Should the popular vote be the ultimate decider?

[mikegriffith1]

If you want mob rule, tyranny of the majority, then yes. There would be no check or balance against the majority. This is exactly what the founding fathers wanted to avoid. But, of course, liberals don't care what the founding fathers said or believed, and they're just fine with majority rule because they believe they're in the majority. Actually, though, as I've documented previously, if you add up all the votes in the 2016 election for the GOP, the Dems, and the three third-party candidates, the center-right vote was about 2 million more than the center-left vote.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

No

Mob rule is never a good thing

Tyrannies by the minority never end well

And now for another episode of Looooost in Space...

 

[BlackFlag]

No

Mob rule is never a good thing

Tyrannies by the minority never end well

And now for another episode of Looooost in Space...

Go watch A Bug's Life and get back to me

 

[WillowTree]

No! California and democrats import illegals. California should lose their right to vote and so should Broward County Florida!

The US without California will be like Uzbekistan.

Lol. Go ahead. Secede! Dew it!

 

[John Shaw]

No! California and democrats import illegals. California should lose their right to vote and so should Broward County Florida!

The US without California will be like Uzbekistan.

There would be a lot fewer arrogant, self-obsessed people in it, that's for sure.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

No

Mob rule is never a good thing

Tyrannies by the minority never end well

And now for another episode of Looooost in Space...

Go watch A Bug's Life and get back to me

Watched it 20 years ago, your point?

 

[BlackFlag]

No

Mob rule is never a good thing

Tyrannies by the minority never end well

And now for another episode of Looooost in Space...

Go watch A Bug's Life and get back to me

Watched it 20 years ago, your point?

The grasshoppers lose

 

[justoffal]

It seems to me we've had this discussion before. If I'm not mistaken the voting system was originally established on a popular vote. It doesn't work, it never did and there's no possibility that human nature will change to the point where it will be possible for it to function in a large nation especially a nation such as we have which is really a collection of smaller nations that have managed to construct what can only be referred to as a non homogenous union.

For one thing a popular only vote system across a federal election violates the original pact made by States when they first formed the Union that would enable each and every state to be fairly represented as a part of that Union.

Jo

The original system wasn’t ever a popular vote. Delegates from the states voted for several candidates for President.

Mob rule is great for Marxists that want to persecute their political enemies. So the answer is no, we don’t ever need an overall popular vote system.

I think that it violates the original pact of states. If a small state say like Utah population wise was asked to join to a huge State like California population wise what incentive would they have knowing that the moment they joined they would no longer be represented?

Jo

What “pact”? Do you just make this shit up to justify your Marxist ideals?

An understanding that entering the union
Guaranteed equal representation for that particular state.... Why would they enter otherwise? Does this concept trouble you?
Oh... And btw....Marxism works against states rights dude.

Jo

 

[Stormy Daniels]

It seems to me we've had this discussion before. If I'm not mistaken the voting system was originally established on a popular vote. It doesn't work, it never did and there's no possibility that human nature will change to the point where it will be possible for it to function in a large nation especially a nation such as we have which is really a collection of smaller nations that have managed to construct what can only be referred to as a non homogenous union.

For one thing a popular only vote system across a federal election violates the original pact made by States when they first formed the Union that would enable each and every state to be fairly represented as a part of that Union.

Jo

You need to be more specific. Ultimate decider of what? Because if you're referring to Presidential elections, then you're full of shit. The States are represented in Congress, not in the Presidency.

 

[Norman]

It seems to me we've had this discussion before. If I'm not mistaken the voting system was originally established on a popular vote. It doesn't work, it never did and there's no possibility that human nature will change to the point where it will be possible for it to function in a large nation especially a nation such as we have which is really a collection of smaller nations that have managed to construct what can only be referred to as a non homogenous union.

For one thing a popular only vote system across a federal election violates the original pact made by States when they first formed the Union that would enable each and every state to be fairly represented as a part of that Union.

Jo

No, since no small state would agree to such an arrangement.

 

[BlackFlag]

It seems to me we've had this discussion before. If I'm not mistaken the voting system was originally established on a popular vote. It doesn't work, it never did and there's no possibility that human nature will change to the point where it will be possible for it to function in a large nation especially a nation such as we have which is really a collection of smaller nations that have managed to construct what can only be referred to as a non homogenous union.

For one thing a popular only vote system across a federal election violates the original pact made by States when they first formed the Union that would enable each and every state to be fairly represented as a part of that Union.

Jo

No, since no small state would agree to such an arrangement.

If they want to keep access to that market they will

 

[justoffal]

It seems to me we've had this discussion before. If I'm not mistaken the voting system was originally established on a popular vote. It doesn't work, it never did and there's no possibility that human nature will change to the point where it will be possible for it to function in a large nation especially a nation such as we have which is really a collection of smaller nations that have managed to construct what can only be referred to as a non homogenous union.

For one thing a popular only vote system across a federal election violates the original pact made by States when they first formed the Union that would enable each and every state to be fairly represented as a part of that Union.

Jo

You need to be more specific. Ultimate decider of what? Because if you're referring to Presidential elections, then you're full of shit. The States are represented in Congress, not in the Presidency.

Not sure what you're saying. I'm asking a question in general about popular vote versus representative government. If you want a brawl I can do that.

Jo

 

[blackhawk]

This discussion only seems to come up when one sides candidate of choice wins the popular vote by overperforming in a state or states they were never going to lose like Hillary did in Califorina but lose the electoral vote. In 2016 as recall Trump lead in the popular vote till Califorina came in. If Califorina was a rock solid red state the left would not want the popular vote deciding the Presidency anymore than the right does now if it was a swing state both sides might support going to the popular vote to decide the Presidential election but I doubt it outside of these rare sour grapes moments the electoral system has worked very well for a long time and I sure don't trust the partisan hacks of today could work out a system that would be better.

 

[BlackFlag]

It seems to me we've had this discussion before. If I'm not mistaken the voting system was originally established on a popular vote. It doesn't work, it never did and there's no possibility that human nature will change to the point where it will be possible for it to function in a large nation especially a nation such as we have which is really a collection of smaller nations that have managed to construct what can only be referred to as a non homogenous union.

For one thing a popular only vote system across a federal election violates the original pact made by States when they first formed the Union that would enable each and every state to be fairly represented as a part of that Union.

Jo

No, since no small state would agree to such an arrangement.

If they want to keep access to that market they will

And yet our liberals would erase all State lines.

Jo

Think before you speak, cracka

 

[justoffal]

It seems to me we've had this discussion before. If I'm not mistaken the voting system was originally established on a popular vote. It doesn't work, it never did and there's no possibility that human nature will change to the point where it will be possible for it to function in a large nation especially a nation such as we have which is really a collection of smaller nations that have managed to construct what can only be referred to as a non homogenous union.

For one thing a popular only vote system across a federal election violates the original pact made by States when they first formed the Union that would enable each and every state to be fairly represented as a part of that Union.

Jo

No, since no small state would agree to such an arrangement.

And yet our liberals would erase the state borders.

 

[there4eyeM]

It seems to me we've had this discussion before. If I'm not mistaken the voting system was originally established on a popular vote. It doesn't work, it never did and there's no possibility that human nature will change to the point where it will be possible for it to function in a large nation especially a nation such as we have which is really a collection of smaller nations that have managed to construct what can only be referred to as a non homogenous union.

For one thing a popular only vote system across a federal election violates the original pact made by States when they first formed the Union that would enable each and every state to be fairly represented as a part of that Union.

Jo

The original system wasn’t ever a popular vote. Delegates from the states voted for several candidates for President.

Mob rule is great for Marxists that want to persecute their political enemies. So the answer is no, we don’t ever need an overall popular vote system.

I think that it violates the original pact of states. If a small state say like Utah population wise was asked to join to a huge State like California population wise what incentive would they have knowing that the moment they joined they would no longer be represented?

Jo

...perhaps because they are disproportionately defended.

 

[Norman]

It seems to me we've had this discussion before. If I'm not mistaken the voting system was originally established on a popular vote. It doesn't work, it never did and there's no possibility that human nature will change to the point where it will be possible for it to function in a large nation especially a nation such as we have which is really a collection of smaller nations that have managed to construct what can only be referred to as a non homogenous union.

For one thing a popular only vote system across a federal election violates the original pact made by States when they first formed the Union that would enable each and every state to be fairly represented as a part of that Union.

Jo

No, since no small state would agree to such an arrangement.

And yet our liberals would erase the state borders.

Well if you let the enemy make decisions for your community, of course it gets destroyed. That's common sense.

 

[justoffal]

It seems to me we've had this discussion before. If I'm not mistaken the voting system was originally established on a popular vote. It doesn't work, it never did and there's no possibility that human nature will change to the point where it will be possible for it to function in a large nation especially a nation such as we have which is really a collection of smaller nations that have managed to construct what can only be referred to as a non homogenous union.

For one thing a popular only vote system across a federal election violates the original pact made by States when they first formed the Union that would enable each and every state to be fairly represented as a part of that Union.

Jo

No, since no small state would agree to such an arrangement.

And yet our liberals would erase the state borders.

Well if you let the enemy make decisions for your community, of course it gets destroyed. That's common sense.

Wow.... You just opened up a whole front that I haven't considered!

Jo

 

[Stormy Daniels]

It seems to me we've had this discussion before. If I'm not mistaken the voting system was originally established on a popular vote. It doesn't work, it never did and there's no possibility that human nature will change to the point where it will be possible for it to function in a large nation especially a nation such as we have which is really a collection of smaller nations that have managed to construct what can only be referred to as a non homogenous union.

For one thing a popular only vote system across a federal election violates the original pact made by States when they first formed the Union that would enable each and every state to be fairly represented as a part of that Union.

Jo

You need to be more specific. Ultimate decider of what? Because if you're referring to Presidential elections, then you're full of shit. The States are represented in Congress, not in the Presidency.

Not sure what you're saying. I'm asking a question in general about popular vote versus representative government. If you want a brawl I can do that.

Jo

Popular vote....of what? You can't even answer that. Either you're too stupid to understand you're being pointlessly vague, or you're purposely doing it because you want to falsely frame the subject in terms that make it easy to go fishing with dynamite.

 

[boedicca]

I think your system is wise and was designed with careful thought and consideration. The Media concentration in NY and Cali can't use control and high populations to win election year after year. You are 50 States and it's beautifully designed with this in mind.

Indeed. The concept is a Federal Republic of States. National Mob Rule will destroy the rights of people who do not live in the few major metro clusters controlled by the Dems.