Minority Rule Cannot Last in America

[OscarLevant]

Obviously you don't understand both the construct of the nation, or my post. It was never one person one vote for the President or the Senate in our system.

Obviously you didn't understand the meaning of my statement:

In time, the concept of 'one person one vote' will be restored.

 

[VanceMack]

Pretty sure the ****ing moron that wrote the article doesnt know or understand the concept of a country, the union of 50 states into a united country, and what all that entails. The ****ing moron that wrote that article actually beleieves it would be appropriate for a few states with large populations (populations that they cant take care of within their own state) should be able to dictate to the vast majority of states.

 

[Antiwar]

Pretty sure the ****ing moron that wrote the article doesnt know or understand the concept of a country, the union of 50 states into a united country, and what all that entails. The ****ing moron that wrote that article actually beleieves it would be appropriate for a few states with large populations (populations that they cant take care of within their own state) should be able to dictate to the vast majority of states.

Have you ever done the math on your bitter conclusion? Or have you arrived at your bitter conclusion based on nothing but your bitter conclusion?

I've done the math. You are wrong. Do you think that being wrong is right?

 

[Antiwar]

Pretty sure the ****ing moron that wrote the article doesnt know or understand the concept of a country, the union of 50 states into a united country, and what all that entails.

The unequal voting-powers of the Electoral College are the entrails of slavery.

 

[What if...?]

Got any proof of that, or is that just your ****ing grade A intellect grasping at straws?

Guns and abortion are the levers they use to get republicans to vote for them so they can act against their interests.

That and the constant terror campaign about "communism" and liberals taking their freedoms while telling people who they can marry, what they can do with and put into their bodies, etc etc.

 

[Antiwar]

Correction: More power, not "as much power."

It's no coincidence that the founders were slavers.

 

[NWRatCon]

We will never get rid of the Electoral College.

Sadly, likely true, but it did almost happen in the 70s. Of the 700 attempts to fix or abolish the electoral college, this one nearly succeeded (WaPo, Subscription).

The fight to reform or abolish the electoral college began almost as soon as it was created, by those who created it. In 1802, Alexander Hamilton, one of the original architects of the electoral college, was so displeased with how it was being executed that he helped draft a constitutional amendment to fix it. Since then there have been more than 700 efforts to reform or abolish it, according to the Congressional Research Service.
....
In September 1969, the proposed amendment sailed through the House, passing 339 to 70. Nixon, a Republican, threw his support behind Democrat Bayh’s proposal, and it appeared a majority of state legislatures would ratify it.

So what happened to the senator’s bill? The Senate.

Southern senators led by South Carolina’s Strom Thurmond were perfectly happy with the system as it was. As Wallace had demonstrated, the electoral college increased the importance of the Southern White vote; and the winner-take-all system effectively canceled out the Black vote so long as Southern Blacks remained the minority.

The group blocked the amendment from moving forward with a filibuster. (For what it’s worth, the filibuster is another old convention that many argue should be abolished.) The amendment died on the Senate floor the next year.

It will require a MASSIVE public movement to pressure legislators to vote against their egos. As we now know, white supremacy keeps a much larger foothold in the United States than we believed, even 50 years on.

 

[Fishking]

A lot of people don't fully understand the links between slavery, conservatism, the Three-fifths Compromise, the Electoral College, and Congress. Do you?

-conservatism +Democrats

 

[Fishking]

"Fleeing the state" doesn't answer the questions.

Taxation is socialism?

Specifically, what disease? Shouldn't diseases be eradicated?

Depends on the level of taxation and what the taxes are used for. There is a scale there. If I takes you 100% of your income, and then provide you with state-sponsored services, do you even own your property?

 

[Antiwar]

-conservatism +Democrats

Why does the South consistently vote Republican? Why do white supremacists love Trump?

 

[Fishking]

Obviously you didn't understand the meaning of my statement:

In time, the concept of 'one person one vote' will be restored.

"Restored" implies it existed before. It didn't, so you don't understand and you're wrong.

 

[Antiwar]

Depends on the level of taxation and what the taxes are used for. There is a scale there. If I takes you 100% of your income, and then provide you with state-sponsored services, do you even own your property?

Is the tax rate in California 100%?

 

[Jetboogieman]

We are the Unite States of America, not the United States of California and New York.

Here's the problem with that though, as much as that is the primary concern.

"Oh, candidates would only campaign in big cities and that would be it".

It's also not the "United States of a handful of Battleground States".

That's where the argument falls apart and there is no reconciling it, sure, you can bang on about how "Wise the founders were" stuff that continually gets trotted out.

But election after election, I don't see how it's objectively better that Candidates spend most of their time in a handful of swing states rather than trying to bring a broad appeal to a majority of Americans.

There is simply no way you can argue it without resorting to fanciful Founding Father Worship.

 

[NWRatCon]

Have you ever done the math on your bitter conclusion? Or have you arrived at your bitter conclusion based on nothing but your bitter conclusion?

I've done the math. You are wrong. Do you think that being wrong is right?

No, yes, yes. It's a constant pattern. Facts have no bearing in this.

 

[Antiwar]

No, yes, yes. It's a constant pattern. Facts have no bearing in this.

And conservatives have the gall to claim that "liberals" overuse their emotions and underuse critical thinking.

 

[NWRatCon]

Here's the problem with that though, as much as that is the primary concern.

"Oh, candidates would only campaign in big cities and that would be it".

It's also not the "United States of a handful of Battleground States".

That's where the argument falls apart and there is no reconciling it, sure, you can bang on about how "Wise the founders were" stuff that continually gets trotted out.

But election after election, I don't see how it's objectively better that Candidates spend most of their time in a handful of swing states rather than trying to bring a broad appeal to a majority of Americans.

There is simply no way you can argue it without resorting to fanciful Founding Father Worship.

I have made numerous variations of this argument for decades, with charts, data and logic, all to no avail. It has been true that candidates get more bang for their buck in metropolitan areas, but that ignores the changes in media and what a popular vote model would do to "democratize" the process.

Suddenly minority views in Every State would matter. Think of all the Republican voters in New York, Massachusetts and California who feel disenfranchised because their State is "reliably blue" or Democratic voters in Kansas and Texas (and the entire South) who feel routinely ignored. Their vote would suddenly be worth seeking. Republicans would need to go to Wyoming, Montana, Alaska and Arkansas to "run up the score" and Democrats to stop them. Georgia and North Carolina would become the norm in terms of attracting candidates from BOTH parties. They wouldn't be tired to electoral college vote math, but actual vote math. They'd need to go everywhere.

 

[Fishking]

Here's the problem with that though, as much as that is the primary concern.

"Oh, candidates would only campaign in big cities and that would be it".

It's also not the "United States of a handful of Battleground States".

That's where the argument falls apart and there is no reconciling it, sure, you can bang on about how "Wise the founders were" stuff that continually gets trotted out.

But election after election, I don't see how it's objectively better that Candidates spend most of their time in a handful of swing states rather than trying to bring a broad appeal to a majority of Americans.

There is simply no way you can argue it without resorting to fanciful Founding Father Worship.

But it's not the "handful of Battleground states". It can seem like that, because of all the attention, but it isn't. California still has more EC votes than any battleground state. That California is so lopsided in their ideology, making them ignored during campaign season, doesn't change that.

 

[sjmay]

Kinda of seems like you want my opinion. Trump might of been President of the United States, but he wasn't my president. That's pathetic assclown was and is the white wings hero. How sad.

And you wonder why people call your side ignorant.....

 

[sjmay]

What's with all of these "conservatives" with Canadian flags posting about American politics?

Most of them probably left when Biden won, you know, like the left threatened to do but always ******d out?

 

[sjmay]

Guns and abortion are the levers they use to get republicans to vote for them so they can act against their interests.

That and the constant terror campaign about "communism" and liberals taking their freedoms while telling people who they can marry, what they can do with and put into their bodies, etc etc.

So...no, no proof.....because what you idiotically said is that fly over republicans do things for high dollar coastal donators.....with no proof...and when asked for proof.....you spout ideological bullshit? Figures.

 

[Antiwar]

Most of them probably left when Biden won, you know, like the left threatened to do but always ******d out?

I'll take "Non Sequiturs" for $4,200 Canadian dollars, Alex.

 

[sjmay]

I'll take "Non Sequiturs" for $4,200 Canadian dollars, Alex.

Only a non-sequiter if you are brain dead, you asked what is up with conservatives with Canadian flags spouting off about US Politics, you realize that flag is more than likely based on IP address, not citizenship...right? **** that would require you to think, you clearly aren't good at that....

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

All (or most) of any potential problems in the OP could be remedied if the majority of citizens voted--but that will never happen. We have the freedom not to vote, and if we were to force people to vote, the results couldn't be considered a true reflection of the public's desires. So, the system we have now is the best system (I believe).

Well educated societies are marked by higher voter participation.
We have allowed education to wither and rot in this country for forty years.

 

[Antiwar]

Only a non-sequiter if you are brain dead, you asked what is up with conservatives with Canadian flags spouting off about US Politics, you realize that flag is more than likely based on IP address, not citizenship...right? **** that would require you to think, you clearly aren't good at that....

I accept your half-assed challenge to debate the unequal voting-powers that result from the Electoral College.

 

[Emily L]

Well educated societies are marked by higher voter participation.
We have allowed education to wither and rot in this country for forty years.

Amen to that, Checker!