This idea is put forward by people desperate to destroy the checks and balances built in to the Constitution. The popular vote would shift all electoral power to large population centers, and strip all voice from the less populated states. This idea is anti American, anti Republic and another attempt by Progressives to cripple our country.
This just is not true anymore because even the most red states have 40% or more Democratic voters. the days of certain states being 100% in favor of a certain position are long gone.
Land mass should not control voting value. One person = one vote. People who live in less populated states should not have votes worht more that people in highly populated states.
quote
Originally posted by olejoedad:
Pay attention Ronald - We do NOT live in a Democracy! This is a Constitutional Republic!
A Constitutional Republic is a democracy, and since we can completely change anything in the Constitution, we don't live in a Constitutional Republic.
...even the most red states have 40% or more Democratic voters. the days of certain states being 100% in favor of a certain position are long gone.
Land mass should not control voting value. One person = one vote. People who live in less populated states should not have votes worht more that people in highly populated states.
What you have apparently chosen to overlook is that Democrat voters tend to mostly live in the larger cities, while Republican voters tend to live in more rural or suburban areas. It still comes down to the policies (and politicians) that work in/for large cities will be forced upon the people in the rural areas. I (a transplanted suuburbanite) live on a farm. For a reason. I certainly don't want or need the restrictions - or the mindset - necessary for life in the city to have to affect me. It's nonsensical, unnecessary, and unnecessarily restrictive. This is aside the fact that most politicians at the federal level are likely descended from wealthy "city dwellers", and are completely oblivious to "how it's done and how it really needs to be done" out in the country.
quote
A Constitutional Republic is a democracy, and since we can completely change anything in the Constitution, we don't live in a Constitutional Republic.
We can completely change anything in the Constitution?! Really? That seems to be the Democrat mindset - or at least the wet dream. In reality, it's very difficult - by design. Takes a huge majority of both houses of congress, or a Constitutional Convention, which I don't think anyone wants, if they think about it carefully enough.
[This message has been edited by Raydar (edited 09-04-2023).]
What you have apparently chosen to overlook is that Democrat voters tend to mostly live in the larger cities, while Republican voters tend to live in more rural or suburban areas. It still comes down to the policies (and politicians) that work in/for large cities will be forced upon the people in the rural areas.
I did not "choose to overlook" anything. I just don't believe the votes of people who live in the country should count more than the votes of the people who live in the city.
one person = one vote
And as I pointed out before. Even the most red/rural state still only has about 40% democrats. When the Constitution was drafted a southern state might be 90% agricultural. That just does not exist any more. Even farm states have large industries and businesses that have nothing to do with agriculture.
All that being said I still am not screaming for the abolition of the Electoral college. I just oppose the "winner take all" policy. Many more people would probably vote in Presidential elections if they felt their vote might make a difference. I don't bother to vote in presidential elections anymore here in Tennessee because I know my vote won't make any difference. It does not matter if we get 35% Democratic votes or 45%. The winner still gets 100% of the delegates. If the delegates were split by percentage of the vote then I would be much more likely to vote.
We can completely change anything in the Constitution?! Really? That seems to be the Democrat mindset - or at least the wet dream.
What is wrong with amending the Constitution? Do you not like having a vote to select your Senator? Are you upset that women are allowed to vote or that slavery is illegal?
quote
Originally posted by Raydar:
In reality, it's very difficult - by design. Takes a huge majority of both houses of congress, or a Constitutional Convention, which I don't think anyone wants, if they think about it carefully enough.
Level of difficulty does not matter to the definition.
Originally posted by Raydar: I don't care. People who live in the city should not be able to enforce their rules - or politics - on the people who live out in the sticks.
That doesn't strike me as a persuasive argument in favor of the Electoral College system as it currently works.
I think it's more correct to say that the Electoral College system, and the general way in which the nation's elected representatives are districted at the state and federal level, and the Senate's allocation of two U.S. Senators from every state, all work in concert to give the people who live outside of the major population centers an electoral weighting that deviates the nation's politics and governance from a more rational approach to the realization of the Constitution's "general welfare" clause.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 09-05-2023).]
Originally posted by fredtoast: This just is not true anymore because even the most red states have 40% or more Democratic voters. the days of certain states being 100% in favor of a certain position are long gone.
Land mass should not control voting value. One person = one vote. People who live in less populated states should not have votes worth more that people in highly populated states.
People who think they are smart, believe it.
Would you like to eliminate the 1st Amendment of the Constitution ? How did this country get it's beginnings ?
quote
Originally posted by fredtoast: A Constitutional Republic is a democracy, and since we can completely change anything in the Constitution, we don't live in a Constitutional Republic.
People who think they are smart, believe it. Do you even think about the things you spout ?
quote
Originally posted by fredtoast: A Constitutional Republic is a democracy, and since we can completely change anything in the Constitution, we don't live in a Constitutional Republic.
don't worry they will still suppress 100 votes for every single illegal vote
as they always have
quote
Originally posted by Tony Kania: Speak English you uneducated ****. Make sense. Put words into sentences so that you can be understood. **** man, you have a third grade education.
What? Prove me wrong rayb.
well why can't they understand a simple idea
I say 100 real voters are stopped from casting their legal votes for ever illegal vote that is cast a 100 to 1 ratio that is nuts AND IS OUT OF WACK WITH THE FACTS
BTW the real cheaters are the RUMP'S WHO TRIED TO STEAL 2020 THAT THEY LOST AND HAVE BEEN CORRECTLY CHARGED WITH NOW
THEY TRIED TO SUBVERT OUR GOVERNMENT EVERY ONE DESERVES A LONG PRISON TERM THE ONES AT THE CAPITAL AND THOSE WHO PAID FOR THE RIOT/REVOLT OR PLANNED IT OR ORGANIZED IT AND ALL THOSE WHO SUPPORT THE ATTACK BEFORE OR AFTER CALLED IN LEGAL TERMS ACCESSORY'S BEFORE OR AFTER THE CRIME
ESP PEOPLE WHO TRYED TO CLAIM CRIMINALS WERE TOURISTS
BUT ON LINE OR PHONE IN VOTES ARE FINE FOR local elections in texass
that is HYPOCRISY IN ACTION
Texas allows online or over the phone voting in local elections? Show me. No way this is happening... at least, I hope it's not... that would be totally insane.
Originally posted by Raydar: I don't care. People who live in the city should not be able to enforce their rules - or politics - on the people who live out in the sticks.
Raydar, actually I do care. Passionately.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:
That doesn't strike me as a persuasive argument in favor of the Electoral College system as it currently works.
I think it's more correct to say that the Electoral College system, and the general way in which the nation's elected representatives are districted at the state and federal level, and the Senate's allocation of two U.S. Senators from every state, all work in concert to give the people who live outside of the major population centers an electoral weighting that deviates the nation's politics and governance from a more rational approach to the realization of the Constitution's "general welfare" clause.
Ah yes ! The General Welfare clause. Which should be named the "it's for your own good" clause. It was not written by the Founding Fathers. The King of England tried that.
rinselberg, , oh my. There you go again. Thinking. Just how much wrong is in your post ?
The Senate does not allocate the amount of Senators from every State. It is also not done at the Federal level. There are alot of things MNSBC does not want you to know,
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Texas allows online or over the phone voting in local elections? Show me. No way this is happening... at least, I hope it's not... that would be totally insane.
his local el co-op had those rules to vote on a subject in Bandera, Texas, USA a few weeks ago
sound like commies in yeehaa land with co-op's and on line walk in or phone votes
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
not only your rump but also about 1/2 of the dc Gop reps aid or comfort how many here did that
sorry I did not vote for that law but it needs to apply HARD TO THE RUMPERS
Originally posted by cliffw: The Senate does not allocate the amount of Senators from every State. It is also not done at the Federal level. There are a lot of things MNSBC does not want you to know,
OK, it's the defining organization of the Senate, as spelled out in the Constitution. "Two senators from every state." That's what I was thinking when I said "The Senate allocates..."
When I said "He hasn't ever posted in this thread," I wasn't talking about Raydar. I left the disambiguation of "He" to each reader's own interpretation.
"He" still hasn't posted in this thread. Although it wouldn't surprise me if that happened later today.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Ok, so is anyone actually voting by phone or online then? Serious question... sounds like some people were just talking about it?
bond issue for a local quasi-gov commune rural electrical corp
likely an FDR 30's program
so no a real money question as users pay in a co-op
and actually more important then the local elections for dogcatcher ect
I have dirt in Bandera, and am served by the Bandera Electric Co-Op. What you are alleging I have never heard. Source ?
Also, a Co-Op is not a political office.
guess you do NOT read your local paper on line story in it about your local co-op 2-3 weeks ago told how to vote on line by phone or drop by their office
quasi-gov sort of commie peoples corp is what a EL co-op is and they vote on money subjects like bonds everyone owes so more important then the local dogcatcher's election
funny you have no idea how you local system ''works'' real time
but it does have the variable rate RIP OFF TEXASS IS FAMOUS FOR YEEHAA no idea what you pay except you pay a lot
Here'a plan, and one that may be more successful. Fly to Shanghai, tell the border and immigration guards the purpose of your visit is ' business '. Stand in the airport's mezzanine with a loudspeaker bullhorn and advocate democracy and votes. An alien concept in Communist China, as it has been for all time, never happened there, ever. Shortly thereafter, you too, will have joined the ranks of workers in a worker's paradise, working. In your case, breaking big rocks into small rocks, forever, until useless, then, flushed like so much.. uh.. stool. Here in America, anti-constitutional rhetoric ought to be treated the same way, but more gently. Thirty days in the hole, for every uttering of counter-constitutional advocacy, incitement. Bouncing off the cell block walls at the sheriff's office, telling them all about what you were taught. ' Rights? We don't care about your rights, Ivan ! ' ' Don't make me come in there to stomp some sense into you, Ivan ! ' ' Stop Resisting ! Stop Resisting ! Stop Resisting ! ' Behavior modification by application of love taps, tender loving care, warm caress', compassionate embrace. ' Here, let me fill in your ballot for you, you seem to be having trouble holding your pencil, Ivan '
I alwasy thought that making some peoples votes count more than other peoples votes would be "anti-American", and anti-Republic".
I was always taught that the most pro-republic, pro-democracy, pro-American way was "one person = one vote".
There we go... here goes the nonsense-circle-jerk where you strawman like a madman. Thinking you're ever-so-clever, but really just being totally obnoxious. The problem with being only slightly intelligent (as you are) is that you think everyone else is less intelligent, and that puts you in a situation where you perceive everyone as beneath you intellectually, when really, the opposite is happening.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: There we go... here goes the nonsense-circle-jerk where you strawman like a madman. Thinking you're ever-so-clever, but really just being totally obnoxious. The problem with being only slightly intelligent (as you are) is that you think everyone else is less intelligent, and that puts you in a situation where you perceive everyone as beneath you intellectually, when really, the opposite is happening.
I know I have won when you don't even try to address my argument and instead just go into "squeal mode" with personal insults.
Unless you live in the sticks, I guess you wouldn't know.
1. Thanks for proving my point. There is absolutely no logical reason to claim that the votes of the people who live in the sticks should count more. The ONLY reason is selfishness. "Waa. Waa. I deserve it just because I want it. It is not fair when i don't get what i want. I deserve to always get what I want no matter what. Waa. Waa."
2. I do live in the sticks, but I still believe in "one person = one vote". That is just the way I was raised. I don't think I deserve special benefits just because I want them.
I know I have won when you don't even try to address my argument and instead just go into "squeal mode" with personal insults.
What exactly do you think you've "won" Fred? I've concluded that you're not worth my time debating semantics. It doesn't mean you're right, it means I know that you're so biased that you can never be reasoned with... and I recognize that.
Toast is trying to convince himself that he is not wrong, that he is “smart enough”. He has imagined a navigable, though circuitous path to that end. He has won a pyrrhic victory in his personal, internal struggle. He has awarded himself another trophy.
Toast is trying to convince himself that he is not wrong, that he is “smart enough”. He has imagined a navigable, though circuitous path to that end. He has won a pyrrhic victory in his personal, internal struggle. He has awarded himself another trophy.
Haha... well, I mean, I'll say his opinion is "not wrong," but it just doesn't matter. What he wants and thinks we should have, is very different than what we actually have. And short of a Constitutional convention or passage of a new amendment... his opinion means nothing.
, oh my.
