voting and apossible way to prevent large cities from ruling the state

Miscellaneous
1

thinkin on this for awhile now… left a state that was ruled by major population areas in a negative way…

looked at the presidential election system we have…

so…

how about we change the voting system to counties???

each county would have 1 vote…

the majority of votes in a given county would decide who or what got voted for…

and the person or law would pass or fail by winning the county vote…

just a thought and do not see it actually happening in the future…

also anyone opposed or that can think of possible failing of such a system is welcome to respond…

although just saying it’s stupid n such without some reasoning is IMHO a cop out and useless response!!!

6 Likes
2

It is a way. I don’t like it. I think voter ID, must answer questions to show knowledge that you know what you’re voting for, and each vote counts as one.

8 Likes
3

understandable… I should have mentioned voter ID would also be required…

even so many people in many states OBJECT strongly to the current system…

this is evident when you see them wanting to move borders and become part of a different state…

or even create a whole new state such as the one they refer to as Jefferson made up of part of Ca and such…

while I can see 1 vote should decide… IMHO 1 vote by county should count for each county…

and should several counties say NO!!!

then the big cities and such would NOT be able to pass laws that ONLY SEEM to benefit the city dwellers…

this to me would quickly curb large population areas from ruling a state!

Ca has San Fran and LA doing just that right now… Washington is in a similar situation now too…

6 Likes
4

I feel “strongly” that every vote should count the same.

3 Likes
5

YES, the majority of the population is in the Google, Amazon, Microsoft counties and the rest of the state to which by area would be like 90% of the state. Follow the money, is that not how it goes?

1 Like
6

You’re absolutely correct @OldDude49. Spreading the weight of the vote equally across each county in a state would better represent the entire state. The real dilemma would be with the big money crowd (Soros, Bloomberg, Gates, etc.) trying to decide where to dump the cash. They would have to spread the wealth to over half the counties. Now they just focus on the urban areas with socialist programs for any local college votes and welfare programs for the low income vote. Once they have people addicted to their free stuff, any mention of cutting back will produce the votes they need. It would be interesting to see which states they can afford buy first.

1 Like
7

while I agree with that I disagree with the highly populated areas ruling a state…

every vote would still count but…

democracy is 2 wolves vs 1 sheep voting for lunch…

where as a representative republic with counties deciding the vote is more like…

a well armed sheep contesting that vote…

right now rather small areas of each state control the entire state and run rough shod over everyone else…

I am NOT for that!!! seen what is does… and it disenfranchises too many people in rural areas…

too often the larger population center do NOT represent all the people…

5 Likes
8

I don’t get this new math. The people don’t represent the people?

2 Likes
9

Another example could be Chicago coming up with gun laws the rest of the state isn’t fond of. But majority rules…

I drive around Illinois going back and forth from middle Tennessee to St. Louis. I avoid the state as much as possible. I work with a guy in St. Louis that lives “across the river” and he was talking about a FOID card. What the heck is that??? But it’s the law there.

1 Like
10

yes they still do… just gives counties and the smaller population areas more clout…

if the the people of a county say yes then it is a yes to the entire state if no then no to the state

the votes of the people in the county would carry more weight…

it is very similar to the electoral college in that the more populated states can not over power the less…

that was by design! The framers were aware of such and did what they could to prevent such…

it’s a method they choose to avoid DEMOCRACY…

and yes they were fully aware of what a democracy was…

and they found it wanting… they saw it as the many taking over everything from the few…

just by using their numbers… which SEEMS to be happening in some states…

and they wanted to protect the few… with the intent that everyone’s rights would be protected

BTW we do NOT have a democracy… never did…

5 Likes
11

democracy…

373542bb63a0fe18

3 Likes
12

What you are proposing is not particularly similar to the national system used for POTUS.

The closest comparison at the state level would be to take a certain number of electoral votes and spread them across the state, broken down by county, with the higher population counties receiving proportionately more electoral votes than the lower population counties.

The national system is still generally weighted by population, California has way more clout than North Dakota…and Cook County Illinois would/should still have way more clout than Hardin County

1 Like
13

And as soon as someone thinks this weighting is fair, it’ll change to appease others. And if we all move to ND, it’ll be unfair again. One person. One vote. I don’t care where you live, but I do care that you’re legally a voter.

2 Likes
14

Brad, I don’t think anyone is advocating more than one vote per person. There are 50 states and 100 senators. CA doesn’t get any more than North Dakota, despite the population differences.

I think this is the point of the op with counties on a state level, to prevent Chicago from ruining the rest of the state for example.

2 Likes
15

Which of course is balanced by the House of Representatives in the big picture.

The comparison given was the presidential election, in which North Dakota has 3 votes and California has 55 votes

16

nope… 1 county 1 vote… population centers now rule a state…

and often vote for free stuff that ain’t free… TANSTAFL!!!

votes within a county would control that county of course…

but to defeat this population area controlling the entire state… 1 county 1 vote…

this would only apply to state laws and some state offices…

the county would select it’s own representatives and such… by popular vote…

sadly these population centers are often full of people that don’t actually have a clue…

they voted in the protect the cougar thing…

without fully understanding what they were voting for…

and many ranchers n such have suffered from it…

not to mention the attacks on humans and pets by starving big cats…

so they don’t know or understand about how life is in rural areas…

nor do many… anymore anyways… understand the Bill of Rights…

or the actual Constitution…

they allowed one party to change there voting system/rules to pretty much just 1 party in a certain western state…

another thing I think would be good… a voter MUST take and pass a course in civics…

and provide voter ID…

historically the founders did NOT allow everyone to vote!!!

read your history… it was LBJ that brought in 1 man 1 vote… along with his war on poverty…

which created a new plantation for so many that came to depend on his programs…

and they vote for gun control because they don’t live with violence and such…

haven’t truly seen the underside of humanity… although they do seem to be getting a clue now…

so we have runs on firearms and ammo… cause oh my these riots and shooting n oh noooossss…

Ukraine - Russia… odd how they have ignored the middle east and Africa…

but eastern Europe seems to hit a nerve…

not a clue… but they’re learning…

this is all just my opinion… but I have stated historic facts within this post…

3 Likes
17

If the goal is to strip Americans of their right to vote, that is certainly a way to do it.

People vote, not acreage.

3 Likes
18

Bingo. Otherwise, people just move around to sway the votes, just like they redraw lines today.

19

Translation: To make it so The People no longer have control

2 Likes
20

The city-state of Athens, a place where democracy was invented, had 400K population, of which at most 40K were entitled to vote.
People who could sell their vote for weed of a free phone, should they vote?
How about people who sneaked into the country like thieves, should they vote? Let’s ask NYC for advice.
How about folks who live life of crime, about 1.4 million of them will be eligible to vote in 2022 and 24 in my state, FL.
The issue may have less to do with geography than we think.