Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : VOLTAIRE'S PORCH-MODERATED -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: IngotWeTrust who wrote (22665)	12/7/2000 2:34:45 PM
From: Boplicity	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 65232

I have misgiving doing away with the electoral college, I would only go for it if they do away with the DAMN punch cards, maybe. It's an embarrassment of how cheap our country is sometimes. Greg

To: IngotWeTrust who wrote (22665)	12/7/2000 2:50:47 PM
From: freeus	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 65232

I disagree. The electoral college protects the small and less urban states from being overrun. Policians wouldn't even care about them, they'd just woe the big urban states. We are not supposed to be a democracy: in a democracy the majority can vote to take away your property and your rights. In a limited republic there are rights that are inalienable and noone can take they away from you. But what do I know, I sold my qcom. Freeus

To: IngotWeTrust who wrote (22665)	12/7/2000 2:57:43 PM
From: brightness00	Respond to of 65232

If we do away with the electoral college, it is almost guaranteed that we will have federal tax on land holdings, by acreage, along with a host of tax and regulations that are designed to take from the sparsly populated regions to subsidize densely packed regions. In other words, turning the interior of the country into colonies for the mother country on the two coasts. I'm not against the idea of thorough modernization. Take for example, the very idea of one-man-one-vote is rather antiquated, why not two votes, 1.1 votes or 1.5 votes? half a vote for horse and car ownership akin to what was allowed in the original Constitution. Ancient ballot counting mechanisms could not cope with the complexity of small fractional numbers. If the founding principles of the country such as No Taxation without Representation, and revenue and approriation bills can only originate from the representitives of the source of revenue (House at a time government lived off taxation on head count and consumption, ie. import tarrif), then in addition to the one vote that is vested in the citizenship itself, additional votes should be vested according to tax payment, say another vote every $10k tax payment and fractions thereof. Or alternatively, auction off 200 million supplemental votes every two years and eliminate tax collection altogether. Without going back to the princples of pay-to-play in addition to basic citizen rights, we are going to witness the bitter fights over and over again because the stake at controlling a re-distribution machine is just too great, both for its beneficiery and victims. Jim