Do you think there should be voting restrictions?

[Sports Guy]

Who will be making and administer the tests?

Don't you get it? Individual states would be making different tests. And throughout HISTORY the testing you describe has been used to deny the right to vote to SWATHS of the population. I mean for someone who is claiming such superior intelligence you sure don't have a grasp on American history.

Yes I am a teacher, in fact I am a government and history teacher. And I am telling you that your idea is the first step to fascism. I mean honestly, you don't think that if MD could make a statewide voting test that they would make it so only the people they want voting pass? The same would be done in virtually every state, let alone states that are already putting up roadblocks to voting.

Poll taxes, literacy tests, grandfather clauses, white primaries all of these have been used to disenfranchise large groups of people.

I know that conservative talking heads have brought this up in the past but it is patently un-American and a despicable idea.

1) If you are a teacher, you don't deal with the fed and state gov't more than me.

2) And no need to have a different test for the general presidential election. I haven't mentioned doing testing for states for governor votes and things like that. That would obviously become a lot more complicated.

[Sports Guy]

You realize that means Al Gore would have won, and he would have won winning only the major population centers of the northeast, west coast and great lakes. He would have won with two thirds of the 50 states voting against him.

There is a reason for the electoral college.

Yep...I feel he should have won. I wouldn't have liked it but he deserved the win because he had the popular vote.

[mweb]

What do you do then if the election ends in close to a popular vote tie? National recount?

This is your big problem with it?

I would have to look into that further but my initial inclination is to just stick with whatever the vote total is the first time. That potential problem wouldn't stop me from going forward with the popular vote though.

[SilentJames]

1) If you are a teacher, you don't deal with the fed and state gov't more than me.

2) And no need to have a different test for the general presidential election. I haven't mentioned doing testing for states for governor votes and things like that. That would obviously become a lot more complicated.

1) Sir, you have no idea how much the government is an everyday aspect of my job and how I do it. Please, just walk away because you have no idea.

2) You still don't get it. Voting procedures and handled by the individual states NOT the federal government. So for your little test to work one of two things would have to happen. 1-The federal government inserts itself into a place it has never been before and creates a national test that all states and jurisdictions must use for their votes to count, even though the federal government has never done anything like this before, OR 2) Each state creates its own test which can be manipulated in a way to deny people the right to vote in any number of ways.

What aren't you getting? Tests like these were used for DECADES to make sure that entire portions of the population have no voice and you want to turn back the clock because you want to play the victimized GOP card.

[TGO]

You realize that means Al Gore would have won, and he would have won winning only the major population centers of the northeast, west coast and great lakes. He would have won with two thirds of the 50 states voting against him.

There is a reason for the electoral college.

This is what I call Constitutional Stockholm Syndrome. The Electoral College is dumb. There may be one reason for it but there are several more against it. And the fact that the Founders came up with it doesn't make it acceptable. It made more sense in a federal republican system where state legislatures elected the Senate and only white men could vote, and it belongs in the trash bin right next to those antiquated ideas.

[SilentJames]

Yep...I feel he should have won. I wouldn't have liked it but he deserved the win because he had the popular vote.

Then say goodbye to having any sort of GOP POTUS for the forseeable future.

[Austin]

Notice the smiley face? It was called a joke. No need to be so sensitive. I expect that from SJ..that's part of thing around here.

The conversation is still fine...people just don't need to get their panties in a bunch over an obvious sarcastic joke.

Sorry if I took you too seriously, and I can take a joke - but what you are joking about, the idea that a test would favor people of a certain political leaning, is exactly the reason why it isn't allowed. There's too much potential for corruption when deciding who is or isn't allowed to vote, especially on a state-by-state basis, so the easiest solution is to let everyone do it. I'd even toy with the idea of making voting compulsory, like in Australia, though I can't say whether or not that would be a good thing. I think it would result in a more educated public, though.

[mweb]

You realize that means Al Gore would have won, and he would have won winning only the major population centers of the northeast, west coast and great lakes. He would have won with two thirds of the 50 states voting against him.

Actually 3/5, not 2/3. And that doesn't bother me in the least. If Gore had won NH for instance, would you have been up in arms? Your point would have been the same, but he would have won the electoral college.

Margin of victory in states should matter imo. So either a popular vote or a proportional electoral college works for me.

[SilentJames]

This is what I call Constitutional Stockholm Syndrome. The Electoral College is dumb. There may be one reason for it but there are several more against it. And the fact that the Founders came up with it doesn't make it acceptable. It made more sense in a federal republican system where state legislatures elected the Senate and only white men could vote, and it belongs in the trash bin right next to those antiquated ideas.

You would not be saying that if you were living in a flyover state. Without the electoral college all you need to carry an election is the major population centers thus completely nullifying the electoral voices of many many Americans.

[SilentJames]

Actually 3/5, not 2/3. And that doesn't bother me in the least. If Gore had won NH for instance, would you have been up in arms? Your point would have been the same, but he would have won the electoral college.

Margin of victory in states should matter imo. So either a popular vote or a proportional electoral college works for me.

It would have been a very contentious election and a very contentious presidency, just like Bush's was. But at least it would not have had the red herring Florida arguments over and over.

[Sports Guy]

1) Sir, you have no idea how much the government is an everyday aspect of my job and how I do it. Please, just walk away because you have no idea.

LOL...and you have no idea how much regulation and things like that I have to deal with on an everyday basis.

And so this thread doesn't get locked, I am not going to address the rest of your post or you anymore in this thread.

[crissfan172]

You realize that means Al Gore would have won, and he would have won winning only the major population centers of the northeast, west coast and great lakes. He would have won with two thirds of the 50 states voting against him.

There is a reason for the electoral college.

Actually...nobody would have won the election because you need to win a majority to be elected. Neither of them had 50% of the popular vote. So...Congress would have decided the winner.

[Pedro Cerrano]

Yep...I feel he should have won. I wouldn't have liked it but he deserved the win because he had the popular vote.

As a Republican you should be in favor of the Electoral College btw.

[Sports Guy]

As a Republican you should be in favor of the Electoral College btw.

I am in favor of the best system...What exists now isn't the best system IMO.

[mweb]

Then say goodbye to having any sort of GOP POTUS for the forseeable future.

Based on Bush losing out by 400k or so votes on the popular election? How about him winning it by 3 million or so votes the next time around?

The electoral college is designed to reflect the population disparity around the country and thus can result in a president winning the election even when only winning around 40% of the states.

It is designed to have the person who wins the popular vote win the presidency. It's more of a fluke when it doesn't happen. Bush's win was the first that went against that in over 100 years from what I can tell.