Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Personally, I abhor the idea of a national popularity contest - aka - presidential election. It smacks of democracy. We're promised a republican form of government.
In the original recipe, the locals voted for ELECTORS, who went off and used their own judgment to pick two candidates for the office of president. Unfortunately, Geo.Wash. despised his VP and urged for an amendment that resulted in our "party system," instead of a non partisan executive branch.
Restoring the Electoral College to its former supremacy would transform national politics.
A. No need for national campaigning, and thus no need for legalized bribery (contributions)
B. No need to be wealthy to fund a campaign. A bus ticket to the College, with one's resume, should be sufficient.
C. No need for party affiliation, since the Electors should have none.
D. And best of all, if the E.C. took some time to investigate the background of the leading candidates - perhaps with some public hearings, etc, etc, we might avoid the media manipulated election of stooges.
I don't hate rural conservatives, I just find their inconsistencies amusing:
They decry ILLEGALZ! while agriculture is the largest employer of illegal labor.
They cling to their guns fearing the government while welcoming military installations with far superior firepower.
They hate welfare while gleefully cashing Medicare, Social Security, and farm subsidy checks.
They turn their noses at federal spending while continuing to be a net drain on the federal treasury.
They scream about the economy while contributing a marginal amount to the national GDP.
And somehow these same people deserve additional consideration in the voting process?
NO. You hate them.
I can say I hate oxygen but every breath belies my words.
with you its your posts.
you hate. its your stock in trade. You think you are better. you think there is something fundimentally wrong with them.
you are a hater. its the same exact thing as being a racist. a bigot, a homophobe.
The way the election process works now has already removed most of the talent from the equation. Having the U.S. Presidential elections decided by popular vote rather than by an electoral system would merely complete the process. There is a reason the election process was set up in the current manner, and it was to prevent the highly populated states from being able to run roughshod over the states which were sparsely populated.
With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes, it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with a mere 23% of the nation's votes!
oh no ...more spam by mvymvy getting paid for posting from george soro's National Popular Vote
the national popular vote scheme, is a scheme from soros and the marxists/fascists
the 501(c) organization National Popular Vote Inc., a George Soros funded who’s who of the progressive left. ...billionaire George Soros fund sand supports the movement via his myriad 502(c) outfits, such as the Progressive States Network and Common Cause.
With the recent addition of California to the list, nine states have now signed into law a bill that awards all of the state’s electoral college votes to the winner of the “national” popular vote for president.
These nine states have provided this dangerous and unconstitutional movement 132 of the 270 electoral votes required to win the presidency. Once this group has 270 electoral votes, the electoral college will be rendered moot, the constitution will be undermined and the U.S. President will be elected based on popular vote.
Why is electing a president by national popular vote a bad idea?
Our founding fathers understood that pure Democracy (majority/mob rules) can lead to the curtailing or elimination of liberty for the minority or stated another way; pure Democracy leads to tyranny of the majority. 50%+1 of the population can impose their will on the remaining 50%-1 of the population. History has shown us that this can lead to, among other things, dictatorships, totalitarianism, discrimination and slavery.
Under a National Popular Vote, 100% of the citizens in a state could vote for candidate A and all of the state’s electoral college votes go to candidate B, rending small states powerless and the will of the people in the state irrelevant.
It’s a ridiculous idea dreamed up by George Soros Stooges in an attempt to circumvent the constitution and ensure a progressive will always control the administrative branch.
National Popular Vote has EVERYTHING to do with direct democracy. It's design is not to preserve the Constitutionally mandated Electoral College, but to render the electoral college as irrelevant.
And every vote isn't equal. Votes aren't equal in a democracy. Urban votes count, rural votes don't count.
More than that, it guts the point of elections, which is the conversation between the people and the candidates. That conversation needs to include people from all parts of the nation, all walks of life.
Advocates for National Popular Vote act as if where you live has no impact on the way you vote. Rural people and urban people are interchangeable. But that's not true. They aren't interchangeable. Because rural people don't worry so much about insurance as they do about whether there is a hospital or doctor near enough to help them. Because rural people don't worry about high-speed rail, they worry about the cost of gas and whether they can afford to keep their farm going when the prices of everything they need to survive keeps going up. The interests of rural people and urban people don't match and are even in conflict much of the time. But our system of government insists that rural people have a place at the table when the conversation about the direction of our country and the needs of the people are on the agenda. National Popular Vote wants to consign them to the kiddie table out in the kitchen. And then argues that they still get a chair at the table. The table no one is paying attention to.
Under a National Popular Vote, 100% of the citizens in a state could vote for candidate A and all of the state’s electoral college votes go to candidate B(because he has 1 more vote than the other guy on the national side), rending small states powerless and the will of the people in the state irrelevant.
oh no ...more spam by mvymvy getting paid for posting from george soro's National Popular Vote
the national popular vote scheme, is a scheme from soros and the marxists/fascists
the 501(c) organization National Popular Vote Inc., a George Soros funded who’s who of the progressive left. ...billionaire George Soros fund sand supports the movement via his myriad 502(c) outfits, such as the Progressive States Network and Common Cause.
With the recent addition of California to the list, nine states have now signed into law a bill that awards all of the state’s electoral college votes to the winner of the “national†popular vote for president.
These nine states have provided this dangerous and unconstitutional movement 132 of the 270 electoral votes required to win the presidency. Once this group has 270 electoral votes, the electoral college will be rendered moot, the constitution will be undermined and the U.S. President will be elected based on popular vote.
Why is electing a president by national popular vote a bad idea?
Our founding fathers understood that pure Democracy (majority/mob rules) can lead to the curtailing or elimination of liberty for the minority or stated another way; pure Democracy leads to tyranny of the majority. 50%+1 of the population can impose their will on the remaining 50%-1 of the population. History has shown us that this can lead to, among other things, dictatorships, totalitarianism, discrimination and slavery.
Under a National Popular Vote, 100% of the citizens in a state could vote for candidate A and all of the state’s electoral college votes go to candidate B, rending small states powerless and the will of the people in the state irrelevant.
It’s a ridiculous idea dreamed up by George Soros Stooges in an attempt to circumvent the constitution and ensure a progressive will always control the administrative branch.
National Popular Vote has EVERYTHING to do with direct democracy. It's design is not to preserve the Constitutionally mandated Electoral College, but to render the electoral college as irrelevant.
And every vote isn't equal. Votes aren't equal in a democracy. Urban votes count, rural votes don't count.
More than that, it guts the point of elections, which is the conversation between the people and the candidates. That conversation needs to include people from all parts of the nation, all walks of life.
Advocates for National Popular Vote act as if where you live has no impact on the way you vote. Rural people and urban people are interchangeable. But that's not true. They aren't interchangeable. Because rural people don't worry so much about insurance as they do about whether there is a hospital or doctor near enough to help them. Because rural people don't worry about high-speed rail, they worry about the cost of gas and whether they can afford to keep their farm going when the prices of everything they need to survive keeps going up. The interests of rural people and urban people don't match and are even in conflict much of the time. But our system of government insists that rural people have a place at the table when the conversation about the direction of our country and the needs of the people are on the agenda. National Popular Vote wants to consign them to the kiddie table out in the kitchen. And then argues that they still get a chair at the table. The table no one is paying attention to.
Under a National Popular Vote, 100% of the citizens in a state could vote for candidate A and all of the state’s electoral college votes go to candidate B(because he has 1 more vote than the other guy on the national side), rending small states powerless and the will of the people in the state irrelevant.
All of which goes to prove that the Best solution is to eliminate the Electorial College completely and elect the Leader of the Nation through the popular vote and only the popular vote, then everyones vote counts equally. You are for equality in voting aren't ya?
Should a city negate a whole state? Absolutely. Using your example of NYC:
While NYC has a population bigger than 10 states combined, it's GDP is bigger than 18 states combined. Why should lazy, underachieving rednecks have a bigger say in who becomes President? The issue is that our original electoral system (and our government's original establishment) was driven by the needs of an agrarian economy. Land equaled wealth. The economy since then has moved on. Finance, information, manufacturing, and services are the new pillars of the economy. I'd gladly trade the bottom 40 states for three NYC's or Chicago's. Then we could convert 10% of the land to agricultural use and turn the rest into a huge National Park. Rewarding states for having lots of empty land isn't the way ahead.
If NYC had a say in what matters we would be doomed. Look at what you guys go for in that city. You LOVE your nanny state up there that tells you what you can and can't eat, drink or do in your own homes. NO THANKS!
All of which goes to prove that the Best solution is to eliminate the Electorial College completely and elect the Leader of the Nation through the popular vote and only the popular vote, then everyones vote counts equally. You are for equality in voting aren't ya?
Only a true far left nut would think what you said was a good idea.
The states that are spending the most on welfare can also afford it because they are not only supporting the welfare of their own states, but the red states as well.
That meme has been debunked here a number of times.
It ignores the concept of public goods and the biggest flaws are that it assigns the value of corporate income taxes to the state of domicile and the federal crop payments to the state where the land is located despite many of the payments going to wealthy landowners and investors in major metro areas.
All of which goes to prove that the Best solution is to eliminate the Electorial College completely and elect the Leader of the Nation through the popular vote and only the popular vote, then everyones vote counts equally. You are for equality in voting aren't ya?
What's funny is that if Clinton hadn't shipped Elizan Gonzalez back to Cuba....Gore would have won in 2000 and the far right would be crying for the abolishment of the electoral college and the far left would be defending it.
That meme has been debunked here a number of times.
It ignores the concept of public goods and the biggest flaws are that it assigns the value of corporate income taxes to the state of domicile and the federal crop payments to the state where the land is located despite many of the payments going to wealthy landowners and investors in major metro areas.
Who debunked it, Glenn Beck or some other far right wing news source?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Now the 11 Biggest States Can Decide Presidency
