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

Too many cooks in the soup.

Current system entrusts a select few people to count everyone’s votes. Is it easier to coerce/intimidate/buy a select few people, or all the individual voters?

BTW, the voter information would be in any ATM you go to, not some website. The infrastructure already exists. An ATM, security cameras, all of it.

Not secure enough IMO. Security cameras already don’t stop all kinds of crap at ATM’s, and they certainly don’t stop taking a picture of your ATM screen either


Current system entrusts a select few people to count everyone’s votes. Is it easier to coerce/intimidate/buy a select few people, or all the individual voters?

THIS has to be fixed.

All 50 States both Democratic and Republican run said it was a properly run and counted election.

You are spot on!!!

And your source sir?

1 Like

Question for the group. Are our voting ballots private and are our names not made public, when we vote?

In my area, in the Primary’s we only have a choice of either a R or D ballot, not a third nor Independent ballot; Maybe due to candidates. But in the General election, it’s just one ballot for all parties, R, D, other, Independent candidates if any.

Once when I googled myself, in my bio, it read that I was registered under a specific party. Yet, I never gave permission to be published, and I no longer wanted to be nor considered myself part of a “party”. I eventually got the website owner to take me off.

Wondered how in the heck it got out, unless the website owner just picked the party for me, without verification, IDK.

Or does it depend on where we live?

If I understand your point you are suggesting that voted in smaller counties should have more weight. If so you are advocating that someone’s vote should count less if they live in a city. That’s not the way a Republic works. Next you’re going to say the rich peoples vote should count more than people with less money.


Voting party affiliation is public information. Who you vote for is private.


Voter rolls are public information. If the state has registration based on party, that, too, is public information, as well as if you voted. What is not public is who you voted for. In states with party registration, those rolls are used to “get out the vote” and for petitions to get names on ballots.

I assume, as you did not reply to anyone specific, it is just a general reply. In fact, that is exactly how our Republic works. We use an Electoral College to elect our president. The 538 votes are split between the states; first each state is given 2 electoral voters, then the remainer split based on the number of votes equal to the number of its Congressional districts.

So, no, again, as I have repeatedly posted, I am not advocating for someone’s vote counting less, I am advocating for giving the minority, otherwise unpresented/underpresented, a voice, just like is done in the presidential election. Presuming anyone would then argue that only wealthy people be “allowed” to vote is a straw man argument. Why not build a more damning straw man, like only white people be allowed to vote that can trace their heritage to when the USA was founded? That would then exclude most people that are current citizens. Oh, I know, because no one is suggesting that, either.

I presume you mentioned wealthy people due to the fact that originally, only landholders had the right to vote. Holding land doesn’t necessarily mean wealthy, though landholders with vast tracts of land would likely be wealthy. I believe several amendments to our Constitution have corrected issues on voting rights, such as the landholder issue, women, and minorities, as well as at least a sheaf of laws and SCOTUS decisions, at least some of which to address Jim Crow laws that were discriminatory. That leads right back to addressing the rights of the minority, one of the tenets of our Republic.

If they vote, they already have a voice, though.

I believe this horse has been beaten into an recognizable mass of flesh. Please re-read my prior comments for reply.

1 Like

Dave17. I was responding to someone who had made reference to smaller counties should have more power in their vote to offset the larger cities from controlling states. I categorically disagree with this premise. My vote should have as much weight as any other’s vote regardless of where I live. For the record I live in a town of around 5,000 people.

If there were any change I “might” consider is abolishing the Electoral College. With the technology available it’s purpose seems to have become obsolete.


That is not the reason for the electoral college. Here is one explanation.

Which if you live in Virginia, will not count in the gerrymandered districts that we have. Read my prior posts for further explanation. As I replied to @Nathan57, this horse is beaten beyond recognition.

That is because the Gerrymandering has become political. Therefore corrupt. Look at any district. The line will cross the street for one house then cross back.

1 Like


look at Washington State and California?

both are pretty much ruled by high population centers…

if you remove the electoral college 3 or 4 high population states will rule this nation!!!

you really want that?

then you could find your vote even if it’s counted correctly will mean… NOTHING…

and I totally fail to see how technology can or does change those facts???

perhaps you can explain to us how that works???


While looking for some clear data on this month’s elections (impossible to find as it is all littered with patriot…I mean insurrection garbage) I found some interesting graphics.

Long before I was born:

How things changed:

Small % in so many places give me hope for all levels:

The only thing I really come up with doesnt really have anything to do with how cities vote. To me mail in voting seems to be a problem. WhenI was onactive and deployed or stationed away from my HOR Home of record. Always voted mail in. Unless I happened to be home during elections. I think mail ins should be for the deployed and folks actually working out of their state.