He is suggesting an electoral college like is used for the presidential elections. It makes sense for the exact reasons he states and for the same reason it is used in the presidential elections. The electoral college has 538 electors. On a state basis, using say, 100 or 200, or whatever number, and assign, as is done in the federal system, the electors based on population in each county. Each county gets at least one vote. This would dilute the power of a large metro area(s) in the state. New York is also a good example - NYC effectively decides who becomes governor, yet the rest of the state almost entirely votes differently. We have a similar issue in Virginia, too, we luckily dodged a bullet this last cycle, as even the Democrats had difficulty voting for McAuliffe.
So… what I see you saying that only the Americans you approve of should be able to vote?
no that is not the goal… the goal is to try to level the field…
low population areas pretty much have NO real vote within their state right now…
why you think they want to change their state lines and become part of another state…
or even create a NEW state??? WHY??? can anyone answer that???
seen it over and over one or two area controls the entire state…
perhaps giving it more of weight in high pop areas… would work…
yet some states are just too heavily populated in some areas and rule the rest of the state…
to that states detriment… just look to the west…
ya have 3 states that are pretty much ruled by their high population areas…
areas that do NOT appear to take into consideration the rest of the state…
so how do you compensate small pop areas???
please advise if you know or can think of a way???
you say this method SEEMS in your opinion to destroy the votes???
why? they still vote and their vote is counted…
AGAIN the founders were fully aware of democracy and what it is and REJECTED it!!!
and that SEEMS to be exactly what we now have in some states…
the many running over the rights of the few… is that how things should be?
say the many vote to take you property for themselves and very few vote for you to keep it???
what then??? never happen??? ya right pay attention democracy is NOT something we should want!!!
nope… it’s not about approval… for that matter how did you get that out of what’s posted???
that IMHO is a very big stretch to get that idea out of what has been posted…
is this one of those when did you stop beating your wife questions???
wrong… the people still have control… IMHO it would tend to BALANCE things out…
Do you approve of Tammany Hall method of operation, only on the national scale? They are talking guaranteed basic income now. Food for votes.
I am not proposing anything other than enforcement of current laws. Selling your vote, voting while “undocumented” all carry a hefty penalty, but this is never enforced.
I gotta pretty much agree with OldDude49 on this one. as I live in 1 of the Western States he eludes to and have seen it happen over my lifetime. That is why we natives (immediate family) are considering moving to a more free state.
That may buy us 5 years or so if things don’t reverse soon.
I’m sure some are going to say leave it to the courts then… I am not so sure that is wise…
it would appear the current state of our court system is in question by many???
people voted and then a judge said NOPE… and overturned the vote of the people…
"A federal judge overturned California’s gay marriage ban Wednesday with an unequivocal ruling that could eventually force the U.S. Supreme Court to confront the question of whether same-sex couples have a constitutional right to wed.
Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker’s strongly worded opinion in the landmark case — the first in a federal court to examine if states can lawfully limit marriage to a man and a woman — touched off a celebration outside the courthouse. Later in the day, a jubilant crowd marched through the city that has long been a haven for gays."
SEEMS a Judge… possibly with a personal agenda… over turned the vote of the people of Cali…
you need to know the Judge in question is living in a gay relationship???
AND…
"Who gets to decide if the traditional definition of marriage, in place since the dawn of humanity, will now be drastically changed to accommodate the feelings of a troubled minority who really don’t fit the age-old description. The government? The people? Judges and lawyers? We live in what kind of republic again? What’s the purpose of marriage again?
No one who knew anything about this case didn’t see this coming. The openly gay judge Vaughn Walker ruling on Prop 8 harassed lawyers defending the voters of California during the whole trial, and at one point tried to force them to release the names of the citizens who donated to the National Organization for Marriage so that they could be harassed and intimidated as we saw around the time Prop 8 passed in California, by about the same margin as Obama was elected president. He only backed down when the ACLU (supporter of gay marriage) no less said he was violating the rights of the defenders of traditional marriage and the U.S. Supreme Court agreed and censured him for his actions!
Judge Vaughn Walker’s court has been a sham from the beginning. Now, on to the Supreme Court!"
AND…
Appeal filed over gay marriage ruling in California
Like… not allowing gay people to marry or adopt? Or get medical care? Or denying Jews jobs and/or healthcare benefits(and adoption)? Or forcing women to be chattel?
You going to speak out for them?
This occurs in the USA? You seem to be confused. As to moral issues, we have many laws regulating morality, such as the multitude of laws that define crime. If you do not believe in a particular law, lobby to get it repealed.
Sure, I can answer that. It’s pretty easy.
A group of people want to change how this country operates, and they have not been able to convince most folks that they have good ideas or good candidates. So they want to take everybody’s marbles off to play with by themselves.
That should be very, very difficult to accomplish with a “government of the people, by the people, for the people” — so that scheme is fortunately making more heat and noise than headway. They are persistent little devils, tho’ — I live in “their country” which is actually our country for the most part. Semper vigilans
where are you getting this…“stuff”???
looking back I see no such statement by anyone declaring any such thing for any such group???
NO ONE HERE SAID SUCH A THING!!! I went back and looked…
yet you seem to believe throwing this out there is… what??? valid???
you are starting to sound like a stir things up and muddy the waters… possibly hired… shiv???
SEEMS like a rather pathetic attempt at it… if that’s what you’re trying to do???
Happened to me. Next?
please explain what it was that happened to you???
which thing actually happened to you???
But not really. The electoral college doesn’t say “1 vote per state” (or 2 votes per state). The vast majority of the electoral college for POTUS is weighted by population. That’s why CA gets 55 votes and ND gets 3. What OP is suggesting is the equivalent of giving ND and CA equal votes for POTUS
To make it like the presidential election, the county’s votes would have to be weighted by population, not arbitrarily given 1 vote each.
OR the county lines would need redrawn every election so that each county had the same population
similar but NOT the same… something needs to be done about high population areas ruling a state!
This is funny. You really are serious aren’t you? Maybe you have been asleep but the last 3 Republican Presidents did not win the popular vote! That’s right. The system you think is so badly of allowed people who didn’t win became President. Now what would you like to talk about?
Why does something need to be done about The People ruling The People?
you need an example? several have voiced theirs… fleeing states where such is happening?
yet you still need an example?
I understand there are states where the choices made by the majority are not liked by all.