The Democrats’ Plan to Destroy Our Electoral System

page: 1
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 11:39 PM
link   
The Democrats want to eliminate the electoral college system.

Why?

So they can get the desired results with less total votes according to the story.

With things like voter I.D. and voter roll purging of dead people and non citizens etc.etc. it seems they are seeing a downfall of their long embedded corrupted ghost vote system.

This article explains the new deal.

We now present the ..

"National Popular Vote Interstate Compact"

Collectivism Consolidated "we are Borg"




While most people aren’t aware of it, there’s a movement afoot to completely change the way we elect our president — and its success would have serious consequences for our nation’s future.

The plan is a National Popular Vote Interstate Compact that would neuter the Electoral College and give the presidency to the winner of the popular vote. Under this agreement, your state would award its electors to the candidate winning the most votes nationally — even if a majority of your state’s residents voted for a different candidate.

The compact will take effect once enough states ratify it to constitute at least 270 electoral votes, a majority of the total 538. And with Governor Andrew Cuomo having signed a bill on April 15 making New York the 10th state party to the agreement (the District of Columbia is also on board), its 29 electoral votes bring the compact’s total up to 165, well more than halfway to the goal. The other signatory states are California, Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois, Hawaii, Washington, Massachusetts, Vermont, and Rhode Island.




The Democrats’ Plan to Destroy Our Electoral System







Kazoonheit





posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 11:51 PM
link   
I can't see that working any better than the Electoral College has.
I'm still piqued about nixon being 'elected' by them for a second term. And, I'm still not convince that every vote truly counts. ( Or is counted.....).
edit on 6u1111America/Chicago301 by nugget1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 12:12 AM
link   
Is this correct? ...

Only 4 times?


"Which presidents were elected without winning the popular vote?"


John Quincy Adams who lost by 44,804 votes to Andrew Jackson in 1824

Rutherford B. Hayes who lost by 264,292 votes to Samuel J. Tilden in 1876

Benjamin Harrison who lost by 95,713 votes to Grover Cleveland in 1888

George W. Bush who lost by 543,816 votes to Al Gore in the 2000 election.


Ask it




posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 12:20 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

What is it with progressives?

They don't like the Constitution.
They don't like the Bill of Rights.
They don't like the electoral process.

But they enjoy the freedoms granted by all of the above to change/alter/manipulate all of the above.

All the new laws, new rules, new regulations, new restrictions, are just the start to whatever they want this country to look like.



posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 12:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: xuenchen

What is it with progressives?

They don't like the Constitution.
They don't like the Bill of Rights.
They don't like the electoral process.

But they enjoy the freedoms granted by all of the above to change/alter/manipulate all of the above.

All the new laws, new rules, new regulations, new restrictions, are just the start to whatever they want this country to look like.


What is it with republicans? Do they only care about any of the above issues when a democrat is in the office? Did you call out the Bush administration when it pushed the patriot act through or stole an election (some would even say 2 of them)?

Sometimes I think you guys are so under the spell of partisanship that you can't see the puppet show going on right in front of you. If you care about any of the above issues, can you honestly say you were just as vocal about them under dubya's reign?

How many of you would be singing a different tune if it was Romney at the head of these initiatives? Do you honestly think it makes a difference? The march towards the erosion of American civil liberties has been equally advanced by both the left and the right boots. They just polish one or the other every so often so that you forget the same jack booted thug is wearing them.



posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 12:31 AM
link   


Under this agreement, your state would award its electors to the candidate winning the most votes nationally — even if a majority of your state’s residents voted for a different candidate. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...


I fail to see the problem here....

The president should be elected by popular vote.



posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 12:32 AM
link   
a reply to: DeadSeraph

Bush is a progressive and yes, I did call him out on it.

I didn't say republican or democrat.

I said "progressive".

They are an evil invasive species that has infected our country, our educational system, our political system, our economic system.

Their job is to ruin/destroy the country.



posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 12:33 AM
link   
a reply to: DeadSeraph

Bush didn't steal the 2000 election.

The Democrats in Florida screwed up the ghost vote counts and couldn't back out.



posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 12:34 AM
link   
Well, that is what one gets, when one relies upon representative democracy, which is a farce and here is why ...

A Pox on Representative Politics! It Is A Poison To Society! Anarchy Is The Answer!

Because the result is the ...

US Is an Oligarchy Not a Democracy, says Scientific Study

Whilst ...

The utter collapse of human civilization will be ‘difficult to avoid,’ NASA funded study says

All I can say is ... there is a storm coming!



posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 12:34 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen
Well this will truly make fly over country, well, fly over country. You'll never see another candidate in your state again. The two coasts will be electing the president and you will be inconsequential. This is just disgusting. These criminals need to be drawn and quartered.



posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 12:39 AM
link   
What does the Constitution say about all this ?

Or any Amendments?




posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 12:39 AM
link   
We have an "electoral system"? When did that happen? I always thought U.S. politics is just like everything else, cash and carry! You mean the "We get the best government MONEY can buy " thing is a deception? Well, imagine that! Seriously, the "electoral college"? Looking back at the LONG list of presidentiall duds they've given us (Jimmy Carter pops into my head, for one) maybe we should have looked into this a long time ago. Funny. The electoral process in this country is WHACK! Oh no, electonic voting is to vunerable to tampering, we can't allow that! What? you want someone to show an ID when they vote, you MONSTER! The electoral college is pretty lame. It's 2014. we have this thing called technology. we could do a lot better. But none of that really matters. As long as election law and protocols are drawn up by elected officials and they're familiars, we're boned! that should be pretty much self evident. Here's what I propose. You MUST be able to write your name on the ballot. they stick a needle in your finger, you put a fingerprint on the your ballot which identifies you by, your fingerprint, and your DNA. If tht ballot is questioned, and analysis of the DNA and print reveal the name on the ballot doesn't match the print or the DNA? Have fun on the chain gang! If a vote is so "precious" that a little pain to preserve it's integrity is unacceptable, then the old cash and carry is what the politicians will keep us using.
Of course, since I have ZERO trust in our government, and they CONTROL who gets the nod, why bother?
I guess I'm jaded. My definition for "politician" is this - Current or Future Criminal with a Gold Plated PR Team. But I'm sure, very few people think like I do! (Psych!)



posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 12:40 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Doesn't the US Constitution allow the States to control how their electoral votes are cast and also allow them the latitude to set those laws as they choose? Pretty sure I read that but searched the Constitution and Bill of Rights and could not find it.

That said, electing the POTUS by popular vote will simply lead to mob-democracy. People will vote in whoever gives them the free stuff. Bad idea.



posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 12:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80



Under this agreement, your state would award its electors to the candidate winning the most votes nationally — even if a majority of your state’s residents voted for a different candidate. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...


I fail to see the problem here....

The president should be elected by popular vote.
We have nothing else in our system that works that way.

So you're fine with the idea that the majority of states could be trumped because a handful of states with larger populations (think NY, CA, FL and pretty much the states that have voted for this POS) can easily call the election and render all other states votes meaningless.



posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 12:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bassago
a reply to: xuenchen
That said, electing the POTUS by popular vote will simply lead to mob-democracy. People will vote in whoever gives them the free stuff. Bad idea.


That works both ways. Worked nicely for the wealthy and their tax cuts under bush jr. didn't it? Or is it only "free stuff" if you are poor?



posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 12:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
What does the Constitution say about all this ?

Or any Amendments?



To be fair (and balanced
)

The Constitution basically allows for it's own demise.

If enough people want it done.



posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 12:53 AM
link   
a reply to: DeadSeraph



That works both ways. Worked nicely for the wealthy and their tax cuts under bush jr. didn't it? Or is it only "free stuff" if you are poor?


True but we should fix the problem, not add to it. If this plan happens all the big money will get spent in the densely populated states and then we'd be stuck with purchased politicians as well as the new "power voters" from NY and CA demanding free phones or something.

Stop the corporations = people stuff and rein in the lobbyists. Term limits for congress would help as well. Mob-democracy is a bad idea. My state would have zilch say then, we have little enough now.



posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 01:06 AM
link   
What would past election results have been if the "Electors" in each State (Congressional Districts) were not bound to "concede" to the popular vote of the State?

In other words each Congressional District would have a vote for President as opposed to the entire State.

example being 55 electors in California would not necessarily be cast for the popular total vote in California.

That might open a wider door for the so-called 3rd parties.



posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 01:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bilk22

originally posted by: Sremmos80



Under this agreement, your state would award its electors to the candidate winning the most votes nationally — even if a majority of your state’s residents voted for a different candidate. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...


I fail to see the problem here....

The president should be elected by popular vote.
We have nothing else in our system that works that way.

So you're fine with the idea that the majority of states could be trumped because a handful of states with larger populations (think NY, CA, FL and pretty much the states that have voted for this POS) can easily call the election and render all other states votes meaningless.


My understanding of the popular vote is the count of the candidate with the most votes form all states combined...
Not sure how a state gets trumped in that sense.



posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 01:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80

originally posted by: Bilk22

originally posted by: Sremmos80



Under this agreement, your state would award its electors to the candidate winning the most votes nationally — even if a majority of your state’s residents voted for a different candidate. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...


I fail to see the problem here....

The president should be elected by popular vote.
We have nothing else in our system that works that way.

So you're fine with the idea that the majority of states could be trumped because a handful of states with larger populations (think NY, CA, FL and pretty much the states that have voted for this POS) can easily call the election and render all other states votes meaningless.


My understanding of the popular vote is the count of the candidate with the most votes form all states combined...
Not sure how a state gets trumped in that sense.


The population of my state is 700,000.

The population of California is 33 million.

Equal representation is done by the electoral college.





new topics
top topics
 
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join