Documentary defends Electoral College from escalating popular-vote movement

  • Thread starter Thread starter Theo520
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Balto1 said:
I wonder what it is about city dwellers that terrify conservatives so much.
Click to expand...
It isn’t city dwellers. As a sidebar, it might be the politicians they elect. You know, the ones who consistently ignore their primary function: protect individual rights.

Conservatives believe that our republic is best served using the representative principles in the constitution.
They also believe in federalism. The 17th amendment drastically reduced the control that the states have over the general government that they created! Removing the electoral college would serve the cause of strong central government even more.
 
Last edited:
Not really. This is what happens now and this is why places like Illinois have Chicago deciding everything for the state, even though the rest of the state doesn’t want it. So Illinois isn’t representing the state but is only representing Chicago. The same for California. LA, SD, SF, and Sacramento determine everything in the state that would otherwise vote the other way. So me living in California and voting Republican (for example) simply means my vote doesn’t mean a thing since the state always goes democrat, every time.
 
SlavaIsusuChristu said:
The ones mostly in favor are the farming counties whom are at the mercy of liberal chicago politics
Click to expand...
The Board of Trade and other financial institutions enable the farmers make money, among other things. I know, I took some classes there. One Chicago radio station devotes practically all its time covering commodities.
 
Last edited:
SlavaIsusuChristu said:
Each state should count for the same electoral votes.
Click to expand...
You state as a postulate something that should be a proposition in need of proof.
That or get rid of the electoral college and turn it into a total democracy where one individual vote counts for the election result.
Click to expand...
This needs to be explained. It is unclear what you mean here.
The bulk of the liberals crowd the major cities of California and thus control the state…
Click to expand...
That does not follow. How does controlling the cities control the state, which is still based on everyone’s vote counting the same?
even though the majority of the state would likely vote red.
Click to expand...
Is that the majority of people, or the majority of square miles? I think you mean square miles. But democracy does not recognize any inherent rights ascribed to square miles. It recognizes inherent rights ascribed to people. So the only valid metric on what is the majority is a count of people. Not square miles. Not orchards. Not cows. Not mountains. People.
This is how Illinois is. Chicago and Springfield keep Illinois blue every election, despite every other county in the state voting red.
Click to expand...
…and not counties, which are a proxy for square miles, because county lines are drawn to divide the state up into roughly equal land areas.
 
Last edited:
Not even. I want my vote to count at all, is the problem. If a new system was established were each individual county was worth a single point and the state would swing red or blue (or 3rd party) depending on whichever candidate takes the most candidates. This would represent the entire state better. Especially since a lot of democrat states are currently relying on illegal voters, dead people, people voting multiple times, etc. There’s a lot of fraud in these big cities. They shouldn’t be able to carry the state. This would apply for states that always vote Republican due to population sizes in major cities where the counties might vote for democrats.
 
The popular vote should never determine the presidency. We also need to get rid of the direct election of senators.
 
As for my other suggestion, I suggested an alternative would be getting rid of the electoral process altogether and create a voting system you can only access with a valid social security number (to weed out people here illegally and help cut down on all the fraud). Then people could have access to their vote in the database (or however it would be stored) so that they can see their vote hasn’t been tampered with. Then each American citizen could vote and whichever candidate earned the most votes would win.
 
We could also just keep the electoral college, each state gets one elector, whichever candidate gets 51% of the vote in a given state, that states elector votes for that candidate. The federal government is made up of the states, not the people anyway, so the states should pick the president not the people.
 
SlavaIsusuChristu said:
If a new system was established were each individual county was worth a single point and the state would swing red or blue (or 3rd party) depending on whichever candidate takes the most candidates.
Click to expand...
Then you’ll end up with a one-party government, no better than China imo.
 
Then how is it fair that Chicago decides the state politics for the entire state when they are only a small part of the state and do not reflect the interest of everyone living in the state? If that’s how you feel we shouldn’t even have states and just let major cities run everything (since they do anyways).
 
Perhaps. There are no other countries with 50 states and they survive somehow.
 
Last edited:
Not when many of these cities are using fraud (illegal people, dead people, voting multiple times, etc). The system as it is, is deeply flawed. Anytime someone mentions voter ID, a certain political side (that relies on illegals and dead people for their votes) screams racism and discrimination. The system is being taken advantage of by a corrupt platform and it has kept them in power for decades and influenced (negatively) entire states for decades. Case in point, same sex marriage was initially voted against by the people of California but lawmakers and lobbyists did their politicking and corruption behind the scenes and made it law anyways. Nowadays it is enshrined and generally accepted/welcomed, but that’s only because the people had no choice but to adjust to this new reality. Not because they eagerly wanted it.
 
www.foxnews.com

Did Obama supporter vote 6 times in 2012? Ohio poll worker target of investigation

An Ohio poll worker says she voted twice for President Obama last November. She cast an absentee ballot and then voted at the polls as well. Authorities are also investigating if she voted in the names of four other people, for a total of six votes in the 2012 presidential election.
www.foxnews.com www.foxnews.com

This is also reported on CNN if you don’t trust Fox News

https://www.ire.org/resource-center/stories/?q=dead voters

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/docs/pacei-voterfraudcases.pdf

Voter fraud is real. It happens in local and national elections and it’s on the rise. This should be concerning to everyone, regardless of what their politics are.
 
I can’t demonstrate that. Doesn’t mean it isn’t happening. Nobody could demonstrate priests were abusing kids until people started getting caught.

With voter fraud, the more it is scrutinized, the more examples are being discovered. I think this is a very real problem and we are only now beginning to realize how bad it has been for the country.
 
No, I don’t. Anymore than seminarians who left the seminary claiming there were groups of men having gay orgies had to prove that there was an undercover network of homosexual priests and bishops abusing seminarians, young men, and children. I gave you proof that voter fraud is real and that it happens. And that it has been increasing in “known” cases over the years is ample evidence to suggest that it is happening more frequently and in larger cases than we know at present. This is not irrefutable proof. But I do not need to provide proof when the evidence supports my claim.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top