I concur fully.
-
Hey Guest, it looks like you haven't made your first post yet. Until you make an introduction thread, the rest of the site is locked to posting. Why not take a few minutes to say hi!
political but not Trump or Hillary
This is kindof like my own thread -- I'm not really asking for a discussion. But please feel free to do as you wish... I am consistent with my alias.
------
It has been my observation that the American populace is intentionally un-educated about what would be truly "politically correct" per the US Constitution. I place this blame with govt, mostly the Feds, because govt controls our public education. What we are given, instead, is a false dichotomy: "liberal" vs "conservative". This strategy is highly effective in accomplishing its goal: destroying the United States from within (without destroying the Fed govt itself... uh-hem...) Without a firm grasp of what is actually 'right and true and correct', the masses are very easily manipulated into 'hating' the 'other side'. From what I've read, most of us have resigned ourselves to letting govt, or more specifically, the SCOTUS, do all of the Constitutional thinking for us. This is not what should be.
This is not what they wrote. This is not what was meant. This is not what they gave us.
==================
I'm going to talk about the history of the USA, the Constitution and what American Citizens should be doing with it.
I know these things because I have studied these things. I chose to spend my time on this because I saw that my country had completely lost its compass.
I am somewhat ashamed to admit that I was late to the learning. I naively believed, for my first 30 years, that I could "trust" others to take care of the Constitution 'for me', so that I would be freed up to pursue whatever ambitions I had. I naively believed for about 30 years, that there was a commonly understood and accepted 'interpretation' of the Constitution and that I wouldn't have to worry about it. I apologize for my dereliction.
In 2006, I decided that I was wrong. And so I embarked on a 'self-education' on the history, intent, nuance, vision and written and recorded spoken words of the people who founded this country... many of them doing so after and at great risk to their lives and/or their ability to pursue any sort of material or political 'happiness'.
I'm not going to tell you what to think. I'm going to tell you what I did and why. The Constitution 'expects' (as any republic needs) each Citizen to think for themselves. But those thoughts can't be very valuable without a foundational education of words, their meanings and their purposes, as they were recorded. It should become fairly obvious to the student, as they progress, that there is "intention" in which words were written and what words were NOT. One reason we can know this is true is the collective intelligence and education of all the Constitutional delegates was quite large -- they were not lacking in vocabulary, to say the least.
When I started my 'exploratory journey' into our nation's true history, I started with the Constitution itself. I found this to be of little help. The english back then was different from our english of today, and I quickly realized that I needed to do A LOT more reading and studying before I would be able to understand with any accuracy what they wrote, why and their intent.
Sparing the reader of all my starts and restarts, and looking back with hindsight, this is what I recommend the American Citizen do, on their own time, to learn what is truly "politically correct" for the United States.
_Generally, read every thing you can find from the 1760s until 1790s, relating to the making of the USA. Okay, maybe not every entire BOOK, but the need here is to condition your mind to the grammar and vernacular of the day. They not only wrote differently, they spoke differently, and some words which survived the pass of time have taken on different meanings or uses. Granted, this is a lot of work. It is much easier to 'trust' the SCOTUS or the president or the media...
_Start with the Declaration of Independence (or if you wish to be 100% devoted, start with the Magna Carta...). The Declaration's relevance to your education is to explain the what why and how the USA is becoming a nation. It provides a wealth of historical context in assisting with interpreting and understanding what they were thinking and why, and what they intended and why, back then.
_The Articles of Confederation, aka US Constitution v1.0: This document is very insightful, in spite of the fact it created a country which didn't work together very well (chalk a lot of that up to a lack of modern communications). Much of the historical context of the Bill of Rights is found here. It happens to be a favorite of mine. It was their first attempt, and as such, it has an air of political innocence to it. It is the document that makes me wish I was alive and with them.
_The US Constitution itself. This document spells out the structure and functional purposes of the County, State and Federal govts; the legislatures, the judicials and the executives. Much of the 'stuff' for counties and states is left unwritten. We fill this in from other documents, themes found within ALL of the documents and the 'spirit' of the Constitution itself. It's important to realize that THIS document only describes GOVT -- is government-oriented. There are no 'rules' imposed upon the People by the Constitution itself. This strongly states that the Constitution is a 'personal liberty-oriented' SYSTEM of government, which for the staunch conservative, is a contradiction of terms. But the staunch conservative does not understand or accept the Constitution any more than the staunch 'liberal'.
_The Bill of Rights. This document, after writing the Constitution effectively creating a 'central' govt which theoretically had the power to 'rule/dominate over' everyone and every thing, was written to say "... but not so fast, Federal tyrant!" This document does not address the 'freedoms' The People have (or, in the case of the 10th Amendment, the States). This document addresses the POWERS The People have in opposition to ANY government (and the States against the Feds). Needless to say, this document isn't very popular with government. Given the current level of the population's political maturity, the govt has a point. But given the fact that govt controls the public education, this same govt is very dishonest, evil and hypocritical in their skepticism of "The People". Govt has mostly caused the problem they complain about.
_The Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist papers. I have not read every word of these. They are large documents and in many cases, difficult to read. But I have read significant portions of both, and both are valuable. But I found more practical value in the Declaration and the Articles than here, for whatever that's worth. At least make a significant effort to study portions of both of these. At the least, you will feel more confident in your understanding you already have.
_the archived letters and documents and recorded speeches and speakings of the Constitutional delegates and other historically significant persons. These helped me greatly in "getting it"... as I plowed through all these documents written in this old-ish English.
_and 'soak' with all these. Many times, I didn't "get it" until a year or more after I studied it, or, after listening to a 'political discussion/debate'... at which point, I would finally realize what they were talking about back in 1780s. You WILL NOT 'sit down, read all these in a week and get it'. You just won't. It doesn't matter what your IQ is. This information requires time and experience --- think about the COLLECTIVE time and experience and WISDOM of the nearly 100 delegates and contributors debating for MONTHS. And you think you're going to just 'get it all right' the first time you read through it all? You won't fool me.... whatever you say.
I have been an intentional student of the US Constitution for 10 years now. Because 'We The People' DO NOT KNOW HOW to have OUR country -- we have not so much as read the manual it came with -- we are flaying around ourselves, slowly destroying our once great democratic constitutional republic. We are not just a democracy; we are not just a republic; and we certainly are not just a bunch of rules we all have to follow. The USA is a hybrid of all those: a democratic, constitutional, republic. This will all make perfect and wonderful sense once we understand the foundational history -- the historical vision -- of the USA.
I love my country. I love the political and moral principles it is based upon. I love the Bill of Rights. I'm starting to believe that I love those more than I love my life.
...I can't bring myself to tell my wife and son, though.
------
It has been my observation that the American populace is intentionally un-educated about what would be truly "politically correct" per the US Constitution. I place this blame with govt, mostly the Feds, because govt controls our public education. What we are given, instead, is a false dichotomy: "liberal" vs "conservative". This strategy is highly effective in accomplishing its goal: destroying the United States from within (without destroying the Fed govt itself... uh-hem...) Without a firm grasp of what is actually 'right and true and correct', the masses are very easily manipulated into 'hating' the 'other side'. From what I've read, most of us have resigned ourselves to letting govt, or more specifically, the SCOTUS, do all of the Constitutional thinking for us. This is not what should be.
This is not what they wrote. This is not what was meant. This is not what they gave us.
==================
I'm going to talk about the history of the USA, the Constitution and what American Citizens should be doing with it.
I know these things because I have studied these things. I chose to spend my time on this because I saw that my country had completely lost its compass.
I am somewhat ashamed to admit that I was late to the learning. I naively believed, for my first 30 years, that I could "trust" others to take care of the Constitution 'for me', so that I would be freed up to pursue whatever ambitions I had. I naively believed for about 30 years, that there was a commonly understood and accepted 'interpretation' of the Constitution and that I wouldn't have to worry about it. I apologize for my dereliction.
In 2006, I decided that I was wrong. And so I embarked on a 'self-education' on the history, intent, nuance, vision and written and recorded spoken words of the people who founded this country... many of them doing so after and at great risk to their lives and/or their ability to pursue any sort of material or political 'happiness'.
I'm not going to tell you what to think. I'm going to tell you what I did and why. The Constitution 'expects' (as any republic needs) each Citizen to think for themselves. But those thoughts can't be very valuable without a foundational education of words, their meanings and their purposes, as they were recorded. It should become fairly obvious to the student, as they progress, that there is "intention" in which words were written and what words were NOT. One reason we can know this is true is the collective intelligence and education of all the Constitutional delegates was quite large -- they were not lacking in vocabulary, to say the least.
When I started my 'exploratory journey' into our nation's true history, I started with the Constitution itself. I found this to be of little help. The english back then was different from our english of today, and I quickly realized that I needed to do A LOT more reading and studying before I would be able to understand with any accuracy what they wrote, why and their intent.
Sparing the reader of all my starts and restarts, and looking back with hindsight, this is what I recommend the American Citizen do, on their own time, to learn what is truly "politically correct" for the United States.
_Generally, read every thing you can find from the 1760s until 1790s, relating to the making of the USA. Okay, maybe not every entire BOOK, but the need here is to condition your mind to the grammar and vernacular of the day. They not only wrote differently, they spoke differently, and some words which survived the pass of time have taken on different meanings or uses. Granted, this is a lot of work. It is much easier to 'trust' the SCOTUS or the president or the media...
_Start with the Declaration of Independence (or if you wish to be 100% devoted, start with the Magna Carta...). The Declaration's relevance to your education is to explain the what why and how the USA is becoming a nation. It provides a wealth of historical context in assisting with interpreting and understanding what they were thinking and why, and what they intended and why, back then.
_The Articles of Confederation, aka US Constitution v1.0: This document is very insightful, in spite of the fact it created a country which didn't work together very well (chalk a lot of that up to a lack of modern communications). Much of the historical context of the Bill of Rights is found here. It happens to be a favorite of mine. It was their first attempt, and as such, it has an air of political innocence to it. It is the document that makes me wish I was alive and with them.
_The US Constitution itself. This document spells out the structure and functional purposes of the County, State and Federal govts; the legislatures, the judicials and the executives. Much of the 'stuff' for counties and states is left unwritten. We fill this in from other documents, themes found within ALL of the documents and the 'spirit' of the Constitution itself. It's important to realize that THIS document only describes GOVT -- is government-oriented. There are no 'rules' imposed upon the People by the Constitution itself. This strongly states that the Constitution is a 'personal liberty-oriented' SYSTEM of government, which for the staunch conservative, is a contradiction of terms. But the staunch conservative does not understand or accept the Constitution any more than the staunch 'liberal'.
_The Bill of Rights. This document, after writing the Constitution effectively creating a 'central' govt which theoretically had the power to 'rule/dominate over' everyone and every thing, was written to say "... but not so fast, Federal tyrant!" This document does not address the 'freedoms' The People have (or, in the case of the 10th Amendment, the States). This document addresses the POWERS The People have in opposition to ANY government (and the States against the Feds). Needless to say, this document isn't very popular with government. Given the current level of the population's political maturity, the govt has a point. But given the fact that govt controls the public education, this same govt is very dishonest, evil and hypocritical in their skepticism of "The People". Govt has mostly caused the problem they complain about.
_The Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist papers. I have not read every word of these. They are large documents and in many cases, difficult to read. But I have read significant portions of both, and both are valuable. But I found more practical value in the Declaration and the Articles than here, for whatever that's worth. At least make a significant effort to study portions of both of these. At the least, you will feel more confident in your understanding you already have.
_the archived letters and documents and recorded speeches and speakings of the Constitutional delegates and other historically significant persons. These helped me greatly in "getting it"... as I plowed through all these documents written in this old-ish English.
_and 'soak' with all these. Many times, I didn't "get it" until a year or more after I studied it, or, after listening to a 'political discussion/debate'... at which point, I would finally realize what they were talking about back in 1780s. You WILL NOT 'sit down, read all these in a week and get it'. You just won't. It doesn't matter what your IQ is. This information requires time and experience --- think about the COLLECTIVE time and experience and WISDOM of the nearly 100 delegates and contributors debating for MONTHS. And you think you're going to just 'get it all right' the first time you read through it all? You won't fool me.... whatever you say.
I have been an intentional student of the US Constitution for 10 years now. Because 'We The People' DO NOT KNOW HOW to have OUR country -- we have not so much as read the manual it came with -- we are flaying around ourselves, slowly destroying our once great democratic constitutional republic. We are not just a democracy; we are not just a republic; and we certainly are not just a bunch of rules we all have to follow. The USA is a hybrid of all those: a democratic, constitutional, republic. This will all make perfect and wonderful sense once we understand the foundational history -- the historical vision -- of the USA.
I love my country. I love the political and moral principles it is based upon. I love the Bill of Rights. I'm starting to believe that I love those more than I love my life.
...I can't bring myself to tell my wife and son, though.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
I concur as well. We do need to remember that we need to treat all citizens of this country equally regardless of how long they have been here or any orientation of whom they are as we are all American Citizens and should be treating each other as such as well as acting in such a manner. This is where our nation has gone wrong, by dividing our communities. Everyone is looking out for themselves and no one else from the poor to the elite rich is parts of our country where other sections seem to be the friendliest folks in the world and will still stop to help someone broke down on the side of the road. Most issues in this country seem to stem from the urban zones where too many people congregate together and we all know how grouchy folks get when they are too crowded.
The change has to come from within!
The change has to come from within!
A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.”
-Benjamin Franklin
This is where we are at today. Can we keep our republic ? I think Tuesday will
tell us which way we are headed.
-Benjamin Franklin
This is where we are at today. Can we keep our republic ? I think Tuesday will
tell us which way we are headed.
Nothing but the truth in this post.
so about that electoral college thing...
Okay so my little thread wasn't banned nor have I been told to F'off. So if you wish to read my highly opinionated political stuff, come here. I'll spare the rest of the board long-winded posts. ...and so... you are probably aware that the Hillary thing won the popular vote. That kinda sucks, really...and it gives us a warning for 2018 and 2020. I figure we have 2 to 4 years to prepare for civil war. But maybe not...
=====
Source article: https://mises.org/library/origins-electoral-college
=====
Me:
For what it's worth at this point in the USA's political history, I am glad for the electoral college. Well mostly anyway. In short, it sucks when your side loses the EV but wins the popular vote; and it's great when your side wins the EV but loses the popular vote... because the EV trumps all. And it feels good, or at least feels "consistent", when the EV and popular both win. But feeling good is not the goal of the Constitution.
The goal of the Constitution is to prevent a majority from dominating the minority in all things (by way of the Federal govt). And wouldn't it really really suck to be dominated by a 10000 vote majority when total votes cast are 120 million? As this Mises article explains, the Founders were much more concerned about tyranny and preserving liberty than serving the interests of "special interest groups". So, in short, the EV serves, in principle, (some of) what the Founders wanted: to prevent a high-population State from dominating over a low population State (or States, as it actually is).
Wouldn't it suck if New York and California determined all manners of law for the USA? What the hell do those ppl know about farming? Many of them have never seen a tree in real life. Most of them live like packed sardines with their neighbors. They haven't a clue about "real life" outside their little bubbles of mass population, morally bankrupt criminal laws and punishments, and retarded personal liberty. The EV serves us mostly well, seemingly by accident, by preventing the popular vote from completely dominating over the ENTIRE country. It saves us all from a grotesque unfairness. And a blind, arbitrary and wrong set of laws.
Maybe we shouldn't walk about downtown New York city with our AR-15s... seriously. You are prob more likely to be bashed over your head, completely unforeseen, from behind and then your fancy gun is gone, in the very wrong hands. But walking around Smallville USA with any gun, prob isn't such a big deal, as long as you don't look like a threat in the way you are carrying it. In other words, let the liberals make laws for their cities, and leave the rest of us the hell alone.
... Back to the EV: I'm glad that NY and CA do not get to dominate me politically or legally just because they have more idiots oops I mean people living there than vs anywhere rural. The EV mostly serves us all quite well as it is. (I would still like to send the US Senate back to the States, though, for reasons I won't write here).
==========
Okay so my little thread wasn't banned nor have I been told to F'off. So if you wish to read my highly opinionated political stuff, come here. I'll spare the rest of the board long-winded posts. ...and so... you are probably aware that the Hillary thing won the popular vote. That kinda sucks, really...and it gives us a warning for 2018 and 2020. I figure we have 2 to 4 years to prepare for civil war. But maybe not...
=====
Source article: https://mises.org/library/origins-electoral-college
=====
Me:
For what it's worth at this point in the USA's political history, I am glad for the electoral college. Well mostly anyway. In short, it sucks when your side loses the EV but wins the popular vote; and it's great when your side wins the EV but loses the popular vote... because the EV trumps all. And it feels good, or at least feels "consistent", when the EV and popular both win. But feeling good is not the goal of the Constitution.
The goal of the Constitution is to prevent a majority from dominating the minority in all things (by way of the Federal govt). And wouldn't it really really suck to be dominated by a 10000 vote majority when total votes cast are 120 million? As this Mises article explains, the Founders were much more concerned about tyranny and preserving liberty than serving the interests of "special interest groups". So, in short, the EV serves, in principle, (some of) what the Founders wanted: to prevent a high-population State from dominating over a low population State (or States, as it actually is).
Wouldn't it suck if New York and California determined all manners of law for the USA? What the hell do those ppl know about farming? Many of them have never seen a tree in real life. Most of them live like packed sardines with their neighbors. They haven't a clue about "real life" outside their little bubbles of mass population, morally bankrupt criminal laws and punishments, and retarded personal liberty. The EV serves us mostly well, seemingly by accident, by preventing the popular vote from completely dominating over the ENTIRE country. It saves us all from a grotesque unfairness. And a blind, arbitrary and wrong set of laws.
Maybe we shouldn't walk about downtown New York city with our AR-15s... seriously. You are prob more likely to be bashed over your head, completely unforeseen, from behind and then your fancy gun is gone, in the very wrong hands. But walking around Smallville USA with any gun, prob isn't such a big deal, as long as you don't look like a threat in the way you are carrying it. In other words, let the liberals make laws for their cities, and leave the rest of us the hell alone.
... Back to the EV: I'm glad that NY and CA do not get to dominate me politically or legally just because they have more idiots oops I mean people living there than vs anywhere rural. The EV mostly serves us all quite well as it is. (I would still like to send the US Senate back to the States, though, for reasons I won't write here).
==========
is it certain she won the popular vote? I thought there were 4 or 5 states that still haven't been called.
I fully concur with your post, Anti-tyrant, mainly because I have gone through a similar path although I've been studying it for more than 40+ years. I came at it initially through the study of the evolution of gun rights as applied through the 2nd Amendment. I have a fairly small but weighty set of volumes on this that include The Federalist Papers, the 1840's edition on the Constitution by Justice Joseph Story, etc. Over time, that has led me to fill in the 'blank spots' in other areas so that I have reached the same conclusions as you.
Excellent post, by the way.
Excellent post, by the way.
I think its down to just Arizona, Michigan, and Minnesota. But, the California results are what put her ahead on the popular vote, as most of those tallies weren't in when the electoral vote put Trump over the top. He was only ahead in popular by about 2 mil at that point.is it certain she won the popular vote? I thought there were 4 or 5 states that still haven't been called.
Change is best done with ballets and not bullets in this country. You will never truly know you stand with your neighbor otherwise!I figure we have 2 to 4 years to prepare for civil war. But maybe not...
I do have issue with the way the delegates for the electoral college are distributed where you have a state like California with 55 delegates and it is winner takes all giving all our votes to one candidate regardless of how 1/3 of the people here vote. The practice of winner takes all needs to stop and a percentage of the delegates needs to be awarded based on performance at the polls which should be nation wide.
Agreed. Winner take all is the part of the electoral system that is not in the constitution and it needs to stop.Change is best done with ballets and not bullets in this country. You will never truly know you stand with your neighbor otherwise!
I do have issue with the way the delegates for the electoral college are distributed where you have a state like California with 55 delegates and it is winner takes all giving all our votes to one candidate regardless of how 1/3 of the people here vote. The practice of winner takes all needs to stop and a percentage of the delegates needs to be awarded based on performance at the polls which should be nation wide.
The popular vote is done to elect electors, who then vote for the president. Electors represent ALL the people of a state, just like Senators.Agreed. Winner take all is the part of the electoral system that is not in the constitution and it needs to stop.
The whole purpose is to eliminate the areas with high concentrations of voters from running rough shod over those areas with only a few voters. If you look at a red/blue map, the only places you see blue is in the big cities, which are mostly run by liberal Democrats. Those blue spots contain half the voting population of the country. The clear intent of the Founders was that the electors support the winner in each state. Since there is a finite number of electors, as population shifts, the number in each state can go up or down, and whether the state leans left or right changes along with it. This time, Trump brought the old Reagan Democrat coalition back to the GOP side in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan. That flipped who the electors had to vote for in those states, causing Hillary to lose her blue firewall.
Doing away with the winner take all stuff allows the electors to vote for who they want, not who the people of that state want. It eliminates the emotional aspects of it. Same sort of thing as to why there are two Senators from every state. It makes sure each state has an equal say in the senior house.
I do fully understand how the electoral system works and why it was implemented but the winner takes all part was not part of the original plan and doing away with it would not allow electors to vote for whoever they wanted. You take a state like California, New York is another great example where the large population areas like NYC control the electoral vote for the entire state then those living in rural areas really are not being represented at all in the presidential race (which was kind of the reason for the Electoral College to begin with). If you live in CA or NY and are not a democrat then there is not much point in even voting in the presidential race. It should be done on percentage basis. That would not completely fix the problem but it would be a step in the right direction. If 60 percent of the state votes democrat then the democrat candidate gets 60% of the electors, not all of them. To use a word popular with democrats, the current system serves to disenfranchise anyone who is not voting with the majority of the state. You have to remember as I know you are aware, we are not a democracy even though Hillary doesn't understand that. Majority doesn't rule in this country so why should it be that way with the electoral system?The popular vote is done to elect electors, who then vote for the president. Electors represent ALL the people of a state, just like Senators.
The whole purpose is to eliminate the areas with high concentrations of voters from running rough shod over those areas with only a few voters. If you look at a red/blue map, the only places you see blue is in the big cities, which are mostly run by liberal Democrats. Those blue spots contain half the voting population of the country. The clear intent of the Founders was that the electors support the winner in each state. Since there is a finite number of electors, as population shifts, the number in each state can go up or down, and whether the state leans left or right changes along with it. This time, Trump brought the old Reagan Democrat coalition back to the GOP side in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan. That flipped who the electors had to vote for in those states, causing Hillary to lose her blue firewall.
Doing away with the winner take all stuff allows the electors to vote for who they want, not who the people of that state want. It eliminates the emotional aspects of it. Same sort of thing as to why there are two Senators from every state. It makes sure each state has an equal say in the senior house.
I fall into that category of feeling like "what's the point?" (of voting). My vote does not count in the general election. Seattle is rabidly Blue, and is the county seat for a rabidly blue county. The population density of the county carries the vote for the entire State of Washington.
Nebraska appears to have the "percentage" theme, at least as I understood it on election night. Or? M'be it was just that one NE corner of the State was holding up the decision of the entire State? But, I thought I recall seeing most of it "colored in" as red, but, the NE corner had not yet been decided by late evening. "?"
With the set-up we currently have, I can fully understand people feeling like their vote does not count, therefore, WHY even try?
Nebraska appears to have the "percentage" theme, at least as I understood it on election night. Or? M'be it was just that one NE corner of the State was holding up the decision of the entire State? But, I thought I recall seeing most of it "colored in" as red, but, the NE corner had not yet been decided by late evening. "?"
With the set-up we currently have, I can fully understand people feeling like their vote does not count, therefore, WHY even try?
Nebraska and Maine use the alternative method. Each state is given the number of electors equal to their house and senate seats so these states base their electoral votes on congressional districts. Each district gets one electoral vote. That may be a better way of doing it than percentages. Haven't really given it that much thought. That way the more densely populated areas don't control all the electors for the state. Since the more densely populated ares would have more, smaller (in area) districts, the rural areas would still be outnumbered but at least they wouldn't be completely ignored.I fall into that category of feeling like "what's the point?" (of voting). My vote does not count in the general election. Seattle is rabidly Blue, and is the county seat for a rabidly blue county. The population density of the county carries the vote for the entire State of Washington.
Nebraska appears to have the "percentage" theme, at least as I understood it on election night. Or? M'be it was just that one NE corner of the State was holding up the decision of the entire State? But, I thought I recall seeing most of it "colored in" as red, but, the NE corner had not yet been decided by late evening. "?"
With the set-up we currently have, I can fully understand people feeling like their vote does not count, therefore, WHY even try?
The one flaw I can see in doing it by congressional districts is that the political party in power controls redistricting. Illinois is a good example of how that benefits the party in power. District lines are drawn to benefit that party by concentrating the vote in favor of that party. That gives the incumbent a distinct advantage at the ballot box. Its why the Democrats here have controlled the state legislature with an iron fist for as long as I've been alive. The Chicago machine controls who runs (often even for the opposing party), and all of the state offices with any political power are owned by them. We get Republican governors like now, but they are largely toothless because the Dems control the budgeting process, and the legislative agendas.Nebraska and Maine use the alternative method. Each state is given the number of electors equal to their house and senate seats so these states base their electoral votes on congressional districts. Each district gets one electoral vote. That may be a better way of doing it than percentages. Haven't really given it that much thought. That way the more densely populated areas don't control all the electors for the state. Since the more densely populated ares would have more, smaller (in area) districts, the rural areas would still be outnumbered but at least they wouldn't be completely ignored.
Solve that sort of thing, and I would get behind some sort of Electoral reform like you suggest.
I do not disagree, my first comment is merely a lingering observation. How much more divisive can things get before someone blows up?Change is best done with ballets and not bullets in this country. You will never truly know you stand with your neighbor otherwise!
I do have issue with the way the delegates for the electoral college are distributed where you have a state like California with 55 delegates and it is winner takes all giving all our votes to one candidate regardless of how 1/3 of the people here vote. The practice of winner takes all needs to stop and a percentage of the delegates needs to be awarded based on performance at the polls which should be nation wide.
But I will admit: Sometimes I wish one of those punks in Chicago or LA would try to drag me outta my vehicle and beat me up for a Trump sign. OH wow that would feel good, I'm sorry... I'm human. ...I guess that makes me a -fanatical- Constitutionalist! :a18:
But that's why I live in a Free State :a35: So I don't have to deal with that :a04:
I think you have a valid point on the distribution of EVs. I would like to hear how that conversation goes. And be careful: it would be 'easy' to end up with something worse.
In case you guys haven't, you may want to review the URL I posted. ORIGINALLY, the POTUS was not selected by any democratic vote, as we know them.
( I'm glad to find I'm not "alone" in my bookworm-Constitutional studies. It sure feels that way nearly all the time. )
Didn't you guys elect a Republican governor? Just keep it up and eventually you may get the state house to fall in line. I know that is only a temporary solution at best but all I am saying is there has to be a better plan than winner takes all.The one flaw I can see in doing it by congressional districts is that the political party in power controls redistricting. Illinois is a good example of how that benefits the party in power. District lines are drawn to benefit that party by concentrating the vote in favor of that party. That gives the incumbent a distinct advantage at the ballot box. Its why the Democrats here have controlled the state legislature with an iron fist for as long as I've been alive. The Chicago machine controls who runs (often even for the opposing party), and all of the state offices with any political power are owned by them. We get Republican governors like now, but they are largely toothless because the Dems control the budgeting process, and the legislative agendas.
Solve that sort of thing, and I would get behind some sort of Electoral reform like you suggest.
The Senate USED to represent the State's interest, the Congress Members represented the People of their State. And, if my rememberer is working today, didn't the Senate vote in the President? Congress voted in the Senate? The people voted in the Congress Members?I do not disagree, my first comment is merely a lingering observation. How much more divisive can things get before someone blows up?
But I will admit: Sometimes I wish one of those punks in Chicago or LA would try to drag me outta my vehicle and beat me up for a Trump sign. OH wow that would feel good, I'm sorry... I'm human. ...I guess that makes me a -fanatical- Constitutionalist! :a18:
But that's why I live in a Free State :a35: So I don't have to deal with that :a04:
I think you have a valid point on the distribution of EVs. I would like to hear how that conversation goes. And be careful: it would be 'easy' to end up with something worse.
In case you guys haven't, you may want to review the URL I posted. ORIGINALLY, the POTUS was not selected by any democratic vote, as we know them.
( I'm glad to find I'm not "alone" in my bookworm-Constitutional studies. It sure feels that way nearly all the time. )
Originally Senators were appointed by the Governor of each state and confirmed by the state house much in the same way that the Pres appoints cabinet members and Judges and are confirmed by the Senate. We need to go back to that. Original intent means a lot. That would take some of the money out of running for Senator so they would not be owing to any special interests.The Senate USED to represent the State's interest, the Congress Members represented the People of their State. And, if my rememberer is working today, didn't the Senate vote in the President? Congress voted in the Senate? The people voted in the Congress Members?
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
6.8 SPC Forums
A forum community dedicated to 6.8 SPC firearm owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about optics, hunting, gunsmithing, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Recommended Communities
