Should the popular vote be the ultimate decider?

[Marion Morrison]

Indeed it is. And as I've pointed out from the beginning, the FF who championed the EC wanted what we're doing today to be banned.

He was right too.

Thank you for your support. You are quite correct; if it were a valid system at least some of the several states would have been electing Governors via "state electoral colleges". And none ever have. Exactly my point.

States probably should adopt some form of EC. As it is the voters in Atlanta control Georgia, the voters in LA control California, the voters in Miami control florida, the voters in Houston and Dallas control Texas, the voters in NYC control NY, the voters in Detroit control Michigan, etc. The rural voters and small counties in those states have virtually no voice in who runs their state. The founders got it right, its not going to change, so lets move on to something else, this has become a waste of time and typing skills.

That's the idea, yes. If the scheme actually has merit then we would expect the Georgias and the Californias and the Floridas --- and the Texases and the Alabamas and the Utahs --- to have tried it at some point. Yet out of fifty states none ever has. Hasn't even been suggested AFAIK. Until you responded to my analogy we haven't heard Floridians complaining about Miami (and Orlando and Tampa etc etc) or Texans about Houston (and Dallas and San Antone and El Paso). It's where people live. Your bitch appears to me that the population of some city (number X) is greater than the population of the hinterlands (number Y). And that's not a valid issue to bitch about.

We've got a TON of cities in Carolina, and I have yet to hear anyone whining that Asheville, Charlotte, Greensboro, Fayetteville, Rocky Mount, Wilmington, Durham, Winston-Salem, High Point and Raleigh "control the state". Fatter o' mact -- to get down to what this is really about ----- you know that sore-loser voting fraud that the legislatures in Wisconsin and Michigan are dabbling in right now? That started here, two years ago, when a Democrat Governor candidate unseated the Republican. The incumbent threw a fit and wouldn't leave for a while, then when he had to go the leg started trying to redefine what the Governor does. And they were able to do that because Republicans dominate the state leg.

And yet even then nobody, not even the outgoing Gov who wouldn't leave, was whining that "Asheville, Charlotte, Greensboro, Fayetteville, Rocky Mount, Wilmington, Durham, Winston-Salem, High Point and Raleigh 'control the state'. That's a bullshit red herring.

A state line is a state line. The union was formed with the understanding that each independent territory that joined wood be protected from mob rule. If not for that offer I seriously doubt that you said gave fight number states. Being a loser part of the agreement even for the high population states. For some people it's a career.

Jo

Cryptic post, but let's just center on this ---

--- define "mob rule".

Rereading the post I've come to the conclusion that the talk texting doesn't always print what you speak. I trust you got the gist of it though.

So tell me what is your plan for avoiding the mob rule effect?

I am not asking this is a rhetorical question I am sincerely interested in a conversation.

Jo

I'd rather bash my toe with a 2x4 than get too far into a conversation with Pogo.

 

[Pogo]

Indeed it is. And as I've pointed out from the beginning, the FF who championed the EC wanted what we're doing today to be banned.

He was right too.

Thank you for your support. You are quite correct; if it were a valid system at least some of the several states would have been electing Governors via "state electoral colleges". And none ever have. Exactly my point.

States probably should adopt some form of EC. As it is the voters in Atlanta control Georgia, the voters in LA control California, the voters in Miami control florida, the voters in Houston and Dallas control Texas, the voters in NYC control NY, the voters in Detroit control Michigan, etc. The rural voters and small counties in those states have virtually no voice in who runs their state. The founders got it right, its not going to change, so lets move on to something else, this has become a waste of time and typing skills.

That's the idea, yes. If the scheme actually has merit then we would expect the Georgias and the Californias and the Floridas --- and the Texases and the Alabamas and the Utahs --- to have tried it at some point. Yet out of fifty states none ever has. Hasn't even been suggested AFAIK. Until you responded to my analogy we haven't heard Floridians complaining about Miami (and Orlando and Tampa etc etc) or Texans about Houston (and Dallas and San Antone and El Paso). It's where people live. Your bitch appears to me that the population of some city (number X) is greater than the population of the hinterlands (number Y). And that's not a valid issue to bitch about.

We've got a TON of cities in Carolina, and I have yet to hear anyone whining that Asheville, Charlotte, Greensboro, Fayetteville, Rocky Mount, Wilmington, Durham, Winston-Salem, High Point and Raleigh "control the state". Fatter o' mact -- to get down to what this is really about ----- you know that sore-loser voting fraud that the legislatures in Wisconsin and Michigan are dabbling in right now? That started here, two years ago, when a Democrat Governor candidate unseated the Republican. The incumbent threw a fit and wouldn't leave for a while, then when he had to go the leg started trying to redefine what the Governor does. And they were able to do that because Republicans dominate the state leg.

And yet even then nobody, not even the outgoing Gov who wouldn't leave, was whining that "Asheville, Charlotte, Greensboro, Fayetteville, Rocky Mount, Wilmington, Durham, Winston-Salem, High Point and Raleigh 'control the state'. That's a bullshit red herring.

A state line is a state line. The union was formed with the understanding that each independent territory that joined wood be protected from mob rule. If not for that offer I seriously doubt that you said gave fight number states. Being a loser part of the agreement even for the high population states. For some people it's a career.

Jo

Cryptic post, but let's just center on this ---

--- define "mob rule".

Rereading the post I've come to the conclusion that the talk texting doesn't always print what you speak. I trust you got the gist of it though.

So tell me what is your plan for avoiding the mob rule effect?

I am not asking this is a rhetorical question I am sincerely interested in a conversation.

Jo

I'm still waiting for a definition of the term. I make it a point never to opine before I know what we're talking about.

"Talk texting"? Do you mean to represent that you're actually speaking your posts? That might be a more interesting topic actually.

 

[Pogo]

States probably should adopt some form of EC. As it is the voters in Atlanta control Georgia, the voters in LA control California, the voters in Miami control florida, the voters in Houston and Dallas control Texas, the voters in NYC control NY, the voters in Detroit control Michigan, etc. The rural voters and small counties in those states have virtually no voice in who runs their state. The founders got it right, its not going to change, so lets move on to something else, this has become a waste of time and typing skills.

That's the idea, yes. If the scheme actually has merit then we would expect the Georgias and the Californias and the Floridas --- and the Texases and the Alabamas and the Utahs --- to have tried it at some point. Yet out of fifty states none ever has. Hasn't even been suggested AFAIK. Until you responded to my analogy we haven't heard Floridians complaining about Miami (and Orlando and Tampa etc etc) or Texans about Houston (and Dallas and San Antone and El Paso). It's where people live. Your bitch appears to me that the population of some city (number X) is greater than the population of the hinterlands (number Y). And that's not a valid issue to bitch about.

We've got a TON of cities in Carolina, and I have yet to hear anyone whining that Asheville, Charlotte, Greensboro, Fayetteville, Rocky Mount, Wilmington, Durham, Winston-Salem, High Point and Raleigh "control the state". Fatter o' mact -- to get down to what this is really about ----- you know that sore-loser voting fraud that the legislatures in Wisconsin and Michigan are dabbling in right now? That started here, two years ago, when a Democrat Governor candidate unseated the Republican. The incumbent threw a fit and wouldn't leave for a while, then when he had to go the leg started trying to redefine what the Governor does. And they were able to do that because Republicans dominate the state leg.

And yet even then nobody, not even the outgoing Gov who wouldn't leave, was whining that "Asheville, Charlotte, Greensboro, Fayetteville, Rocky Mount, Wilmington, Durham, Winston-Salem, High Point and Raleigh 'control the state'. That's a bullshit red herring.

A state line is a state line. The union was formed with the understanding that each independent territory that joined wood be protected from mob rule. If not for that offer I seriously doubt that you said gave fight number states. Being a loser part of the agreement even for the high population states. For some people it's a career.

Jo

Cryptic post, but let's just center on this ---

--- define "mob rule".

Rereading the post I've come to the conclusion that the talk texting doesn't always print what you speak. I trust you got the gist of it though.

So tell me what is your plan for avoiding the mob rule effect?

I am not asking this is a rhetorical question I am sincerely interested in a conversation.

Jo

I'd rather bash my toe with a 2x4 than get too far into a conversation with Pogo.

Well you know, I got wood.

 

[Marion Morrison]

That's the idea, yes. If the scheme actually has merit then we would expect the Georgias and the Californias and the Floridas --- and the Texases and the Alabamas and the Utahs --- to have tried it at some point. Yet out of fifty states none ever has. Hasn't even been suggested AFAIK. Until you responded to my analogy we haven't heard Floridians complaining about Miami (and Orlando and Tampa etc etc) or Texans about Houston (and Dallas and San Antone and El Paso). It's where people live. Your bitch appears to me that the population of some city (number X) is greater than the population of the hinterlands (number Y). And that's not a valid issue to bitch about.

We've got a TON of cities in Carolina, and I have yet to hear anyone whining that Asheville, Charlotte, Greensboro, Fayetteville, Rocky Mount, Wilmington, Durham, Winston-Salem, High Point and Raleigh "control the state". Fatter o' mact -- to get down to what this is really about ----- you know that sore-loser voting fraud that the legislatures in Wisconsin and Michigan are dabbling in right now? That started here, two years ago, when a Democrat Governor candidate unseated the Republican. The incumbent threw a fit and wouldn't leave for a while, then when he had to go the leg started trying to redefine what the Governor does. And they were able to do that because Republicans dominate the state leg.

And yet even then nobody, not even the outgoing Gov who wouldn't leave, was whining that "Asheville, Charlotte, Greensboro, Fayetteville, Rocky Mount, Wilmington, Durham, Winston-Salem, High Point and Raleigh 'control the state'. That's a bullshit red herring.

A state line is a state line. The union was formed with the understanding that each independent territory that joined wood be protected from mob rule. If not for that offer I seriously doubt that you said gave fight number states. Being a loser part of the agreement even for the high population states. For some people it's a career.

Jo

Cryptic post, but let's just center on this ---

--- define "mob rule".

Rereading the post I've come to the conclusion that the talk texting doesn't always print what you speak. I trust you got the gist of it though.

So tell me what is your plan for avoiding the mob rule effect?

I am not asking this is a rhetorical question I am sincerely interested in a conversation.

Jo

I'd rather bash my toe with a 2x4 than get too far into a conversation with Pogo.

Well you know, I got wood.

So do I.

 

[Redfish]

That's the idea, yes. If the scheme actually has merit then we would expect the Georgias and the Californias and the Floridas --- and the Texases and the Alabamas and the Utahs --- to have tried it at some point. Yet out of fifty states none ever has. Hasn't even been suggested AFAIK. Until you responded to my analogy we haven't heard Floridians complaining about Miami (and Orlando and Tampa etc etc) or Texans about Houston (and Dallas and San Antone and El Paso). It's where people live. Your bitch appears to me that the population of some city (number X) is greater than the population of the hinterlands (number Y). And that's not a valid issue to bitch about.

We've got a TON of cities in Carolina, and I have yet to hear anyone whining that Asheville, Charlotte, Greensboro, Fayetteville, Rocky Mount, Wilmington, Durham, Winston-Salem, High Point and Raleigh "control the state". Fatter o' mact -- to get down to what this is really about ----- you know that sore-loser voting fraud that the legislatures in Wisconsin and Michigan are dabbling in right now? That started here, two years ago, when a Democrat Governor candidate unseated the Republican. The incumbent threw a fit and wouldn't leave for a while, then when he had to go the leg started trying to redefine what the Governor does. And they were able to do that because Republicans dominate the state leg.

And yet even then nobody, not even the outgoing Gov who wouldn't leave, was whining that "Asheville, Charlotte, Greensboro, Fayetteville, Rocky Mount, Wilmington, Durham, Winston-Salem, High Point and Raleigh 'control the state'. That's a bullshit red herring.

A state line is a state line. The union was formed with the understanding that each independent territory that joined wood be protected from mob rule. If not for that offer I seriously doubt that you said gave fight number states. Being a loser part of the agreement even for the high population states. For some people it's a career.

Jo

Cryptic post, but let's just center on this ---

--- define "mob rule".

Rereading the post I've come to the conclusion that the talk texting doesn't always print what you speak. I trust you got the gist of it though.

So tell me what is your plan for avoiding the mob rule effect?

I am not asking this is a rhetorical question I am sincerely interested in a conversation.

Jo

I'd rather bash my toe with a 2x4 than get too far into a conversation with Pogo.

Well you know, I got wood.

are you fantasizing about Morrison?

 

[Pogo]

A state line is a state line. The union was formed with the understanding that each independent territory that joined wood be protected from mob rule. If not for that offer I seriously doubt that you said gave fight number states. Being a loser part of the agreement even for the high population states. For some people it's a career.

Jo

Cryptic post, but let's just center on this ---

--- define "mob rule".

Rereading the post I've come to the conclusion that the talk texting doesn't always print what you speak. I trust you got the gist of it though.

So tell me what is your plan for avoiding the mob rule effect?

I am not asking this is a rhetorical question I am sincerely interested in a conversation.

Jo

I'd rather bash my toe with a 2x4 than get too far into a conversation with Pogo.

Well you know, I got wood.

are you fantasizing about Morrison?

He's fantasizing about 2x4s, I got 'em.
And not just any 2x4s. Mine come pre-warped.

 

[ph3iron]

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 mean join the rest of the civilized world rather than a paper written by slave owners and rapists?
Your kidding

 

[Cecilie1200]

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 mean join the rest of the civilized world rather than a paper written by slave owners and rapists?
Your kidding

If you think our system is so beneath you and uncivilized, no one is stopping you from joining the "civilized world". We can replace you in five minutes with someone who is not only more useful and pleasant, but who actually wants to be here, since our nation founded by "slave owners and rapists" - as opposed, presumably, to the moral paragons who founded every other first-world nation - receives more applications for residence than any other country on Earth.

Hit the border, pal. No one plans to stop you.