The National Popular Vote Movement: Goodbye, Sweet America

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Mollie Baxter on March 1, 2012 at 3:56am

Thanks, I understand the difference. She is not one of my favorite people so I was not reading objectively.

Permalink Reply by Ed Bradford on March 14, 2012 at 9:33am

Here is a pretty simple, direct and popular explaination

for why the Electoral College is a good idea.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=RWoEVM9gkpY

Bill Whittle gives the practical results of an NPV which, I don't think

anyone would like over time. It would be like prohibition -

tried and repealed. Just wait until California's electoral

votes put Sarah Palin in office.

Hmm, how much would I pay to see the effects on

those who hate Ms. Palin and love NPV?

Permalink Reply by Mollie Baxter on July 8, 2012 at 3:25pm

I have always understood how the Electoral College works. However, the video makes a convincing argument for doing away with it! It states that the most populous states would control who wins the Presidency. Well, in fact, that is true now! No one goes after the electoral votes of SC which has a mere 9 votes (as of the last redistricting). The candidates concentrate on California, Florida and other large population states. So what is the difference?

One of the biggest travesties in the last primary was the Ohio primary! Romney won ONLY the large, unionized cities while Santorum took the rest of the state which is mainly rural. Where did Romney campaign? The big cities!

So approximately 4 cities determined where ALL the votes for Ohio would go. An entire segment of the population was ignored because unions have more money than farmers.

Having two houses of Congress makes sense - one based on population and one given 2 members regardless of size. This balances out the power between large and small states in the Congress. I can't wrap my brain around it making a difference in Presidential elections - at least not based on the video.

Permalink Reply by Publius Huldah on July 9, 2012 at 9:33am

I haven't watched the video Ed posted.  I should have, just never had time.

What you say about the two houses of Congress is precisely what Madison said.

The People, by popular vote, were to elect their Representatives to the House.

The States Legislatures were to appoint the two U.S. Senators for their State.  The Senators were supposed to represent their States as The Members of the Federal Republic.

The States - as The Members of the Federal Republic - were to select the President, by means of the specially selected wise, knowledgeable & prudent men, who were chosen to be the Electors for the State.  These Electors were to be the only ones who voted for President & Vice President.

All history shows that THE PEOPLE lack the wisdom to make wise choices when they vote for candidates. And this is precisely why the hard left wants a national popular vote:  B/c they can manipulate the stupid, gullible & ignorant.  And with the NPV, they will have to focus only on the welfare parasites and the Federal, State, and local government employees, who infest our largest cities.

Permalink Reply by Mollie Baxter on July 9, 2012 at 10:31am

Publius,

I certainly agree that the people do not have the wisdom to make wise choices! Although I have lived several decades in SC, I am originally from Ohio and still visit family there regularly so I watched the primary returns with great interest. Santorum swept the state except for the welfare, union cities. Romney got them and the electoral votes - at the last minute. It made me sick.

In SC I became a State Delegate hoping to make a change. I had a lot company from people who identified with the Tea Party. The grip that the "Old Guard" has on the leadership in the GOP is frightening and just as determined and power hungry as the left.The chair would call  voice votes "passed" when they clearly had not and then refuse to allow a printed ballot. I fear that many first timers will be last timers. It was a sad, sad thing to be a part of and has left me feeling discouraged for the first time in my voting life. I always believed the American spirit would prevail but I witnessed it being ignored and beaten down.

I know that we have to become educated but surely at this point, we all know there is a great wrong being done. How long will it take before people decide they know enough to right a wrong?

Permalink Reply by Publius Huldah on July 9, 2012 at 12:10pm

I know that some (many?)  (most?) (all?) of the State Republican Parties are corrupt.  Tennessee's is.   I don't know State (or national) party politics.  We need people who can learn how to fight our corrupt State  (and national) Parties. 

I KNEW there was something rotten in S.C.'s State Republican party b/c they keep re-electing  Lindsay Gramnasty.  John boehner's congressional district keeps re-electing him.

Does anyone know about this?  Sarah Palin told us NOT to leave the Republican party, but to take it over.  It would be nice if she would provide a road map on how to do this.  Or someone else.

Permalink Reply by Mollie Baxter on July 9, 2012 at 7:11pm

I know about Lindsey Graham because I asked. The Upstate, where I live, hate him. But the Low Country - Charleston and along the beach is where all the rich, elite, and liberals live. Graham has ties down there and gets huge financial backing. As much as I hate my County's dirty politics, they have censured Graham numerous times but it is a meaningless gesture. Graham simply out spends any one who runs against him.

I live in Greenville County - the largest (area wise) in the state. Greenville City controls the whole county. All the party leaders live in the city. When delegates were voted on to go to the National Convention more Tea Party people were running but all the slots went to people who have been in power for years. Of course, they are the ones who count the votes. Interesting, isn't it?. I couldn't find anyone who voted for them!

My precinct has given up completely. I am learning why. The city grabbed 39,000 acres as a water shed so they could "protect their water supply!" Out here in the county, we have to belong to a co-op and there is nothing protecting us. This huge land grab had us in an uproar for over a year - fighting it but behind closed doors, it passed. And this is a strong GOP county so it was not the Dems that did it.

I read in several conservative magazines that over 50% of the GOP delegate seats are never filled. The Democrats fill about 95% of theirs! I didn't believe it until I convinced some neighbors to come to the "re-organization meeting" and vote for me to be Executive Committeeman. What a joke! We were the only who showed up! My precinct is entitled to 35 delegates and they have me! About 10 precincts have no delegates at all! And yet most all of my neighbors can trace their roots back to the founders of this area and I am transplanted Yankee! Even then the party tried to stop me. My precinct has not a delegate for a couple of decades. I heard about the meeting from members of the Tea Party. I found out when and where to pick up a packet to run the meeting  and informed headquarters I would get it. When I returned from picking it up, I found a message on my answering machine telling me not to bother to come because it had been picked up early that morning! I got it at 4:30 PM.

I spent a week making phone calls and driving a couple of hundred miles to fill more delegate seats before the deadline. I got 3 people signed up but NOT ONE showed up at the County Convention even though I called them the night before to remind them.

Almost all the Tea Party people have given up -including me. We battled for over two years and learned nothing, were shut out of everything, and simply don't know what to do.

Coming back to this website has given me more hope but the odds seem overwhelming. More and more I think of a third party. I am tired of voting for the :lesser of two evils.:

Permalink Reply by Mark on July 8, 2012 at 1:44pm

REPOST FROM THE WALL 07/08,2012

 

David,

" A great and exploitable weakness in our "republic" can be that the strong Executive head of state (e.g. - President) may be a covert traitor and/or insane."

I believe the framers were wise in establishing the original manner of electing the Executive; "...not to any preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture." 

 

" It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations."

"And as the electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place. "

 

Hamilton observed of the process proposed "...that if the manner of it be not perfect, it is at least excellent."  Federalist No 68, Hamilton

 

Today, we have put aside all of this wisdom and insight. Today we have elections directly by the people; we gather together at party conventions where heat and fervent conspire to cloud judgement; parties and special interests to influence decisions, etc. We have allowed the wisdom of the original intent to be subverted just as the 17th Am subverted the State agency in the Senate. 

So, I would have to say that it is not a Constitutional but rather a political error that we have allowed such an atrocity to develop.

Comment by David J Edwards 1 hour ago

Jon and Mark,

What is the name of the Group Mark has set up?

If my words would be better applied there, I will move them too.

Comment by Mollie Baxter 1 hour ago

David,

That is a frighting thought! Actually we have several Military men in jail for refusing to obey the traitor in the WH. I don't know of a single Congressman or judge who has that honor. They are the ones who have buckled under to the dictator. And so many citizens re-elected these idiots in 2010. So, who really is to blame?

And, if Congress does not fund the Military - there is no military. It has taken all three branches to bring this country to its knees.

Comment by David J Edwards 1 hour ago

Mollie,

Perhaps Paine smelled this familiar sounding rat:

This government has but 3 parts and one is entirely comprised of only ONE man. A great and exploitable weakness in our "republic" can be that the strong Executive head of state (e.g. - President) may be a covert traitor and/or insane. Either way, he would be nearly unstoppable once he reaches that office, for in his fist is the entire martial Force (military) of the nation. In a drive for absolute Power, even if he loses in the end, many lives, families, homes, and fortunes will be lost if such a rogue finds his way into the White House.

That threat alone daunts most men from defending Liberty for quite a while. A single-minded fanatic who would be dictator knows that, and bets his all upon it.

Comment by Mollie Baxter 2 hours ago

Jon, Yet, in the end, Paine refused to back the Constitution saying, "He smelt a rat." So just what did he want?

Permalink Reply by Jon Brunke on July 9, 2012 at 9:30pm

Mollie,

I was looking forward to responding to you question.  Unfortunately I didn't keep a copy of what posted and later deleted.  As it was the basis for your question I'm not sure how to proceed.  If you could expand the question to include some of what I wrote I'd love to respond. I know pretty lame, I can't rmember what  wrote but in my defense I'm getting old...  OK no excuse, I'm still lame  : ^ )

Permalink Reply by Mollie Baxter on July 10, 2012 at 2:55pm

Jon, well, I am old and lame also! LOL! I thought the whole discussion got moved and just deleted my remarks. Then I discovered only parts of it were moved. You posted a lengthy interpretation from Paine's Common Sense.   I came back and asked why Paine then said, "He smelt a rat" and refused to endorse the Constitution. I never have been able to find a reason for that. I reread your post and found a lot to like in it but still couldn't get it to mesh with Paine's refusal to endorse to Constitution. And I don't remember either exactly what it said. Rats! I know I thought about printing it out because it was so good! I guess that is why I am always learning. I can't remember anything from one day to the next!

Permalink Reply by Publius Huldah on July 11, 2012 at 10:30am

Mollie, why did you delete your comment?  I clicked on the link to read it and it was gone.

Paine is wrong thou, to blame the Constitution.  It is the fault of the People for electing Representatives & Senators who refuse to impeach & remove lawless Presidents.

There is an evil streak in humans which makes them want an Earthly God.  They want a President they can worship:  obama, marco rubio, etc. How else do countries always end up with Dictators?  Often, like Hitler, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Lyndon Johnson, Clinton, obama, they were voted into office! 

Our pastors should be warning us of this evil tendency of ours.

Permalink Reply by Jon Brunke on July 11, 2012 at 10:51pm

Hey Mollie,

While I can't remember what I wrote in this instance I can make some general comments about how I most often refer to Paine's work.  Those works are "Common Sense" and a series of essay's titled "The Crisis".  In both cases they seem to have been written to encourage American's. One to push for independence and the other help them get thru the sufferings of actual warfare.  I most often refer to his work when I'm hoping to encourage people as he did.  Of course both were written well before the Constitution was proposed so I don't have any of Paine's views on the Constitution.  I haven't come across anything he wrote about it however I would not be surprised if he was opposed to the constitution.  Since you wrote it I've tried and could not find a solid citation attributing the phrase "I smell a rat" with him attributing this as his view of the constitution.  I have found a lot of secondary opinions that he was anti-federalist in the spirit of Patrick Henry.  Again given what I know of his writing, his seemingly singular focus on "liberty", it's not a big stretch for me to believe he counted himself among those who feared a "consolidated" government.  In the end though without reliable citation it doesn't matter what I believe.  Sorry this wasn't more useful.

 

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• Next ›
• Page