A few questions

[iddee]

""We don't need an educated electoral college to vote for us because we are illiterate.""

I can't totally agree with that.  I have watched ""voters?"" led into the polls and their slobbers wiped by there attendant, and they voted. I'm guessing they couldn't tell you their birth name. Maybe their called name. I guarantee you they did NOT know the people they voted for. With that lenient a voting requirement, they sure require somebody to think for them.

[Psparr]

I?d rather have an illiterate hardworking man or woman with some street sense and common sense choose our president, than someone with an education any day of the week.

[kathyp]

We don't need an educated electoral college to vote for us because we are illiterate.

We never really had an illiterate population.  The founders, who developed this system, were certainly not illiterate.  If making decisions for the illiterate population was the goal there would have been a national proof of literacy requirement.  Some states did this, but were eventually overruled by the SCOTUS. 

The goal then as now was to give sparsely populated states a voice in national elections.  It is true that the way it is done now is not the same as it originally was, but the effect is the same.  The electors are not bound by the votes of the state, but they almost never go against the voters.  If you want a more fair system with the electoral college, then the states should not be winner take all.  Most are.  If the electors were apportioned according to the number of votes for candidates in a state you would have a better reflection of the popular vote and still maintain the voice of the smaller states. Of course....you'd have to give the nomination to the majority winner rather than the one who hits a set number.  if the votes are split several ways, no one might hit that number.

If you want a popular vote count then I want a complete purge of voters and re-registration first. 

[Dallasbeek]

I?d rather have an illiterate hardworking man or woman with some street sense and common sense choose our president, than someone with an education any day of the week.

Are you saying an educated person can't have street sense and common sense?  I know you aren't, but that's why we have to be careful how we say things.  I have known some people who were functionally illiterate who had great mental ability and some educated people who, as they used to say in my home town , "couldn't pour (urine) out of a boot with instructions printed on the bottom". I have a brother-in-law who can't read because he was dyslexic, but he could build almost anything or repair engines with no problem.  I had a classmate who became the dean of a university, but he couldn't have changed a flat tire if his life depended on it.  Different strokes for different folks.

[Psparr]

Yes. I mean book smart people.

[Acebird]

We never really had an illiterate population.

  You are kidding or you are smoking some of your states crop.  Slaves did not go to school.  Women did not go to school but some how they taught their sons how to read.  Might be the gene of determination...

The founders, who developed this system, were certainly not illiterate.  If making decisions for the illiterate population was the goal there would have been a national proof of literacy requirement.  Some states did this, but were eventually overruled by the SCOTUS. 

It is a double edge sword if you educate your population they will want things you don't want.  However, if you do educate your population then your country will become a supper power, maybe number 1.  This is the dilemma China faces.

The goal then as now was to give sparsely populated states a voice in national elections.

Total propaganda... Mike has already admitted that it wouldn't make a difference and he is right.

If you want a popular vote count then I want a complete purge of voters and re-registration first. 

Knock yourself out.  I have no problem re-registration.  Once money and corruption is out of the equation it won't make a difference.  Re-registration might weed out the illiterates.  Actually, I have no problem with giving a literary test as a qualification to vote.

[kathyp]

Slaves did not go to school.  Women did not go to school but some how they taught their sons how to read.  Might be the gene of determination...

Slaves didn't vote and going to school has nothing to do with being literate or even educated. 

It is a double edge sword if you educate your population they will want things you don't want.  However, if you do educate your population then your country will become a supper power, maybe number 1.  This is the dilemma China faces.

You realize that our founders were pretty big on the education of the population and so were the citizens. We did not have the same rising peasant class that Europe had.  Most of the people who came here were educated at least to the point of reading, writing, and numbers.  Chinas issue is not with education.  They control that.  They have and have had a literate population.  China is struggling with how to compete in free markets and still control its people while encouraging innovation.  They are creating a middle class and totalitarianism does not survive a middle class. 

otal propaganda... Mike has already admitted that it wouldn't make a difference and he is right.

Where do the majority of people live?  what are the political leanings of the people in those areas?

Once money and corruption is out of the equation it won't make a difference.  Re-registration might weed out the illiterates.  Actually, I have no problem with giving a literary test as a qualification to vote.

How do you think you get money and corruption out of the equation by changing to a popular vote?  Is there no corruption in state voting?  That is done by popular vote.  Do you think there are no backroom deals, or fraud in state systems?
  I do not need to know what novels people have read for them to vote.  Literacy tests, on the other hand, have already been thrown out by the courts. 

[Michael Bush]

> I don't care what went on in the 1800's.  It is not relevant today.

If it worked it is.

>For the most part the population today in the US is educated unlike the 1800's. 

That is irrelevant.  The point of the state senates electing the U.S. Senate seat was that they KNEW the people they were electing.  The point of the Electoral college was the same.  It's not because they are educated and the people are not, it's that they actually know the people involved.  I don't personally know ANY of the people on the ballot.  No matter how well educated I am, I am no judge of the character of the people running.  The idea was that at each level there was some knowledge of the character of the people being considered by the constituents who got to vote.  We are at the point where no one on the ballot, except perhaps the state senator and the U.S. Congressmen are from the area of the people who are voting for them and the people have a chance of knowing their character.  Literacy does not enable you to know the values and character of the candidates.

[Acebird]

Literacy does not enable you to know the values and character of the candidates.

It provides a means of learning what a candidates platform is.  It is pretty hard to operate a computer or cell phone if you can't read.  Today most media is through these devices even for standard broadcast.  If you want change you don't pick someone you already know you pick someone you don't know who promises change.  With a party system, especially two party picking a different person from the same party doesn't get you change.
A popular vote eliminates how your vote is weighted.  Today's population moves around.  Why should the weight of their vote change as you move from one state to another?

[Hops Brewster]

There are soooo many people that are functionally illiterate in this country that it is scary!  And yes, they drive, they (sometimes) have jobs, they use cell phones and they watch TV.  They watch the TV news.  They get their ideas from TV news and from Facebook and Twitter on their cell phones.  They are told how to vote by the national "news" personalities on CNN etc., and by the functionally illiterate pop stars and sports heroes that they worship.  They are told to vote for the ones that gave them their "free Obama phones".  They are told to vote for the ones that guarantee them their monthly welfare dole, and the over-priced "free health care" which they choose not to buy anyway.
Educated voters?  ROFL 

[Michael Bush]

>It provides a means of learning what a candidates platform is.

I have never seen a candidate whose actions could be predicted based on their platform.  I have never seen any connection between their platform and their votes.  Read all you want and it will not predict the behavior of the candidate in any way.

[cidersabuzzin]

Beemaster doubles my pay every year.
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x Double 0  is still 0      

I don't think Beemaster pays anyone to post (and I think you should apologize to Beemaster for insinuating they may do!) the post referred to certain posts that seem to be 'manufactured' maybe a bit disingenuous on your part. Time to sharpen up iddee or maybe snooze in the bunker. Please make sure the Winchester is not 'locked and loaded'. One hears of so many Geriatrics being injured these days.
Regards cider

[Geoff]

   I think Iddee got you hook, line and sinker Ciders, double nothing is still a lot more of nothing. Nearly got me as well Wally until I read to the bottom ! !

[Acebird]

I have never seen a candidate whose actions could be predicted based on their platform.

You would have to be a dumb ass not to predict what Trump does.  Now he tweets less and makes more sense.  Makes me think he is not running the country.  But I don't think it is the same as the Nancy Reagan era.

[iddee]

DANG, Cider, It took you over 4 months to come up with a response?  I think you're slowing in your older days, and I thought you were about as slow as you could get before.

[cidersabuzzin]

It?s funny how they don?t have an argument against it, so it?s just criticism.

Criticism my friend is the bedrock of Democracy, don't you ever forget it!
 We play at politics here but the basics are a given!