The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
Be careful what you wish for. The electoral college is there to prevent tyranny of the masses and bloc voting on a national level. It's not a perfect system, but I believe it's better than weakening my vote through direct democracy.
The Popular vote of the 2000 Presidential Election:
George W Bush - 50,456,002 47.87% Albert J Gore Jr - 50,999,897 48.38% Ralph Nader - 2,882,955 2.74%
Al Gore won the popular vote by over a half million votes, yet he lost the election.
It's time the US President is "elected" by the voters Not "selected" by party appointed officials.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
The electoral college was started to give states with lower populations a chance to have their vote count so that the large states with heavily populated cities couldn't control elections like some people today would like to see. It seems that the large cities are the ones that vote very heavily in favor of the Democrats and the same cities are also the ones that have a very large number of people on welfare. Our founding fathers came up with a compromise which has worked for over 200 years and it give all states a fair chance to have their votes count.
What state the voter comes from seems of little importance, when electing a US President. One vote in Idaho, Vermont or Iowa, should count as much as one vote in NY, California or Illinois. With our present system, a voter in a low population state has more than one vote in the outcome of an election, while a voter in a large population state like NY has less than one vote.
The USA promotes "democracy" and "free elections", everywhere EXCEPT inside the United States. How do you explain to someone in a developing country that they should switch to a "democracy" after you tell them that the 'One Man One Vote' system is outlawed in our own USA?
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
I don't wan the whole country controlled by any one party... I want every vote to count and for your President to be 'elected' by the people, not 'selected' by party hacks.
With our present system... The state of Wyoming cast about 210,000 votes, and thus each elector represented 70,000 votes, while in California approximately 9,700,000 votes were cast for 54 votes, thus representing 179,000 votes per electorate. Obviously this creates an unfair advantage to voters in the small states whose votes actually count more then those people living in medium and large states.
Why should a voter in Wyoming have more than one vote, while a voter in NY have less than one vote. A relatively few voters in Wyoming nullify a large number of votes in NY.
Also, a slight win of 50.1% of the popular vote, takes 100% of the electoral vote... again negating the will of the voters.
Can you picture a system where you Congressman or your Senator is elected with 40% of the votes while his opponent loses with 60%? Would you call that a fair election???
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
The USA promotes "democracy" and "free elections", everywhere EXCEPT inside the United States. How do you explain to someone in a developing country that they should switch to a "democracy" after you tell them that the 'One Man One Vote' system is outlawed in our own USA?
The USA is a REPUBLIC! States have sovereign rights. Our founding fathers were citizens of their state before their country. They understood the tyranny of the majority over the minority in direct democracy. But, I wouldn't expect today's publicly educated citizens to understand that.
I don't think they teach that in school any more Cicero and what is taught is slanted so far left it doesn't even resemble what really happened when this country was formed.
Can you picture a system where you Congressman or your Senator is elected with 40% of the votes while his opponent loses with 60%? Would you call that a fair election???
It's embarassing how little you know. Or you truly want to elect a king by simple majority of the popular vote. Go to Google and do a little research on how and why the country was set up this way. Why even bother to have voting districts?
...eliminate the power of the individual states, like a good Stalinist.
"While Foreign Terrorists were plotting to murder and maim using homemade bombs in Boston, Democrap officials in Washington DC, Albany and here were busy watching ME and other law abiding American Citizens who are gun owners and taxpayers, in an effort to blame the nation's lack of security on US so that they could have a political scapegoat."
It's amazing how stubborn grumpy Republicans can be. This isn't about states rights, or founding fathers, or what is right or fair... This issue is about agenda, and how best to use any advantage to eliminate votes for the opposition.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Logged
