What do these states ( & DC ) have in common?
•District of Columbia – 3 electoral votes
•Hawaii – 4 electoral votes
•Illinois – 20 electoral votes
•Maryland – 10 electoral votes
•Massachusetts – 11 electoral votes
•New Jersey – 14 electoral votes
•Washington – 12 electoral votes
•Vermont – 3 electoral votes
•California – 55 electoral votes
•Rhode Island – 4 electoral votes
•New York – 29 electoral votes
Aside from the obvious, they have all signed on to drop the Electoral College for a straight majority vote in national elections. Once they get enough states to reach 270 Electoral Votes, they plan to drop the college. That means the end of the rural vote, essentially. Never again will it matter what any man in Idaho or many other states wants.
It is the overthrow of the republic, once and for all. And they mean to do it without an Amendment.
Here, read about it for yourself. Here's the official website. True - we don't get any real choices in our national elections anyway, right? So what does it matter? It matters because stealing is wrong. It matters because they think they can do anything they want, and no one will challenge them.
Fuck. That.
Kerodin
III
I'd bet a paycheck one in ten knows what the electoral college even is. It was a perversion to allow the Senate to be popularly elected (17th amendment), and it completely disenfranchised the SOVEREIGN STATE in the federal government. This is but one step further, stripping the non-urban men of their votes (historically the white males, in middle America and the South, everyone hates). Hmmmm, I confess I would be at a crossroads at that point. Leave the locusts to consume themselves or burn it all down just to make sure I have company going into the afterlife. Pyrrhic victory and all that. Fuck it, I've always had a weakness for fire and I remember what happened when the Indians just tried to move away...
ReplyDeleteI have to disagree with you on this one. I hate the electoral college as it's an antiquated system that doesn't represent the majority of the people. I think it would do us some good to get rid of it.
ReplyDeleteBut to change it without an amendment now that ain't kosher.
"It is the overthrow of the republic, once and for all."
ReplyDeleteLet's face it---it was that the very first time the Constitution was violated. And it's only gone in one direction since. The logic is simple: Either this shit gets stopped or it doesn't.
"It is the overthrow of the republic, once and for all. And they mean to do it without an Amendment."
ReplyDeleteYes, it's one of the final nails in the coffin. The electoral college goes, and whoever passes out the most 'bread and circuses' will get in....every time, and in doing so, will have stomped the breath out of what's left of American liberty, and we'll be no different than any other tin-horn totalitarian state.
"...it's an antiquated system that doesn't represent the majority of the people."
That belief comes from not understanding how the whole system in the Constitution was designed to work:
- Direct, popular election, aka, 'the voice of the People' - The House of Representatives (also the control of national purse strings).
- State interest in the federal government it created - Senatorial appointment; each state having 2 votes (senators) looking out for States' rights and interests. Killed by the 17th Amendment
- Electoral College - Apportioned 'electors' chosen by rules laid out by the several states legislatures (another way 'the Peole' have sway in the general election - state legislators are chosen directly by the People of the State in question) who may or may not reflect the popular vote for the president (only 4 times in our history). All in all, while various nuances such as 'winner take all' or 'pledged electors' may be imperfect manners of administering the 'college', it's still a very good check and balance system for the two offices it elects.
Three different methodologies to ensure the People and the States (which created the federal government and ALL offices therein) were duly considered in the election of executive and legislative branches. Amending the Constitution to relieve it of balance in elections would have the same result as the current initiative.
"Either this shit gets stopped or it doesn't." All I have to say is that if we don't stop it, by whatever means necessary, our posterity will be more miserable than we are today many times over....
My .02
More logic...it's either "only by consent" or it isn't. One or the other, either-or, no other choices. It can be "some by consent" and "some not by consent," but that would negate the "only."
DeleteIs it Only By Consent, or is it Not Only By Consent? Hey, I'm not thrilled with the choice any more than anyone else, but that's no reason to deny its existence.
I don't understand why the outrage and the long faces. Disenfranchisement might actually awaken some of the sleepers. This along with the fact that your vote meant exactly nothing. With 115% of precincts reporting...
ReplyDeleteThe game is rigged. You can't win by voting. Ron Paul, or Ted Cruz, or whoever the hell the next superstar they wheel out isn't going to save you. They're in on the game, people.
Seek to hasten the collapse. It's the only way.
Communists tend to favor the urban at the expense of the rural (though Mao and Pol Pot were inversions), so it is no surprise they would give the city people (always a left leaning majority) a 100% chance to choose their dictatorship of the proletariat. This is one of their final steps in the long march to their "utopia." The rest of their goals have been met, other than disarmament.
ReplyDeleteThe difference between Republicans and Democrats is the same difference between water and ice, but I agree, stealing is wrong.