Vote equality

[SwimExpert]

No, I'm not talking about voting equality. In many ways that is the exact opposite of what I am here to discuss. Today I would like to present the concept of vote equality. By that, I mean the idea that every vote is equal. Every vote is counted, every vote is given the same weight as another. No more, no less.

In 21st century America we talk far too much about demographics. For a country that claims to believe in equality under the law and individualism, our politics are disturbingly vested in lumping people into groups, labeling them, and then treating these groups as more and less important. It's all about the demographics. By drawing these dividing lines, we define individuals based on broad brushstrokes. And through these segregations we assess the value and merit of individuals on anything but their own selves. Democrats strive to hold onto the black vote. Republicans argue about winning over the Hispanic vote. Both sides pander to the upper class vote, while claiming to be most interested in the middle class vote. Republicans hold grip on the old vote, while Democrats keep quiet that they're lose their grasp on the youth vote, which neither side cares particularly about since it's such a small group.

It's about time we start focusing on equal votes. Hispanics aren't more important than white people. They're not more important than black people. They're not more important than Asian people. They're all just people. And they're all individuals at that. Some Hispanics vote Democrat. Some Hispanics vote Republican. Some Hispanics can't even read the fraudulent citizenship papers they bought for $10,000 USD, so they have no idea that they even have the ability to illegally vote. But just because Jorge is an illiterate wetback doesn't mean that the same is true for Maria Luiza Rosalina Constantina (she's Hispanic, so....no commas).

We wonder why our politicians cater to special interests groups. The answer is clear: We made ourselves into special interests groups and taught our politicians the behavior. The establishment may be broken, but we built the establishment. You want to see change? You want to see revolution? Then it starts with you. Go out, vote differently, vote unpartisanly, VOTE INDIVIDUALLY!!

Of course, if that's too much work for you, do whatever you want. Just remember who's to blame when you get the same thing out of doing the same thing.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Speaking of vote equality, in states like Wyoming a vote is actually worth 4 times more than a persons vote in other states. That's because each state gets a minimum of 3 electoral votes.

Wyoming gets 3 votes for a population of 500,000. Texas, for example, gets 32 votes for a population of 25 million. Do the math, and Wisconsin get 1 electoral vote for every 150,000ish people, and Texas gets one for every 715,000ish people. That's why Dubya won his election in 2000 without the popular vote. All of these small states with unfair voting happen to lean republican. Something should be done to address that.

 

[Iceweasel]

Who is stopping who from voting?

 

[Iceweasel]

Speaking of vote equality, in states like Wyoming a vote is actually worth 4 times more than a persons vote in other states. That's because each state gets a minimum of 3 electoral votes.

Wyoming gets 3 votes for a population of 500,000. Texas, for example, gets 32 votes for a population of 25 million. Do the math, and Wisconsin get 1 electoral vote for every 150,000ish people, and Texas gets one for every 715,000ish people. That's why Dubya won his election in 2000 without the popular vote. All of these small states with unfair voting happen to lean republican. Something should be done to address that.

You're confused and have no concept of what a republic is. The electoral college was designed so the more populous regions couldn't ram their shit down everybodies throats. You don't like it? Tough shit.

 

[Sallow]

Speaking of vote equality, in states like Wyoming a vote is actually worth 4 times more than a persons vote in other states. That's because each state gets a minimum of 3 electoral votes.

Wyoming gets 3 votes for a population of 500,000. Texas, for example, gets 32 votes for a population of 25 million. Do the math, and Wisconsin get 1 electoral vote for every 150,000ish people, and Texas gets one for every 715,000ish people. That's why Dubya won his election in 2000 without the popular vote. All of these small states with unfair voting happen to lean republican. Something should be done to address that.

I would love to deep six the electoral college and just go with majorities.

 

[Sallow]

Speaking of vote equality, in states like Wyoming a vote is actually worth 4 times more than a persons vote in other states. That's because each state gets a minimum of 3 electoral votes.

Wyoming gets 3 votes for a population of 500,000. Texas, for example, gets 32 votes for a population of 25 million. Do the math, and Wisconsin get 1 electoral vote for every 150,000ish people, and Texas gets one for every 715,000ish people. That's why Dubya won his election in 2000 without the popular vote. All of these small states with unfair voting happen to lean republican. Something should be done to address that.

You're confused and have no concept of what a republic is. The electoral college was designed so the more populous regions couldn't ram their shit down everybodies throats. You don't like it? Tough shit.

Eventually, folks get tired of minority rule.

See: Every fucking revolution in history.

It usually winds up really bad for the minority too.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Speaking of vote equality, in states like Wyoming a vote is actually worth 4 times more than a persons vote in other states. That's because each state gets a minimum of 3 electoral votes.

Wyoming gets 3 votes for a population of 500,000. Texas, for example, gets 32 votes for a population of 25 million. Do the math, and Wisconsin get 1 electoral vote for every 150,000ish people, and Texas gets one for every 715,000ish people. That's why Dubya won his election in 2000 without the popular vote. All of these small states with unfair voting happen to lean republican. Something should be done to address that.

You're confused and have no concept of what a republic is. The electoral college was designed so the more populous regions couldn't ram their shit down everybodies throats. You don't like it? Tough shit.

But you must admit that is certainly a topic relevant to a thread about "vote equality."

 

[irosie91]

lets deep six the whole damned thing and choose a king (make that QUEEN)

 

[MisterBeale]

Speaking of vote equality, in states like Wyoming a vote is actually worth 4 times more than a persons vote in other states. That's because each state gets a minimum of 3 electoral votes.

Wyoming gets 3 votes for a population of 500,000. Texas, for example, gets 32 votes for a population of 25 million. Do the math, and Wisconsin get 1 electoral vote for every 150,000ish people, and Texas gets one for every 715,000ish people. That's why Dubya won his election in 2000 without the popular vote. All of these small states with unfair voting happen to lean republican. Something should be done to address that.

You're absolutely right. Let's dissolve the union. The progressives can create police states and join the NWO in their states, and the red states can go their own way.

 

[SwimExpert]

You're confused and have no concept of what a republic is. The electoral college was designed so the more populous regions couldn't ram their shit down everybodies throats. You don't like it? Tough shit.

Well, not really. The EC was designed to be an alternative to Congressional election of the President to protect the independence of the Presidency. Whereas the Virginia plan proposed for the President to be elected by Congress, a secondary body composed of an equal number of members, equally proportioned to the several states, allowed the Presidency better autonomy from the legislature.

Understanding the EC and the reasons for its adoption requires viewing it in historical context of the world the Founders knew and were accustomed to. On one hand, a government of semi-elites was a natural and seemingly proper thing for a people who were cut from a centuries old culture of monarchy and rule by high born nobility. While the need for the people to have a definite and direct influence on the government was understood as vital for a free society, direct democracy was also not desirable, as the common man might not have sufficient understanding of important matters to justify the popular vote to wield political power that was only marginally checked. Whereas the British political system was one where the high born exercised a great deal of influence, the new American system was a natural imitation of the same. Indeed, our Founding Fathers were already an American version of New World nobility. The only real difference is that whereas the British system of nobility relied heavily on the accident of birth, the American form of nobility was mostly predicated upon the works of the individual to achieve a high status on his own merits. That the Virginia plan would have been practically identical to the British mode of Parliament selecting the Prime Minister highlights the degree of imitation that underscored the creation of our own federal government.

In many ways the EC served as a compromise measure whereby deference to the Amer-nobility was granted, but allowed access for the people to also gain direct influence to the selection of the President by appealing to their own state legislatures to pass the appropriate laws.

 

[MisterBeale]

Speaking of vote equality, in states like Wyoming a vote is actually worth 4 times more than a persons vote in other states. That's because each state gets a minimum of 3 electoral votes.

Wyoming gets 3 votes for a population of 500,000. Texas, for example, gets 32 votes for a population of 25 million. Do the math, and Wisconsin get 1 electoral vote for every 150,000ish people, and Texas gets one for every 715,000ish people. That's why Dubya won his election in 2000 without the popular vote. All of these small states with unfair voting happen to lean republican. Something should be done to address that.

I would love to deep six the electoral college and just go with majorities.

I'm sure you would feel differently if you lived in Montana, Wyoming or Alaska. The executive would in no way represent you then. It would only represent the larger states. Voting would be pointless. Fine for a New Yorker, eh?

 

[mdk]

Speaking of vote equality, in states like Wyoming a vote is actually worth 4 times more than a persons vote in other states. That's because each state gets a minimum of 3 electoral votes.

Wyoming gets 3 votes for a population of 500,000. Texas, for example, gets 32 votes for a population of 25 million. Do the math, and Wisconsin get 1 electoral vote for every 150,000ish people, and Texas gets one for every 715,000ish people. That's why Dubya won his election in 2000 without the popular vote. All of these small states with unfair voting happen to lean republican. Something should be done to address that.

I would love to deep six the electoral college and just go with majorities.

Hell to the no!

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Speaking of vote equality, in states like Wyoming a vote is actually worth 4 times more than a persons vote in other states. That's because each state gets a minimum of 3 electoral votes.

Wyoming gets 3 votes for a population of 500,000. Texas, for example, gets 32 votes for a population of 25 million. Do the math, and Wisconsin get 1 electoral vote for every 150,000ish people, and Texas gets one for every 715,000ish people. That's why Dubya won his election in 2000 without the popular vote. All of these small states with unfair voting happen to lean republican. Something should be done to address that.

I would love to deep six the electoral college and just go with majorities.

Then you must be willing to go with the majority on everything, eh?

 

[Iceweasel]

You're confused and have no concept of what a republic is. The electoral college was designed so the more populous regions couldn't ram their shit down everybodies throats. You don't like it? Tough shit.

Well, not really. The EC was designed to be an alternative to Congressional election of the President to protect the independence of the Presidency. Whereas the Virginia plan proposed for the President to be elected by Congress, a secondary body composed of an equal number of members, equally proportioned to the several states, allowed the Presidency better autonomy from the legislature.

Understanding the EC and the reasons for its adoption requires viewing it in historical context of the world the Founders knew and were accustomed to. On one hand, a government of semi-elites was a natural and seemingly proper thing for a people who were cut from a centuries old culture of monarchy and rule by high born nobility. While the need for the people to have a definite and direct influence on the government was understood as vital for a free society, direct democracy was also not desirable, as the common man might not have sufficient understanding of important matters to justify the popular vote to wield political power that was only marginally checked. Whereas the British political system was one where the high born exercised a great deal of influence, the new American system was a natural imitation of the same. Indeed, our Founding Fathers were already an American version of New World nobility. The only real difference is that whereas the British system of nobility relied heavily on the accident of birth, the American form of nobility was mostly predicated upon the works of the individual to achieve a high status on his own merits. That the Virginia plan would have been practically identical to the British mode of Parliament selecting the Prime Minister highlights the degree of imitation that underscored the creation of our own federal government.

In many ways the EC served as a compromise measure whereby deference to the Amer-nobility was granted, but allowed access for the people to also gain direct influence to the selection of the President by appealing to their own state legislatures to pass the appropriate laws.

It's customary to quote the source. Saw those words elsewhere. But it supports what I said, it ensures a representative form of government on a national level so the states play a role in who's president instead of being meaningless.

 

[MisterBeale]

Speaking of vote equality, in states like Wyoming a vote is actually worth 4 times more than a persons vote in other states. That's because each state gets a minimum of 3 electoral votes.

Wyoming gets 3 votes for a population of 500,000. Texas, for example, gets 32 votes for a population of 25 million. Do the math, and Wisconsin get 1 electoral vote for every 150,000ish people, and Texas gets one for every 715,000ish people. That's why Dubya won his election in 2000 without the popular vote. All of these small states with unfair voting happen to lean republican. Something should be done to address that.

I would love to deep six the electoral college and just go with majorities.

Hell to the no!

Agreed.

 

[SwimExpert]

It's customary to quote the source.

Source: SwimExpert's vast wealth of knowledge and eloquence.

Saw those words elsewhere.

Well, Back to the Future day was a couple days ago. Perhaps Doc Brown showed them to you? Perhaps you've seen the information before, seeing as I've not said anything that isn't already known to the world. On the other hand, if you're trying to insinuate that I've plagiarized in my post, then you are

But it supports what I said, it ensures a representative form of government on a national level so the states play a role in who's president instead of being meaningless.

Except that your suggestion isn't really on the mark. The intention of the EC did not really have anything to do with appealing to elements of federalism. It was about the checks-and-balances of the distinct branches of the government, and a belief in an elite pseudo-nobility.