War on the Electoral College

[steph3n]

Id prefer it if the majority ruled as opposed to the minority. Plus a system where every vote counts is better. Either go to majority rules, or eliminate parties on the ballot, that way people will have to use their brain when voting, thus making all states swing states.

Enjoy your self made tyranny, may you ever starve to death, you have only yourself to blame.

 

[steph3n]

Secession is the answer to this problem. It's the answer to many problems, actually.

I wonder if a county/parish has every tried to secede from a state and the nation

 

[ronpaulfollower999]

Aristotle called democracy the worst form of government. There is a reason we are a republic.

 

[Paulatized]

I wonder if a county/parish has every tried to secede from a state and the nation

Ever heard of the Free State of Jones? http://www.amazon.com/Free-State-Jones-Mississippis-Longest/dp/0807854670

There is also another book on the subject called "The Echo of the Black Horn," written by a neighbor of mine. http://www.amazon.com/The-echo-black-horn-authentic/dp/B0007EMIXG Interesting reading although very dryly written.

I live about 3 miles from the Jones County line, which happens to also be the same Jones County the Motorhome Diaries crew came through and were stopped.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Good riddance to it. I'm surprised not everybody here is against it. Isn't it just another socialist-like program trying to ensure "equality"? Why should my vote be lessened because people chose to live in the country? And besides, politicians pretty much only concentrate on states or areas that are neck-in-neck in the polls.

Because the biggest voice in the country is not the individual, it's the state. The sovereign states of America are loosely congregated so as to provide an association between separate local governments under a very weak federal government. The reasons for the electoral college are to support the interests of the individual state. Popular votes are one of the main indicators of true democracy, something we don't want. We want our local governments to have more authority than the federal government. If we have the individual directly tied to the federal government, then we don't have a republic. We have the two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. That's democracy, and it's a bad thing.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

300+ million people, popular vote or electoral college = plain oppression.

Any country that size is a monster and oppressor of its people by virtue of its size alone.

I've long avoided that conclusion, but you may be right. It seems impossible to avoid the fact that 300+ million people cannot be counted on to govern themselves or even think for themselves. That's why I wish Jackson hadn't had stars in his eyes when he made the Louisiana Purchase and stayed with his original conviction that the Purchase was unconstitutional.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Because trying to represent a collective body of 300+ million people is absurd! No system works good enough to do it.

//

 

[pochy1776]

IRONY: The NPV is being advertized here

 

[gwax23]

I suggest everyone who hasnt watch this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k

Anyone who thinks an election with the popular vote would only be focused on the cities is plain wrong. After NYC the population of cities in America drop drastically. By the time you get to the 10th largest city (San jose) your already under a million people. Adding all top 10 cities only gives you roughly 25 million people. Compare that to the remaining 275 million. Yea so just campaigning in cities wont cut it.

It might not be perfect but its a hell of a lot better then the current system. Anyone who thinks its better the minority rule the majority (in this case rural compared to urban/suburban) just because the rural vote might be more sympathetic to our cause then the urban vote is going against libertarian principles.

Popular vote is the way to go but for the legislatures we need proportional voting with party lists.

 

[belian78]

I was having this conversation with my friend on FB last night actually. Can't believe that people support getting rid of the EC, especially using the justification that the majority should always be able to dictate reality to the minority. Really? Majority rule is ok on a national level, but not on a statewide level? My understanding is that the electors (save for Maine and Nevada) vote with the popular vote of their state. I called my friend out on the hypocrisy, and didn't hear anything back after that.

I live in a state where our Governor was elected by 3 counties, he only won popular vote in 3 counties but yet he is Governor of an entire state. That is exactly what you will see nationally if the EC is done away with.

 

[erowe1]

Adding all top 10 cities only gives you roughly 25 million people.

That's not true. If you count the whole metropolitan area, which you should, the top 10 cities are about 80 million. I didn't add down the list, but I'd say that within the top 50 cities you would have about half the nation's population.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Metropolitan_Statistical_Areas

A few years ago I would have had a gutteral reaction against going to a popular vote, with talk about republics, state sovereignty, and such. But now it's harder for me to see a big difference. Democracy stinks with or without an electoral college. No group of people should be able to impose rulers on other people against their wills. And I don't really see why it matters if the winning group makes up 50.1% of the 100 million who vote or 49.9% of them.

 

[Keith and stuff]

I wonder if a county/parish has every tried to secede from a state and the nation

It happened in New Hampshire but only lasted 3 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Indian_Stream

 

[tttppp]

Enjoy your self made tyranny, may you ever starve to death, you have only yourself to blame.

Blame for what? Finding a way for each vote to count? What system would you use by the way? Do you suggest banning voting altogether?

 

[Uriah]

The point isn't to represent 300 million people. The point is to represent 50 states.

If this is the case, then why do we have a House of Representatives? The Senate represents the states and by the insistence of many founders, the House represents the people.

 

[erowe1]

Blame for what? Finding a way for each vote to count? What system would you use by the way? Do you suggest banning voting altogether?

What is your reasoning in thinking that each vote doesn't count now but it would if we got rid of the electoral college?

 

[mad cow]

The N.Y.C. metropolitan area has a greater population than the 15 least populated States.The L.A. metro area is more than the least ten.Chicago is somewhere in between.
According to the Constitution,the States are supposed to elect the President,and this has always been my position.
However,going to a pure democracy might spur massive secession movements nationwide in the only types of States I would want to live in anyway,I might just have to rethink that position.

 

[belian78]

The N.Y.C. metropolitan area has a greater population than the 15 least populated States.The L.A. metro area is more than the least ten.Chicago is somewhere in between.
According to the Constitution,the States are supposed to elect the President,and this has always been my position.
However,going to a pure democracy might spur massive secession movements nationwide in the only types of States I would want to live in anyway,I might just have to rethink that position.

Doesn't matter, w/o an EC all candidates have to do is go to the most populated areas and promise as much shit as they can and poof, they're elected.

 

[tttppp]

What is your reasoning in thinking that each vote doesn't count now but it would if we got rid of the electoral college?

Your vote doesn't count in non swing states now. For example, here in CT people just look for the democrat and select him. There is no chance of anyone else winning CT. So my vote is worthless. If we switched to a popular vote, all votes are equal. There are no swing states that get all the attention. Or you could eliminate labeling parties on ballots, that way voters could not easily chose democrat and would be forced to actually know the candidates. In this case, my vote at least has a chance of counting.

 

[steph3n]

Blame for what? Finding a way for each vote to count? What system would you use by the way? Do you suggest banning voting altogether?

May as well ban voting, it is useless, and will be with either system. The two parties will still rule it and no real choice will be presented.

 

[steph3n]

Your vote doesn't count in non swing states now. For example, here in CT people just look for the democrat and select him. There is no chance of anyone else winning CT. So my vote is worthless. If we switched to a popular vote, all votes are equal. There are no swing states that get all the attention. Or you could eliminate labeling parties on ballots, that way voters could not easily chose democrat and would be forced to actually know the candidates. In this case, my vote at least has a chance of counting.

no, there won't be swing states there will just be campaigning in NY, IL, CA, TX, FL, DC, NJ nothing else will matter, Ct won't matter, no use in voting, The big cities decided for you.