|
Author
|
Topic: Boring, but essential!
|
Leonard
HMFIC
Member # 2
|
posted July 12, 2020 08:20 AM
Here's an article about a Supreme Court decision affecting national elections, ie: THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE.
Because the Dems have New York, California and Illinois locked up, they would love to campaign in those few states and "Flyover Country" can kiss their ass!
We had better hope that the little states continue to hold their influence, however small, or we will be stuck with Venezuela type socialism and The Green New Deal.
Here's the decision:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/07/supremes-signal-a-brave-new- world-of-popular-presidential-elections/
edit: this is important! These assholes sincerely want to ruin the country because they hate everybody and everything!
It is a good reminder that there is a lot more to Election Day than the race for the presidency. Conservatives should fight to preserve the Electoral College, and if Democrats want to eliminate it and change the way we vote, they should be made to comply with the Constitution’s arduous amendment process. But if you don’t think a Democrat-controlled Congress would approve a Democrat-driven compact to make Democrat-controlled cities the determinant of American presidential campaigns, you’re not paying attention.
[ July 12, 2020, 08:23 AM: Message edited by: Leonard ]
--------------------
EL BEE Knows It All and Done It All.
Don't piss me off!
Posts: 31466 | From: Upland, CA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
NVWalt
Does not claim to be overly bright!
Member # 375
|
posted July 13, 2020 04:45 AM
There it is in black and white.
You lose the Electoral College and you lose America and your rights. Very much like Nazi Germany and other Commie loving countries.
--------------------
Support Communism and help destroy the United States of America ! VOTE DEMOCRAT. "In the end, they aren't coming after me. They are coming after you!" D.Trump
Posts: 637 | From: Tellico Plains, TN | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leonard
HMFIC
Member # 2
|
posted July 13, 2020 09:09 AM
So many mistakes! Letting Academia have free reign in "educating" our children, which is brainwashing, in just one mistake. This kids have no concept of our own history, everything drilled into their heads is political. For some reason, the radical-pinko commie Left has decided to hate their own country? There are so many flaws in their concept of "utopia" that you hardly know where to start. The main thing is to develop a hate, and then they don't need logic. It's dangerous and how can reasonable people counter what's going on? Normal people aren't motivated and committed in the same way.
Actually, I've said this with "tongue in cheek" a few times, but the only thing that might work is to drive a fucking wooden stake through their hearts! It seems damned near impossible to deprogram them? Will it come to civil war or will we bend over, lie down, give up, let them have their way? Then blow our own brains out rather than submit?
I don't feel good about the future. We are allowing the radicals to take over what used to be a pretty good country. Be warned!
Good hunting. El Bee
--------------------
EL BEE Knows It All and Done It All.
Don't piss me off!
Posts: 31466 | From: Upland, CA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kokopelli
SENIOR DISCOUNT & Dispenser of Sage Advice
Member # 633
|
posted July 13, 2020 04:33 PM
It's cooled down to 105* so I can sit out on my patio, drink wine and wait for the Monsoon Thunderstorms to get here while I ponder the future.
Doesn't look good.
We have a senior generation that worked hard, invested and bought homes.
We have a Milenial (sp?) Generation who's life skill include a bullshit Political Science Degree, experience in Aroma Therapy, Social Media and living in their parents basements. Favorite phrase is "It's not fair".
Sadly............the Milenials are breeding even more useless specimens. Having no means of supporting this next generation of parasites other than the Public Teat they will piss away whatever they inherit leaving no basement for their children to live in.
It's that next generation of parasites that we're seeing now that DEMAND what they're entitled to that will be the fuse that lights the bomb.
The future don't look too good.
--------------------
And lo, the Light of the Trump shown upon the Darkness and the Darkness could not comprehend it.
Posts: 7584 | From: Under a wandering star | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leonard
HMFIC
Member # 2
|
posted July 13, 2020 05:43 PM
Ridiculous question! Is an actual cultural civil war possible? I mean with weapons, etc.
--------------------
EL BEE Knows It All and Done It All.
Don't piss me off!
Posts: 31466 | From: Upland, CA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kokopelli
SENIOR DISCOUNT & Dispenser of Sage Advice
Member # 633
|
posted July 13, 2020 07:22 PM
Depends .................
If the Force of Evil win it's a given that they will come after guns and free speech along with all of the other 'social reforms' they want.
Could get ugly.
On the other hand, if the good guys win we may be able to hold them off for a few more years.
--------------------
And lo, the Light of the Trump shown upon the Darkness and the Darkness could not comprehend it.
Posts: 7584 | From: Under a wandering star | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
NVWalt
Does not claim to be overly bright!
Member # 375
|
posted July 13, 2020 11:28 PM
It will come to that sooner or later.
You know I keep refering to the movie "Idiocracy" but if you watch it, it will really open your eyes to what we are living in right now. Good movie that started out as a comedy and ended up being a documentery of real life in the present.
--------------------
Support Communism and help destroy the United States of America ! VOTE DEMOCRAT. "In the end, they aren't coming after me. They are coming after you!" D.Trump
Posts: 637 | From: Tellico Plains, TN | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leonard
HMFIC
Member # 2
|
posted July 14, 2020 06:18 AM
Hum? I've never heard of it?
--------------------
EL BEE Knows It All and Done It All.
Don't piss me off!
Posts: 31466 | From: Upland, CA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Cdog911
"There are some ideas so absurd only an intellectual could believe them."--George Orwell.
Member # 7
|
posted July 17, 2020 08:26 AM
I will preface the following by suggesting that you get up now and get a cup of coffee, or a beer or three, or whatever you might need for the next twenty minutes because this post is even longer than usual for me.
I had this very conversation - as to changing the electoral college - with a friend a year and change back which compelled me to develop an idea that had occurred to me several years ago. As our defacto county Libertarian Party leader, he actually liked the idea, inasmuch as it will never become reality because it levels the playing field while withdrawing power from those currently in control.
I sent this to Trent England, Ex. VP of the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs, after a speech he gave was the feature in Hillsdale's Imprimus magazine. Never heard back. Guess I need to bug him some more for his thoughts. And yes, I have no problem doing that.
The following probably fulfills in its entirety any doubts that the sig line LB gave me is, in fact, accurate. But think this idea through. To me, it would work.
-------
In recent years, the increasingly maligned Electoral College process of choosing our American president has been the subject of growing public debate, including recent efforts by predominantly liberal states to approve laws that award their state’s entire electoral cadre to whichever candidate wins the national popular vote. Not so much by the victors in any given election, but by the vanquished, as their misguided means to an end in explaining how or why their candidate lost when victory seemed all but guaranteed.
At least, until the votes were actually counted and the outcome announced.
The Electoral College (EC) was established by Congress in 1787 as a compromise between electing the president by a vote in Congress and electing the president through a popular vote by “qualified citizens”. This body of “electors” consists of 538 individuals of which an absolute majority - or 270 - are required to elect the President. The number of electors is determined by the number of Representatives in the House for each state (435), plus each state’s two Senators (100), as well as electors for the District of Columbia (as established by the 23rd Amendment, a number of electors no greater than that of the least populous state - currently 3).
With exception of just two states - Maine and Nebraska - each state operates under a “winner takes all” policy for assigning electoral college votes. Maine and Nebraska split their votes according to popular vote outcomes in a manner deemed “proportional representation”.
“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule,
where fifty-one percent of the people may take
away the rights of the other forty-nine.”
-Thomas Jefferson
The rationale for establishing the EC was based on what many regarded to be a well founded fear of absolute democracy, viewed by many of our Founding Fathers as a form of mob rule. It was believed (and feared) that by allowing the president and vice-president to be elected by popular national vote (as in a true “democracy” rather than a representative republic), these offices would eventually be elected only by those states or party members in the extreme majority, thereby disenfranchising voters in smaller and more rural states - essentially a “tyranny of the majority”. The Founders were so concerned about this prospect that, in constructing our federal government, they allowed only one of the four major power centers - the House of Representatives - to be directly elected by citizen voters. (The Senate was originally appointed by state legislators rather than being directly voted as done today, as was provided for by passage of the Seventeenth Amendment.)
Supporters of the EC argue that it forces candidates to campaign outside the larger populations centers, increases and maintains parity of political influence for smaller and more rural states, and discourages excessive growth and influence of any one political party while maintaining the (at least) two-party system and, in doing so, results in an outcome that is regarded to be more legitimate than a popular vote.
Opponents argue that the EC can result in someone becoming president when their opponent actually received more of the popular vote (as has happened in two of the past five elections, in 2000 and 2016), that it compels candidates to focus their campaigning efforts disproportionately in a relatively few “swing states” while ignoring huge areas of the country where political partisanship is more firmly established and entrenched, and that the current allocation of votes affords rural states a disproportionately greater power than more populous urban areas.
“We are a Republican government. Real
liberty is never found in despotism or in
the extremes of democracy.”
-Alexander Hamilton
The current Electoral College process appears to many to possess a number of weaknesses that simply were not foreseen by the Founding Fathers, including but not limited to the vastly disproportionate concentration of population on both the east and west coasts (U.S. Census Bureau statistics reveal that over 80% of our population currently lives in urban centers) and how that correlates with consolidated political ideologies, the influence of socioeconomic factors on voter psychology and its correlation with impoverished citizens (the majority of which are concentrated in the urban areas) and their dependence upon the government for day to day survival through taxpayer funded entitlement programs, and the influence of media through the rapid, hyper-selective dissemination of information and disproportionate provision of facts as influenced by the political ideologies and perceptions of those tasked with conveying information to the consuming public (“fake news”).
If changes are to be made to the Electoral College (and abolishing it would be a catastrophic political disaster for those states not found near the margins), those changes should seek to resolve concerns about electoral votes failing to accurately and fairly represent voter conscience while emphasizing the need to establish some means by which parity can be established and maintained between states, regardless of population.
As a Libertarian, my voice has never been heard in Kansas during a presidential election. And, in all fairness, under the current EC system, democrats have been denied their voice, as well.
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It
soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself.
There never was a democracy yet that did
not commit suicide.”
-John Adams
In recent years, there have been observed abuses of the EC system as it currently exists, most profoundly illustrated during the 2016 election campaign period when Independent candidate Bernie Sanders was denied delegates by the Democratic National Party who, instead, assigned those delegates and “super delegates” to democrat candidate Hillary Clinton. In doing so, the questions was rightfully raised as to whether democrat voters’ voices were accurately represented.
To fully understand what many consider to be the EC’s weaknesses, we must first understand the reasoning behind certain aspects of its history. When first created, electors were selected from what were referred to as “qualified voters”, defined as individuals who were better informed of the issues facing the country, and who were familiar with the candidates. At that time, the ability to disseminate information and news was extremely limited and slow, unlike today’s world where information moves at the speed of light.
To compound the problem of human bias in appointed electors, it should also be noted that rather than selecting electors for the EC based upon their station in life and knowledge of critical issues as was the Founder’s original intent, today’s electors are selected almost solely on party loyalty. By changing this one aspect of the EC, a preponderance of human bias can be effectively eliminated, thereby reducing, if not eliminating, the issues of subjective influence by individuals acting as electors. Under this proposal, electoral votes will be incontrovertible, objective data points rather than at the whim and fancy of egocentric party loyalists.
“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting
on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-
armed lamb contesting the vote.”
-Benjamin Franklin
Therefore, I would suggest the following:
Repeal the current Electoral College and replace it with a new system in which each state and the District of Columbia are assigned 100 electoral votes for a total of 5,100 electoral college votes.
A simple majority would be required to win.
Each electoral vote will represent 1% of voters in the general presidential election for each state, and votes will be assigned according to the percentage of votes each party receives in the final election results.
Under this proposal, Congress would repeal the current “winner takes all” system and establish a new federal law mandating that each state shall participate under this program in the general election for president without exception. Everyone plays by the same rules.
For example, in the 2016 election between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, 56% of Kansas voters selected Trump as their candidate while 36% voted for Hillary Clinton. (Eight percent voted for a third party candidate.) Therefore, Donald Trump would receive 56 electoral votes and Hillary Clinton would receive 36. The remaining 8% would be assigned to their respective candidates.
Under our current system, Trump received all 6 votes while democrat voters (as well as those in lesser represented parties) were not represented in the final outcome at all.
The benefits of this proposal are that all voters - all parties - are proportionately represented from each state and that they are accurately and comprehensively represented in accordance with their voting results. The final votes cast would accurately and fairly represent the political “personality” of each state without excluding any lesser party. Those in the minority would not be excluded from the outcome due to the “winner takes all” policy currently in place.
By doing this, the ongoing issue of “swing states” and the resultant disproportionate attention given to them would be reduced significantly because candidates would know that they cannot decline to campaign in selected states simply because (in the past), those states have failed to offer them access to electoral votes.
Parity between states would level the playing field between smaller, more rural states and those with larger populations. Fifty percent (and 50 votes) in Kansas would carry the same electoral weight as 50% (and 50 votes) in California or New York, even though each vote represents fewer voters in the former. Voters in California or New York might argue that campaigning to raise their voter percentages by 1% would be more difficult and costly in their states than the same increase might be in Kansas or Wyoming, but those larger states have exponentially more voters which means more donors, greater resources, and more people to campaign than do smaller states.
Moreover, Democrats in historically conservative Republican states would be counted, as would Republicans in traditionally Democrat states, while including those in the Libertarian, Green and other parties, as well.
As a way of illustrating the potential of this proposal, let’s look at how it would have affected past elections. I’ve attached tables outlining the percentages of votes cast for Republicans, Democrats, and third party candidates for the 1992 (GHW Bush v. W. Clinton), 2000 (GW Bush v. Gore), 2004 (GW Bush v. Kerry), 2012 (Obama v. Romney), and 2016 (Trump v. H Clinton) general elections.
The results are as follows:
1992 Geo. H. W. Bush v. W. Clinton
Tr (Republican total): 1,924
Td (Democrat total): 2,144
4067*
Proposed final proportions, Bush, 38% Actual proportions 37%
Clinton, 42% 43%
*Discrepancy between this total and the expected 5,100 votes is due to rounding errors and third party candidates
Result: No change in election outcome. William Clinton would still have won.
2000 George W. Bush v. Al Gore
Tr (Total for Republicans): 2,533 votes
Td (Total for Democrats): 2,347 votes
5,029 votes*
Proposal final proportions, Bush, 50.4% Actual proportions 47.9%
Gore, 46.7% 48.9%
Other, 2.9% 2.7%
Result: No change in election outcome. George Bush would still have won.
2004 George W. Bush v. John Kerry
Tr: 2,669 FInal proposed Bush: 52.9% Actual 50.7%
Td: 2,375 Kerry: 47.1% 48.3%
5,044*
Result: No change in election outcome. George Bush would still have won.
2012 Obama v. Romney
Tr: 2,513 Final proposed Romney: 50.1% Actual 48.0%
Td: 2,498 Obama: 49.9% 51.0%
5,011*
Result: Romney edges Obama by 0.2%. Romney would have won.
2016 Trump v. Hillary Clinton
Tr: 2,463 Final proposed Trump: 49.7% Actual 46.1%
Td: 2,278 Clinton: 46.0% 48.2%
To: 215 Other: 4.3% 5.7%
4,956*
Results: No change in election outcome. Trump would still have won.
As previously stated, any proposal offered with the intent of suggesting changes in the current electoral college system should focus upon correcting imperfections within that system that are revealed as modern-day circumstances that were simply not anticipated by the Founding Fathers. Chief among these would be the ongoing bias created by overwhelmingly disproportionate numbers of voters of the same political ideology being concentrated not just in the same major urban centers, but cross entire contiguous, geographical regions, to the extent that this “consolidation of thinking” threatens to disenfranchise large expanses of the nation’s populous where lesser numbers of voters tend to disagree. The key to improvement appears to lie in equalization and parity between the states.
Looking at the five elections selected for the purposes of this proposal, we see that the final numbers consistently changed somewhat when using this proposed method of gauging voter intent.
In the 1992 campaign between George H. W. Bush and WIlliam J. Clinton, there was no change in the outcome of the election despite there being a slight (+1%) increase in the proportion of voters for Bush, and a commensurate (-1%) decrease in votes for Clinton. Clinton still wins.
Similar changes were seen in the 2004 Bush v. Kerry election where this proposed method would have resulted in a 2% increase in votes for Republican candidate George W. Bush, as well as a 1% decrease in votes for Democrat John Kerry. Bush would still have won.
In these two elections, it would appear that when the Republican ticket wins under the proposed system, they win by a slightly larger margin.
Three of the five election outcomes deserve special attention when considered within the context of this proposal.
Both the 2000 election between George W. Bush (R) and Al Gore (D) and the most recent 2016 election between Donald J. Trump (R) and Hillary (D) Clinton resulted in situations where the current electoral college system awarded a majority of electoral college votes to one candidate while the other actually had more votes in the popular vote (nationally). In both cases, these differences can be accounted for by localized influence in predominantly liberal/ democratic states rather than seeing an equalized vote spread out across the entire nation.
When election results are reconsidered and recalculated using this proposed method, the 2000 election actually results in George W. Bush realizing a net gain of 0.5% of the electoral college vote while Al Gore saw a net decrease of 2.2%. George W. Bush not only still won the election, despite the public outcry over tampering and Supreme Court overreach, but he increased the margin by which he won.
Similar results were seen in the recent 2016 Trump v. Hillary Clinton election where the final outcome, despite Clinton receiving nearly 3 million more popular votes than Donald Trump (most all of which came from one state - California), reveals that using this proposed method of calculating the winner would have resulted in a 3.6% increase in the number of electoral college votes for Donald Trump while Hillary Clinton would have seen a 2.2% net decrease. Again, the outcome of the election would have remained the same despite the method used for calculating the final result.
Of great interest is the results observed using this method in the 2012 campaign between then-President Barack H. Obama (D) and Mitt Romney (R) where, under the current system, President Obama won his second term by a 3% net margin with 51% of the electoral college vote. Under this proposal, the outcome would have been dramatically changed with Obama realizing a net change of -1.1%, down to 49.9% of the electoral college vote, while Romney would have enjoyed a net change of +2.1%, resulting in 50.1% of the electoral college vote and a win overall by 0.2%.
Using this proposed system, Mitt Romney would have dethroned Barack Obama in 2012 and become the 45th President of the United States. The relevance and importance of considering a change to the electoral college system in this country is illustrated in consideration of how things might have been different today had Obama been only a one-term president, and Romney had been elected in 2012. Something to ponder.
Conclusions
In recent months, an overwhelming hue and cry has increased amongst primarily liberal democrats for the abolishment of the electoral college process as the lawful means by which we elect the President of the United States. In its place, a number of alternative methods have arisen, including using the national popular vote as a direct means of electing the president, and more recently, a new trend by which state legislatures are voting to award all of their state’s electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote.
The Electoral College was created and established in 1787 due to a legitimate concern by our Founding Fathers surrounding “mob rule”. The Founders foresaw that people tend to gather in groups and thus, expected that cities would grow in size and represent an unfair monopolization of political influence over less populated rural areas and smaller communities. This is the very reason that our national government was established as a representative republic, as opposed to being a true democracy where “majority rule” is essentially the same as the aforementioned “mob rule”.
In population science, as in most statistical applications, the most accurate means of censusing any population is an absolute count where every individual’s data is recorded. The only way that such an absolute data set could be used is where all other variables and factors are equal, i.e., political ideologies are equally blended and distributed across the entirety of the geographic area being considered. In other words, in a perfect model, there would be “X” number of Republicans and “Y” number of Democrats in each square unit of area, and each area of equal size would have the identical number of “X’s” and “Y’s”. Of course, this is not true of the real world.
Therefore, it could be said that the concerns expressed by the Founders illustrate clearly why using the absolute results of the national popular vote simply will not work if you are at all sensitive to the importance of equally representing the relevance of voter intent in every state, regardless of population and size. Because the national popular vote is essentially a form of mob rule, the concept of awarding state electoral votes based solely upon the single metric of national popular vote is no better and may actually be worse by further magnifying and exacerbating the influence of mob rule by further disenfranchising those votes that are not cast for the winning candidate and party.
This proposal seeks to level the playing field by establishing parity between states regardless of geographic size or population density. Under this proposal, each and every political party receiving a vote for their candidate in the general election will receive at least a 1% stake in the election’s final outcome. Of most importance is that each and every party receiving votes in the election will be represented by a figure commensurate with their voting presence.
Simply put, these final figures result in what could be described as a quasi-direct election of the president, but due to the fact that each state, regardless of population, offers 100 electoral votes representing the proportional distribution of votes within their borders, the process, as a whole, is an indirect election of the president per the original intent of the Founding Fathers.
But, what about just using proportional representation across the country?
As an aside, I went back and reviewed the data for three of the five elections discussed above (1992, 2012, and 2016) applying the same basic method of proportional representation as currently seen in Nebraska and Maine, where each state’s current number of electoral votes were split and awarded based upon each party’s proportion of votes.
In the 1992 election, George H. W. Bush would have received a net increase of 6% (from 37% to 43%) while Bill Clinton would have seen a net increase of 4% (43% to 47%) with a noted decrease in third party voter impact.
In the 2012 election, there was no significant difference between methods and outcomes. President Obama would still have won, regardless of which method was used.
In the 2016 election, under this method, Donald Trump would have seen a reduction of 3% (from 49% to 46%) whereas Hillary Clinton would have seen a net change of +2% (46% to 48%) while third party votes would have increased from 4.3% to 6%, a net change of +1.7%. Hillary Clinton would have won the presidency in 2016 if the nation was bound to proportional representation in the Electoral College using current electoral vote numbers.
As alarming (or exciting, depending upon your ideology) as these number might look, it must be understood that these outcomes and figures represent and consider only a very limited number of parameters considering how American voters ultimately select their political parties, direct their loyalties, choose their candidates and cast their votes. A number of interesting questions and concerns arise when the reader takes the time to truly delve into these issues and consider each variable and possibility.
For example, studies have revealed that far more conservative voters tend to trend toward the Libertarian Party than is represented in voter records. Because libertarian candidates rarely appear on ballots for critical races, few get significant numbers of votes, and thus, the vast majority of ideological libertarians register and vote as republicans in order to participate in primary elections, and amongst those libertarians who vote republican, it is unknown how many actually cast votes “for” any particular candidate, as opposed to casting a “protest vote” as a means of weakening the position of a particular candidate that they do not support and would prefer to see removed from the race.
Because of this, a genuine concern about the impact of this proposal, or any change, to the Electoral College System exists and must be addressed before any serious efforts should be undertaken to affect any changes.
For example, if this proposal were to be enacted (admittedly highly unlikely), the system would change whereby any individual vote cast for someone other than a candidate of the two major parties would heretofore have been considered “wasted”. Would this compel voters to vote their conscious and their ideology, knowing that every single party receiving votes will be represented in the final record by at least 1%, rather than voting for who they perceive to be the eventual winner? And, if so, will third party voters separating from the two major parties result in an uneven shifting of political influence in such a manner that one major party is given an unfair advantage over the other?
For instance, is it possible that enough libertarians vote their party that the footprint of the Republican Party is reduced to such a degree that the Democrats win an election they would have otherwise lost were the EC process not changed? And, at the same time, could a change in the EC trigger a similar shift in the Democrat Party where those whose ideologies are more aligned with the Green or Socialist Parties cast their votes for their third parties, thus giving the Republican Party a slight advantage?
There are many different ways in which the process of indirectly electing the President of the United State can be done. The currently used Electoral College System is only one. Much thought and debate must be done to fully explore the “what ifs” before any serious discussion and lobbying for change can be allowed. None of us know, beyond speculation, how changes such as this proposal could or would change the outcome of any election, if not the face of American politics. But, we do know at least one thing for sure.
Mob rule, otherwise known as true democracy where the majority holds a tyrannical hold on those professing lesser recognized ideals, was properly noted by the Founding Fathers as a very dangerous idea and well worth avoiding at all costs.
They may not have foreseen the disproportionate political influence over “fly over country” by major urban areas like New York City, Chicago, Detroit, or Los Angeles, nor did they necessarily anticipate the degree to which political influence would ensnare entire demographic groups at the mercy of political ideologues for the express purpose of permanently capturing voter support through economic and social dependency, but they did - wisely and rightfully - recognize a very bad idea in using the national popular vote for electing our nation’s Chief Executive Officer.
We would do well to honor their memory, as well as their concern for future generations, by continuing to share those same concerns.
I do not know if there is a better way to elect our president - my proposal is only one - but I do know the one way we shouldn’t. And, the popular vote is a very bad idea.
--------------------
I am only one. But still, I am one. I cannot do everything, but still, I can do something; and, because I cannot do everything, I will not refuse to do something that I can do.
Posts: 5438 | From: The gun-lovin', gun-friendly wild, wild west | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leonard
HMFIC
Member # 2
|
posted July 17, 2020 10:18 AM
Dude, you have too much free time!
--------------------
EL BEE Knows It All and Done It All.
Don't piss me off!
Posts: 31466 | From: Upland, CA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leonard
HMFIC
Member # 2
|
posted July 17, 2020 10:50 AM
First of all, any tinkering that results in President Romney is a two edged sword. Yes, it nails Obama's balls to the floor, but considering the way Romney has been voting in the senate lately, we might have not quite appreciated his election after the euphoria of defeating Bathhouse Barry.
Okay, Okay. Uninformed people say, what's so hard about batting? It's a ball or it's a strike, right?
But when you consider a high and tight fastball, called chin music, the intimidation factor is real. Not only, consider the change up, which might account for more strike outs than the flamethrower down the pipe. Batters have been struck out swinging
at a curveball in the dirt plenty of times. You never know what's coming unless you are the Astros....get it?
Now, what does this have to do with the EC? It's just variables, right? Figures lie and Liar's figure! I'm inclined to say; if it ain't broke, don't fix it. But IS it broke, since I'm still chewing on a "President Romney"?
Whatever on that, but as a resident of California and the outrage of majorities inflicted upon the minority, of which I am a suffering member, the idea of a national popular vote clearly is a problem. Most recently, in 2018 we had the opportunity to vote for either of two Democrats for governor and two Democrats for senator and (surprise, surprise) a democrat won in both instances!
I'm not sure what I mean but I admire a system that gives little Wyoming 3 electoral votes. My state has about 35 million legit voters and at least 5 million illegals that voted and in 2016, Hillary won this state by 3 million votes, I am told.
If I could be sure that there was no way for Democrats to cheat! Such as ballot harvesting, dead people voting, early voting, vote by mail and finding a trunk full of uncounted ballots, etc.
So, I notice that Cdog dreamed up a system that relies heavily on computations, I can't begin to imagine the potential for fraud; those decimal points start to get significant when we have 330 million citizens, and 340 million voters.
Bottom line, I just don't know what to think of this proposal but I'm not too worried about it. If we don't push trump across the finish line, we'ze FUCKED!
Good hunting. El Bee
[ July 17, 2020, 10:53 AM: Message edited by: Leonard ]
--------------------
EL BEE Knows It All and Done It All.
Don't piss me off!
Posts: 31466 | From: Upland, CA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
