The popular vote isn't a thing

EatTheRich · May 26, 2019

Raoul_Luke said:
In fact, no, you aren't. How is allowing the majority to impose its will on the minority without compromise in any way different from a majority of producers making serfs out of the non-productive, or a majority of whites discriminating against blacks?

1. The rhetoric of serfdom aside, why should the unproductive be supported at society’s expense rather than asked to contribute? Especially given your indignation when a person thrown out of work gets a few months respite from hunger while they look for another job.
2. Democracy is not without its problems, but how is oligarchy preferable? Would it be better to have a minority of blacks discriminating against whites, or an unproductive minority exploiting the productive majority? Anyway, race discrimination is opposed by a big majority and has persisted and become as powerful as it has due to the fact that a small, mostly white minority has interests in supporting it.

EatTheRich · May 26, 2019

kaz said:
The Federal government should treat all its citizens the same. Redistributing money from one citizen to another is clearly NOT treating us the same

Treating people the same means treating similar circumstances similarly without favor. For example, committing to prevent the starvation of every citizen alike.

EatTheRich · May 26, 2019

Raoul_Luke said:
It's ironic that those who have been the most indignant over the capitalist majority "discriminating" against the (economic) interests of the minority can't wait until they (the communists) are the majority so they can start discriminating against the economic interests of the (capitalist) minority.

Capitalists as a class are not the majority. They are a minority and must be since their system is based on the exploitation of the many for the benefit of the few.

Capitalism is supported by a majority when it comes to politics, but that is only a reflection of the capitalist class’s domination of the economic and political environment.

EatTheRich · May 26, 2019

Raoul_Luke said:
The system is designed to act as a brake against the majority imposing 100% of their agenda on a non-agreeable minority. Not give the minority the ability to stop 100% of the majority's agenda. If this isn't about the legislation, then WTF is it about?

But if every reform requires a supermajority, a minority can block every reform. If electing the popular candidate requires a supermajority, the less popular candidate of the elites receives a special advantage.

EatTheRich · May 26, 2019

Nutty Cortez said:
That's what you get when you have a terrible president who put themselves before the country.

Clinton didn't seem to have that problem with the first GOP Congress in 40 years.

How dare Obama try to pass legislation supported by a huge supermajority of Americans? Why couldn’t he have been more like Clinton and supported things opposed by the majority?

EatTheRich · May 26, 2019

Emily said:
Not the interests of the states, the interests of the diverse people in all the states.

ie 2 wolves & a sheep...

More proofs that the ONLY reason supporters of electing the POTUS by popular vote do so is to assure only (D)s ever win.

The “2 wolves and a sheep” canard ignores the fact that the exploited outnumber the exploiters. So democracy would be more like 3 wolves and 5 sheep voting, while the Electoral College would be like giving each of those sheep double voting power.

The interest of the diverse people in all the states would be better served by empowering a majority of that people and the cities in which they live.

EatTheRich · May 26, 2019

kaz said:
Yep, Democrats were the slave owners, they were the Jim Crow law creators. Today they import millions of illegals to work for less than poor Americans will work for, which keeps the black poor from getting jobs. What has the Democrat party ever done for blacks except screw them

We could have an amnesty for those immigrants which would raise their wage levels and redress the problem you point to.BTW big ag, construction, mining, food processing, and other industries with lots of undocumented workers tend not to be owned by Democrats.

EatTheRich · May 26, 2019

Dawg said:
HUD PROJECTS the present democrat slave plantations

Private prisons are the modern-day slave plantations.

Raoul_Luke · May 26, 2019

middleview said:
Refresh my memory...what does the EC have to do with senators elected to Congress?

You keep suggesting the POTUS has nothing to do with legislation, which only shows how little you know about the policies on which you post. It's not just about the POTUS, it's about the balance of power on the legislative agenda.

Here, let me dumb it down for you - if the POTUS is popularly elected, like the House, then the Senate's role in balancing power between the states and feds is weakened, and when you take away the filibuster, which will be gone so fast it will make your head spin if the EC is eliminated, it will become little more than a speed bump on the road to the radical leftist "utopia."

Raoul_Luke · May 26, 2019

EatTheRich said:
But if every reform requires a supermajority, a minority can block every reform. If electing the popular candidate requires a supermajority, the less popular candidate of the elites receives a special advantage.

Only to an extent - not entirely. If I have to choose between the candidates of the elites and the candidates of the eat the rich crowd, I'm in favor of any rule that favors the candidates of the elites.

Dawg · May 26, 2019

EatTheRich said:
Private prisons are the modern-day slave plantations.

so democrats operate Private prisons_______________that was the question=democrats

Dawg · May 26, 2019

EatTheRich said:
Capitalists as a class are not the majority. They are a minority and must be since their system is based on the exploitation of the many for the benefit of the few.

Capitalism is supported by a majority when it comes to politics, but that is only a reflection of the capitalist class’s domination of the economic and political environment.

Is that why 99% of fed candidates are millionaires, even the Socliaist?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/heres-how-bernie-sanders-made-his-millions-—-and-why-it-matters-in-the-2020-election/ar-AABWaAs?ocid=spartandhp

Raoul_Luke · May 26, 2019

EatTheRich said:
The “2 wolves and a sheep” canard ignores the fact that the exploited outnumber the exploiters. So democracy would be more like 3 wolves and 5 sheep voting, while the Electoral College would be like giving each of those sheep double voting power.

The interest of the diverse people in all the states would be better served by empowering a majority of that people and the cities in which they live.

It's not a canard, it's a fact. In fact, it is simple math. As soon as the people who receive more from government than they contribute become the majority in a straight up majority rule system, there becomes no amount of redistribution that is deemed "unreasonable" by those in power. And so the minority that are having their wealth extracted in ever higher percentages either move, or join the majority by giving up all productive endeavors. You can plainly measure this phenomenon in major cities and states where the democrats have become an implacable governing force:

https://www.bisnow.com/chicago/news/economic-development/what-does-chicago-big-demographic-shift-mean-for-cre-98901

https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/politics/albany/2018/12/19/leaving-new-york-population-loss-steepest-u-s/2362167002/

You can see it in countries also, that go too far down this road:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/31/france-drops-75percent-supertax

You keep acting like there isn't oodles of evidence that the politics you favor is like cultural poison for any society dumb enough to try it after repeated failures of epic proportions. Anyone who can't understand this is either ideologically blinded or dumb (and I don't think you are dumb).

Emily · May 26, 2019

EatTheRich said:
The interest of the diverse people in all the states would be better served by empowering a majority of that people and the cities in which they live.

They're empowered now. Electors vote for the candidate who gets the majority of votes in their state (a couple states split electors, but he majority vote-getter still gets the most votes). What you mean is that the interests of the diverse people in all the states would be better served by empowering the voters in the major cities who outnumber them to perpetually choose Democrats as POTUS. That's what you want and you think anyone who believes their needs wouldn't be served better by Democrats is wrong ignorant.

EatTheRich said:
The “2 wolves and a sheep” canard ignores the fact that the exploited outnumber the exploiters.

What @Raoul_Luke said. Also, the exploiters are concentrated in the large metro areas, not the heartland.

middleview · May 26, 2019

Raoul_Luke said:
You keep suggesting the POTUS has nothing to do with legislation, which only shows how little you know about the policies on which you post. It's not just about the POTUS, it's about the balance of power on the legislative agenda.

Here, let me dumb it down for you - if the POTUS is popularly elected, like the House, then the Senate's role in balancing power between the states and feds is weakened, and when you take away the filibuster, which will be gone so fast it will make your head spin if the EC is eliminated, it will become little more than a speed bump on the road to the radical leftist "utopia."

If If If....if wishes were fishes the streets would stink....

If the majority of the house was liberal, the president was liberal and 51 senators were liberal then why what sense does it make that there should be a filibuster? That would certainly mean that legislation might just be liberal....with or without the EC.

PS...the EC going away will not change the senate rules on filibuster.

EatTheRich · May 26, 2019

Raoul_Luke said:
It's not a canard, it's a fact. In fact, it is simple math. As soon as the people who receive more from government than they contribute become the majority in a straight up majority rule system, there becomes no amount of redistribution that is deemed "unreasonable" by those in power. And so the minority that are having their wealth extracted in ever higher percentages either move, or join the majority by giving up all productive endeavors. You can plainly measure this phenomenon in major cities and states where the democrats have become an implacable governing force:

https://www.bisnow.com/chicago/news/economic-development/what-does-chicago-big-demographic-shift-mean-for-cre-98901

https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/politics/albany/2018/12/19/leaving-new-york-population-loss-steepest-u-s/2362167002/

You can see it in countries also, that go too far down this road:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/31/france-drops-75percent-supertax

You keep acting like there isn't oodles of evidence that the politics you favor is like cultural poison for any society dumb enough to try it after repeated failures of epic proportions. Anyone who can't understand this is either ideologically blinded or dumb (and I don't think you are dumb).

Your evidence is cities becoming more affluent and France cutting taxes?

EatTheRich · May 26, 2019

Emily said:
They're empowered now. Electors vote for the candidate who gets the majority of votes in their state (a couple states split electors, but he majority vote-getter still gets the most votes). What you mean is that the interests of the diverse people in all the states would be better served by empowering the voters in the major cities who outnumber them to perpetually choose Democrats as POTUS. That's what you want and you think anyone who believes their needs wouldn't be served better by Democrats is wrong ignorant.

What @Raoul_Luke said. Also, the exploiters are concentrated in the large metro areas, not the heartland.

I think the popular vote would shift the contest to the contest between classes that is more developed in the cities and spur the formation of a labor party on the Democrats’ left (where the majority of the population is).

Raoul_Luke · May 26, 2019

EatTheRich said:
I think the popular vote would shift the contest to the contest between classes that is more developed in the cities and spur the formation of a labor party on the Democrats’ left (where the majority of the population is).

Gee, that sounds precisely like what I suggested would be the outcome. And @middleview thinks it's about nothing but the POTUS...

Raoul_Luke · May 26, 2019

middleview said:
If If If....if wishes were fishes the streets would stink....

If the majority of the house was liberal, the president was liberal and 51 senators were liberal then why what sense does it make that there should be a filibuster? That would certainly mean that legislation might just be liberal....with or without the EC.

PS...the EC going away will not change the senate rules on filibuster.

Yeah, why spend two seconds wondering about the down side of the radical agenda, right? If we do that, it might slow down the crazy train to Bernieville.

To preserve some modicum of sanity? Nah, why would we want to do that?

Not directly, nor immediately, anyway - so I guess that means we can't even consider its inevitability in wherever it is your "middle" view stems from.

Raoul_Luke · May 26, 2019

EatTheRich said:
Your evidence is cities becoming more affluent and France cutting taxes?

So people are leaving because the places are getting more affluent and taxes are coming down? What are they, nuts?

Sheesh, it's becoming clearer with every left winger post I read that the left is completely insane. You guys don't even have to pay lip service to the truth and logic. Facts don't matter. The prospect of one thing leading to another can't even be contemplated. Perception is reality. Seriously, who in their right mind is voting democrat these days???

The popular vote isn't a thing

President

President

President

President

President

President

President

President

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.

President

President

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.

NSDAP Kanzler

President

President

President

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.