Check out # 28 , and # 54 , # 56 .
Thanks, Davey Crockett.
Posted on 08/26/2016 2:51:36 PM PDT by DAVEY CROCKETT
Obama is not the only one....The noble intent of the Framers has, of course, been overwhelmed by the rise of political parties. Perhaps the Framers were naïve to think that anyone could aspire to the highest office in the land without organized support, and not end up more devoted to party interests than those of the nation. Obama is the poster boy of this corruption. He is a political party president so thoroughly detached from his sworn duty to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, that it is often questionable just whose side he is on.
No, Article I, Section II, Paragraph 3 says that "each State shall have at Least one Representative".
Ping to post #28 very good reads on electoral college. Ping list please we need to understand this.
I think we could live the nightmare, if hellary is elected.
We are here...The people also govern well, at first. As long as there are any living who remember the days of oppression, they guard their liberties with a jealous vigor. Nevertheless, as future generations inherit the same privileges of democracy as their ancestors, yet without effort, they cease to cherish those benefits (6.9.5). Eventually individuals arise among them who, seeking pre-eminence, cater to the creature comforts of the masses, thereby hoping to win their favor. People sell cheap those liberties that have cost them nothing personally. Once the masses accept these demagogues, the cycle of tyranny begins again. This is the cycle Polybius calls a)naku/klwsij.
I see two major reasons to support a winner-take-all policy for each state.
First, as has been mentioned before, it assures that the President will have more widespread support than otherwise.
More importantly to me, though, is the fact that the majority in the larger states cannot steal votes to help their candidate. Once Hillary wins Kalifornia, stealing additional votes in Democrat controlled Kalifornia doesn't do her any good.
Instead, if Democrats are determined to steal the election, they are forced to do so in states that otherwise are controlled by Republicans.
We must keep the E.C as is or, if a change is made, go to the Congressional District system of awarding them. Had the C.D system of awarding E.Vs been in place in 2012 Romney would have won.
Statistically, in the modern day, the E.C. actually favors the Repubs. If the R candidate can come within 1% of the D candidate (49-48% for example) there is still a chance the R will win in the E.C. The reverse is not true.The Dems must win a majority of the P.V. to win the E.C as voters are generally distributed now around the nation
This happens because of the general distribution of the respective parties voters. Ds can roll up large majorities in certain states and Rs can win a number of states by slim margins, each taking the respective states E.V.s.
Bush lost the P.V by 1/2% in 2000 and still eked out a E.C. victory as an example.
http://www.fairvote.org/problems_with_the_electoral_college
“The Electoral College gives disproportionate voting power to states, favoring the smaller states with more electoral votes per person.
For instance, each individual vote in Wyoming counts nearly four times as much in the Electoral College as each individual vote in Texas. This is because Wyoming has three (3) electoral votes for a population of 532,668 citizens (as of 2008 Census Bureau estimates) and Texas has thirty-two (32) electoral votes for a population of almost 25 million. By dividing the population by electoral votes, we can see that Wyoming has one “elector” for every 177,556 people and Texas has one “elector” for about every 715,499. The difference between these two states of 537,943 is the largest in the Electoral College.”
The Rs win a bigger share of the smaller states and gain E.Vs that have fewer voters represented by those E.V.s
He has to win the small states too. One good thing about the Electoral College is that it limits vast cheating to just the state where it is being done. Chicago can’t affect anything but Illinois. Also, those that vote as a block will not help smaller states, unless they live there.
majority in the larger states cannot steal votes to help their candidate. Once Hillary wins Kalifornia, stealing additional votes in Democrat controlled Kalifornia doesn’t do her any good.
Wyoming should not have so many damn EC votes, that’s for sure. We like it now because Wyoming is Repub, but let one million illegal refugee get moved there and it would be a different tune.
Hopefully the cowboys out there would settle the immigration worries. :)
And isn’t it striking that that knowledge is 2200 years old-and yet, indeed, ‘here we are’... again.
Some times persons can change, but mankind never does.
Check out # 28 , and # 54 , # 56 .
Thanks, Davey Crockett.
Your post is true, and here we are!
Beautiful....deserves a repeat.
Every official move he's ever made is (in his own words) "to install a permanent Democrat majority."
Thank you Mrs. Smith for your post. I enjoyed the chapter about Polybius very much.
I am interested in your practical ideas for the present. I suspect that the presidency is not the thing that will matter in the long term but I wonder if you think that it would or anything else would. I can see that the RINO party must be destroyed, and that the current battle with them has no hope apart from the election of Donald Trump. Am I right?
If you do think it is all a foregone conclusion, then what will the collapse and fall look like and what historical parallel would you make? What is the time frame?
All freeper comments and teaching welcome!
BTTT
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.