Posted on 01/31/2013 11:13:56 AM PST by fractionated
Detroit decides our vote here in Michigan and they do it blatantly through fraud.
Only allowing them a set number of electoral votes will remove the lure to commit fraud.
Ridiculous and unconstitutional, but other than that OK.
Just yesterday I sent out emails to my state representative, senator, governor, and SOS to tell them I support it.
Otherwise, its become rather pointless for me to vote in a presidential election when the state will go to whoever Detroit and Flint vote for.
Getting rid of the 17th amendment is a much higher hurdle that also needs to be dealt with at some point.
>>>So stop being stupid in trying.
Just for grins and curiosity, I looked at the results from here in TX during the 2012 elections. I heard Levin talking about the GOP strategy and figured the election of Cruz would be a good litmus.
As predicted, Cruz only outperformed Romney by a couple of points. In hispanic counties, the democrat...a white guy...won.
Hispanics are not going to vote GOP in large %...EVER again. Most of those hispanics which are here now come from socialist type governments where Big Brother looks after you.
They will always vote for that option...even if you have hispanics running against Dems.
Representative Republic. Not Democracy. Are the votes of the entire state being represented? Or because of shear volume and I’ll add ignorance are they not? The answer is simple. Certain people are now voting to steal the hard earned dollars of their fellow Americans. The people who pay the taxes are being outvoted in massive urban areas of uninformed voters and that is not a “Representative Republic”. That’s Democracy and it is very dangerous. When do they get to out vote us on our right to life?
Representative Republic. Not Democracy. Are the votes of the entire state being represented? Or because of shear volume and I’ll add ignorance are they not? The answer is simple. Certain people are now voting to steal the hard earned dollars of their fellow Americans. The people who pay the taxes are being outvoted in massive urban areas of uninformed voters and that is not a “Representative Republic”. That’s Democracy and it is very dangerous. When do they get to out vote us on our right to life?
Trying to explain to someone you are presumably portraying as a Zero voter is going to be a near impossibility. If they cannot vote in their own best interests (which they aren’t), that doesn’t mean the rest of us who do should be sucked down the drain with them.
If there is any shred of reasoning, one could take the approach as such. Say you have 100 people living on a block (all voters). Let’s say 49 of the people live in nice homes on the block, all kept up and maintained. Everyone gainfully employed. Then let’s say 51 of the people live in a rundown apartment building at the end of the block. They’re mostly criminal, perpetual welfare cases. They don’t work, don’t want to work. They are the low or no info voters, ones swayed by politicians who count on demogoguery and race baiting (”They’re gonna put you back in chains !”) and essentially need these folks to remain dumbed down and dependent.
Anyway, come voting day, the 49 voters vote responsibly, but they get outvoted by the 51 voters who do not, the ones who vote for a corrupt status quo. It may be a victory for democracy, but it is not a victory for personal responsibility or moral governance. Where is it written that said 51 have the right to forcefully take from those 49 who work hard, want a responsible and moral society and demand the others do as they will ?
The alternative here is that the 49 choose to just vacate the block and move elsewhere to where they have a majority (in which case, they’d have to go out of state). How is that particularly fair ?
I’ve reached the point where voting should not be a right, but a privilege. Certain things should disqualify you from being a voter. If you are on welfare, taking from those that work, you should not have a vote. You’re going to vote for politicians who are going to keep you on welfare. You’re voting for “free” money. Also, if you work for the government (with the sole exception of those who put their lives on the line in military or police/fire/emergency capacities), you should also not have a vote. You’re voting for your own employment and income at the expense of those who do not.
The premier example of the latter is that the Founding Fathers did not want DC residents having the vote, since those people would presumably be government workers. It’s no surprise that DC and its suburbs have become heavily Democrat and absolutely need the government to keep getting larger. As was stated long ago, once people could discover how to vote themselves free money (and benefits), that is the end of a republic.
What makes it worse is that somebody did the math when this silly idea was floated (before it sank) in VA -- turns out that the scheme makes Obama voters count approximately three-fifths weight.
There may be a more toxic political meme out there, but I don't know what it is. (Though if there is, I'm sure the current leadership of the GOP is dumb enough to find it and present it to the 'Rats as a club with which to beat them.)
Well said.
I agree with you.
Changing the way states chose electors is NOTHING new and it is Constitutional. If it works for Maine and Nebraska, I think it would do wonders for the following states:
Virginia
Pennsylvania
Ohio
Michigan
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Florida
California
Illinois
Iowa
Which ever of those states above that have Republican legislatures and governors better get on this, now.
This is, was, and will be a disaster. Won’t work. May not even be Constitutional, and, in fact, makes the uneducated (most voters) believe the GOP is trying to steal elections. This would be nothing short of catastrophic.
Here’s a thought GOP. how about some Conservative candidates!!
Damn that pesky Article II in the Constitution:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
Steve & Cokie Roberts
stopped reading after that...
Proportional allocation via Congressional district is how it was originally in most states. I believe the major parties went to winner-take-all to get rid of the smaller parties. If these states return to proportional allocation, Republicans might start winning those states, but there might also be third-party candidates stealing away Congressional districts.
Not at all. Winner-take-all has always been the standard system.
“Tyranny of the majority.” That’s what states with large metropolitan areas have. The example of Illinois is a good one. Rural areas are often large contributors to a state’s economy, and they deserve to be recognized, not steamrolled by the population centers.
Congressional districts are apportioned based on census population data, there is nothing unfair about divvying EVs in this manner.
LOL Seems to be a lot of noobs concerned about how the states choose their electors lately. I think they need to worry about their own damn states.
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.