Well, I didn’t see you post a link to an article in reply to my question.
Wake Up, America! Wake Up! PLEASE!!
- Thread starter Drillher4me
- Start date
- Status
what would you call post 2423 above?
there is no link...I posted the whole article...….but if you want type in that title to your search engine....that's where I got it
must be a self observation...…???!!!!
I want YOU to answer, not an article that doesn’t really answer the question other than top earners should pay more.
I want YOUR opinion on a “rich” income and how much of that they should pay in taxes.
They only do what they are told and only parrot what the leftist media instructs them to. The left is not allowed to think on their own - if they do their own party will eat them alive. Free thinking is not encouraged on the left. Sub doesn't have an opinion outside the narrative of the articles he post, and he won't answer your question directly, only deflections and memes.
And what rights would those be?
Please be more specific, who's rights have been taken away and where is your evidence? Nobodies right to vote has been "taken".
that article about sums it up!
as for me answering...you are just wanting to start something
I know...in your little fantasy world....there is no such thing as gerrymandering!
check in N.C. for one...that is a good place to start...probably the worst
Texas now jumping into it with all kinds of laws to block minorities from voting....there are several more....but with your right wing perspective I suppose there is no such thing!
how about freedom of speech
trump doing all he can on that!
how about the gal that laughed at Sessions...had to go to court...not sure if she got time or not!
Woman who laughed at Jeff Sessions hearing convicted for ...
www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/04/desiree-fairooz-laughing-jeff-sessions-confirmation-hearing
Just The Facts: Gerrymandering | No Labels
https://www.nolabels.org/blog/just-facts-gerrymandering
Gerrymandering is a way of cheating the system by creating an artificially positive balance of house seats for one party. For example, during the 2012 election cycle in Pennsylvania, 51% of the votes cast in the U.S. House elections were for Democrats, yet the Democratic Party only won 5 out of 18 seats.
pull your head out of your ass and quit denying the facts...or turning a blind eye towards them
Last edited:
Wow, very mature. I feel sorry for you.
You moron, going to a simple majority vote is the largest gerrymandering effort under way. Idiot, you read but don’t comprehend or have independent thought.
Um... No.
There is a huge difference between a corrupt system (gerrymandering) and "stripping you of your god given rights", as you put it. You still have the right to vote, gerrymandering doesn't take away that right. You should take time to learn the difference.
So I will ask again, what rights have been taken away? and which rights are "god given"? please be specific.
and pray tell what's the difference...you are allowed to vote...just your vote doesn't count...like in Penn
N.C is even worse!
you fucking idiot....3 times now the popular vote DID not elect a Pres......what don't you understand about that?
naturally you see nothing wrong with it because your party won......by hook or by crook
now go fuck your self and don't bother me again with your bullshit!
The difference is you claim the Right is stripping away "our god given rights" but that is a false claim. You need to learn the difference between what is FACT, and what is your EMOTION. When you let your emotions guide you, things like Due Process goes right out the window. The video I posted earlier makes that fairly obvious.
I'm against Gerrymandering just as much as you are, but it is not taking our right to vote away.
Should I even bother asking the same question one more time?
and how is that a false claim...it sure wasn't the democrats the did it!
you are right...you can still vote...just your vote means nothing...so is there any difference?
as for the same question...isn't trump doing his best to stifle the press...and look at the gal that laughed at sessions
the two supreme court judges your man just appointed are both against changing anything to help the people who can't vote..vote….Kav wrote a big article on it...look at what McConnell said...we are shaping the supreme court the way we want it...…sounds pretty biased to me
the right has pretty much taken over every segment of gov now....you tell me where there is equality in this country
I think there is only 7 states where the voting districts are drawn up by an unbiased panel....but that still doesn't do anything for the electoral college
the freedoms and the bi-partisanship is slowly disappearing
the right was bad enough...now throw trump in...more hate and discontent than ever.....although it was always really there...just most never said anything until trump opened that door
matter of fact Kav is a good example......any poll you want to look at showed the majority of the country did not want him...thought that office should be held to a higher standard...and yet what did the right do...shoved him in
Last edited:
You obviously aren’t interested in understanding the importance of the electoral college, why it was installed and the true government of The United States.
Earlier you posted something about the founding fathers being afraid of democracy. Well you’re right, because we don’t live in a democracy. They founded a democratic republic because each state required that they have equal representation (not individual citizens) in order to assemble a union. Without the electoral college states would not have bought in (the effects of interstate commerce would be unimaginable) and the union would not have been formed.
You assume that “my” party won and that’s why I’m not bothered. You are incorrect. What bothers me is that I don’t want the entire union that our country is founded on the fall apart because of CA, NY and MA.
Actually read a history book instead of reading a review on Huffpost. Or get an advanced degree in economics like I did and you’ll get it 100%.
My opinion....my vote doesn't count...I relied on someone to vote the way they were supposed to..and they voted the way they wanted to!
The Pros and Cons of the Electoral College
When you go to the polls to vote for a president every four years, you’re participating in an indirect vote. Why indirect? Because of the electoral college. Some say the electoral college is key to maintaining what’s good about U.S. politics, while others want to abolish the institution. Let’s take a look at the pros and cons of the electoral college.
Pro 1: It keeps smaller states relevant in U.S. politics.
Imagine a U.S. presidential with no electoral college. If only the popular vote mattered, candidates might concentrate their energies on densely populated metro areas like New York, Los Angeles and Chicago. Depending on your perspective, that might sound like a change for the worse. It would mean candidates would have little reason to consider, say, the state of farming in Iowa or the opiate crisis in New Hampshire.
One reason that some analysts support the electoral college is that it encourages candidates to pay attention to small states and not just get out the vote in big, populous states and cities. The electoral college gives small states more weight in the political process than their population would otherwise confer.
Pro 2: It provides a clean, widely accepted ending to the election (most of the time).
The electoral college, proponents say, makes U.S. presidential elections less contentious by providing a clear ending. There’s no need for a national recount when you have an electoral college. If one state has voting issues, you can just do a recount in that state rather than creating national upheaval. And to win, a candidate must garner the support of voters in a variety of regions. That means whoever wins the presidency must build a truly national coalition. This, in turn, helps promote national cohesion and the peaceful transfer of power between presidents and helps keep the nation’s political system stable.
Pro 3: It makes it easier for candidates to campaign.
If you’re a Democrat running for president, you don’t have to spend too much time or money wooing voters in left-leaning California. The same goes for Republican candidates and right-leaning Texas. The fact that certain states and their electoral votes are safely in the column of one party or the other makes it easier (and cheaper) for candidates to campaign successfully. They can focus their energies on the battleground states. Some argue that getting rid of the electoral college could make American presidential elections even more expensive than they already are, exacerbating what some see as America’s campaign finance problem.
Pro or Con: It keeps the two-party system strong.
This one is either a pro or a con, depending on your point of view. The electoral college helps keep the two-party system strong. It makes it very hard for a third party to break through at the national level and increases the risk that a third party could spoil a candidate’s chance of winning, which in turn discourages people from voting for third-party candidates.
Some analysts credit the two-party system with keeping American politics stable and driving candidates to the political center, while others would like to see a multi-party system takes hold in the U.S. So, depending on where you stand with regard to the two-party system, you’ll probably have corresponding feelings about the electoral college.
Con 1: It can make people feel like their votes don’t matter.
In the electoral college, it’s true that not every vote matters. A Democrat in California who gets stuck in traffic and doesn’t make it to the polls probably shouldn’t beat himself or herself up. The same can’t be said for a voter in Florida, Ohio or another swing state. U.S. voter participation rates are already quite low, and some argue that eliminating the electoral college would be an easy way to raise them and to boost Americans’ engagement in the political process.
Con 2: It gives too much power to swing states.
If you follow U.S. federal elections and you don’t live in a swing state, you might find yourself grumbling that some voters get all the attention. If you don’t live in a swing state like Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, etc., you probably won’t see as many ads, have as many canvassers come to your door or get polled as frequently. The electoral college means that swing states – which aren’t necessarily the most representative of the country as a whole – get most of the attention.
And even within swing states, certain counties are more competitive than others and voters in those counties are courted particularly hard. If that offends your sense of fairness and you think that candidates should fight for the votes of all Americans, you may oppose the electoral college.
Con 3: It can clash with the popular vote.
Remember 2000? When Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the electoral college and therefore the presidency? That was enough to turn some Americans off from the electoral college forever. If we eliminated the electoral college, that scenario would never be repeated. The potential for the electoral college to conflict with the result of the popular vote is one of the most commonly cited arguments against the electoral college.
Con 4: There’s the possibility of “rogue electors”
Many states have no law requiring electors to vote the way their state has voted. Electors in these states are “unbound.” It’s an honor system and a tradition that electors vote the way their state votes, but there’s always the possibility of “rogue” or “faithless” electors who could give a vote to the candidate who didn’t win the elector’s state. This worries some critics of the electoral college.
Bottom Line
Will the U.S. decide to eliminate the electoral college? It’s hard to say. There’s a movement to encourage states to split their electors in proportion to the percentage of the state vote that each candidate gets. While that wouldn’t eliminate the electoral college, it would change the winner-take-all nature of our system and the way candidates think about state campaigns. Time will tell whether that reform – and others – come to pass.
https://smartasset.com/insights/the-pros-and-cons-of-the-electoral-college
The Pros and Cons of the Electoral College
When you go to the polls to vote for a president every four years, you’re participating in an indirect vote. Why indirect? Because of the electoral college. Some say the electoral college is key to maintaining what’s good about U.S. politics, while others want to abolish the institution. Let’s take a look at the pros and cons of the electoral college.
Pro 1: It keeps smaller states relevant in U.S. politics.
Imagine a U.S. presidential with no electoral college. If only the popular vote mattered, candidates might concentrate their energies on densely populated metro areas like New York, Los Angeles and Chicago. Depending on your perspective, that might sound like a change for the worse. It would mean candidates would have little reason to consider, say, the state of farming in Iowa or the opiate crisis in New Hampshire.
One reason that some analysts support the electoral college is that it encourages candidates to pay attention to small states and not just get out the vote in big, populous states and cities. The electoral college gives small states more weight in the political process than their population would otherwise confer.
Pro 2: It provides a clean, widely accepted ending to the election (most of the time).
The electoral college, proponents say, makes U.S. presidential elections less contentious by providing a clear ending. There’s no need for a national recount when you have an electoral college. If one state has voting issues, you can just do a recount in that state rather than creating national upheaval. And to win, a candidate must garner the support of voters in a variety of regions. That means whoever wins the presidency must build a truly national coalition. This, in turn, helps promote national cohesion and the peaceful transfer of power between presidents and helps keep the nation’s political system stable.
Pro 3: It makes it easier for candidates to campaign.
If you’re a Democrat running for president, you don’t have to spend too much time or money wooing voters in left-leaning California. The same goes for Republican candidates and right-leaning Texas. The fact that certain states and their electoral votes are safely in the column of one party or the other makes it easier (and cheaper) for candidates to campaign successfully. They can focus their energies on the battleground states. Some argue that getting rid of the electoral college could make American presidential elections even more expensive than they already are, exacerbating what some see as America’s campaign finance problem.
Pro or Con: It keeps the two-party system strong.
This one is either a pro or a con, depending on your point of view. The electoral college helps keep the two-party system strong. It makes it very hard for a third party to break through at the national level and increases the risk that a third party could spoil a candidate’s chance of winning, which in turn discourages people from voting for third-party candidates.
Some analysts credit the two-party system with keeping American politics stable and driving candidates to the political center, while others would like to see a multi-party system takes hold in the U.S. So, depending on where you stand with regard to the two-party system, you’ll probably have corresponding feelings about the electoral college.
Con 1: It can make people feel like their votes don’t matter.
In the electoral college, it’s true that not every vote matters. A Democrat in California who gets stuck in traffic and doesn’t make it to the polls probably shouldn’t beat himself or herself up. The same can’t be said for a voter in Florida, Ohio or another swing state. U.S. voter participation rates are already quite low, and some argue that eliminating the electoral college would be an easy way to raise them and to boost Americans’ engagement in the political process.
Con 2: It gives too much power to swing states.
If you follow U.S. federal elections and you don’t live in a swing state, you might find yourself grumbling that some voters get all the attention. If you don’t live in a swing state like Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, etc., you probably won’t see as many ads, have as many canvassers come to your door or get polled as frequently. The electoral college means that swing states – which aren’t necessarily the most representative of the country as a whole – get most of the attention.
And even within swing states, certain counties are more competitive than others and voters in those counties are courted particularly hard. If that offends your sense of fairness and you think that candidates should fight for the votes of all Americans, you may oppose the electoral college.
Con 3: It can clash with the popular vote.
Remember 2000? When Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the electoral college and therefore the presidency? That was enough to turn some Americans off from the electoral college forever. If we eliminated the electoral college, that scenario would never be repeated. The potential for the electoral college to conflict with the result of the popular vote is one of the most commonly cited arguments against the electoral college.
Con 4: There’s the possibility of “rogue electors”
Many states have no law requiring electors to vote the way their state has voted. Electors in these states are “unbound.” It’s an honor system and a tradition that electors vote the way their state votes, but there’s always the possibility of “rogue” or “faithless” electors who could give a vote to the candidate who didn’t win the elector’s state. This worries some critics of the electoral college.
Bottom Line
Will the U.S. decide to eliminate the electoral college? It’s hard to say. There’s a movement to encourage states to split their electors in proportion to the percentage of the state vote that each candidate gets. While that wouldn’t eliminate the electoral college, it would change the winner-take-all nature of our system and the way candidates think about state campaigns. Time will tell whether that reform – and others – come to pass.
https://smartasset.com/insights/the-pros-and-cons-of-the-electoral-college
Good copy and paste. Any thoughts of your own on the matter?
- Status
