I didn't bother looking at your links because your statement contradicts itself. The purpose of a "Constitutional Amendment" is to Amend or "Change" something about the Constitution. So chances are, if the Constitution is being changed, the new change/addition will have a good chance of countering/cancenling a piece of the original document. I know this is not the case with every Amendment, but it is with some.
The electoral college was created to balance the power between the large and small states. If a presidential election was based merely on the number of votes, then 200+ years ago a few states could have easily negated any votes by people in other states. Say for example a candidate from Virginia (which had the largest population 200+ years ago) gets an overwhelming number of votes from his home state and takes the election, the rest of the smaller states are left out in the cold. The electoral college gives more power to those small states. Since the number of electors is based on representation in Congress, then every state has at least 3 reps (2 Senate + 1 House) and therefore three electoral votes. When dealing with sparesly populated states, this creates an imbalance between the number of people in those states and the states power in the electoral college. Hence creating more balance between large and small states. Keep in mind, this was designed when the US was in the midst of ever growing sectionalism between the North and the South (where a majority of the popultion was).
What the parent poster says is proven wrong by the fact that you cannot write as you speak at any level beyond maybe middle school and be taken seriously. We are expected to beable to take our thoughts and fully develop them on written paper. Written language with the use of grammar is concise (when done correctly). On the other hand, spoken langauge is sloppy and is more or less meant to get the job done. By these facts alone, it is inconceivable to actually think for a moment that people can learn proper grammar through speaking. If anything, the spoken word only pollutes the purpose of writing coherently.
You are missing the boat here. It is accepted fact that people don't SPEAK with perfect grammar. But that does not mean people should not be held to some standard of written expression. God forbid one person write down his ideas on a piece of paper and 100 years later someone else picks it up, reads it, and understands what the author intended. There is no way this could happen unless we did write in a formal manner. Following the rules of grammar displays the ability to organize your thoughts into proper sentences and paragraphs to be shared with others.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't bother looking at your links because your statement contradicts itself. The purpose of a "Constitutional Amendment" is to Amend or "Change" something about the Constitution. So chances are, if the Constitution is being changed, the new change/addition will have a good chance of countering/cancenling a piece of the original document. I know this is not the case with every Amendment, but it is with some.
The electoral college was created to balance the power between the large and small states. If a presidential election was based merely on the number of votes, then 200+ years ago a few states could have easily negated any votes by people in other states. Say for example a candidate from Virginia (which had the largest population 200+ years ago) gets an overwhelming number of votes from his home state and takes the election, the rest of the smaller states are left out in the cold. The electoral college gives more power to those small states. Since the number of electors is based on representation in Congress, then every state has at least 3 reps (2 Senate + 1 House) and therefore three electoral votes. When dealing with sparesly populated states, this creates an imbalance between the number of people in those states and the states power in the electoral college. Hence creating more balance between large and small states. Keep in mind, this was designed when the US was in the midst of ever growing sectionalism between the North and the South (where a majority of the popultion was).
What the parent poster says is proven wrong by the fact that you cannot write as you speak at any level beyond maybe middle school and be taken seriously. We are expected to beable to take our thoughts and fully develop them on written paper. Written language with the use of grammar is concise (when done correctly). On the other hand, spoken langauge is sloppy and is more or less meant to get the job done. By these facts alone, it is inconceivable to actually think for a moment that people can learn proper grammar through speaking. If anything, the spoken word only pollutes the purpose of writing coherently.
You are missing the boat here. It is accepted fact that people don't SPEAK with perfect grammar. But that does not mean people should not be held to some standard of written expression. God forbid one person write down his ideas on a piece of paper and 100 years later someone else picks it up, reads it, and understands what the author intended. There is no way this could happen unless we did write in a formal manner. Following the rules of grammar displays the ability to organize your thoughts into proper sentences and paragraphs to be shared with others.