I'm Tired: A Soldiers View From The Front

The Declaration of Independence is not a legally binding document. It has no bearing on the present. It was a statement of reasons why we (the colonies) were choosing to break with Great Britain.

In fact, historically, it was more of a threat than an actual statement of separation. Had King George really believed the colonists, and allowed us to be a proper member of the British realm, we'd still be a part of England. Thanks (with no sarcasm) to King George's ignorance of what the colonies were actually capable of, he chose to put down this little uprising.

We knew that the British could not efficiently supply their army, so we were more than happy to go to war with them.

 

Disagree that it has no relevance today. People will cite it as a reason to stir the masses to follow their viewpoint whatever way it is inclined. It would be nice if it did not have to come to that.

 

I did not care about South Dakota, my comments were about the Electoral College .

 

Exactly and you had an excellent point! Have no clue what South Dakota did, but why do I think I might like it.

 

I must say I am really enjoying the infighting going on in the NC Democratic party. Is it really about those three things based on this...

Liberals commies

 

Infighting is one thing Democrats have always been good at. That's why it's so funny when certain members of this forum suggest we don't think for ourselves, and only follow our "leaders," whoever that might be.

 

Here is a beautiful illustration showing the gerrymandering of political districts.


http://redistrictinggame.org/index.php

 

I've been having a hard time following that conversation, myself. The small states don't get enough attention, but we need to get rid of the electoral college? And do what? Electing the president by popular vote would mean the less populated areas would be totally ignored. So what's the alternative? Giving each state an equal say? I would strenuously object to having my vote diluted in that manner. The electoral college gives each state the same number of electors as they have representatives in both houses of congress. Every state has 2 senators, and a number of representatives based on their population. So the smaller states already have an advantage. I don't understand why we need to give them more of an advantage.

 

Kinda hard to keep track of those thoughts. Small states do not get enough attention yet they already have an advantage. Popular vote is not going to cut it.

 

OK, let's look at the numbers. Under the electoral college system today, each state with a population of at least 1.5 million gets one vote for each .5 million population. Smaller states get 3 votes, so Wyoming, with a population of only a half million, still gets 3 votes. Therefore, in the presidential election, a vote in Wyoming counts 3 times as much as a vote in North Carolina. That's why I say smaller states get an advantage. If we change to popular vote, each vote will count the same.

This site tells how many electors each state has, and this site gives population information for each state. With those two web sites and a calculator you can figure it out for yourself.

 

You hit the nail on the head in what is wrong. Someone can win and become POTUS by only winning these states. How do you think the citizens of the smaller states feel. By instituting electing POTUS via popular vote the citizens in those smaller states even have a smaller impact than today. Guess your research proves why Democrats are leading the charge to get rid of the electoral college!

 

I understand it and I love it. What is not to enjoy about democrats calling the NC Senate,which is Democratically controlled, liberal commies because they are supporting letting temporary taxes expire. Guess they fall on the side of get the tax however you can and then keep the money. Once you feed the pig he always wants more!

 

I agree on the Electoral College being outdated with the current level of technology. There is no way to make the wishes of a small minority in one area of the country more important than the rest of the country. The "winner take all" approach in most states makes it a popular election averaged by really arbitrary borders. Make it a purely popular election and be done with it.

 

I am not stupid. I understand it completely. Read this:

The electoral college in place to keep the smaller states involved. If you change that there vote does not count. Obviously this is a hard concept for some people to grasp. Not everyone wants to live in a urban setting.

 

OK, I went to that site, but I do not see where it contradicts anything I said. That site is about a legislative compact that would render the electoral college irrelevant if it passes in a sufficient number of states. The NCGA also has that legislation before it, but it's not going anywhere this year.

Please explain if you think I am incorrect in saying that a vote for president in Wyoming counts 3 times as much as a vote in North Carolina. I do not think that is my opinion, I think it is simple arithmetic.

 

A smaller federal government and more state control with drastic reductions in taxes on all levels. See I am crazy and think that abortion rights and a whole list of other things should be decided on the state level. It is the way the founders intended.

 

The problem is those who do not want to live in an urban setting should not have their vote counted with more weight than those who do live in an urban setting.

 

Great let's keep Wyoming getting three times your vote.
maybe if this becomes true http://www.freestatewyoming.org/ we can actually start to enjoy

everywhere again.

 

I cite my reference again to a Revolution. If the current trends continue with the continued lack of leadership on a federal, state, and local level it will come.

 

None of which has any bearing on the election of a President though ....

Except for that whole ammendment thing they included to allow for such changes, right?