|
Brigham Young The Church endorses option A, proposed by brother Brannan.
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 03:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 17:52 |
|
|
William Walker A
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 03:38
|
|
|
 John C. Frémont Ladies and Gentlemen! Let me propose the Frémont Map!  My proposal divides our lovely land into Six States! Up north, we have two states that share the bay, and two valley states that share the river that flows into it. I find this division to be very important, for these waterways are vitally important to the life and trade of all those who may live there. If one state were to have sole control of these waterways it may cause trouble, so in my strong opinion we should share it! Considering the nature of the bay and the valley, I have found this to be the most natural shape for states up there! And down south, we have two states that naturally follow the coasts and mountains. You may notice a certain handsome on the east side of the map! Don't worry, this is a simple trick we cartographers call "copy protection"! If you vote for my map and it becomes law, the Republic shall receive a version without this watermark. Takanago fucked around with this message at 04:07 on Dec 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 03:58
|
|
|
Takanago posted:
 Samuel Brannan A fine proposal, sir. Despite your radical social views, you remain a fine cartographer, and your knowledge of the frontier sound. sniper4625 fucked around with this message at 04:04 on Dec 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 04:01
|
|
|
Takanago posted:
Brigham Young This is a fine map, and enjoys the full support of the Church.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 04:18
|
|
|
 José Castro The Brannan plan going forward for citizenship strikes the most sensible balance. I believe his plan lays down the best path for our young nation. A I believe Mr. Fremont's map is a fine map and shall receive my support.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 04:28
|
|
|
John C. Frémont Thank you all for your support. I am glad that you all appreciate the work I have put into making that map. With that out of the way, let me talk about Citizenship. Brannan's plan, for the most part, is not objectionable. But it is not the best I've seen. The "Brannan Plan" calls for a waiting period of three years for Citizenship. In the grand scheme of things, compared to many other countries in the world, it is not that long. BUT! In the land of Texas, you only need to be a resident for six MONTHS to gain citizenship! That is SIX TIMES FASTER than the Brannan Plan! So far, we have done nothing but break barriers and take steps to become the freest and most democratic nation in the entire world! But now, if we are not careful, we will lose that lead that we've gained! Tell me, Brothers and Sisters of California, will we let Texas beat us at our own game? No, I say! We must have rules of citizenship that are either as liberal as Texas's, or even more so! I vote for Option B! Open Citizenship!
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 04:41
|
|
|
 Pio Pico I heartily endorse the Six States plan, and open citizenship for all! (Six States, B) A RICH WHITE MAN fucked around with this message at 04:52 on Dec 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 04:46
|
|
|
Samuel Brannan A nation with no control over who may be a part of it is no nation at all! To suggest that we are somehow less free than the slave-holding Texans simply because we expect immigrants to reside here for another two and a half years before extending the rights and responsibilities of citizenship is shortsighted at best. I now address the great mass of the room who have chosen to remain largely in the background. I heartily invite you to support my plan! To continue to support the most radical option at every chance is to build our nation on a foundation of shifting sand. We've extended the franchise universally, let us now act in the name of stability and compromise. No decade of waiting, no tests based on religion or race - simply an willingness to assimilate and support our new nation, a willingness I have no doubt that every man in this room shares!
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 05:52
|
|
|
John C. Frémont Indeed, Mr. Brannan, the idea that we would be less free than Texas is absurd! But it would still not be true, would it not? By this objective measure. If my ideological arguments do not sway you, my friend, then let us look at the practical! California is not just a country of settlers and immigrants, but one that desperately needs settlers and immigrants if she is to thrive. Our entire nation is a giant frontier! You surely realize the other reason why Texas is so open about immigration, do you not? They are frontiersmen like us! And yet, they are a fraction of our size, and still have two-hundred thousand souls living there! If our nation is to grow and prosper, we must cast open our front doors as widely as possible! We are a land of opportunity, but if we do not seize that opportunity that may be all we will be! Imagine, a California that is filled with prosperous men and women from the Pacific to the Plains! We have all this land, we just need the people to use it!
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
OOC: So it looks like we have three choices of maps, the Bonaparte map, the Young map, and the Fremont map. Choices will be between those three, unless someone pops up with another map they'd like to include. Still a lot of people who have not voted on citizenship, but once we go through that, the final discussion of this constitutional convention will be based on rights. Thus far we've essentially copied the American system wholesale, while introducing more liberal reforms as to who gets the franchise. Well, one of the keys of the American system is the enumerated rights. I'd like to hear some suggestions for additional rights which might be proposed, or changes to the American system, which would be essentially 'amendments' to the American constitution, and should be framed as such (and equally brief). For example, a right to freedom of speech, a right to freedom of the press, a right to freedom from want, a right to a piece of land, those are the sorts of rights we will vote on, each one individually. Once that is done, the constitutional convention for California will close, and we will shift to a more freeform portion of the game. So, please start proposing and discussing additional rights you'd like to see in our Californian "Bill of Rights"
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
Fall Sick and Die posted:OOC: So it looks like we have three choices of maps, the Bonaparte map, the Young map, and the Fremont map. Choices will be between those three, unless someone pops up with another map they'd like to include. Still a lot of people who have not voted on citizenship, but once we go through that, the final discussion of this constitutional convention will be based on rights. Thus far we've essentially copied the American system wholesale, while introducing more liberal reforms as to who gets the franchise. Well, one of the keys of the American system is the enumerated rights. I'd like to hear some suggestions for additional rights which might be proposed, or changes to the American system, which would be essentially 'amendments' to the American constitution, and should be framed as such (and equally brief). For example, a right to freedom of speech, a right to freedom of the press, a right to freedom from want, a right to a piece of land, those are the sorts of rights we will vote on, each one individually. Once that is done, the constitutional convention for California will close, and we will shift to a more freeform portion of the game. So, please start proposing and discussing additional rights you'd like to see in our Californian "Bill of Rights" Young has switched support to the Fremont map.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
Takanago posted:
Samuel Brannan Mr. Fremont, by your philosophy, we should have no rules at all - for are there not heathen kingdoms out there with no restrictions, and thus, by your definitions, the most free? You seem to be conflating rules for citizenship with rules for immigration - I agree that we need to attract new blood, but it does not necessarily follow that an extra two and a half year waiting period is going to keep people away from the twinkling allure of gold. People will come! One way or another, they will come! This is no way changes the simple fact that citizenship is a responsibility - in exchange for the privileges thereof, it is only right and proper that some requisites be laid. Nothing in this world is free, after all. In short, if you are telling me that people will not come for land and gold simply because they may not be able to vote right away, I'll say you're plum wrong. These men and their families seek economic advancement, not political fulfillment, which they will be able to achieve anyway in much greater capacities, due to our expansive franchise. All that is suggested is that the responsibilities of citizenship be treated in a befitting manner. Every nation on earth controls who may call themselves Citizen - Should you get your way, we would have no control at all. Would we even be a nation then? What would be to keep miscreants from claiming Californian citizenship when it benefits them, and abandoning it when it doesn't? As for rights, I believe we should be concerned primarily with what one may consider "negative" rights - in other words, the rights which protect against action by others. To institute, what we may call "positive" rights, such as a "right" to land, for example, would lead to a government more concerned with dictating how people should live than one rightfully concerned with ensuring people may live freely. Rough list of Good and Proper Rights: Freedom of Religion Freedom of the Press Freedom of Speech Freedom of Assembly Freedom from Unlawful Seizure of Property sniper4625 fucked around with this message at 19:28 on Dec 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 19:05
|
|
|
John C. Frémont I believe that we should have the following rights guaranteed by our constitution: Right to Freedom of Speech, Press and Assembly: Every citizen shall be at liberty to speak, write, or publish his opinions on any subject. No law shall ever be passed to curtail the liberty of speech or of the press or the ability to peaceably assemble. Right to Freedom of Religion No preference shall be given by law to any religious denomination or mode of worship over another, and every person shall be permitted to worship according to the dictates of his or her own conscience. Right To Bear Arms: Every citizen shall have the right to bear arms in defence of themselves, their community, and their Republic. Right to Emancipation: Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist anywhere within the Republic of California. Right to a Fair Trial & Due Process: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury. No criminal punishment shall be handed down to any citizen without going through due process, and all citizens shall not be subject to "double jeopoardy" by being prosecuted for a crime for which they have been acquitted. Right to Freedom From Unjust Searches and Seizures: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. Searches and seizures will only be authorized by the courts after going through due process and establishing probable cause and justification for the specific act. Right to Freedom From Monopolies: Being against the genius of a free government, monopolized control of any industry or market shall not be established or allowed by law. Right to Freedom From Dynasties: No public position in the Republic of California shall pass by means of hereditary succession. Neither shall any appointed public position go to the Appointer's relatives. Takanago fucked around with this message at 19:37 on Dec 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
As electoral wrangling continues in the Niantic, some men are looking to their leaders to cast votes for who should be a citizen of the Republic, or what form the states should take! "Where are Kearny and Stockton, the two august men who claim to lead our Republic?" A group of petite, confused Mandarins, their queues swaying as they avoid the bearlike Anglos, seem utterly nonplussed! "What do these foreign devils say? The ocean devil-ghost tongue sounds like the wagging of dogs, and there are none here to translate for us, to tell us where we should cast our vote! Where is Dong, Wang, or Chu to speak for us?!*" A group of Valleyan businessmen search for John Sutter, speaking openly about how he is nowhere to be found, while a small group of Texans drag Hays out, drunk as a sot, and try to sober him up to make a statement or two they could follow. Men decked in bear-skin furs and coon-tailed caps stand aside with rifles rested uneasily along their laps. Where is Kit Carson to tell them what would be best? *Translated from the original Chinese - Editor
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
OOC: If people ignore votes, they will simply lose influence, this is not to punish you, but rather to represent that NPC population is going to follow people who actively put their word out and seek to influence others, rather than following those who seemingly don't intend to even make their own views on issues of importance clear. At the same time, those who actively debate and try to convince others will receive an influence boost, representing their increase in standing among their fellow citizens. With most of the men in the hall now settled on the debate between Brannan and Fremont, and others enraptured by the words of Bonaparte and Brigham Young, leaders are clearly emerging, and they are not necessarily those men who have held leadership and influence before. Now men are speaking out, "Kearny served us fine as the nation was born, but I'd rather see Brannan president! We've got to figure out how to choose a new President upon the formation of this new government!" "You're right that Kearny needs to be out, but it's Fremont who we should listen to, not Brannan, who is a Mormon and a city-slicker!" The general consensus seems to be that there must be a new choice for President at the conclusion of the convention, which leads to discussions as to how the President should be chosen in general: 1. Let us continue with the American system! An electoral college, based on senators and representatives, which keeps the vote from the hands of the commoners, and finds a balance between the states and the populace as a whole! 2. The states have no right themselves to elect a president, that right belongs to the people! Let there be a direct vote for President, one man, one vote! 3. The people of this land are too diverse, the distance too far, the communication too poor. Let the Californian Senate choose the President from the great people of the nation, including their own number. The representatives of the people will make the best decision. 4. This is a vital land, let us have a vital President! The Californian President should be the manliest among us! Let a series of physical contests and competitions winnow the field, and the last man standing will be the best among us! 5. Physical contests and competitions are well and good, but let us partake in each of them with both the ancient spirit of democracy and in the manner of the Greeks and Romans! Let the physical competitions take place in the nude! Fall Sick and Die fucked around with this message at 21:09 on Dec 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
 A, Frémont We must ensure that those who come to California and intend to say learn the values of serving their fellow Californian. Of course I vote for my good friend Fremont's map. Not because he is my friend, but because it is the most aesthetically pleasing by far. edit: I agree that the president should be picked in the most democratic of fashions. Therefore I vote for a mixture of B and E where the top three contestants in the popular vote enter into competition. This will ensure that the people's voices are heard, while maintaining a high standard of physical virility among our leader. ThatBasqueGuy fucked around with this message at 21:15 on Dec 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
 Pee Qa Chu Citizenship in the Republic of California ought to allotted to those who both act and work towards the common good and the common economy. If one works and produces something of some value in this community he should be fully assumed assimilated, whatever the lingua franca. I abstain from the vote on state formation absent further instruction. Vote: B, Abstain on the map vote
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
mynamewas posted:
Further instruction from whom, may I ask? Are you here as agent of another?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
William Walker Freemont map, 2, well intentioned and confident-sounding platitudes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
sniper4625 posted:Further instruction from whom, may I ask? Are you here as agent of another? Mr. Chu From the parties I'm attempting to represent? Per the editorial recently published in the Fran Sisco [sic] Asiatic Democrat "A group of petite, confused Mandarins, their queues swaying as they avoid the bearlike Anglos, seem utterly nonplussed! 'What do these foreign devils say? The ocean devil-ghost tongue sounds like the wagging of dogs, and there are none here to translate for us, to tell us where we should cast our vote! Where is Dong, Wang, or Chu to speak for us?!*'" I'd rather not assume I speak for the people as some divine vessel ordained by god but that the people speak through me in direct confidence as I'd assume is correct in a Western democracy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 22:22
|
|
|
Taking this elsewhere
sniper4625 fucked around with this message at 22:44 on Dec 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
mynamewas posted:
Those people are all in this room, you do realize? They are looking for your opinion!
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 22:36
|
|
|
Brigham Young The Fremont Map is our vote, as it is a great compromise and improvement over our initial suggestion. Bravo, Mr. Fremont! As for the electoral system, we will tentatively support option 1 for now. We would like to see more input from others though, as we see the merits of options 1 through 3.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 23:28
|
|
|
Brigham Young On the Subject of Rights Of the rights thus far proposed, the Church supports: quote:
And the Church Opposes: quote:Right to Freedom From Monopolies: Being against the genius of a free government, monopolized control of any industry or market shall not be established or allowed by law. You will note we have added the right to state and local militias. Too long have the people of our Church suffered from lynch mobs and other passionate outburts of violence from those who would slander us, and we demand the right to protect ourselves from such actions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 00:34
|
|
|
 Charles Lucien Bonaparte Ornithologist Many of the European revolutionists have experimented with a Right to Work, whereby national workshops are created for the unemployed to contribute to society no matter the circumstances of the market.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 00:53
|
|
|
 Wang Long Hmm, it is strange you want to push a plan that will deny the Californios more chances for representation. Making citizenship require one language while we have various prominent individuals who speak say Spanish and want to ensure more of their Spanish speaking population are able to immigrate here, but cannot even be part of this country due to the fact English is a requirement is discrimination. To even propose an alternative to this plan seems to invite hysteria to some who believe it'll destroy everything and anything, yet, I believe we'll survive. Indeed, some are saying of some craze foreign wave that will overrun California despite the fact the Mormons are coming in large numbers to settle here. The English speaking population will survive. Business will continue on despite some hysteria and all. Therefore, I support open citizenship. It allows anyone of non-English speaking tongues the ability to start the process to become Californians. I am partial to Fremont's map proposal too. Edit - We should elect the president and have it be decided by the people directly. B - Open Citizenship/Fremont Map Option 2 - Direct Democracy Ramba Ral fucked around with this message at 07:40 on Dec 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 01:00
|
|
|
Commodore Stockton "Gentlemen, I apologize for my silence so far on these matters. I have been deeply considering these issues, and trying to hear what others have to say, as these are serious questions, and ones deserving of the deepest rumination. Indeed, I was reluctant to comment, as these votes seem in part to be the result of previous votes that I have spoken out against, and I was hesitant to offer my opinion, concerned that you might not be interested in hearing my opinion on subsidiary matters of previous votes. You know that I have spoken for a unified California, and this august body has chosen to divide it into states. You know that I spoke for a restrictive franchise, and this august body has chosen an expansive one. What right have, I wondered, to comment on the details of positions I was so strong against? Would the rest of you not consider me unfit to debate them?" "But no, I realized, after I had those thoughts, that I was doing my fellow delegates an injustice, and more, that I was shirking a responsibility, and I rightfully felt ashamed. For, have I not a duty, the same duty as the rest of us, to lend my thoughts to the matters before us? Have I not a responsibility to advise and consider, and deliberate? So, if you might allow me to humbly express my thoughts on the matter of states and on citizenship, I shall now do so." "First, the question of states and the proposed states that have been proposed. None of the maps proposed are bad ones; none obviously unsuitable. Mr. Bonaparte's map ensures each state has access to the sea, which I think is a wise feature . Still, of all the maps, the one proposed by Major Fremont seems best to me. It ensures the population on the more populated coast is well represented, while at the same time, not neglecting the Central Valley. I would suggest, though, that we consider a few matters, for the future; The first, future state boundaries. As the population grows, is it not possible for states to be divided? For states that are too large are not responsive to the needs of their citizens. Also, we need some way to determine how a territory shall gain statehood, as the parts of California that are not now occupied are filled. Finally, what powers will the states have, and what powers will be restricted to the national government?" These are not debates for today, but they are debates that we must have." "Now, as to citizenship. It's true that I advocated restricting or limiting the franchise to individuals of certain racial backgrounds, but this was rejected. This was not done through an animosity in my heart, but merely out of concern that, should the franchise, or should citizenship be granted to unworthy individuals, that would weaken the underpinnngs of the state. We have chosen not to restrict the franchise by race. Fair enough, and I acknowledge that there are those of every race that are capable of citizenship and exercising the franchise. God has created potential in us all. So, of all the plans presented, I support the Brannan plan. Let us at least ensure that those who seek to become citizens speak English, are of good moral character, and understand the responsibilities of citizenship." "Let me turn finally to another question raised; how we are to select the president? We must consider that this country is unsettled still, lines of communication poor. For each state to send electors for the vote might cause them eminent difficulties. Besides, unlike the United States, the states in California are creatures of the national government. They lack prior existence, so why should they have a say, as entities in selecting the President. Therefore, I support those who say the legislature must select the President, but it should be the lower house, not the upper, for the lower house is more responsive to the will of the people as a whole." Brannan plan, Fremont map, President selected by the House of Representatives
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 01:09
|
|
|
 Elliot Harding, Leader of the Downieville Mining Camp I gotta say, when I was stepping in this here hotel, I didn't expect to leave it on equal footing with y'all. Figured it'd be all "sirs" and "don't mind me nones," but I'm real glad to be proven wrong on that. Maybe now the people of Downieville can elect themselves a proper mayor, one that'll represent their rightful majority. So I'd like to give thanks to they who voted in favor of extending the franchise to all who live in this fine republic. Now, far be it from me to ask more favors from this august gathering, but I think we oughta go a step further and do somethin' further to enshrine the rights of all people. Specifically, the right to not be owned like a farm animal. Y'all know what I'm talking about. California ain't got many folks in it, but it's gonna have more real soon. Gold's seen to that. Folks from all over are making their way here right now - an' that includes Gentry from Dixieland, lookin' to fatten their wealth but not sweat their own hides doin' it. If Fremont an' you others that voted to uphold the franchise for all men are serious, you'll vote with me to enshrine abolition in our constitution, so all men who come here to make their luck do so honestly an' with their own labor. Further, I support all the other enumerated rights proposed by Fremont, excepting freedom from dynasties. Folks can't help being from political familes sometimes. As for these other items, I think we oughta allow anyone who wants to become a citizen to do so freely with a simple declaration, with a clause that we re-visit this issue in ten years once our population done grown enough. Maps ain't never been my strong suit, but I like Fremont's proposal. Finally, seems we'll be raising up a new presidential system here. Folks are too dispersed to get a proper count, an' I'd be righteously shocked if you could pull a working man away from gold mining long enough to make him vote, even if he'd care to. Leave it to the elected representatives to decide who leads. Thank y'all for letting me say my piece - it's more than the Yankees back home woulda done, an' it's a damned sight better than I'd get in Dixie. Erwin the German fucked around with this message at 01:44 on Dec 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 01:33
|
|
|
José Castro In regards to the matter before us of the election of our leaders, I believe that in a perfect world, we would have a free system of individual men voting for the president. Unfortunately in these times upon us, I declare it to be almost impossible, in addition to wildly unpractical. However, the more common setup of the United States is ripe for corruption by appointing unqualified individuals with their own personal motivations and no measure for recourse. I think that, for now, in this time and to be updated at a later date, we should stick with On the matter of the Brannan Plan, I would like to further discuss my tentative support. While I believe all citizens should be able to live and work in California, including my Californio brethren, and the Chinese, I support a limited requirement of speaking English. Certainly not enough to discuss matters at great lengths as we do here, but enough for very simple communication. English is spoken by one of the world's mightiest navies, which we could feasibly interact with, as well as 3 out of 4 of our neighbors, depending on how you count it. I believe by requiring a common language at which all our citizens can at least have a rudimentary discussion about where to satisfy basic human needs will promote unity among us all. The test of the sufficient amount of English should be limited to handful of words focuses on everyday requirements for people, food, shelter, sanitation, and to stay among those simple lines. Easy enough for anyone to learn, and useful for all. HarmB fucked around with this message at 02:41 on Dec 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 01:54
|
|
|
Sigourney Cheevos posted:
In short, you argue very much along the lines I had envisioned: I do not seek perfect fluency, but an informed citizenry with the power to understand and be understood. I thank you for your support. I would also vote for election by representives.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 01:57
|
|
|
 Dong Reagan (東雷根) As a proud God-worshipper, I must uphold the belief that all created equal under heaven. And as we welcome those who would contribute and share equally (unlike those devilish Manchu tyrants, but that's on the other shore), we must also pronounce the belief that we are all citizens and subjects of the Lord God's kingdom. As such, how can this new nation do any less? If the Lord's wisdom is given freely to all, only opposed by demonic forces, then how can this nation do any less? As such B, the belief that all are worthy of citizenship, should they accept it and swear to live rightly, is the just and true one. We believe in offering universal citizenship, just as we believe in God's offer of universal salvation, to those who accept it. Fremont's map teaches a moral lesson and so long as that floating visage is not a false idol, we are in approval of it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 02:07
|
|
|
John C. Frémont As for the matters of presidential elections, I believe that voting is one of the most fundamental rights a man or woman can have. And just as it is important to vote for local representatives, it is equally important that we be allowed to vote for our President. If we cannot hope to achieve the simple task of giving our citizens a ballot, what can we hope to achieve at all? Our nation's large area does indeed make it more difficult, but if we wanted to take the easy path we wouldn't be here. Should we really back down just because the concept of giving each and every citizen a vote might be inconvenient? Please excuse the profane words I am about to say, but to that I must answer, Hell No! I vote for option edit: Vote changed, see below. Takanago fucked around with this message at 02:38 on Dec 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 02:24
|
|
|
John Sutter I am indifferent to the state plans -- free enterprise could thrive in any of them, I feel. The trick will be ensuring that state government are open to creating a pro business atmosphere. That said, I am not indifferent to the way we choose the President. While I agree with Madison that the structure of government needs to provide extensive checks against the masses, I don't think there is anything inherently worthwhile about an arbitrary set of lines we determine to be state boundaries. In that case, I do not support an electoral college. At least in the US, each of those states existed in some way prior to their constitution. I support 2 a national popular vote for President. Our system is set up in such a way to not let an actor get too much power, and this is simply the most efficient way to do it. --- 2 on vote choice Abstain on map choice
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 02:33
|
|
|
José Castro Takanago posted:
I do believe each citizen should have a vote and be allowed to vote. I believe the logistics won't allow for it, but if you're confident it can be done reasonably, I believe you. However, I think the concept of an Electoral College, empowering buffoons to cast their votes on behalf of others is certainly not the correct way. If we have a group of individuals electing our leader, it should be the elected ones, this College idea is ripe for disaster. Your confidence in the ability to make it happen has swayed me, we shall put our leaders to all of our peoples, Option 2 - Direct Democracy shall be the way forward. Might I be able to convince you to drop your support of this Electoral College nonsense?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 02:32
|
|
|
John C. Frémont Mr. Castro, I do thank you for your reason. It is indeed true that while the Electoral College does highlight the importance of states and local governments, it does suffer from some drawbacks. While I would prefer to continue to empower the states that shall be created, my number one priority here is to protect the ability of the common man to cast their vote for their leader. I believe taking away the common vote and giving it to congress would be most undemocratic. I change my vote to Option 2 - Election by Popular Vote!
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 02:37
|
|
|
I have no personal objections to direct elections - in this age of the telegraph, surely the intentions of the nation can be known quickly. Might I propose we make election day a national holiday, that all be given the chance to take the day to exercise their civic duties?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 02:48
|
|
|
Commodore Stockton "A Telegraph, sir? We have no telegraphs in California. And even if some enterprising fellow should get one and install it, think of the expense to string and maintain telegraph wires across the wilderness. The people shall vote for their Representatives. They trust those representatives to vote the people's will when it comes to laws. Why not trust them to vote the people's will when it comes to selecting an executive?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 02:59
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:Commodore Stockton Oh I agree, which is why I support your plan. Merely saying that the technology does exist, at least, to support direct democracy, even if it is not currently implemented.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 03:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 17:52 |
|
|
Apologies for being missing the past couple of days, im in Laos and was expecting better internet but turns out I'm a dummy. I'll catch up and Start Posting.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 03:50
|
|
