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.
We are the United STATES, not the mob-rule of the masses.
I agree the divide is great and irreconcilable. There are those who would sacrifice themselves for the fictional collective and then there are those who believe in individual human freedom. Those who believe they have a right to impose their will upon others with governmental aggression and those who believe in individual human freedom.
Live and let live types who live by the non-aggression principle can never coexist with tyrants and thugs.
That it is. When a rural state's vote counts for three times what a higher populated state counts for, but the populated state is paying three times the taxes of that rural state, the divide is indeed irreconcilable. We are not the UNITED states. We are on our way to Balkinization.
I can't help but think Canada would be thrilled to take the contributions of the West Coast and would gladly pay the ransom to a Trump-like president that would only be too happy to be rid of us so they could move forward with a dictatorship/monarchy fully supported by the middle and south who likened them to a deity.
Make no mistake, if Trump had won the popular vote but lost the election, Trump and Trump supporters would be beside themselves. But suddenly they love that large state votes count for far less while they gluttonously take our tax dollars.
That it is. When a rural state's vote counts for three times what a higher populated state counts for, but the populated state is paying three times the taxes of that rural state, the divide is indeed irreconcilable. We are not the UNITED states. We are on our way to Balkinization.
I can't help but think Canada would be thrilled to take the contributions of the West Coast and would gladly pay the ransom to a Trump-like president that would only be too happy to be rid of us so they could move forward with a dictatorship/monarchy fully supported by the middle and south who likened them to a deity.
Make no mistake, if Trump had won the popular vote but lost the election, Trump supporters would be beside themselves. But suddenly they love that large state votes count for far less while they gluttonously take our tax dollars.
I am all for any State which wishes to secede. It is their right to do so. As the Union was a voluntary agreement made that all States thought would be beneficial to them. If any State feels that this voluntary agreement no longer serves their interests, it is their natural right (the people of that State) to end their consent to be governed.
It is the right of the people to alter or abolish it at any time when they feel it no longer serves to protect their natural rights.
Don't know why every post has to mention Trump. I am a libertarian/voluntaryist/agorist and I wouldn't vote for either authoritarian collectivist party on a bet. I watch the "citizens"/subjects/slaves cheer for their favorite authoritarians and cringe. The factions simply take turns using government goons to impose their will upon their neighbors, a disgusting barbaric "society".
Funny, i've never once seen a logical explanation for how the electoral college is better than this supposed "mob-rule" popular vote. All people really have is high-minded rhetoric about the Constitution and being "anti-majoritarian" because it excuses them from having to actually explain how it's better.
the electorial college is NEEDED
New York city(the city not the state) has a bigger population than over 10 other states COMBINED
nyc population 8.3 million
wyoming 544k
vermont 621k
n. dakota 640k
alaska 690k
s. dakota 821k
delaware 885k
montana 974k
rhode island 1.01 million
hawaii 1.2 million
maine 1.3 million
total 7.8 million
10 states combined less than the population of NY CITY
repealing the electorial college would take away any say of the smaller rural states
look at chicago...ok the population of chicago (A CITY) is 2.7 million..the entire STATE of nebraska is 1.8 million
should a city negate a whole state???
should a urban jungle of 2.6 million out weigh and entire state (of 1.8 million) of rural farms producung all the food for the urban jungle...should those 1.8 million not count just because the city of 2.6 million is more welfare babies
the electorial college is there for a reason...
When establishing our federal government, smaller States like Rhode Island had feared they would have no voice, and therefore no protection, against the more populous States like New York or Massachusetts. Similarly, the sparsely populated agricultural regions feared an inability to protect their interests against the fishing and shipping industries dominant in the more populous coastal States. These concerns on how to preserve individual State voices and diverse regional interests caused the framers to establish a bi-cameral rather than a uni-cameral legislative system.
In that wise plan, one body preserved the will of the majority as determined by population and the other preserved the will of the majority as determined by the States. As Constitution signer James Madison confirmed:
The Constitution is nicely balanced with the federative and popular principles; the Senate are the guardians of the former, and the House of Representatives of the latter; and any attempts to destroy this balance, under whatever specious names or pretences they may be presented, should be watched with a jealous eye.
The Founding Fathers considered all forms of government; thoughtfully, intellectually, historically and they debated and agonized and then they compromised, agreed and then pledged their lives their fortunes and their sacred honor to establish, protect and enable the government they had created. The education, the intellect and the faith of those men can not be underestimated. We can only bring poverty and unrest if we deign to ignore their wisdom and replace our Constitutional Republic, the rule of law, with a Democracy, rule by the mob.
The point is, undermining or ditching the Electoral Collage is a part of the plan to convert America to neo-Marxist mob rule with top-down control by the national (and global) ruling class....the simple fact is the national vote SCHEME is just that a scheme being pushed by the likes of George Soros and the fascist liberals looking to bring some hybred of marxism to the USA
I completely understand, I wouldn't last a week in the south before I started throwing my things in the back of a U-haul and flooring it out of there. But the numerous posts (from others) saying huge states like California and New York don't matter because they vote Democratic is indicative of the impending split in this country. States where their vote literally counts for as little as a third of a rural vote while they pay much of the taxes running the country and drive much of the technology creating jobs? But their votes count less? Yes, Hillary won the popular vote and Trump is a minority elected president. Trump threaded a very tiny needle to get there and I doubt very much that he will be re-elected. But this country was splitting before Trump, he is simply hastening the divide and blue states are likely to become blue regions that stick together and slowly move away from the middle and the south. It's becoming taxation without representation.
You have said very few things that I have not said myself, regarding the relative weight of urban and rural votes. I agree with you 100% about that. I also believe that Trump is not so much a disease as a symptom.
The thing is, you have posted lots of comments about how red states should just suffer the consequences of their choices, without acknowledging the very heart of the matter, including your own argument: that individual choices should be the ones that matter in an election. Just as there are conservatives in New York and California, there are liberals in those red states, allies of yours who would be badly hurt by some of the things you have suggested. Furthermore, if even I, a committed liberal, find what seems to be a generalization of all red state residents as knuckle-dragging Trumpbots rather offensive, just imagine what that perceived condescension says to the undecided.
Funny, i've never once seen a logical explanation for how the electoral college is better than this supposed "mob-rule" popular vote. All people really have is high-minded rhetoric about the Constitution and being "anti-majoritarian" because it excuses them from having to actually explain how it's better.
And because minority rule is so much better.
The fact is, as much as we revere the Constitution, the men who wrote it had a fairly low opinion of the unwashed masses, which probably includes just about everyone on this board.
The fact is, as much as we revere the Constitution, the men who wrote it had a fairly low opinion of the unwashed masses, which probably includes just about everyone on this board.
New York city(the city not the state) has a bigger population than over 10 other states COMBINED
nyc population 8.3 million
wyoming 544k
vermont 621k
n. dakota 640k
alaska 690k
s. dakota 821k
delaware 885k
montana 974k
rhode island 1.01 million
hawaii 1.2 million
maine 1.3 million
total 7.8 million
10 states combined less than the population of NY CITY
repealing the electorial college would take away any say of the smaller rural states
look at chicago...ok the population of chicago (A CITY) is 2.7 million..the entire STATE of nebraska is 1.8 million
should a city negate a whole state???
should a urban jungle of 2.6 million out weigh and entire state (of 1.8 million) of rural farms producung all the food for the urban jungle...should those 1.8 million not count just because the city of 2.6 million is more welfare babies
the electorial college is there for a reason...
When establishing our federal government, smaller States like Rhode Island had feared they would have no voice, and therefore no protection, against the more populous States like New York or Massachusetts. Similarly, the sparsely populated agricultural regions feared an inability to protect their interests against the fishing and shipping industries dominant in the more populous coastal States. These concerns on how to preserve individual State voices and diverse regional interests caused the framers to establish a bi-cameral rather than a uni-cameral legislative system.
In that wise plan, one body preserved the will of the majority as determined by population and the other preserved the will of the majority as determined by the States. As Constitution signer James Madison confirmed:
The Constitution is nicely balanced with the federative and popular principles; the Senate are the guardians of the former, and the House of Representatives of the latter; and any attempts to destroy this balance, under whatever specious names or pretences they may be presented, should be watched with a jealous eye.
The Founding Fathers considered all forms of government; thoughtfully, intellectually, historically and they debated and agonized and then they compromised, agreed and then pledged their lives their fortunes and their sacred honor to establish, protect and enable the government they had created. The education, the intellect and the faith of those men can not be underestimated. We can only bring poverty and unrest if we deign to ignore their wisdom and replace our Constitutional Republic, the rule of law, with a Democracy, rule by the mob.
The point is, undermining or ditching the Electoral Collage is a part of the plan to convert America to neo-Marxist mob rule with top-down control by the national (and global) ruling class....the simple fact is the national vote SCHEME is just that a scheme being pushed by the likes of George Soros and the fascist liberals looking to bring some hybred of marxism to the USA
I have never really understand the rationale behind the whole "states' rights" argument in the first place.
What is a state or a city but a collection of individual people living within a specific area? It's a human construct, and if you believe, as the founders are said to have done, that human rights are inherent and God-given, how can the "rights" of any human construct possibly be more important than those of the individuals who comprise it?
while I doubt that 3 million illegals voted from California
to vote all they need is a license
and
they are GIVEN A drivers license...that is a benefit Undocumented immigrant driver
Nearly a million undocumented drivers could be licensed in California by the end of the year.
Through June 2017, the Department of Motor Vehicles has issued approximately 905,000 driver’s licenses under Assembly Bill 60, the law requiring applicants to prove only their identity and California residency, rather than their legal presence in the state.
from 2014 New laws in 2015 to benefit undocumented immigrants – Orange County Register
From the state government, there’s more:
• Access to a low-cost auto insurance program to assist unauthorized immigrants who will be eligible beginning Jan. 2 to apply for a California driver’s license;
• A new California DREAM loan program at the University of California and California State University systems;
driver’s licenses, education, health care, free housing and free natal care including birthing going to the illegals
so again, I highly doubt the 3 million number......but there is no doubt that illegals did vote
I have never really understand the rationale behind the whole "states' rights" argument in the first place.
What is a state or a city but a collection of individual people living within a specific area? It's a human construct, and if you believe, as the founders are said to have done, that human rights are inherent and God-given, how can the "rights" of any human construct possibly be more important than those of the individuals who comprise it?
ah, but I don't think you are seeing the big picture
those "specific areas" have their needs and wants and those "individual people living within a specific area" have their needs and wants
fly with me here as I try to explain this
Lets say we have the popular vote:
Candidate Smith says...."cities of 1 million of more with have all free education, housing, and food, which the natural resources will be supplied by all rural areas"
Candidate Jones says..."everyone is equal, will pay an equal rate of taxes, and education will cost the same nation wide"
so the election is held
Candidate Jones takes: almost every state minus the major cities
Candidate Smith takes: every major city
total 65 million(jones) to 70 million (smith)....(just rough numbers for an example)
so now the CITIES have made the choice, that CITIES get everything, and the rural areas are now their SERFS
would you be ok with this....because that is possible with the popular vote...that would be what they call mod rule
(I will continue in next post)
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.
I am a libertarian/voluntaryist/agorist and I wouldn't vote for either authoritarian collectivist party on a bet. I watch the "citizens"/subjects/slaves cheer for their favorite authoritarians and cringe. The factions simply take turns using government goons to impose their will upon their neighbors, a disgusting barbaric "society".
