UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
this is why i argue (correctly) that the red states are over represented in congress especially.
wyoming and north dakota wield as much power in the senate as new york and california. that makes no sense.
"A rational individual should abstain from voting."
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
wyoming and north dakota wield as much power in the senate as new york and california. that makes no sense.
londonfog
Well-Known Member
a very good example of Electoral College working is 1888 election... Harrison lost the popular vote by 95,713 votes to Cleveland, but won the electoral vote by 65. In this instance, Electoral College worked the way it is designed to work by not allowing a candidate from winning an election based on support from one region of the country ( The South )...[FONT=verdana, geneva, helvetica]Cleveland promised to reduce trade tariffs , a policy which would have greatly benefited southern states only..[/FONT] The South overwhelmingly supported Cleveland, and he won by more than 425,000 votes in six southern states. However, in the rest of the country he lost by more than 300,000 votes.
If we had our elections solely on the popular vote Candidates would just pander and cater to a certain region. I for one would hate to have seen this country with A POTUS showing over whelming support for only one region like the South in 1888
If we had our elections solely on the popular vote Candidates would just pander and cater to a certain region. I for one would hate to have seen this country with A POTUS showing over whelming support for only one region like the South in 1888
londonfog
Well-Known Member
I agree too when we start discussing Senate
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
sigh
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
well, when they are also over represented in the EC and the house, it makes no sense to give them disproportionately more power in the senate as well.sigh
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
Plank #9 of the communist manifesto.
londonfog
Well-Known Member
but it does prevent your bigger states (population wise) from having a closed hand ruling of our nation.. I guess its a give and take
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
tell me about the evils of public education and how no powerful nation would ever benefit from it.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
if the small states are over represented in the senate, it should be only fair that the big states get way over represented in the house.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
yes, all small states should be at the mercy of the larger states. who gives a fuck about farmer's problems, or bear and mountain lion infestations? we aint got that shit in central park so its all a lie.
lets all go to the east village and try to spot woody allen, then have a pride parade!
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
there are tons of farms and forests in cali and NY and texas.
i could just flip that coin and say "who cares about [inner city problem X, Y, or Z], we ain't got that kinda thing here in shitshatapoopton, oklahoma so it don't exist, dagnabbit!".
see how that works?
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
I view Marx like Rand in a Yin/Yang way, brilliant people with good ideas who completely misunderstood human nature. If you think about it, both have the same end game, self rule, they just take polar opposite routes to get there.
Also, if you take Marx's view of education for the masses and run it according to Rand's rules it achieves a better standard for less money. They would have made an awesome couple and taken over the world, glad we escaped that.
Also, if you take Marx's view of education for the masses and run it according to Rand's rules it achieves a better standard for less money. They would have made an awesome couple and taken over the world, glad we escaped that.
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
Plank #10. Eliminate private schools and homeschooling. How else will a nation's people know how powerful it is?
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
Michigan is like that too with farms and inner cities. Could you imagine if Detroit ran MI based on population? Kwame would have been the richest man alive.
londonfog
Well-Known Member
Hmmm the check and balance of how a bill is passed keeps the states United and that is the country that we live in..No one State can control this nation.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
there are no checks and balances in bill passage. that system has become a partisan sport for R's and D's to amuse themselves while the real action takes place in secret meetings with bureaucrats and corporate executives. This is why the code of regulations is far larger and much more powerful than the code of laws in the modern american dystopia or rather, fruitopia.
the electoral college was intended to be a small dedicated committee whose only chore was casting their votes for the presidency based on their states' population's desires. they still serve a valuable function in preventing the massive population of a few urbanized states from dominating the political makeup of the executive branch just as congressional districting prevents urban centers from overwhelming rural communities with their population density. this is why congressmen represent a geographic area, not the vague general populace of the entire state. this is why senators were intended to be SELECTED by the states, as the state's representative, as a counterbalance to the peoples representatives in the house. the president would be elected by a small group of representatives selected by the states bound to do the will of the populace (in theory, and in practice for the most part) while owing their ultimate allegiance to the state, not the populace at large. the courts were to be selected by the president for appointment and either accepted or rejected by the states' representatives in the senate to ensure that the federal government remained a union of independent states, not a nation-state of dependent prefectures.
those are our "checks and balances"
londonfog
Well-Known Member
so is it the system or the people running the system
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
it is the system being corrupted by those running it, with the blind complicity of the people who cast votes for bread and circuses with no regard for the future.
the 20th century was marked by the creation of a new system of control designed to turn the american people into mindless drones who simply do as they are bid by their masters who "know best"
in the beginning it was the robber barons,, carnegie, rockerfeller, and others who prized wealth above all else, and devised a scheme to manufacture public opinion through control of a few "prominent" newspapers like the new york times, and the chicago tribune. in the end these bloodyhanded fools controlled the 20 most influential newspapers in america with the express purpose of using them to manipulate the opinions of the fools who trusted these newspapers to tell them what was going on in the world. with the assistance of william randolph hearst, their "new money" ally in the newspaper business they created "yellow journalism". they used this new power to inflame the passions of people who should have known better, deceive the masses who's exposure to information came only through their morning newspaper, and created the empire of disinformation we see today in the newspapers TV networks, cable stations, 24 hour news satellite feeds, newswires, and press clubs who simply regurgitate the "news" sent to them by AP, Rueters or the new york times. this has not been accidental nor has it been benign.
the first truely modern war was the spanish american war, which was based solely on the provocation and frothing demands of william randolph hearst and his newspaper empire marching in lockstep with the money trust who needed a war to prove that america was a world power. the explosion of the USS Maine in havana harbour was not caused by spanish saboteurs, it was an accident common to old coal burning steamships. hearst and the money trust seized this chance to start their war using the asinine monroe doctrine, and the manufactured outrage of the sinking of the maine to whip the hoi poloi into a screaming horde who demanded vengeance. this is not supposition or hypothesis,, this is historical fact easily verified by a little reading of the scholarly work done in the last 100 years on the subject. even theodoree roosevelt was swept up in the desire to prosecute this "glorious little war", and he later determined to stamp out the money trust for their perfidity. sadly he failed, but he got close enough that they hired an assassin to shoot him.
after their fun little romp was won in cuba, the money trust and their newspaper servants went into action to create popular support for the federal reserve act,, which they crafted in secret solely for the purpose of preventing the dethronement they nearly suffered at the hands of roosevelt. they created the federal reserve act with the help of euroipe's two largest banking cartels, the warburgs of germany and the rothschilds of england france and switzerland (you should read up on the rothschild banking dynasty, it is a fascinating subject). the new banking cartel which they have for over 100 years tried to portray as just a bank run by the congress (lies) now controls our new fiat currency, and thus they control their puppets in congress who recognize that eliminating this monstrosity would cause considerable short term pain in the economy, but anyone who knows anything about the politics of the last 120 years will recognize that any disrupotiojn (even short term) is the last thing the economy will allow. even less likely would be the controllers of our economic house of cards allowing the short term pain associated with the dismantling of their primary source of economic and financial control.
this is the root of the problems we face now, our constitutional republic has been hijacked by a few dominant men and we have blindly stood by and allowed this to happen, and in fact it continues to occur with every megamerger,, corporate bailout and sweetheart deal for the banks who now rule our nation with their velvet wrapped fist.
desert dude
Well-Known Member
Almost true. If the electors voted proportionally then each individual vote would be more meaningful. For example, if 55% of Texans vote Democrat 45% vote Republican all of TX's electoral votes go to the Dems. If it was proportional, then only 55% of TX voters would go to the Dems and 45% to the Reps.
In states where your preference is the underdog, your vote for President does not count.
I only vote in the presidential election as a form of protest. It's meaningless, but it makes me feel a little bit better and it allows me to get on RIU and call other people ugly names.
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
If the weak federal system still existed as designed the states could work out what they needed individually and tailor it to the citizens. At this time the federal government confiscates state wealth and then doles it out by popularity contest...
A bloated an inefficient method of wealth redistribution.