)

And Rhode Island actually gets 4 EC votes and given it's the size of a postage stamp, they don't have too much to complain about. I was referring moreso to the Rocky Mountain states, Plains states, and Alaska as being the ones that would get totally ignored in campaigns if the President were elected by popular vote.

 

IF Rhode Island did have 25MM residents, then it would get more Congresscritters than NY does. (And it would have the corresponding increase in the EC.)

 

And I do not know what you mean by the bolded statement above.

I beg to differ on the bolded point, the proof you seek is in the annual budget handouts to the larger states. It's balanced by population outside of earmarks, which is an entirely different beast.

 

As for R.I. as an example, I wasn't being factually specific on their E.C. votes, merely I.E. with the broader point to be made that it makes no difference what so ever for that particular state because they do not receive the larger payouts via support of an administration running for election/re-election. The larger states do, as they have much more of an impact on the election itself.

 

But as I stated, it wouldn't matter in either case, someone just pointed out that the popular vote went against the grain of the E.C. only 3 times in history, that's more than enough proof within itself to show the relevance of the E.C. is negligable at best and insignicant altogether at worst.

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

With respect to your political views, you must know I think you're freaking insane.

 

And I was just about to comment how cordial this discussion was.

 

What is insane about the points I just laid out?

[dumb_dumb88]

I understand his point. My point is the current administration would LOVE to fast-track immunity. What a thank you present it would be for 20 million new voters to come in and count in a popular vote.

This is at the heart of some of the issues with immunity. I have no idea if Golisano is starting this type of campiagn in an effort to infuence that particular situation, but it would only have an impact on it if immunity were given.

 

Which is a real conondrum for some on the far right. I've heard some people in Texas and midwest, not many, but some, who would like to see some type of immunity on a small scale, for those that serve in the military to give one example.

But overall, and I'm not sure on numbers here, a majority of the nation is against it currently. Maybe someone can point to some recently taken polls on this subject or some articles on how a general vote accounting without the E.C. would be affected by the immunity issue.

[gregkash]

And I was just about to comment how cordial this discussion was.

 

What is insane about the points I just laid out?

 

The fact that even if they switched to Popular vote you'd still have to be a citizen and registered voter to vote. It doesn't change anything on illegal immigration. I also love how you assume that it's only democrats who want the popular vote. You don't think republicans would love to have each person in texas count against each person in california??