There is no greater force than an idea whose time as come.

I got one, for ya.......how about.......


One man, one vote.


(man = men and women).

In other words, we elect the president whereby the weight of all votes will be equal.

EQUAL!

Rid America of this dinosaur, the EC.

 

I think greater weight should be given to rural areas, given the large land areas they cover and the good work that farmers do.

 

Then you might as well get rid of States. Make the Federal Government the Sole power.

 

How about you work 12 hour days out in the hot sun and let those in air-conditioned offices tell you how to live. (After they finish their latte and avocado toast)

 

Who do you think is buying the stuff, and actually putting you to work?

 

Nope, because whats legal in one state is not in another..zero relevance.
The president has zero power to dictate state law.

 

I think that just promotes hiring illegals, If farmers want their states voice heard..start legalizing the people doing the work.

 

Land doesn't vote, people do.

There can be no ambivalence, ambiguity, inequality, whatsoever, when it's one person, one vote.

Simple.

 

Nonsense. All the reasons for the states are still the reasons for the states.

 

Ah, plutocracy. I would rather go the other direction.

 

I'm sure you would.
Here is the thing..the rich don't need government to mess with you. They usually cut out the middle man.

 

posturing = non argument = no reply

 

People buying stuff doesn't equal plutocracy. Where did you get that idea?

 

This dinosaur has protected the rights of minorities from the looniness of the mob. The founding fathers knew what they were doing - you don't.

 

This you posting recipe?

 

I prefer the Constitution.

 

Tsk tsk, Bullseye. Minorities rights were not on the minds of the framers, that's ludicrous. There were no parties at the time it was created. They were worried about factions tyrannizing other factions, worker collectives, associations of one kind or another, Not only that, women and blacks couldn't vote and blacks were counted only as 3/5ths of a person. So much for minorities, who couldn't vote and there were no parties, so what 'minority' are you talking about?

Moreover, there was no intention in terms of design, for the EC to elect a candidate who got the fewer votes of the population. That didn't happen until 1824. When such did happen, it was seen as a fluke and it still is a fluke that a candidate can become president with a minority vote given that it has happened only five times in history. The EC definitely wasn't about protecting the 'minority vote', that is bizarre as it is ridiculous. However, in order to ratify the constitution, the EC did give smaller states more representation, per capita. That's about it.

If you think the framers knew what they were doing, then you don't know history. It's called the reason they made the 12th amendment in 1804, because the original design was deeply problematic which became blatantly obvious in 1800.

One thing is certain, you don't know what I'm doing, but I'll be happy to run it by you, borrowing from one of my other posts:

When the founders designed the electoral college, it was designed pretty much according to Hamilton's specifications. That design ended over a century ago when faithless electors became a big no no, and eventually most states enacted legislation penalizing faithless electors, so the EC of Hamilton, where 'people' vote for an elector, who, will in turn, make a choice, not necessarily according to the desire of the electorate, but the 'wise choice' given that electors were supposed to be educated, learned, men of stature ( men like Hamilton, in other words ) but that idea soon buckled under the pressure to conform to the electorates' choice, whereupon faithless electors became an anecdote in history, which is to say, the original design by one of the FOUNDERS, no longer exists and definetly changed after the 12th amendment was ratified..

https://www.history.com/news/electoral-college-founding-fathers-constitutional-convention
“It wasn’t like the Founders said, ‘Hey, what a great idea! This is the preferred way to select the chief executive, period,’” says Edwards. “They were tired, impatient, frustrated. They cobbled together this plan because they couldn’t agree on anything else.”

You see? They couldn't agree on anything insofar as to how to elect the president, so they compromised.

Compromises are rarely things of genius, and as the election of 1800 revealed it's big problem, which led to the 12th Amendment ratified in 1804.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._68
Hamilton, James Madison and the other designers of the electoral college never expected the emergence of organized political parties who would choose their candidates in competition with each other. By 1796, the Federalists and Republicans were rapidly being organized — with leadership provided by Hamilton and Madison — making the electoral college a minor adjunct of little importance.[4] A flaw was discovered in 1800 when Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr both got the same number of electoral votes, although Jefferson was the intended candidate. That flaw was soon fixed by a 12th Amendment to the US Constitution.[5]

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...d-our-democracy.596081/page-3#post-1073193132

The 13 states were relatively similar in size, with a few small ones the EC was designed to bring a larger voice to, as well as to diminish the tendency of factions to tyrannize other factions.

However, it was never meant to penalize a state with 39,000,000 people so that Rhode Island would have a stronger voice because the framers could not have foreseen a state like California, not to mention that country is so large now the issue of factions no longer is relevant, what has emerged are two dominant parties which did not exist at the EC's conception. So, the entire reason for the EC is no longer works as it once did, the nation has evolved, our nation is constrained in harmful ways by it, not to mention that the EC of Hamilton ended a long time ago..

It's a dinosaur that has outlived it's usefulness.

The ONLY reason republicans like it is because it gives a republican vote far more weight than a democrat vote, and that isn't right.

I don't care how you slice it, it's not right, and that problem needs fixing.

The ONLY way to fix it is to do this:

One person, one vote, and whichever candidate gets the most votes, wins.

And we will STILL have representative democracy.

 

I respond to all arguments, be they fallacious, weak, or strong. However, where the salient
aspect of someone's rebuttal is a non argument, no reply is given, and a list of non arguments is provided, which,
yes, I know it's probably wishful thinking on my part, but with that list, maybe, just maybe the poster will be more
careful in further responses to my positions. One can only dream.....

 

Oh yes, the constitution, you know, that document that has been

amended 27 times!

 

Do you serve dressing with your word salads?

 

I can only conclude that those who hold this view have no idea why the electoral college exists and why it was created. And yes I'm well aware that you claim to know why and understand why....that doesn't make it true though.

You want to strip the people who feed you of a voice....Maybe it'll happen and they'll stop feeding you when you attempt to destroy their lives with your failing policy decisions.

 

LMFAO

The people producing food don't need you near as much as you need them.

****ing laughable for you to even hint that it's equal.

 

And is very difficult to amend for very good reasons.

 

Keep telling yourself things are as binary as this or that...Maybe it will come true.
Its called harmony, and it is not served with the EC. A persons vote does not carry more weight because they live and work in a one horse town.