"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Bert Robbins wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Jon Smithe wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
thunder wrote:

I'll be working with a group of nice fellas who will be visiting the
approaches to certain polling places to ensure that Republican thugs
are
not intimidating minority voters. If we come across any GOP voter
intimidators, we'll help them make other plans for the day.

Is anyone else curious how these nice people will make sure they have
other
plans for the day? Maybe I am reading more into this than I should,
but
it
sounds like a not so subtle threat of violence.



Nothing subtle about it. If we find you interfering with folks on the
way to the polls, we'll ask you to move on. You'll have a choice at that
point. We're not talking about what happens inside the polling
place...but on the approaches... In other words, if you stop minority
voters heading to the polls and try to discourage them, we'll discourage
you.

The only people outside of my polling place has been the liberal type
that
ask me if I need a voter guide. Sometimes, I respond that I would like
one
of their guides so I know not to vote for their favored candidates.



We're not talking about the folks you find right outside the polls
asking if you'd like help. We're talking about the folks who block off
roads leading to the polls, or hand out flyers a few blocks away saying
the polling place has moved, or harass minority voters in some way.

The only time I've heard of this happening is by Democrats turning away
Republicans at the voting precinct door.

In article ,
Harry Krause wrote:


Karl Denninger wrote:
Convince both legislative bodies and an appropriate number of states to
ratify your view of this matter, and you can have it.

I think we are moving in that direction. There's no reason not to do so.

I don't.

There are plenty of reasons not to do so. The reasons can be found in
places like The Federalist, to start.

There was a real concern that allowing direct presidential elections would
be disasterous. There was also a real concern that allowing direct
SENATORIAL elections would likewise be disasterous.

We now have nearly 100 years of a record on the latter, in the form of the
outrageous expansion of federalism since the 17th Amendment was passed.

This has been an unmitigated disaster for State and Individual rights.

The movement needed is towards repealing the 17th Amendment, not passing a
new one to get rid of the EC.

This was attempted immediately after the 2000 elections, and went absolutely
nowhere.

For good reason too - it would make less-populous states completely
irrelavent in the election of the President. The framers designed the
Electoral College PRECISELY to overrepresent small population states
PRECISELY so they were not made irrelavent.

Hawaii, as an example from the current election cycle.

Until you can muster the PROPER way to change this you will live by what is
already in the Constitution, or you may take up residence somewhere more
to your liking.

I suggest North Korea.

Typical right-wing wingnut. Really. It's prefectly reasonable to argue
for the end of the EC, and to work for the change.

Exactly why do you think this is reasonable, given the record in the nation
since the 17th Amendment, and the clear violations of the Constitution that
have been passed and embraced by the federal government since.

List bascially ALL federal social programs, and you find that they're
unsupportable in the Constitution. Essentially NONE of them would have
passed without the 17th Amendment, as that was proof against states having
programs rammed down their throats.

--
--
Karl Denninger ) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist
http://www.denninger.net My home on the net - links to everything I do!
http://scubaforum.org Your UNCENSORED place to talk about DIVING!
http://www.spamcuda.net SPAM FREE mailboxes - FREE FOR A LIMITED TIME!
http://genesis3.blogspot.com Musings Of A Sentient Mind

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

Sell your tired out conservatism somewhere else, eh? Times change, and
the people want to elect their president directly...and they should be
able to do so.

Do you understand how easy it is to change if the people want it to be
changed?

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...


Typical right-wing wingnut. Really. It's prefectly reasonable to argue
for the end of the EC, and to work for the change.

OK, now the time to stop talking and actually do something to change it.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
news:2ulakgF297hv3U3@uni- Nothing subtle about it. If we find you
interfering with folks on the
way to the polls, we'll ask you to move on. You'll have a choice at that
point. We're not talking about what happens inside the polling
place...but on the approaches... In other words, if you stop minority
voters heading to the polls and try to discourage them, we'll discourage
you.

I must live in the wrong neighborhood, I have never seen anyone stopping
anyone from voting. If they did, I or any intelligent person would just
call the cops, no matter who they were trying to stop. Are the majority of
people in these precincts so dumb they don't realize no one can stop anyone
from going to the precincts? In these neighborhoods do the people have such
withered up balls, that they need a bunch of old farts like you to protect
them, or is this just another one of your "Lobster Boat" stories.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
We're not talking about the folks you find right outside the polls
asking if you'd like help. We're talking about the folks who block off
roads leading to the polls, or hand out flyers a few blocks away saying
the polling place has moved, or harass minority voters in some way.

Can you point me to one story or link where this has been reported to a
problem? Or is this a problem being hidden by a rightwing conspiracy?

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 02:56:27 GMT, "Jon Smithe" wrote:


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
We're not talking about the folks you find right outside the polls
asking if you'd like help. We're talking about the folks who block off
roads leading to the polls, or hand out flyers a few blocks away saying
the polling place has moved, or harass minority voters in some way.

Can you point me to one story or link where this has been reported to a
problem? Or is this a problem being hidden by a rightwing conspiracy?


It's called a pre-emptive strike. Straight from the democratic playbook.
Make it sound like there is a problem even if there isn't.

"Sam" wrote in message
om...
I heard on public radio that the surest prediction of political races
is where the bettors are putting their money, they then proceeded to
say that that, too, is split so they didn't know.

That's not true. A $1 bet on Bush wins you $1.65. A $1 bet on Kerry wins
you $2. A $1 bet on Nader wins you $1001. The betting odds favor Bush.

Sell your tired out conservatism somewhere else, eh? Times change, and
the people want to elect their president directly...and they should be
able to do so.

Do you understand how easy it is to change if the people want it to be
changed?


The problem with doing away with the electoral college is that we would then
have something we don't have right now: a federal election.

We will have 50 separate state elections on Tuesday. Each state will "advise"
its electors whether to vote for Kerry or Bush- but the electors aren't
actually bound to vote in concert with the popular vote in their state. (In
reality, they do reflect their state's popular vote 99.9% of the time).

If we have a federal election, we will have to have national voting
registration standards and procedures to comply with the "equal protection"
principles.

I don't think the majority of Americans are ready to give up local control of
registration and polling to the federal government. When a contry is polarized,
as we are now, and when an administration is as brazenly partisan as the one we
have now....(whether democrat or republican)...dissenting voters would feel
more confident that their votes are actually being counted if they are counted
at the local level.

The federal government does not recognize the popular vote because there is no
federal election. The electoral college provides a means by which the federal
government can combine the results of 50 separate state-wide elections and
calculate a result. It was never intended to reflect the combined, national,
popular vote.

Let's hope that if Bush rides in with a minority of the vote yet again that he
won't interpret that as a "madate" to take the country even farther to the
right than he already has. Same with Kerry. If he gets in with a slim or no
pop-vote majority, he needs to remember on Inauguration Day that about half the
country hates his guts, and he has some work to do.

Let's hope the next president concentrates on uniting the country instead of
solidifying his "base".

In article ,
Harry Krause wrote:


Karl Denninger wrote:
In article ,
Harry Krause wrote:


Karl Denninger wrote:
Convince both legislative bodies and an appropriate number of states to
ratify your view of this matter, and you can have it.

I think we are moving in that direction. There's no reason not to do so.

I don't.

There are plenty of reasons not to do so. The reasons can be found in
places like The Federalist, to start.

There was a real concern that allowing direct presidential elections would
be disasterous. There was also a real concern that allowing direct
SENATORIAL elections would likewise be disasterous.

Yeah, well, there have been lots of concerns the last several hundred
years. Some panned out, some did not.

We now have nearly 100 years of a record on the latter, in the form of the
outrageous expansion of federalism since the 17th Amendment was passed.

Most Americans are satisfied to vote directly for their Senators.

Those who have discovered they can vote themselves a paycheck are often
satisfied with being able to do so.

This does not mean that their satisfaction is well-founded, for if one
destablizes the underlying strength of the republic, there will be nothing
to be satisfied with.

I'll
bet you also oppose women's suffrage, right?

The two issues are completely unrelated, and this gratuitous slam is so much
like you Harry. Why is it you're unable to debate a topic put forward on
the table for consideration, and must instead resort to personal attacks?

The issue is one of the federal government being able to unlawfully (under
the Constitution) to "cram" programs and funding mandates down the state's
throats without their consent.

This was IMPOSSIBLE before the 17th Amendment. Evidence of its effectiveness
is found in the almost complete lack of such laws passed during the first 125
years of our nation's history.

Evidence of the horrific change since then is found in all the programs
crammed down the states' throats SINCE the passage of the 17th Amendment.

The list of such "cramming" involvement since is simply too huge to even
begin to list.

This has been an unmitigated disaster for State and Individual rights.

Sorry, I'm not a fan of state's rights.

Nor individual rights either, I see.

The entire purpose of having two legislative houses is found in the writings
of the founding fathers. They were designed to represented entirely
DIFFERENT constituencies, such that before any federal law could be passed,
or any amendment to the constitution could be passed, that it must first
make it through TWO constituenties, not one.

The House of Representatives was designed for direct election by the several
states for the specific purpose of insuring that THE PEOPLE - individuals -
had a clear and proportional voice in the federal government by the
population of the several states.

The Senate was designed specifically to provide a voice to the STATES - via
their elected legislatures - likewise had an equal voice in the passage of
laws which would bear on the states, or the people.

I am quite sure you remember the founding principle "no taxation without
representation", upon which this nation rested her founding. Indeed, were
it not for the belief that such a principle was inherently necessary
to a just government, the United States would not exist.

Taxation can come in many forms - direct confiscation of money is not the
only way. Indirect confiscation through compulsory spending is yet another
way to effect a tax. Nobody would argue this with more than two firing
neurons - if you were to suddenly find that every road out of your
subdivision was a toll road, you would certainly consider that a tax.

The US bicameral legislature was designed SPECIFICALLY to insure that the
two places that rights are reserved to in the Constitution - the states,
and the people - are BOTH represented in the federal government in a means
that apportions their rights according to population. Each state had an
equal voice in the Senate, and each person had an equal voice in the House.

Passage of the 17th Amendment removed the States ability to be represented
in the Federal Government - and the consequence of this was PRECISELY WHAT
HAPPENED IN THE COLONIES PRIOR TO 1776! By removing the State's ability to
sit at the federal law-making table, it was GUARANTEED that the States
would be taxed without their ability to stop it - and indeed, that is
exactly what happened.

What was not clearly understood at the time, and it is most unfortunate, is
that the 17th Amendment is the one which is likely impossible to repeal.
The reason, of course, is that the Senate would have to vote themselves out
of a job - which is hardly likely.

Unlike every other Constitutional Amendment, the 17th Amendment creates a
"super class" of persons who would have to vote to remove themselves in
order to reverse its effect. For this reason it was the "poison pill" with
regards to the organization of our form of government as originally
envisioned - and the inexorable effect has been clearly seen since,
continuing to this day.

--
--
Karl Denninger ) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist
http://www.denninger.net My home on the net - links to everything I do!
http://scubaforum.org Your UNCENSORED place to talk about DIVING!
http://www.spamcuda.net SPAM FREE mailboxes - FREE FOR A LIMITED TIME!
http://genesis3.blogspot.com Musings Of A Sentient Mind