The Electoral College discriminates against WHITE people.Were it to be abolished,we could run several bogus minority candidates to divide the vote,letting a David Duke win.
You must destroy the electoral college to move the United States onto a true democracy. When you have unelected (by the people) sponges under Party conventions voting for the President without any regard for the will of the people, it creates a monopoly between Democrats and Republicans.
We have people whining that the big States will dominate the election, but that IS fair. Why? Because every person must be equally represented and not the state. It's just stupidly obvious.
soooo..we are afraid that all the people in certain states will decide the vote? What about people living in states where they are the minority? Our votes don't count. Not even worth taking the time to go to the polls. Why not stop dividing us up by states and just start deciding by One Country's choice?
This should be proof why people in the computer industry are mostly reculsive idiots. (I'm in the computer industry, I speak from observation). This is remarkable how seething with anger that these liberal scumbags are *still* angry that Bush won in 2000. They are doing everything to gut everyone who had something to do with the elections. They are gutting the Supreme Court, they are gutting the election system. When the house of cards come crashing down, they will make sure to never take
It's endorsed by the NY Times, LA Times and Common Cause. Do we really need to say more than that?
I would give this guy a choice (to be fair) of either having his tongue cut out within five (5) working days, or not being allowed to vote in the next two (2) Presidential elections or four (4) elections for staewide office, whichever is the greater.
Today its different than it was in the 1700s. All the states have a much higher population well into the millions. Back in those days the electoral college was more needed since some states only had a few hundred people. Theres a lot more people in all the states now. It should be 1 person=1 vote.
It IS "1 person - 1 vote", at the State level. The only way your vote "doesn't count" is if you don't exercise it. Just because your candidate doesn't win does not mean your vote didn't count. DUH!! Hopefully you are voting on several items in your ballot - local, state-wide and national. They have a bigger impact on your life than the "Pres" anyway.
If its really fair and its really "1 person 1 vote", how do you explain the fact that in the 2000 presidential election over half a MILLION more people vote for Al Gore and Bush won? Thats what the electoral college does. All it did was make the less popular candidate win whether or not more people vote of them. What do you think of a half a million peoples votes not counting? How can that be good?
@tatomuck18 - I repeat, AT THE STATE LEVEL. We vote for EVERYTHING at the State level, including the President. Nothing and no-one is voted for at the national level - even Constitutional amendments. We are the UNITED States, but the States retain rights (10th Amendment). States determine how we vote (all are different). EC retains the power of the States vs the Federal Gov't. That's how it's good.
@tatomuck18 Your question answers itself. i.e. it prevented Albert Gore from becoming President of the United States. Happy to help. Keep those questions coming.
@tatomuck18 In 2000 you werent even old enough to vote you little stupid snot nosed twit. Youre just carrying water for something you dont know anything about you stupid little jackass. 'Over half a million' you dont know the facts you stupid little shit.
I Love this Video and also I checked out your Channel. Very interesting! If you need any help getting this Video and your Channel exposed to were it is top in all the search I found this site called tubeviews.(net) that has took my breath away. I'm working on my 4th Channel now, this one I just made. My Videos are getting so many hits now. Check it out and keep in touch.
A nation that could choose Barack Obama, could engage in this form of self-immolation.
Years from now, people will look back and say, they had a from of government designed by Madison, Monroe and Jefferson but instead chose John Koza. What were they thinking?
its time we went back to just a popular vote so all americans could be counted when they vote an their shouldnt be any closed door meetings in the citys or in the congress every decision should be voted on by the people not by those in power with greed .
GRIZZ - PLEASE learn about a system before you comment on it. We never HAD a direct popular vote - we are a Republic (a representative democracy). We elect people to represent us on state and nat'l decisions - we only vote at the state level - we do not vote directly on every issue before the state and national Congresses. So, tell us, IN DETAIL, what do you mean that our votes don't count? How would you set it up so that 300 MILLION of us would vote on EVERY possible bill before Congress?
Use your heads for something besides a hat-rack, folks!! 80.8% of the US pop is in the cities and suburbs. National Popular Vote would allow 6 states (CA, TX, NY, FL, IL, PA) to decide ALL presidential elections, the other 44 states be damned. Those 6 have 123 MILLION population & at 60% voting, more than enough to carry ANY election. THAT'S FAIR?? Under Electoral College they have 189 EC votes (70% needed). Under EC smaller states at least have a chance their voices will be heard. KEEP THE EC!
it's not about state populations! it's about UNDECIDED VOTERS. right now, a few thousand undecided voters in a few states determine the outcome (namely, ohio, florida, pennsylvania)
people don't vote the same because they're members of the same state! for your claim to keep the electoral college to be valid, that would need to be the case. it's NOT ABOUT THE STATES! We're electing the president of the NATION! everyone's vote should be equal! one person, one vote! right now that's not the case
You actually are making my point for me. YES, it IS about the States. With EC a majority of voters in a majority of States must vote for a Candidate for him to win & that makes for a national "consensus". NOT the case under NVP since urban voters will normally vote for urban issues and rural voters will vote for rural issues. SO, urban voters by outnumbering rural could decide all elections by sheer numbers & they'd only need to do that in 6 states. Watch: EC vs NPV - real difference
wrong. a majority of voters is not required to win. see 1800 1824 1876 2000.
"in a majority of states"?
a majority of states is not required to win. as few as 11 states can be won and then you would win the election. do the math before you say things that are flat out wrong.
My error - stated wrong. With EC, a majority of voters in at least 11 States (with largest pop) could decide election. Since 7 of those largest States voted Dem in 2008, both parties would probably need 11+. With NPV candidates only need the urban vote as that is where 80.8% of the pop is located. With NPV a candidate would only need 51% of the population of 6 states to cinch it & could actually lose in 44 States & still be elected (based on the % of pop voting in 2008). EC = 's state's rights.
@tatomuck18 Youre such a fucking spoiled little brat retard drone. You have no idea the history and facts that led up to the Electoral College and you dont know the circumstances. Youre just a stupid little drone that gets led around by the nose.
Its not fair that with the electoral college, someone elses vote in a smaller state will count more than mine. Wouldnt it be better if each persons vote counted equally?
The electoral college would never go away since small population states have more of an effect on the election with the electoral college then without. I also totally do not like the law he is talking about.
The following won the popular vote: 1968 Richard Nixon 1972 Richard Nixon 1976 Jimmy Carter 1980 Ronald Reagan 1984 Ronald Reagan 1988 George H. W. Bush 1992 Bill Clinton 1996 Bill Clinton 2000 Al Gore 2004 ????????????? (perhaps Al Gore again) 2008 Barack Obama (depending on how much of a bump he got due to the unpopularity of Bush) It is possible that our economy would have been strong and we might not have been manipulated into a war with Iraq if we used the popular vote.
"Sorry Charlie", we AREN'T a Parlimentary system, but a Representative Democracy. NPV focuses on half the important equation and ignores ALL the problems it would create. You like 2000? With NPV, would you have liked to have recounted ALL the NPV due to a tight race instead of just FL? B-T-W, IRAQ is a USA war, not Bush's War - Congress voted for it & funded it for 7 years & the intelligence used was info ANY Pres. would have used - certainly GORE, since he always used polls for his decisions!
I put forth an observation making no claims to be for or against the current system. All I did was list the previous presidents and indicate that if you change a player or two, the outcome might be different. I made no assertions that one system was better than the other.
I disagree with your assumption that anyone but Bush would have pushed as hard to link Iraq to 9/11 when the evidence, and his advisors, indicated that there was none. He sold congress a doomsday scenario and they bought it.
This distinguished computer scientist needs a consultation with a Constitutional specialist who will explain that the National Popular Vote Bill can not circumscribe Gore v. Bush, a decision that effectively did aware with state sovereignty in this matter.
Another attempt to undermine our Constitution. "to the REPUBLIC for which it stands!" Not "to the DEMOCRACY for which it stands" Ending the electoral college would remove the safeguard preventing a mobocracy in which the majority can vote to abuse a minority. This is the same phenomenon that occurs in a lynch mob, when the mob or majority decides to take the law into their own hands thus violating the rights of the victim (the minority) who's vote is over-ruled. The electoral college is crucial.
"Ending the electoral college would remove the safeguard preventing a mobocracy..."
What a crock of bullshit. The electoral college just follows the popular vote anyway. Fuck, in most states it even says the presidential candidates' names on the ballot, instead of the college candidates!
Anyone who thinks the electoral college does anything but create a weird voting distribution (due to the all-or-nothing system most states use) needs to take a political science class.
Youre right. The electoral college does little today to prevent mob rule because our voting process has become distorted (due to the 12th Amendment, all-or-nothing state practices, etc.) Originally the electoral college was more effective at distributing power throughout the country. Today a few cities rule over the rest of us. We need to reform the nomination & voting process. The electoral college remains a crucial ingredient. Discarding it would ensure mob rule indefinitely.
"...our voting process has become distorted (due to the 12th Amendment...)"
By allowing two distinct ballots for president and vice president? HOW?!
"Originally the electoral college was more effective..."
Hilariously wrong. The EC has NEVER been ANYTHING but a dancing bear for the popular vote. Since it's inception, people have always voted for the EC chairs that vowed to support their candidate.
Before 12th Amendment, the President & Vice President could be from two different parties. This allowed more checks & balances of power and more perspectives, which is generally a good thing.
The electoral college wasn't always a dancing bear. Early in our history electors were selected by state legislatures in most states. There was no such thing as a popular vote.
Popular vote gives states with big cities & large populations the unfair ability to steal power & wealth from other states.
"Discarding it would ensure mob rule indefinitely."
I don't know what universe you live in, but here on Earth our planet has been under mob rule since the dawn of time. Ultimately, it's always the choice of the 'mob' what we end up doing. The great thing about a Republic isn't that we take the power of the mob away, but that we 1. acknowledge its rightful authority (unlike monarchy) and 2. acknowledge that certain individuals are more capable of working its will efficiently (unlike democracy).
In a lynch mob, the mob gets many votes. The victim gets 1. The majority with more power commits a crime against a minority. They vote to steal the victims life and the victim is powerless to stop it.
Similarly a popular vote allows the majority of voters to vote themselves money and benefits at the expense of the minority. And the minority is powerless to stop it.
Youre right one is lawful, and the other is not. But both are abuses of power and the natural tendency under a popular vote.
"Youre right one is lawful, and the other is not. But both are abuses of power and the natural tendency under a popular vote."
No, it isn't, and that's the problem. The natural tendency of people is kindness and a desire for fairness, not cruelty. That's why civil rights movements are so successful; they put the pain and suffering of individuals in the face of the majority, and the majority hates it.
Nope. Mob rule stinks in most situations I can think of. Decisions usually benefit the majority and abuse the minority. Decisions are emotionally driven and not well-thought out. They fail to consider long term consequences. One generation voting themselves benefits, at the expense of the next generation. The bad effects of a popular vote are definitely not limited to just the Presidential election.
"So you support lynching? Hanging a man because the majority supports it?"
What a retarded, leading question. No one hangs a man because the majority supports it; they hang him because he did something they didn't like, or because he was black, or some other reason.
I'm not opposed to lynching in general; I'd have to know the actual reason for the lynching. If a bunch of Germans decided to lynch Hitler, I wouldn't just support it, I'd lend a helping hand.
"we can't stop it" False. If a mob is threatening to kill you, there's an easy way to stop it. Pull out a big ass gun! If you lived in a free country you could defend yourself.
What I was referring to was what life is like in a mobocracy. Where the majority can vote to take away the minority's right to keep & bear arms. In this situation, the minority cannot stop a lynch mob.
"If a mob is threatening to kill you, there's an easy way to stop it. Pull out a big ass gun!"
You're a moron. If the mob really wants to kill you, pulling a gun means you'll manage to take down a couple of them with you.
It's like you've totally missed my point; no matter what kind of government you live in, the majority is in control. If you can convince the majority that it wants to give the minority rights, then that's greats; nevertheless, the majority is still ultimately in control.
calling majority vote mob rule does nothing more than express a basic distrust in the people. while i agree that the general public isn't as intelligent as they should be, what this system does is magnifies voters in swing states making their vote count for more. it's not necessarily "majority rules" but "majority in the most 'important' states rule"
Neo-cons don't want to abolish electoral college,they will riot on the streets,they say is the american way,other way ir would be "socialism"
folladordeprostis 3 months ago
The Electoral College discriminates against WHITE people.Were it to be abolished,we could run several bogus minority candidates to divide the vote,letting a David Duke win.
ImDavidGurney 8 months ago
About fucking time. We should've had a popular vote take all years ago.
WilliamHCarney 9 months ago
@WilliamHCarney Neo-cons don't want to abolish electoral college
folladordeprostis 3 months ago
You must destroy the electoral college to move the United States onto a true democracy. When you have unelected (by the people) sponges under Party conventions voting for the President without any regard for the will of the people, it creates a monopoly between Democrats and Republicans.
We have people whining that the big States will dominate the election, but that IS fair. Why? Because every person must be equally represented and not the state. It's just stupidly obvious.
radomu1 1 year ago
soooo..we are afraid that all the people in certain states will decide the vote? What about people living in states where they are the minority? Our votes don't count. Not even worth taking the time to go to the polls. Why not stop dividing us up by states and just start deciding by One Country's choice?
DenaInWyo 1 year ago
This should be proof why people in the computer industry are mostly reculsive idiots. (I'm in the computer industry, I speak from observation). This is remarkable how seething with anger that these liberal scumbags are *still* angry that Bush won in 2000. They are doing everything to gut everyone who had something to do with the elections. They are gutting the Supreme Court, they are gutting the election system. When the house of cards come crashing down, they will make sure to never take
ThunderAppeal 1 year ago
When the house of cards comes crashing down tomorrow, they will make sure to not take any responsibility for it today.
ThunderAppeal 1 year ago
It's endorsed by the NY Times, LA Times and Common Cause. Do we really need to say more than that?
I would give this guy a choice (to be fair) of either having his tongue cut out within five (5) working days, or not being allowed to vote in the next two (2) Presidential elections or four (4) elections for staewide office, whichever is the greater.
thestalkinghorse 1 year ago
Today its different than it was in the 1700s. All the states have a much higher population well into the millions. Back in those days the electoral college was more needed since some states only had a few hundred people. Theres a lot more people in all the states now. It should be 1 person=1 vote.
tatomuck18 1 year ago
It IS "1 person - 1 vote", at the State level. The only way your vote "doesn't count" is if you don't exercise it. Just because your candidate doesn't win does not mean your vote didn't count. DUH!! Hopefully you are voting on several items in your ballot - local, state-wide and national. They have a bigger impact on your life than the "Pres" anyway.
NitPickyWorryWart 1 year ago
If its really fair and its really "1 person 1 vote", how do you explain the fact that in the 2000 presidential election over half a MILLION more people vote for Al Gore and Bush won? Thats what the electoral college does. All it did was make the less popular candidate win whether or not more people vote of them. What do you think of a half a million peoples votes not counting? How can that be good?
tatomuck18 1 year ago
@tatomuck18 - I repeat, AT THE STATE LEVEL. We vote for EVERYTHING at the State level, including the President. Nothing and no-one is voted for at the national level - even Constitutional amendments. We are the UNITED States, but the States retain rights (10th Amendment). States determine how we vote (all are different). EC retains the power of the States vs the Federal Gov't. That's how it's good.
NitPickyWorryWart 1 year ago
@tatomuck18 Your question answers itself. i.e. it prevented Albert Gore from becoming President of the United States. Happy to help. Keep those questions coming.
thestalkinghorse 1 year ago
@tatomuck18 In 2000 you werent even old enough to vote you little stupid snot nosed twit. Youre just carrying water for something you dont know anything about you stupid little jackass. 'Over half a million' you dont know the facts you stupid little shit.
ThunderAppeal 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I Love this Video and also I checked out your Channel. Very interesting! If you need any help getting this Video and your Channel exposed to were it is top in all the search I found this site called tubeviews.(net) that has took my breath away. I'm working on my 4th Channel now, this one I just made. My Videos are getting so many hits now. Check it out and keep in touch.
Thomas Cole
Marrleyer 2 years ago
A nation that could choose Barack Obama, could engage in this form of self-immolation.
Years from now, people will look back and say, they had a from of government designed by Madison, Monroe and Jefferson but instead chose John Koza. What were they thinking?
thestalkinghorse 2 years ago
its time we went back to just a popular vote so all americans could be counted when they vote an their shouldnt be any closed door meetings in the citys or in the congress every decision should be voted on by the people not by those in power with greed .
grizz11952001 3 years ago
GRIZZ - PLEASE learn about a system before you comment on it. We never HAD a direct popular vote - we are a Republic (a representative democracy). We elect people to represent us on state and nat'l decisions - we only vote at the state level - we do not vote directly on every issue before the state and national Congresses. So, tell us, IN DETAIL, what do you mean that our votes don't count? How would you set it up so that 300 MILLION of us would vote on EVERY possible bill before Congress?
NitPickyWorryWart 2 years ago
Use your heads for something besides a hat-rack, folks!! 80.8% of the US pop is in the cities and suburbs. National Popular Vote would allow 6 states (CA, TX, NY, FL, IL, PA) to decide ALL presidential elections, the other 44 states be damned. Those 6 have 123 MILLION population & at 60% voting, more than enough to carry ANY election. THAT'S FAIR?? Under Electoral College they have 189 EC votes (70% needed). Under EC smaller states at least have a chance their voices will be heard. KEEP THE EC!
NitPickyWorryWart 3 years ago 5
it's not about state populations! it's about UNDECIDED VOTERS. right now, a few thousand undecided voters in a few states determine the outcome (namely, ohio, florida, pennsylvania)
people don't vote the same because they're members of the same state! for your claim to keep the electoral college to be valid, that would need to be the case. it's NOT ABOUT THE STATES! We're electing the president of the NATION! everyone's vote should be equal! one person, one vote! right now that's not the case
flylike1 2 years ago
You actually are making my point for me. YES, it IS about the States. With EC a majority of voters in a majority of States must vote for a Candidate for him to win & that makes for a national "consensus". NOT the case under NVP since urban voters will normally vote for urban issues and rural voters will vote for rural issues. SO, urban voters by outnumbering rural could decide all elections by sheer numbers & they'd only need to do that in 6 states. Watch: EC vs NPV - real difference
NitPickyWorryWart 2 years ago
wrong. a majority of voters is not required to win. see 1800 1824 1876 2000.
"in a majority of states"?
a majority of states is not required to win. as few as 11 states can be won and then you would win the election. do the math before you say things that are flat out wrong.
flylike1 2 years ago
My error - stated wrong. With EC, a majority of voters in at least 11 States (with largest pop) could decide election. Since 7 of those largest States voted Dem in 2008, both parties would probably need 11+. With NPV candidates only need the urban vote as that is where 80.8% of the pop is located. With NPV a candidate would only need 51% of the population of 6 states to cinch it & could actually lose in 44 States & still be elected (based on the % of pop voting in 2008). EC = 's state's rights.
NitPickyWorryWart 2 years ago
So 5 people living under a rock should have the same power as hundreds of millions of people in New York and California?
I want MY VOTE TO COUNT!
It should be 1 person=1 vote!
Thats the only way its fair. If more people want this person elected, then they should be elected.
tatomuck18 1 year ago
@tatomuck18 Youre such a fucking spoiled little brat retard drone. You have no idea the history and facts that led up to the Electoral College and you dont know the circumstances. Youre just a stupid little drone that gets led around by the nose.
ThunderAppeal 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ThunderAppeal bush jr 47.9%
al gore 48.4% winner bush jr,that makes any sense??? that is why the rest of the world makes fun of usa democracy.........
folladordeprostis 3 months ago
Its not fair that with the electoral college, someone elses vote in a smaller state will count more than mine. Wouldnt it be better if each persons vote counted equally?
KripDrip 1 year ago
bush jr 47.9%
al gore 48.4% winner bush jr,that makes any sense??? that is why the rest of the world makes fun of usa democracy..........
folladordeprostis 3 months ago
The electoral college would never go away since small population states have more of an effect on the election with the electoral college then without. I also totally do not like the law he is talking about.
y1154 3 years ago
WRONG!!!! Indiana was indeed a battle ground state
thetimeofday591 3 years ago
CharlesVarney 3 years ago
"Sorry Charlie", we AREN'T a Parlimentary system, but a Representative Democracy. NPV focuses on half the important equation and ignores ALL the problems it would create. You like 2000? With NPV, would you have liked to have recounted ALL the NPV due to a tight race instead of just FL? B-T-W, IRAQ is a USA war, not Bush's War - Congress voted for it & funded it for 7 years & the intelligence used was info ANY Pres. would have used - certainly GORE, since he always used polls for his decisions!
NitPickyWorryWart 3 years ago
I put forth an observation making no claims to be for or against the current system. All I did was list the previous presidents and indicate that if you change a player or two, the outcome might be different. I made no assertions that one system was better than the other.
I disagree with your assumption that anyone but Bush would have pushed as hard to link Iraq to 9/11 when the evidence, and his advisors, indicated that there was none. He sold congress a doomsday scenario and they bought it.
CharlesVarney 3 years ago
Not persuasive.
humanist7117 3 years ago
Pass this son of a bitch.
My vote isn't worth a donkey dick in my state.
Redfingers 3 years ago
Gimme a Break
Clinton & Dole instituted a policy in 1994 to keep independents out
The USA has one more choice than the old Communist Soviet Union!
sugarpuddin88 3 years ago 5
I swear I learned that Ralph Nader visited every state!!!
NatureLegalized 3 years ago 2
This distinguished computer scientist needs a consultation with a Constitutional specialist who will explain that the National Popular Vote Bill can not circumscribe Gore v. Bush, a decision that effectively did aware with state sovereignty in this matter.
condonrichard 3 years ago
Another attempt to undermine our Constitution. "to the REPUBLIC for which it stands!" Not "to the DEMOCRACY for which it stands" Ending the electoral college would remove the safeguard preventing a mobocracy in which the majority can vote to abuse a minority. This is the same phenomenon that occurs in a lynch mob, when the mob or majority decides to take the law into their own hands thus violating the rights of the victim (the minority) who's vote is over-ruled. The electoral college is crucial.
truthadvocate 3 years ago
"Ending the electoral college would remove the safeguard preventing a mobocracy..."
What a crock of bullshit. The electoral college just follows the popular vote anyway. Fuck, in most states it even says the presidential candidates' names on the ballot, instead of the college candidates!
Anyone who thinks the electoral college does anything but create a weird voting distribution (due to the all-or-nothing system most states use) needs to take a political science class.
Hooya2 3 years ago
Youre right. The electoral college does little today to prevent mob rule because our voting process has become distorted (due to the 12th Amendment, all-or-nothing state practices, etc.) Originally the electoral college was more effective at distributing power throughout the country. Today a few cities rule over the rest of us. We need to reform the nomination & voting process. The electoral college remains a crucial ingredient. Discarding it would ensure mob rule indefinitely.
truthadvocate 3 years ago
"The electoral college does little today..."
It doesn't do ANYTHING.
"...our voting process has become distorted (due to the 12th Amendment...)"
By allowing two distinct ballots for president and vice president? HOW?!
"Originally the electoral college was more effective..."
Hilariously wrong. The EC has NEVER been ANYTHING but a dancing bear for the popular vote. Since it's inception, people have always voted for the EC chairs that vowed to support their candidate.
Hooya2 3 years ago
Before 12th Amendment, the President & Vice President could be from two different parties. This allowed more checks & balances of power and more perspectives, which is generally a good thing.
The electoral college wasn't always a dancing bear. Early in our history electors were selected by state legislatures in most states. There was no such thing as a popular vote.
Popular vote gives states with big cities & large populations the unfair ability to steal power & wealth from other states.
truthadvocate 2 years ago
"Discarding it would ensure mob rule indefinitely."
I don't know what universe you live in, but here on Earth our planet has been under mob rule since the dawn of time. Ultimately, it's always the choice of the 'mob' what we end up doing. The great thing about a Republic isn't that we take the power of the mob away, but that we 1. acknowledge its rightful authority (unlike monarchy) and 2. acknowledge that certain individuals are more capable of working its will efficiently (unlike democracy).
Hooya2 3 years ago
making everyone's vote count the same. mob rule. ok.
flylike1 2 years ago
So you support lynching? Hanging a man because the majority supports it?
truthadvocate 2 years ago
i think that would be unlawful and i am not sure how that relates to voting for leaders by popular vote.
flylike1 2 years ago
In a lynch mob, the mob gets many votes. The victim gets 1. The majority with more power commits a crime against a minority. They vote to steal the victims life and the victim is powerless to stop it.
Similarly a popular vote allows the majority of voters to vote themselves money and benefits at the expense of the minority. And the minority is powerless to stop it.
Youre right one is lawful, and the other is not. But both are abuses of power and the natural tendency under a popular vote.
truthadvocate 2 years ago
"Youre right one is lawful, and the other is not. But both are abuses of power and the natural tendency under a popular vote."
No, it isn't, and that's the problem. The natural tendency of people is kindness and a desire for fairness, not cruelty. That's why civil rights movements are so successful; they put the pain and suffering of individuals in the face of the majority, and the majority hates it.
Hooya2 2 years ago
so the popular vote is perfectly fine in electing ALL OFFICALS EXCEPT the president?
flylike1 2 years ago
Nope. Mob rule stinks in most situations I can think of. Decisions usually benefit the majority and abuse the minority. Decisions are emotionally driven and not well-thought out. They fail to consider long term consequences. One generation voting themselves benefits, at the expense of the next generation. The bad effects of a popular vote are definitely not limited to just the Presidential election.
truthadvocate 2 years ago
so instead of letting the majority choose you prefer letting voters in a few swing states decide.
flylike1 2 years ago
"So you support lynching? Hanging a man because the majority supports it?"
What a retarded, leading question. No one hangs a man because the majority supports it; they hang him because he did something they didn't like, or because he was black, or some other reason.
I'm not opposed to lynching in general; I'd have to know the actual reason for the lynching. If a bunch of Germans decided to lynch Hitler, I wouldn't just support it, I'd lend a helping hand.
Hooya2 2 years ago
What if you don't agree with the reason. If you're in the minority, you're powerless to stop it.
What if it's you? what if it's me. If we're in the minority we're both dead.
truthadvocate 2 years ago
"What if you don't agree with the reason. If you're in the minority, you're powerless to stop it."
Yes, that's exactly it. If the majority truly wants to lynch someone, it's going to happen, and we can't stop it.
All I can do is try to convince people that they don't really want to lynch someone, that they're doing it out of anger.
Hooya2 2 years ago
"we can't stop it" False. If a mob is threatening to kill you, there's an easy way to stop it. Pull out a big ass gun! If you lived in a free country you could defend yourself.
What I was referring to was what life is like in a mobocracy. Where the majority can vote to take away the minority's right to keep & bear arms. In this situation, the minority cannot stop a lynch mob.
truthadvocate 2 years ago
"If a mob is threatening to kill you, there's an easy way to stop it. Pull out a big ass gun!"
You're a moron. If the mob really wants to kill you, pulling a gun means you'll manage to take down a couple of them with you.
It's like you've totally missed my point; no matter what kind of government you live in, the majority is in control. If you can convince the majority that it wants to give the minority rights, then that's greats; nevertheless, the majority is still ultimately in control.
Hooya2 2 years ago
What "mob"? You mean the American people? What ones who vote for the politicians?
tatomuck18 1 year ago
calling majority vote mob rule does nothing more than express a basic distrust in the people. while i agree that the general public isn't as intelligent as they should be, what this system does is magnifies voters in swing states making their vote count for more. it's not necessarily "majority rules" but "majority in the most 'important' states rule"
flylike1 2 years ago
As far as your convincing strategy You cant even convince me to change my mind. How much luck are you going to have with an angry mob?
truthadvocate 2 years ago
"How much luck are you going to have with an angry mob?"
Probably not much, but what does that have to do with the topic?
"...a mobocracy. Where the majority can vote to take away the minority's right to keep & bear arms."
You mean like America, where a 2/3rds vote can amend the Constitution and take away the minority's right to keep and bear arms?
Once again, you fail to grasp the point; the majority is ALWAYS in control, even in Republics.
Hooya2 2 years ago