Which is the exact scenario the Founders were trying to prevent and the reason we are a democratic republic and not a pure democracy.
NY Dems propose gerrymandering plan to help them keep the House.
- Thread starter ThunderCat98
- Start date
It'll happen anyway as more of the old folks die off.
Younger generation will be more and more conformant with whatever is on TV. So California will control it all at that point. They pretty much already do anyway, but it's the old people in their way of taking it over completely.
Someday like we already did with this fake bird flu, people will just take their marching orders directly from TV network executives, all out of Los Angeles or somewhere exactly the same.
Younger generation will be more and more conformant with whatever is on TV. So California will control it all at that point. They pretty much already do anyway, but it's the old people in their way of taking it over completely.
Someday like we already did with this fake bird flu, people will just take their marching orders directly from TV network executives, all out of Los Angeles or somewhere exactly the same.
My guess is some people don't understand the concept of a represnetatiave republic. They also can't grasp the effects of letting 2 or 3 or 4 states picking the POTUS every cycle. It would in effect disolve the union of states. That is why we have 3 co-equal branches of government. The electoral college is a wonderful masterpiece by the founders. You can just be the president of California or New York or Texas or Floida. YOu are the POTUS , the union of states. You can't put entire power in 3 or 4 states and make the others peasants and with no representation. It would weaken the collection of states tremendously. You would have a few states just gang up together and split the entire pie. Why would I send the sons and daughters of insert small state to fight for the POTUS of California and New York and Texas?
Why is it right for an individual from CA to have less of a say than an individual from WV? States don’t vote en bloc.
You know, I would give this post 100 likes if I could and really appreciate anyone on a message board that can admit a mistake.
Yet you have a group of states involved in this “popular vote pledge” promising to give their electorate votes to the popular vote winner without letting their citizens approve the change.
the popular vote winner is a horrible idea. Theoretically you could have a candidate win 49 states and the other win one but still get one more total vote. A candidate could pledge that they were going to relocate the National capital from DC to LA and add billions to the California economy, win 95% of the Cali vote and carry the popular losing 40-49 states.
people forget we are not one entity. We are 50 separate states that have joined together under a framework to support our defense and a few issues that intertwine us. That’s why the federal government was intentionally set up to be very limited. It’s why federal elections were set up to make sure all member states had a substantive voice in matters that impact them.
Whoever doesn't go along with what's popular.
Since I'm in the 10 percent or less who thought the fake bird flu was really nothing, I have no say at all. I can do whatever I want, but not with anybody around. Only when they're not.
At the end of the day I think the difference is I’m a big federalist and you all aren’t. I couldn’t care less what state someone lives in. If I were reforming the country I wouldn’t have states at all, or they wouldn’t have anything close to the power they have. What made sense 250 years ago doesn’t anymore, to me.
I’m not nearly smart enough to come up with a system of government on my own, but broad strokes I would greatly weaken the power of the states. I just don’t accept things being legal in one state but not one state over as being a decent form of government. I’m sure there’d be some things about a strong Fed that I would like less than what we have in CA now but so be it.
I’m struggling to see the benefit now of a bicameral legislature. I could possibly be convinced, but I would still want proportional representation in both houses. I want that Senator to answer to the same number of people no matter where they’re from.
In terms of voting I would want ranked choice voting or one of those type of systems at all levels. First past the post like we have now just locks in our terrible two party system. If everyone could vote FOR who they wanted instead of against who they’re terrified of I think we would see a much better government.
So what works in california will work in Arizona? What works in west virginia would work in the tide water of Virginia?
why would Delaware and Rhode Island want Florida and Texas dictating what happens there?
H&H prefers the old European eastern bloc style of representation.
Then we should have the electoral college to elect governors and senators and representatives. If it's good enough for presidential elections, it's good enough for all the other offices.
That makes about as much sense as being a Baptologist.
Crybaby is still pouting over me calling him a cuck for Scientology well over a year ago.
Not necessarily. Most States (Except a few like CA, NY, and FLA) and Cities are in smaller geographical regions. The sentiment and concerns are uniform. What concerns someone in Lincoln, Ne is the same concerns with outlines around the Mid-West and rural Ne. Most states are not as diverse and don't need an electoral system.
We do it Nationally because of our cultural diversity. You don't want folks in Ca and NY making the decisions for those in the Mid-West. That is what would happen. What concerns me here in LA has no concern for those in Butte, Montana.
Then why should I make the decision for them.
Yes, necessarily. You're simply advocating the nation be ruled by a minority of voters.
That's what would happen if you got rid of the EC. The far Left and Right coasts will get their candidate in.
They would just cut deal with each and maintain ALL the power.
I’ll tell you why I strongly disagree with that. Would an issue like Lobster harvest limits get any attention in your one country total government? Who would I talk to about a road slip on a secondary road near my home?
a centralized government for a country as large and diverse as the US would last about six months before you would have a complete breakdown. As far as government goes, the President should be the least important person when it comes to your daily life. Importance of elected officials should go city-county-state-federal. The closer the accountability, the more responsive a politician has to be to maintain office.
I have a 1/600th say in who my small town mayor is. I have a 1/62,000th say in who runs the county. I have a 1/10,000,000 say in who runs the state and a 1/250,000,000 say who runs the country.
I prefer for as many decisions as possible be made by those I have the most say in electing.
Wow... Did you really just post this?
2016 presidential vote margin - + 3 million Clinton.
CA +4.3 million Clinton
NY +1.7 million Clinton
IL +900k Clinton
2020 +7 million Biden
CA +5 million Biden
NY +2 million Biden
IL +1 million Biden
Basically while the rest of the country is split pretty much 50/50 those three states, particularly CA, effectively have decided and will continue to decide the popular vote. That's in black and white and it's disingenuous to say otherwise.
Exactly and then they could just form agreements and pacts in govt. Their power would be immense.
Which, as I stated before, is the exact scenario the Founders sought to avoid.
And this is where we have all gone wrong.
Ruled? The government is supposed to be to serve the people, not to rule. They do not rule. You can do whatever you want as long as it's not violence and outright harmful to other people.
They just advise. And lately, they've been real shitty at doing it. They sure as hell don't rule though.
Nice backpedal just like on the home confinement stuff. It's good that reason sometimes may prevail. Home confinement * and now rulers*.
I know how the game is. 90 some percent of everyone else though does not. That's not a comforting thought, but it's the way it is.
I know how the game is. 90 some percent of everyone else though does not. That's not a comforting thought, but it's the way it is.
You're an idiot. The only game you know is called malarkey. You're not good at it, but you play a lot.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
saip Mike Green invited to NFL combine. I did not see anyone else
- Latest: raleighherdfan
-
-