Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 134

Thread: War on the Electoral College

  1. #1

    War on the Electoral College

    I bet this was in many Sunday papers today:

    "It's a terrible system," said Paul Finkelman, a law professor at Albany Law School who teaches this year at Duke University. "There's no other electoral system in the world where the person with the most votes doesn't win."
    http://www.startribune.com/politics/...1.html?refer=y

    So it appears that the Democrats are all for equality in every aspect of humanity. Unless, of course you live in the country. Bumpkin.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    I see a push for a true democracy coming to a theatre near us
    "When a portion of wealth is transferred from the person who owns it—without his consent and without compensation, and whether by force or by fraud—to anyone who does not own it, then I say that property is violated; that an act of plunder is committed." - Bastiat : The Law

    "nothing evil grows in alcohol" ~ @presence

    "I mean can you imagine what it would be like if firemen acted like police officers? They would only go into a burning house only if there's a 100% chance they won't get any burns. I mean, you've got to fully protect thy self first." ~ juleswin

  4. #3
    It isn't just the Democrats. Saul Anuzis pushed hard for the National Popular Vote initiative. IN Illinois, it was passed with almost little or no public discussion.

    I consider it a done deal. Once the Democrats decide to do something, they never stop. Republicans might play defense, nothing more.

  5. #4
    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.

  6. #5
    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.
    "We do have some differences and our approaches will be different, but that makes him his own person. I mean why should he [Rand] be a clone and do everything and think just exactly as I have. I think it's an opportunity to be independent minded. We are about 99% [the same on issues]." Ron Paul

  7. #6
    Why should libertarians be against it? Remember we live in a constitutional republic not a pure democracy.

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by VoluntaryAmerican View Post
    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.
    Proportional representation. Best way, IMO.

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by supermario21 View Post
    Why should libertarians be against it? Remember we live in a constitutional republic not a pure democracy.
    Because trying to represent a collective body of 300+ million people is absurd! No system works good enough to do it.
    "We do have some differences and our approaches will be different, but that makes him his own person. I mean why should he [Rand] be a clone and do everything and think just exactly as I have. I think it's an opportunity to be independent minded. We are about 99% [the same on issues]." Ron Paul



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by VoluntaryAmerican View Post
    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.
    Indeed. It's literally impossible. We all have different priorities, want different things. There is no "one size fits all" approach that makes everybody happy. And to attempt that is to guarantee oppression.. for everybody.
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Rand Paul (Vice Pres) 2016!!!!

  12. #10
    Two things in my opinion.

    One, any usurping of states power is a move in the wrong direction. One big argument for the National Popular Vote is that the states that are already decided "red" or "blue" states, do not see attention from the presidential campaigns. Well, guess what, if it was a national vote with no states sending their representation through the Electoral College its going to be even more dramatic. Can we say campaigning in the Northeast, Atlanta, Florida, Denver and the West Coast? That would about do it.

    Under that circumstance, the urban areas would get most of the platform and concentration, and subsequent political concessions. Next thing you know, we will have some disgruntled citizens simply based on where they live and the population density (and for good reason). Know that would be just fine and dandy if the federal government remained limited in their scope. But they do not and frankly its not in their nature. They are the Feds. If I lived in the sticks I would still be affected by the laws and appropriations of the Feds.

    Now we come back full circle, any powers of the states that are usurped means we are heading in the wrong direction.
    Last edited by FrancisMarion; 10-01-2012 at 05:37 PM. Reason: grammar gremlins

  13. #11
    Go ahead and end it. Hopefully the other 48 states outside of NY and CA will throw a big stink over not having the power they thought they did. The quicker people wake up the quicker this country heals.
    Ron Paul let the cat out of the bag.

    ***Random Troll Analysis***Try Not to Engage With Trolls***
    itshappening: Incredibly naive with a hint of Alex Jonestown.
    compromise: Hilarious name states what it wants.
    AuH20: Self-righteous & insightful neocon. Smarter than you. Armed with a thesaurus.

    ***Honorable Mentions***
    Tpoints, Traditional Conservative, FreedomFanatic, TywinLannister, FreeHampshire, Giuliani was there on 911,
    RandRevolution

  14. #12
    Article I section 2: "...The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand"

    We haven't followed the Constitution on this issue since the 30's if memory serves me correctly. If we want better representation out of the Congress and the Electoral College all we need to do is follow the Constitution instead of trying to find a fix.
    "Time is catching up with me." -Ron Paul

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by VoluntaryAmerican View Post
    Because trying to represent a collective body of 300+ million people is absurd! No system works good enough to do it.
    The point isn't to represent 300 million people. The point is to represent 50 states.

    Of course the liberals want direct democracy. They hate the fact that the people in the city can't rule over the rural people.
    Last edited by angelatc; 10-01-2012 at 06:36 PM.

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Simple View Post
    Article I section 2: "...The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand"

    We haven't followed the Constitution on this issue since the 30's if memory serves me correctly.
    Are you saying we do exceed 1 for every 30,000? That would mean we have over 10,000 representatives.

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    Are you saying we do exceed 1 for every 30,000? That would mean we have over 10,000 representatives.
    Clearly the founders didn't' intend on the nation becoming so big.
    Rand Paul 2016

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    Are you saying we do exceed 1 for every 30,000? That would mean we have over 10,000 representatives.
    i think he's interpreting it as saying we should have one rep for every 30,000 citizens
    "Look, the American people have chosen to have a fiat money standard because they want a welfare state. You cannot have a gold standard and a welfare state at the same time. You have to make the choice. We have made a decision as a society that we’ll be dealing with the welfare state." -Alan Greenspan



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by ronpaulfollower999 View Post
    Clearly the founders didn't' intend on the nation becoming so big.
    why do you assume that? we could easily have 10,000 representatives. The Dallas Cowboys stadium can fit 100,000 plus people. Why can't we have 10,000 representatives in congress voting?
    "Look, the American people have chosen to have a fiat money standard because they want a welfare state. You cannot have a gold standard and a welfare state at the same time. You have to make the choice. We have made a decision as a society that we’ll be dealing with the welfare state." -Alan Greenspan

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by dbill27 View Post
    i think he's interpreting it as saying we should have one rep for every 30,000 citizens
    That's what it looks like. But that's the opposite of what the Constitution says.

    I'd be all for a much larger House. But going by the Constitution, that size of roughly 10,000 is the maximum size, not the minimum.

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Simple View Post
    Article I section 2: "...The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand"

    We haven't followed the Constitution on this issue since the 30's if memory serves me correctly. If we want better representation out of the Congress and the Electoral College all we need to do is follow the Constitution instead of trying to find a fix.
    I think that means the most they can have is one for every 30,000. But I agree - the House of Representatives needs to be much bigger.

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by farreri View Post
    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.
    There are 50 independent states. The people in the states vote as a whole. It makes sense. This is a Constitutional Republic made up of 50 independent states. This isn't a democracy. This is the United States of America.
    Lifetime member of more than 1 national gun organization and the New Hampshire Liberty Alliance. Part of Young Americans for Liberty and Campaign for Liberty. Free State Project participant and multi-year Free Talk Live AMPlifier.

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by angelatc View Post
    I think that means the most they can have is one for every 30,000. But I agree - the House of Representatives needs to be much bigger.
    We have 1 representative for every 3300 people in New Hampshire. They get paid a salary of $100 per year. There is no health insurance. There is no pension. They don't have offices. They don't have staff. It damn sure makes sense to me.
    Lifetime member of more than 1 national gun organization and the New Hampshire Liberty Alliance. Part of Young Americans for Liberty and Campaign for Liberty. Free State Project participant and multi-year Free Talk Live AMPlifier.

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by farreri View Post
    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.
    I agree. I hate the electoral college. I don't like how my vote doesn't count at all.

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith and stuff View Post
    There are 50 independent states. The people in the states vote as a whole. It makes sense. This is a Constitutional Republic made up of 50 independent states. This isn't a democracy. This is the United States of America.
    Ideally, the feds aren't supposed to do anything that's not authorized in the constitution. The POTUS is only supposed to be a figurehead, more or less.

    Why would getting rid of the electoral college that lessens my vote because where I live (a city) matter?

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by farreri View Post
    Ideally, the feds aren't supposed to do anything that's not authorized in the constitution. The POTUS is only supposed to be a figurehead, more or less.

    Why would getting rid of the electoral college that lessens my vote because where I live (a city) matter?
    National popular vote isn't supposed to matter in the US. There are 50 independent states in the US.
    Lifetime member of more than 1 national gun organization and the New Hampshire Liberty Alliance. Part of Young Americans for Liberty and Campaign for Liberty. Free State Project participant and multi-year Free Talk Live AMPlifier.



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by tttppp View Post
    I agree. I hate the electoral college. I don't like how my vote doesn't count at all.
    When the country was first founded, your vote wouldn't count in many states where electors where chosen by the state legislator.
    Rand Paul 2016

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by ronpaulfollower999 View Post
    When the country was first founded, your vote wouldn't count in many states where electors where chosen by the state legislator.
    I don't support that either.

  31. #27
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    28,739
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Agenda 21 would thrive in a world without that pesky electoral college. Just saying.

  32. #28
    Am I the only one that thinks they should fight to the death like gladiators???
    Terminus tela viaticus!

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Carehn View Post
    Am I the only one that thinks they should fight to the death like gladiators???
    I'm ok with that. At the very least, a "Survivor" style contest instead of the debate format.

  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by FrancisMarion View Post
    So it appears that the Democrats are all for equality in every aspect of humanity. Unless, of course you live in the country. Bumpkin.
    Equality is everyone's vote counts the same.

    I think the best system of government is the one where the President is elected by the most votes.
    Ron Paul: "For those who have asked, I freely confess that Jesus Christ is my personal Savior, and that I seek His guidance in all that I do."

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Electoral college
    By Elwar in forum Ron Paul Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-06-2019, 01:43 AM
  2. Changes in The Electoral College?
    By ronpaulhawaii in forum Ron Paul Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-14-2011, 10:14 AM
  3. Electoral College
    By MozoVote in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 03-23-2008, 04:08 PM
  4. Electoral College
    By TastyWheat in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-25-2008, 11:33 PM
  5. Electoral College
    By winston84 in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-26-2007, 05:33 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •