Mobbing the National Vote
NOBODY Wins with a National Vote
NOTE: A few days ago, I wrote a short blog on the state wide hurry to pass the National Vote...I got some comments and promised to answer my stand against it..so ONWARD!
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” ...Thomas Jefferson
"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms (of government) those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny” ...Thomas Jefferson
"Only the mob and the elite can be attracted by the momentum of totalitarianism itself. The masses have to be won by propaganda." Hannah Arendt
"It the executive power, or any considerable part of it, is left in the hands either of an aristocratic or a democratic assembly, it will corrupt the legislature as necessarily as rust corrupts iron, or as arsenic poisons the human body; and when the legislature is corrupted, the people are undone. " J.A.
Nobody Wins: The concern we see here is the 'Progressive' determination to take the representation of every single individual, and put it into the hands of mob rule. There is a mass propaganda effort going on here in the United States, to get rid of the electoral college. It's being lead by the democrats, and Bill Clinton, a man who wanted to be King...is using all his efforts to make sure it gets done.
Once again, we have seen that if our politicians don't like the rules and laws of our nation, they just make up a new department, or go through some other such thing, and do what they want. That's how Bill Clinton gave China all our nuclear secrets...he just passed it to them through the Commerce Department. The Health Care Bill, the new financial bill, is LOADED with all kinds of horrible laws, that no one even knows about.
They mean to get rid of the constitution forever. They are...simply, out of control.
Now, first to amforats:
My dear amfortas, likes the monarchy. He claims England made America and we were wicked little children to break away. We did it for greed.
Well, why else do men do what they do? The Kings of England were never greedy?
Did Shakespeare love Sherry Wine?
There are many in England it seems that never quite got over the fact that a bunch of Englishmen in America rebelled against a tyrannical king, and one very rich guy in particular, who, unlike the lazy Kings and fat monarchs of the little Isle of Britain, said to the old King George, "Hell no, you can't have my lands, and you can't tell me how much money to give you, and I'm just as good as you are, in fact better, because I'll actually get my arse on a horse and risk my life as a man for the right to do as I please against a bully, take your lousy tea."
I believe, correct me if I have it wrong, that amfortas suggests that our Mr. Washington should have stayed King and let his sons be Kings forever and then, if that had been the fate taken by History, would the King of America have sent over men to help the Monarchy of England fight off Hitler?
Hmmmmmm.....
And what have they now? The very weenie-ship of Prince Charles, who has said, that the world is overpopulated and if he were King, he'd get rid of at least a few billion of the likes of amfortas.
He has said it, and he means it.
Does amfortas agree with such a degree from a King? Murder by King right?
It seems to this nobody that amfortas wants to trust to his hereditary wisdom, because he like the sweet Queen, whose own mass fortunes for getting up each day and stuffing herself with cookies and cakes (and for this she gets paid $60 million a year, while her subjects are living in tiny apartments), are satisfied that their rich Queen is "protecting" them while they drive their tiny little cars and their children can look forward to more of the same.
All I can say, out of respect that amfortas, is God save the Queen. And good thing Charles has likable kids.
So, if monarchy is so good, why have so many people risen up against Kings in history? What happens when the King is a tyrant? Are the people suppose to wait just wait until the next benevolent king comes along? Live and die while working for the state and all the rich people's comforts? No Cromwell?
At least we get a try every four years...the English have to wait...a lifetime.
Having said what I think about monarchy...(your chances of getting a good one, is much like playing the lottery) I have never said that our current American system is any better than the Queen. On the contrary. We have a whole slew of greedy queens.
"In all free states, the evil to be avoided is tyranny; that is to say, the summa imperii, or unlimited power, solely in the hands of the one, the few, or the many." John Adams
NATIONAL VOTE VS ELECTORAL COLLEGE
But, the subject is the National Vote. Mob Rule. The system that just seems so darn..."fair" to too many uneducated people in America.
"Liberty cannot be preserved without knowledge among people." JA.
Our founders knew better, and that's why they formed a "representative" republic. Popular "votes" in every government in the history of man always come out in tyranny. If you read "The Political Writings of John Adams" he goes through every single government that had been known to man, and all the democracies...ended up in tyranny.
So...our founders wanted the States to have control, and the electoral college was put in (as an amendment to the Constitution) to give EVERY state, equal say...
(I don't know why I'm talking about it anyway, since here in America, our whole system is rotted out to the very core, elections bought and sold, but in principle, it is a much better system than "popular vote." so...I continue.)
The Congress was to represent the people, not tell the people what to do. Today, money buys all the offices of power. The Congress and the Presidency are sold to the highest bidder, who do pretty much what the elite rich guys want them too.
But, let's think about how that popular vote would work:
At the moment, with the National Popular Vote...we would become Mexico. By 2050, we are being told, that they will be the majority. That's okay? That's fair? Another Mexico is a good thing?
Remember....majority rules.
Or say, the Muslim continue to poor into New York, New Jersey, all over the country...they would become the majority, Sharia law would be passed easily, and women could be stoned, and become once again property.
Oh, that sounds like fun.
What if you had a nation of women, and due to popular vote, (there are more women in America than men) the women would decide who would be President. amfortas, wise in his knowledge of how he would trust women to run the world, is fine with that, which makes me wonder just when he was neutered. (I'm KIDDING amfortas!!)
Okay, do you see the madness in this majority rules all?
Just because Al Gore lost the electoral vote in Florida is no reason to think that the system did not work. The system was SET UP THAT WAY. Somebody loses!
It was only the losers who cried "UNFAIR!!"
But this is all fictional. In reality, the republic was lost long ago. Amfortas, is right. The rich rise to the top, and greed creeps in, almost in every case. His reasoning is to just have one smart guy rule the world.
(sigh) Where is that man? No man is perfect, and he doesn't exist. And if he did, someone would probably dig up a sex scandal on him.
Again: Let's say you have one state with a population of nothing but Africans-Americans. But New York has a white guy running who wants all blacks to stop getting all their affirmative action goodies. In a national vote, those blacks in that one state, would have to give all their votes to that popular white guy, who is out to get them, and they would not have any say.
I bet if you put that idea to the black men here, he would not like it. He might then understand that the National Vote is not exactly a good thing.
So, according to my other commentators..., all the states now are going for the popular vote.
Frankly, if Harvard says it's a good idea, then you'd better run. it's a ominous sign of just how far our educational system has fallen.
In the end, when you look at all the political systems on the earth, none of them has ever been able to stop greedy and evil people climbing to the top and smashing down the rest of us. The American system was the best...but, as we see, it has become undone.
In fact, most days, the people running from communism think they never left the country they were running from.
That doesn't mean such a system could NOT be developed. We need good men to get up the courage to get started on it.
The Electoral College may not be perfect: but it sure the hell is better than the National Vote, no matter how prettily they package it.
Labels: politics
posted by Joyanna Adams at 11:33 PM
7 Comments:
The Founding Fathers only said in the U.S. Constitution about presidential elections (only after debating among 60 ballots for choosing a method): "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ." The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."
Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all rule) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation's first presidential election.
In 1789, in the nation's first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, Only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote.
In 1789 only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all rule to award electoral votes.
There is no valid argument that the winner-take-all rule is entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all rule (i.e., awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in a particular state) is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the debates of the Constitutional Convention, or the Federalist Papers. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all rule.
The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding the state's electoral votes.
As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all rule is used by 48 of the 50 states.
In 1789, in the nation's first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, Only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote. Later, state laws gave the people the right to vote for President in all 50 states.
The National Popular Vote bill would end the disproportionate attention and influence of the "mob" in a handful of closely divided battleground states, such as Florida, while the "mobs" of the vast majority of states are ignored. 98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided "battleground" states. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). Similarly, 98% of ad spending took place in these 15 "battleground" states.
The current system does not provide some kind of check on the "mobs." There have been 22,000 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 10 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party. The electors are dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.
Amfortas responds with a ROAR:
hahahahahahaha: of laughter my dear. It looks as though I have pulled your chain enough. But you take it in good cheer and hand it back in good condition.
The British had a 'revolution' too and deposed the King of the day. They soon decided it was a big mistake and rather than put some greedy meglomaniac in charge, replacing the mad with the bad, one could simply chop the bugger's head off and hire another King, usually a durn furriner.
I am still available for my American cousins on a year by year basis.
:)
With all this talk about the Electoral College and National Popular Vote, I thought you might find this radio interview I found out of Wisconsin interesting.
http://www.wsau.com/podcasts/wi-morning-news/national-popular-vote-pat-rosenstiel-and-laura-bro/
Amfortas...
Those durn furriner sure get around! Your American cousins are with ya!
Thanks to Anonymous for the radio interview...who made "pro" side of the National Vote.
So, after having listened to it, here's what I found:
1. They kept saying (Pat Rosenstiel and Laura Brad) that in the electorial voting system, "Every vote should count." And it doesn't now.
BUT..if a whole state wants, say candidate A, and they VOTE for candidate A, and therefore the electors are, by represnting them, cast their electorial votes for candidate A, thereby perfectly representing their STATE, how in the WORLD can you say that in the National Voting system...those electors will be made to vote for candidate B...are being treated fairly? tough cookies.
The idea of our laws were to make the STATES rights come over the FEDERAL rights...of course FDR change most of that, but in reason alone, it was much better than a centralized dictatorial government in D.C.
Anyway are not these voters completly dismissed? The ones whose votes are takeng away and put toward the "winner"
In fact, when you think about it...just a popular vote would be less insulting.
2. They cleverly manipulate your thinking, by saying that "gee, the electors would STILL be in place!"
Well of COURSE they would, but half of their votes would not count! Just because you let them keep their jobs, doesn't mean a thing.Its appeasement of the worst waste. Let em go home then and have a straight vote if want you want is majority rules. (and that's what they want...they SAY it for goodness sake.)
The bloy is that "hey we are Keeping those sweet electors...don't you worry you're pretty kiddy heads. "
Most people do not even know who the Vice President is, let alone have done any kind of serious thinking about the National Vote.
We have seen too many slick willies telling us that everything reminds the same, only to find out we've been snookered. They...LIE to the masses to sell their complete takeover.
2. Ray said the "flyover" states have too much power, when the "majority" should rule. And let's get this straight...once again...National Vote is Democracy...and ALLLLLLL the founders were against a democracy...at least the famous ones were. Read the Federalist papers, or if you can't do that, visit this explanation of the electorial voting on Wikipedia..and pay special attention to the words of James Madison.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Electoral_College
3. The complaint about so many states being meaningless and the elections coming down to a few states, seems to be bothering too many. BUT...if you go by popular vote, then since California gets 55, Texas34, New York31, Fl, 27,IL, 211, and PN (21, that means liberal states 129...conseritive states...55. And that's now...Texas and California will be even more Spanish in probably the next election, leaving out most of the country every single time.
Put Puerto Rico in the mix and you're on your way to a Spanish country...in fifty years, and that' not America, and you know what? You may not moan about it now, but wait till the drug cartels come into your neighborhood.
What the founders didn't want was the factions of the two party system..
Now, they want a global village.
Go back and listen again to that radio...and this time...THINK,.
Do I really want a popular vote?
Do I care if America disappears forever?
And as Ronald Reagen said:
Where WILL you go?
Thanks to Anonymous for the radio interview...who made "pro" side of the National Vote.
So, after having listened to it, here's what I found:
1. They kept saying (Pat Rosenstiel and Laura Brad) that in the electorial voting system, "Every vote should count." And it doesn't now.
BUT..if a whole state wants, say candidate A, and they VOTE for candidate A, and therefore the electors are, by represnting them, cast their electorial votes for candidate A, thereby perfectly representing their STATE, how in the WORLD can you say that in the National Voting system...those electors will be made to vote for candidate B...are being treated fairly? tough cookies.
The idea of our laws were to make the STATES rights come over the FEDERAL rights...of course FDR change most of that, but in reason alone, it was much better than a centralized dictatorial government in D.C.
Anyway are not these voters completly dismissed? The ones whose votes are takeng away and put toward the "winner"
In fact, when you think about it...just a popular vote would be less insulting.
2. They cleverly manipulate your thinking, by saying that "gee, the electors would STILL be in place!"
Well of COURSE they would, but half of their votes would not count! Just because you let them keep their jobs, doesn't mean a thing.Its appeasement of the worst waste. Let em go home then and have a straight vote if want you want is majority rules. (and that's what they want...they SAY it for goodness sake.)
The bloy is that "hey we are Keeping those sweet electors...don't you worry you're pretty kiddy heads. "
Most people do not even know who the Vice President is, let alone have done any kind of serious thinking about the National Vote.
We have seen too many slick willies telling us that everything reminds the same, only to find out we've been snookered. They...LIE to the masses to sell their complete takeover.
2. Ray said the "flyover" states have too much power, when the "majority" should rule. And let's get this straight...once again...National Vote is Democracy...and ALLLLLLL the founders were against a democracy...at least the famous ones were. Read the Federalist papers, or if you can't do that, visit this explanation of the electorial voting on Wikipedia..and pay special attention to the words of James Madison.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Electoral_College
3. The complaint about so many states being meaningless and the elections coming down to a few states, seems to be bothering too many. BUT...if you go by popular vote, then since California gets 55, Texas34, New York31, Fl, 27,IL, 211, and PN (21, that means liberal states 129...conseritive states...55. And that's now...Texas and California will be even more Spanish in probably the next election, leaving out most of the country every single time.
Put Puerto Rico in the mix and you're on your way to a Spanish country...in fifty years, and that' not America, and you know what? You may not moan about it now, but wait till the drug cartels come into your neighborhood.
What the founders didn't want was the factions of the two party system..
Now, they want a global village.
Go back and listen again to that radio...and this time...THINK,.
Do I really want a popular vote?
Do I care if America disappears forever?
And as Ronald Reagen said:
Where WILL you go?
Post a Comment
<< Home