NEWS Whenever anyone in the US says they want to get rid of the electoral college, this is why…

[TigerGrowls]

Great example of why the electoral college must remain.

Whenever anyone in the US says they want to get rid of the electoral college, this is why... - Revolver News

Turns out that one small region is allowed to impose Bolshevism on everyone else.

www.revolver.news

November 2, 2022

Interesting.


Turns out that one small region of Brazil is allowed to impose Bolshevism on everyone else.
Glad we don’t have that in America.

 

[ctcseb]

Great example of why the electoral college must remain.

Whenever anyone in the US says they want to get rid of the electoral college, this is why... - Revolver News

Turns out that one small region is allowed to impose Bolshevism on everyone else.

www.revolver.news

November 2, 2022

Interesting.

View embedded media

Turns out that one small region of Brazil is allowed to impose Bolshevism on everyone else.
Glad we don’t have that in America.

You mean, you believe that some people should not have their vote matter? Which people shouldn't have their voices heard? Which people should be considered less than a human being and have their basic right stripped away?

You sound exactly like the people that were against women and blacks voting. You are in favor of the minority imposing their will on the majority because you are in that minority.

People deserve the right to live the way they want. That includes significant regional differences. In the U.S., the life experiences of people living in rural vs. urban areas are significantly different. There should be room for these differences in our political and legislative systems.

Do you realize how insanely anti-democracy your argument is? You want a two-tier society where a minority of people can impose their will to a group that is 3 to 4 times that of the minority. What makes your vote matter more than that of 4 other people? Are you superior to these 4 people? In what respect? Please explain.

 

[iceheart08]

You mean, you believe that some people should not have their vote matter? Which people shouldn't have their voices heard? Which people should be considered less than a human being and have their basic right stripped away?

You sound exactly like the people that were against women and blacks voting. You are in favor of the minority imposing their will on the majority because you are in that minority.

People deserve the right to live the way they want. That includes significant regional differences. In the U.S., the life experiences of people living in rural vs. urban areas are significantly different. There should be room for these differences in our political and legislative systems.

Do you realize how insanely anti-democracy your argument is? You want a two-tier society where a minority of people can impose their will to a group that is 3 to 4 times that of the minority. What makes your vote matter more than that of 4 other people? Are you superior to these 4 people? In what respect? Please explain.

In Colorado, a gov candidate said it out loud. The folks in rural Colorado need an electoral college to ensure that their votes count more than ones in urbanized areas.

GOP candidate for Colorado governor says eliminate one-person, one-vote system

Under Greg Lopez’s proposal, the 2018 gubernatorial race would have been a runaway win for Republicans, who lost the actual race by double-digits.

www.google.com

These people think city dwellers count less...

 

[ctcseb]

In Colorado, a gov candidate said it out loud. The folks in rural Colorado need an electoral college to ensure that their votes count more than ones in urbanized areas.

GOP candidate for Colorado governor says eliminate one-person, one-vote system

Under Greg Lopez’s proposal, the 2018 gubernatorial race would have been a runaway win for Republicans, who lost the actual race by double-digits.

www.google.com

These people think city dwellers count less...

Oooof… I guess this is symptomatic of the whole political discourse right now.

I certainly don’t want a remote centralized government controlling my life. The ability to be “left alone” is very important and a big part of the freedom we enjoy in this country. But sadly, the right has turned extreme right / fascist and anti-democracy to maintain that freedom. This is the wrong solution to a real problem. Instead of finding a good solution, they have weaponized gerrymandering, promoting ways to suppress voters, stacked the courts with Federalist Society members, denied election results, attempted an insurrection, etc.

The ironic thing is this won’t solve anything. There may be a temporary red wave this Tuesday but none of the trends are going to change. The percentage of religious people in the U.S. declines every year. And in about 20 years, whites will be less than 50% of the population. Check out the Gallup poll analysis, none of the non-white voting groups have Republicans as the preferred party. So, we know where this is headed politically…

So, the real solution is to create a framework where we can all coexist in spite of our differences, with a focus on common ground and respect for individuality.

Regrettably, uneducated white men have decided to push for a nationalist populist movement instead. Instead of uniting, they have decided to divide and make a last stand to try and tilt the system in their favor. Which is where this state level electoral college comes into play. The thing is, there are no examples in history where a democracy could be sustained if a minority of the population held hostage a majority of the population. The MAGA dinosaurs on this board are going to die off in the next 25 years and the rest of us will be left to deal with the consequences of their attempts to pervert democracy. This is going to suck big time…

 

[Hammerdawg.NEAR]

In Colorado, a gov candidate said it out loud. The folks in rural Colorado need an electoral college to ensure that their votes count more than ones in urbanized areas.

GOP candidate for Colorado governor says eliminate one-person, one-vote system

Under Greg Lopez’s proposal, the 2018 gubernatorial race would have been a runaway win for Republicans, who lost the actual race by double-digits.

www.google.com

These people think city dwellers count less...

Yeah so let’s get rid of the EC so the urban votes will be the only ones that count

Democracy!

 

[dpic73]

Yeah so let’s get rid of the EC so the urban votes will be the only ones that count

Democracy!

Wrong, everyone's vote would count the same and that's what scares you because then the majority would always win.

That's Democracy!

 

[ctcseb]

Yeah so let’s get rid of the EC so the urban votes will be the only ones that count

Democracy!

Did you read the article? That candidate asked for the opposite, they wanted to institute EC within a state so that urban voters didn't count. So, please stop playing the victim, it was the other way around.

Democracy is about each individual having an equal say. Funny enough, your whining is exactly in line with the people that for centuries thought women shouldn't vote. They were afraid the women voting would challenge their status. They were against people of color voting as well. They didn't see them as equal and worthy of voting. Is that your view of people living in cities? They are inferior and not worthy of voting?

 

[TigerGrowls]

You mean, you believe that some people should not have their vote matter? Which people shouldn't have their voices heard? Which people should be considered less than a human being and have their basic right stripped away?

You sound exactly like the people that were against women and blacks voting. You are in favor of the minority imposing their will on the majority because you are in that minority.

People deserve the right to live the way they want. That includes significant regional differences. In the U.S., the life experiences of people living in rural vs. urban areas are significantly different. There should be room for these differences in our political and legislative systems.

Do you realize how insanely anti-democracy your argument is? You want a two-tier society where a minority of people can impose their will to a group that is 3 to 4 times that of the minority. What makes your vote matter more than that of 4 other people? Are you superior to these 4 people? In what respect? Please explain.

So you are against the US electoral college?

 

[ctcseb]

So you are against the US electoral college?

I am in favor of small federal government and states having as much autonomy as possible. But when it comes to the presidential election, I believe the electoral college is a vestige of a by-gone era and should be replaced. I am against the concept of different castes or classes of Americans, which is why I hate identity politics. EC is the identity politics of elections. It creates different classes of Americans with different voting power.

Like I mentioned earlier, we need a system where our freedoms are respected and regional differences protected. It makes no sense whatsoever to govern Wyoming like you would New York. You guys seem to hang on to EC because the disenfranchisement of millions of people benefits you. That is not a good solution, you are 20 years away from being wiped out by a permanent demographic disadvantage. So, let's work on creating a system where we all have our freedom to live the way we want, with minimal constraints, instead of this "winner takes all" mindset that causes you to deny elections and attempt coups. There are legitimate ways out of this, pushing for different classes of Americans isn't going to work out well... Because the U.S. will reach a point of no return where millions of people are tired of being led by a minority. This isn't going to end well.

 

[TigerGrowls]

I am in favor of small federal government and states having as much autonomy as possible. But when it comes to the presidential election, I believe the electoral college is a vestige of a by-gone era and should be replaced. I am against the concept of different castes or classes of Americans, which is why I hate identity politics. EC is the identity politics of elections. It creates different classes of Americans with different voting power.

Like I mentioned earlier, we need a system where our freedoms are respected and regional differences protected. It makes no sense whatsoever to govern Wyoming like you would New York. You guys seem to hang on to EC because the disenfranchisement of millions of people benefits you. That is not a good solution, you are 20 years away from being wiped out by a permanent demographic disadvantage. So, let's work on creating a system where we all have our freedom to live the way we want, with minimal constraints, instead of this "winner takes all" mindset that causes you to deny elections and attempt coups. There are legitimate ways out of this, pushing for different classes of Americans isn't going to work out well... Because the U.S. will reach a point of no return where millions of people are tired of being led by a minority. This isn't going to end well.

Strongly disagree with your opinion on this one. The electoral college prevents the huge population urban areas from controlling the rest of the nation.

 

[CUT93]

I am in favor of small federal government and states having as much autonomy as possible. But when it comes to the presidential election, I believe the electoral college is a vestige of a by-gone era and should be replaced. I am against the concept of different castes or classes of Americans, which is why I hate identity politics. EC is the identity politics of elections. It creates different classes of Americans with different voting power.

Like I mentioned earlier, we need a system where our freedoms are respected and regional differences protected. It makes no sense whatsoever to govern Wyoming like you would New York. You guys seem to hang on to EC because the disenfranchisement of millions of people benefits you. That is not a good solution, you are 20 years away from being wiped out by a permanent demographic disadvantage. So, let's work on creating a system where we all have our freedom to live the way we want, with minimal constraints, instead of this "winner takes all" mindset that causes you to deny elections and attempt coups. There are legitimate ways out of this, pushing for different classes of Americans isn't going to work out well... Because the U.S. will reach a point of no return where millions of people are tired of being led by a minority. This isn't going to end well.

If we had a small federal govt, I would agree with you. I would trade the ec for a small fed govt tomorrow, but that is just a pipe dream.
A small fed govt with a lot of state autonomy was what the founders had in mind. The problem with that is that both dems and republicans(albeit to a lesser degree) have bloated the fed govt purposefully to make as many people as possible dependent on the govt. For example, social security was never meant to be an ongoing form of lifetime income. It was meant to be a temporary safety net due to the devastation of the great depression. FDR explicitly said this. Instead, we have not only kept it, but added numerous other forms of govt income/aide that have become generational income streams with no limits of time and almost no incentives for those that receive it to replace it with personal responsibility. In many cases, we encourage more reliance and bad behavior. We have, in my opinion, purposefully created generations of people who now rely on the govt as their primary means of support solely for the purpose of ensuring their obedience and garnering of their vote. It's sickening to me.

 

[ctcseb]

If we had a small federal govt, I would agree with you. I would trade the ec for a small fed govt tomorrow, but that is just a pipe dream.
A small fed govt with a lot of state autonomy was what the founders had in mind. The problem with that is that both dems and republicans(albeit to a lesser degree) have bloated the fed govt purposefully to make as many people as possible dependent on the govt. For example, social security was never meant to be an ongoing form of lifetime income. It was meant to be a temporary safety net due to the devastation of the great depression. FDR explicitly said this. Instead, we have not only kept it, but added numerous other forms of govt income/aide that have become generational income streams with no limits of time and almost no incentives for those that receive it to replace it with personal responsibility. In many cases, we encourage more reliance and bad behavior. We have, in my opinion, purposefully created generations of people who now rely on the govt as their primary means of support solely for the purpose of ensuring their obedience and garnering of their vote. It's sickening to me.

You bring up some very legitimate concerns. I have said several times that the entitlement mindset is a “soul killer”, it destroys responsibility, hard work, creativity, innovation, etc. I do believe in safety nets but there’s a difference between a safety net to help people recover from life’s curve balls and a nanny state. Too many are comfortable with the latter.

 

[scotchtiger]

You bring up some very legitimate concerns. I have said several times that the entitlement mindset is a “soul killer”, it destroys responsibility, hard work, creativity, innovation, etc. I do believe in safety nets but there’s a difference between a safety net to help people recover from life’s curve balls and a nanny state. Too many are comfortable with the latter.

Yep. If you are a mentally and physically capable adult, you shouldn’t receive permanent assistance from the federal government. That’s not what safety net programs are for.

 

[CUT93]

You bring up some very legitimate concerns. I have said several times that the entitlement mindset is a “soul killer”, it destroys responsibility, hard work, creativity, innovation, etc. I do believe in safety nets but there’s a difference between a safety net to help people recover from life’s curve balls and a nanny state. Too many are comfortable with the latter.

100%. aside from the obvious massive cost, it destroys people's self worth through a gradual acceptance of a lower station in life than many could otherwise achieve. A "soul killer" is exactly right, and it has a devastating impact on our country that worsens over time. Just like compound interest on debt, it exponentially expands through generations.
Do I want the fed govt to stop taking so much $$ from some people to give it to undeserving others? Absolutely, I do. However, a significant factor in my policy stance on aid to others is that we are destroying the self worth and basically turning a significant portion of our population into indentured servants(only there is little/no service required). We are essentially taking away people's freedom under the guise of kindness/help. obviously, this does not apply to everyone getting assistance, but the segment of those it does apply to is not insignificant.

 

[WapPride]

Strongly disagree with your opinion on this one. The electoral college prevents the huge population urban areas from controlling the rest of the nation.

how is it any different than ohio, florida, pennsylvania, and arizona now controlling the rest of the nation?

 

[TigerGrowls]

how is it any different than ohio, florida, pennsylvania, and arizona now controlling the rest of the nation?

How so?