How you are being robbed of your right to vote fairly

That should come as quite a revelation to most on this forum. Thank you for your attempts at educating the ignorant people who think that the President has to win the majority of the electoral college.

 

It's good for some to know. Some people still think Hillary should be president because she won a popularity contest and not the states.

 

Says the people who don't want voter ID, are allowing illegal aliens to vote in elections, and want open borders.

Whatever the left accuses you of, that's what they're doing.

 

This 'Gerrymandering' nonsense doesn't explain how America could go full on stupid and elect Obama, give him the House and the Senate. Where were the complaints about gerrymandering then? Seems it only exists when liberals aren't in full control of the government. How sad...

 

BS always does ...

 

This is a debate forum. Try formulating a cogent rebuttal.

Maybe you'd be happier on a Message Board?

In Alaska .... ?

 

Well that wasn't entirely accurate.

I should have said that's how it usually works.

It is possible to hit 270 with just winning 11 states but that's not likely to ever happen.

Usually whoever wins the most states ends up with the win.

 

Didn't read thread. Truth about gerrymandering is that its most recent iteration was created by Democrats subsequent to the Voting Rights Act. They were happy for a while because this created consistent Democrat voting black districts (and gave us imbeciles like Maxine Waters and Howdy Doody). Then, when Democrats started losing despite the help they were getting from redistricted black and other "perma Democrat" districts, they started creating a transparent lie narrative about GOP gerrymandering... conveniently omitting the factual history of the VRA and how that benefited Democrats for decades.

Now, what they actually want is "gerrymandering on demand" in their favor, where they can fluidly micromanage districts such that they get just enough to win the permanent districts they had, and then switch the extra votes in and out of other districts "on demand" or far more frequently than is equitable, in an effort to change red districts blue. If that sounds like having your cake and eating it too, crooked and shady to boot? Well IT IS EXACTLY THAT! Typical Democrat crookery, typical Democrat accompanying lie narrative in support of the crookedness.

It's a farce, and one of their most easy to spot of many lie narratives.

 

That's not the problem, which is the state-count of EC votes has no relation to the result of the popular-vote. The vote-count is diminished by the fact that the majority popular-vote gets all the EC-votes and not just its proportional amount.

"Winner-takes-all" is NOT an acceptable rule in the election to any Public Office anywhere - neither city, state or nationally.

That's a crass manipulation of the popular-vote and therefore is unacceptable and should be made illegal. (In no other electoral-vote, state or nation, is that idiotic rule applied!)

That is, have the EC report ONLY the value of the unmanipulated-by-gerrymandering popular-vote to Congress. It would help if citizens had an Identity Card for a good number of reasons other than just identifying themselves before they vote in any election whatsoever.

Period ...

 

But you weren't clever enough to remain speechless.

 

Acclually it wasn't even slightly accurate. And just so you know there are about fifty states so to win with a minority of states would be winning with 24. You should quit while behind.

 

That has never happened however.

Which is why I stated my response as I did.
Considering that the states with high EC counts are evenly split between the right and the left you are going to need a majority of states to win the election.

 

Sorry but that doesn't make any logical sense!

 

FAIR & EQUITABLE

You might want to visit North Korea to see how effing lucky you are to live in the US.

I never said the US was perfect. That's the sort of BS you will get from dunces who want to get elected. The US is not a fair and impartial country when it comes to sharing the Wealth that we all generate through our work.

Those who want to get elected shove-that-shat regarding "our perfect country" at you. It aint perfect and not by a long-shot. Any country that would elect a Donald Dork has their mindset up their you-know-what.

But, this country is ALL YOU GOT! There aint nothing else that guarantees your well-being. I did not say "happiness", I said "well-being". Happiness is an altogether personal sentiment.

And well-being is a condition no state/country can promise and deliver. Its means are insufficient. But within its means, it can help us to find our own well-being.

What a country can and should do is educate you such that you can earn a decent living by means of working (and not sucking continuously at the nations teat). Free Healthcare and Fee Tertiary Schooling, that's all I have ever proposed here.

They are the essential basic conditions from which you (personally) can find a destiny that suits you. (And in this world of ours, destiny is everything.)

And I'm no politician. I am not looking to win any office. Healthcare and Education are the key ingredients to any functionally successful democracy on earth.

But not ours. Not yet.

Ours is being manipulated by BigMoney because they mistakenly think that monetary reward is THE KEY BENEFIT if any market-economy.

It aint!

The Fair&Equitable Distribution of wealth that a market-economy generates is more important. Note that "equitable" does NOT MEAN "equal" but means "honest" ...

 

Based off of that logic, you're saying one person's vote should be more important than another. It shouldn't be rural vs. urban, it should be 1 vote vs. 1 vote. As citizens are fleeing the rural areas for opportunities in the cities, they shouldn't have to give up their voting power to do so. By doing so, we've ended up with a govt. that represents 30% of our population.

 

"They" refuse to understand that simple principle of any Real Democracy. One vote here is NEVER more weighty than another vote over there. The basic principle of ANY voting fairness is that ALL VOTES are of the same value individually when counted.

Both gerrymandering and the EC contradict that sacred principle. Which the Replicants, in order to maintain an illegal plurality, INSIST on saying is correct. When patently it is not!

 

You people drive my nuts criticizing me for something I didn't say.

People aren't impartial. That is why sharing wealth doesn't happen and doesn't work.

It is not perfect. It is just better than whatever is in second place.

There you go again criticizing me for something I didn't say. If you want to squeeze talking points into the thread that's fine. Just leave me out of it.

Government only needs to do two things. It must protect the peace and safety of citizens and it must foster an environment in which people can reach their goals by making smart decisions.

Lovely but it isn't affordable. Free health care would cost as much as the rest of government combined.

People don't find destiny. They set goals and achieve them - or fail to achieve them.

You forgot peace and safety, the primary purpose of government.

Or any other since our nation is the most successful on the planet.

You may want to check out the definition of economy.

People are not fair and equitable. That is why communism has always failed.

 

MARKET ECONOMIES ARE NOT GAMES

Mostly blah, blah, blah from the King of One-liners. (What makes you think the condensation of a valid argument reduces to one line?)

Only simpletons do that because they have no concept of the complex world in which they live. So they focalize on just one aspect. Getting richer than Croesus so that THEY can live a life of riches.

Anyway, your above is an absurdly simplistic assessment because it makes of that economy a "game some win and some lose and so what?"

Market-economies are not "games". They are fundamental to our existence. We work to produce goods/services, we are paid to work, and we spend the money that allows others to work producing goods/services. That is the simple magic of a Market-economy that exists in all nations. What does not work is when the resulting Income Distribution is "unfair".

(Communism died a well-deserved death because it was dysfunctional. It believed that all resources should be owned by the government and not rich-families. And those resources (agricultural or industrial) should equally distributed to all. A nice idea, but one that proved dysfunctional. Why? Good question, but for another day.)

Nonetheless, the result of all markets is Income. (Whether we work to have it, or whether we own a company that generates Income.) Income Distribution can indeed be made "fair and equitable" - and it is taxation that achieves that desired outcome. Why desired?

Because we are all fundamentally dependent upon one another. Robinson Crusoe on a deserted island could never be a millionaire - he could only survive and if so survive badly.

Which means what? This: Income Distribution is a key parametric-rule in any advanced society. At the lower-end there should not be too many who must live barely an existence in poverty. At the high-end, no one should profit from a market-economy to make money beyond any measure of real personal utility. But throughout there must be a lowest-to-highest fair distribution of Income.

Just what does a family do with a billion-dollars? Nothing that important though it makes headlines when they give away millions. Better than the headlines would be taxation that obtains that money and puts it to a fruitful use for everyone - because at its origin is everyone in a market-economy.

That "fruitful use" is why I keep harping about a National Healthcare System and National Primary, Secondary and Postsecondary Education - because they are the most important ingredients to living a decent lifestyle!

Tell me how I got that wrong ... !

 

I don't have enough motivation to argue the whole thing so I'll briefly explain why the last two points are wrong.

It doesn't matter what a family does with a billion dollars. The family earned it. Imagine a country in which people could work hard, make the right decisions and not earn from the fruits of that activity. It is easy to imagine since you can see it in every third world country. The reason we enjoy a great standard of living in this country is that people have the freedom to succeed. If people lose that freedom, they will go elsewhere. Capitalism is the best economic system whether it is being practiced in China or Norway or the United States. If this is under debate then I just fear for the future.

You fail to understand that nothing makes a worse place for money to be spent than government. It is like a monstrous waste machine. The wealthy pay the great majority of taxes so losing them to other countries will defeat your argument.

I always tell people that the only truly important things in life are family and health because, while everything else can be replaced, these two values cannot be replaced. Yes health care is critical to a decent lifestyle and that is true whether health care is "free" or not.

I think government paid health care would be lovely if it weren't the monster waste machine doing the paying. Having the government pay the health bills would cost more than the rest of federal government spending combined. I realize you know it would be the rich who would pay it so it is ok but it isn't. If we had an efficient, slim, well managed government I would be agreeing with you. But we have a bloated, incompetent, corrupt government. It would be a disaster.

Are health care costs out of control? Big time. Perhaps addressing that would make more sense than more than doubling federal government spending. It would be easy to do that, by the way, if we didn't have a bloated, incompetent, corrupt government.

You and I live on different planets. You want things without considering the realities in our society or human nature. It is a cop out. I'm not wealthy but I understand the benefits of having a rich class very clearly.

 

The state electors cast their votes and the candidate with the most wins. How is that unfair?

My state like all the other states, even though not required, holds a popular election for those electors how is my vote for my state electors not being done fairly?

 

The EC has worked for over 200 years, its only a problem when liberals lose, they don't complain about it when they win...

 

Sorry, did you not click on the link which links to a reply to you which you previously ignored or were incapable of replying to?

 

How the hell would you pay for all of that?

 

Here's how:
*I'd reduce DoD expenditures from $650B to half that amount. (We are NOT the firewall against Muslim fanatics abroad! And it is no excuse to waste American lives in a war we can't win anyway!)
*I'd increase upper income-taxation from the ridiculously low 30% level where it is today, to 75%.
*I would also make any sums above $500K a year of Net Income confiscatory at 95% of total.

The consequences of all that is that there would be far fewer Billionaire Bill-Gates. And by reducing the Royalty Payout for being sickeningly rich, the upper-class will lead healthier lives seeking satisfaction from their family-lives rather than the front-page of the Wall Street Journal.

Oh, dear! No more Bill Gates? (Bill was the smartest of them all. He listened to his wife and spent his millions on doing some good for the world.)

Not really, the US will still produce billionaire rich people. But it would take a lot longer since the revenues from their higher taxes will be spent where it came from - the Jack&Jill Americans working hard at their jobs. There is no earthly reason why banksters manipulating money-markets to simply make damn fine salaries for themselves. (And believe me. The next Financial Calamity is just around the corner. Read this week's Economist!)

MY POINT?

No more ultra-billionaires that simply try to make even more and then leave their immense riches for the most part to members of their families. Which as a result, produces people like Donald Dork, who think Money Grows on Trees in His Back Yard, and "I'm a lucky guy to have been born with the Right Back Yard!

 

I can't imagine how you can say that when FIVE TIMES in hour history it has produces presidents from losers of the popular-vote.

You seem ignorant of a fundamental principle of any Real Democracy - like it or not, ONLY THE POPULAR-VOTE CAN AND SHOULD ELECT OUR POLITICIANS !

Any other voting procedure is a manipulation of the Popular Vote and should not be allowed ...