Vindicating the Electoral College?

Not just yet. But, I finally do see a potential for the existence of this abhorrent construct to be vindicated for the first time in my lifetime.

Some of you may know that for years or even decades, I have been outraged by the existence of the electoral college in the United States. This constitutional load of horseshit undermines both our pretense of being a nation and our pretense of being a democracy.

A democratic nation would have a national election. We do not. We have state elections and the states send representatives to vote on our behalf … unless they don’t.

A democracy would be a country where every citizen had an equal vote. We do not. Individuals in some states have 3 times the voting power of individuals in other states.

I have hated this construct with a burning, seething, fiery passion since I first learned the details of it. It makes me sick that the founders of this once-great non-nation thought that people should not be allowed to vote for president of the United States.

How could I change my mind so radically on this important subject?

I haven’t yet. But this is how I could.

If we the idiots actually vote in such a way that Donald J. Drumpf would legitimately become POTUS, and if the electoral college members vote for sanity instead, I will finally have to accept that the founders were right. I would then have to admit that the electoral college may be necessary to protect us from ourselves.

Remember, the members of the electoral college are under no constitutional obligation to vote as we the idiots vote, even within any particular state.

The main problem with a true democracy is that the people can, and sometimes do, vote themselves out of a democracy. Adolf was legitimately elected dictator. I am not comparing Drumpf to Hitler (he’s really not that bad yet) … or even Mussolini (yet). But, it is a legitimate point that people can and sometimes do vote themselves a totalitarian government.

If and only if we the idiots do elect this autocratic buffoon in November AND the electoral college saves us from ourselves, I will concede that the electoral college does have value.

How on earth could that happen? Trump has 42% of the country under his spell, not 51%. Well, my fellow liberals (idiots do indeed come in all shapes, sizes, colors, and creeds) could actually stick by the statements many are making. If Hillary gets the nod, the Bernie supporters really might stay home … and elect Drumpf. Or, Bernie could (though it seems unlikely now) get the nod and the Hillary supporters stay home … and elect Drumpf. Either case would be a disaster, unless the electoral college saves us from our own stupidity.

That said, until it happens, I still hate the electoral college.

Let’s hope we don’t need them in November. Let’s hope that if we do, they come through for us.

Advertisements

34 Responses to Vindicating the Electoral College?

  1. otto says:

    Now 48 states have winner-take-all state laws for awarding electoral votes, 2 have district winner laws. Neither method is mentioned in the U.S. Constitution..

    The current system does not provide some kind of check on the “mobs.” There have been 22,991 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 17 have been cast in a deviant way, for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector’s own political party (one clear faithless elector, 15 grand-standing votes, and one accidental vote). 1796 remains the only instance when the elector might have thought, at the time he voted, that his vote might affect the national outcome.

    The electors are and will be dedicated party activist supporters of the winning party’s candidate who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable rubberstamped votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.

    The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld state laws guaranteeing faithful voting by presidential electors (because the states have plenary power over presidential electors).

    There is no reason to think that the Electoral College would prevent Trump from being elected President of the United States, regardless of whether presidential electors are elected on the basis of the state-by-state winner-take-all rule or the nationwide popular vote

    • Hello otto and welcome!

      Thanks for this and your other incredibly detailed posts. Much appreciated. I’m glad to see there is someone who hates the electoral college with even more burning, seething, fiery passion than I have. I wouldn’t have known that was possible.

      I didn’t know the numbers, but I wasn’t too optimistic about this. It was just that after decades of hating the electoral college and everything it means and stands for, I finally saw a remote possibility that it might do some good for once.

  2. otto says:

    Adolf Hitler did not come to power in Germany as a result of a national popular vote. In fact, Hitler was rejected by approximately two-to-one nationwide popular-vote margins when he ran for Presidency of the Weimar Republic.
    In the March 13, 1932, election for President, the results were:
    ● Hindenburg (the incumbent)—49.6%,
    ● Hitler (National Socialist)—30.1%,
    ● Thaelmann (Communist)—13.2%, and
    ● Duesterberg(Nationalist)—6.8%.

    Because President Hindenburg did not receive an absolute majority of the votes, a run-off was held on April 10, 1932, among the top three candidates. The results of the run-off were:
    ● Hindenburg (the incumbent)—53.0%,
    ● Hitler (National Socialist)—36.8%, and
    ● Thaelmann (Communist)—10.2%.

    On July 31, 1932, parliamentary elections were held in Germany and Hitler’s National Socialist Party won the largest number of seats in the Reichstag (230 out of 608); however, these 230 seats were far from a majority.

    On November 6, 1932, another parliamentary election was held, and the strength of Hitler’s party was reduced to 196 seats out of 608 in the Reichstag.

    On January 30, 1933, a deal orchestrated by a coalition of parties and power brokers who (mistakenly) thought they could control Hitler. As a result of this deal, President Hindenburg appointed Adolf Hitler as Chancellor of Germany. Once in power as Chancellor, Hitler quickly used his position of Chancellor (and, in particular, the control over the police that his party gained in the deal) to create a one-party dictatorship in Germany.

  3. otto says:

    In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

    Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed recently. In the 41 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range – in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.
    Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win

    The National Popular Vote bill is 61% of the way to guaranteeing the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country.

    Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps of pre-determined outcomes. There would no longer be a handful of ‘battleground’ states (where the two major political parties happen to have similar levels of support among voters) where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 38+ predictable states that have just been ‘spectators’ and ignored after the conventions.

    The National Popular Vote bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538.
    All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.

    The bill has passed 34 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 261 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 11 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

    http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

    • I have also been a long time supporter of the national popular vote and am aware of the push to get 270 electoral votes worth of states to give their entire electoral vote to the winner of the popular vote. I am less optimistic about it than you. But, I’m much more optimistic about this than about getting the constitution amended through the normal route.

  4. ECA says:

    We have had this debate, back and forth…
    LETS add something to it…
    Why not a NONE of the above, vote??
    Why not add an UNDECIDED/NO VOTE to the election.. based ont he idea, that if 50% dont vote…(consider only 30% of the people are voting) then the Vote goes to UNDECIDED/NO VOTE…

    Do you know what would happen(IMO) ALL the groups would FORCE/PUSH people into voting…not just their OWN GROUPS..

    As to Equality of the electoral…
    Consider population density..there is 10 TIMES as many people in large cities as there are in Many STATES…
    It only takes 13 states to elect a president?? REALLY? why? POPULATION in those states.
    The problem here tends to be the Electoral…Even if 1 person voted, THAT states electoral would all goto 1 person..not a percentage…
    The Electoral SHOULD represent the VOTES in a state of the TOTAL percentage of the Cits…and it does NOT..
    If it did, then over 1/2 of the electoral would be BLANK/0’/NO VOTE..which would be Fine, for me..it would show the discontent of the nation..
    The Way it is now…you could give 1 vote to each State, for an electoral…51% voted for this person, and EACH STATE would be represented, Fairly. but would also get candidates to WANT more then 13 states to get elected…they would need to campaign in Every state…not just 13..

    We can debate this all we want, but they will NOT listen, Fix, alter the way they have corrupted it..

    • ECA, just on moral grounds, the place in which you live should not allow you to enter the voting booth 3 times while I only get to enter once.

      It’s morally repugnant.

      That said, you seem to think that people in cities are voting for some “Urban Party” while people in rural areas are voting for some “Rural Party” and people in the burbs must choose between them.

      This is not how it works.

      In reality, there is a party I’ll call Electrolux that has the most powerfully sucking vacuum ever created to suck money up from poor and middle class people and dump it’s wealth laden bag into the pockets of billionaires.

      And, there’s a party I’ll call Dirt Devil. Dirt Devil also sucks money from the middle class to give to the wealthy. But, they haven’t been doing it as long and still keep up some facade of protecting the middle class from the uber-wealthy. Dirt Devil tends to crap out, and often fails to do anything useful at all. But, at least they’re less bad at sucking up all the money.

      Humorously, Electrolux in this crappy metaphor calls itself the Grand Old Vacuum but is actually a younger party than Dirt Devil.

      So, who would vote for Electrolux?

      • Wall Street bankers in New York City
      • Coal executives and shareholders
      • Oil executives and shareholders
      • Big Agriculture executives and shareholders
      • Pharmaceutical executives and shareholders
      • Other multi-millionaires and billionaires I’ve neglected to mention

      Well, that probably doesn’t sound like enough people to elect a candidate. So, the zillionaires had a plan. They convinced a whole bunch of people from all walks of life, but especially from rural areas, that if they voted with Wall Street, they’d also be getting conservative Christian values such as the ability to discriminate against races you don’t like, the ability to keep those people out of the voting booths, the ability to rape women with impunity, the ability to force women (including rape victims) to bear children and otherwise be kept barefoot and pregnant through a range of misogynistic policies, the ability to insert their religion into public schools, and guns guns and more guns … just as Christ intended.

      These distraction issues (for the billionaires) worked incredibly well to get a whole bunch of we the idiots to vote against our own economic interest in having a functioning middle class in the U.S.A.

      So, the party you think of as the Urban Party is really a party that still at least pretends (however badly) to pander to the middle class, to small businesses, to small farmers, etc. And, there’s the party you think of as the Rural Party who sweeps through your state like a tornado leaving death, destruction, lack of education, lack of health care, and polluted drinking water behind.

      So, there’s really no Urban Party with a bunch of high-falootin’ city folk voting for to destroy rural life and no Rural Party with a bunch of good-ole-boy farmers and workers supporting it for the purpose of eking out a better middle class life.

      What there is, is a class war.

      You’re incredibly distracted if you think that there is a party that benefits rural areas at the expense of cities or a party that benefits cities at the expense of rural areas. These choices do not exist.

      What does exist is a party of the uber-wealthy that has also brought xenophobic, racist, misogynistic assholes under its tent in a concerted effort to get these people to forget that they’re voting for the people who are stealing their lunch money.

      Land doesn’t vote. People vote. And, no one person is intrinsically more valuable than another. This is key to and crucial to democracy.

      That you do not support that means you are not democratic.

      Since you are not a moron and are not distracted by wanting to install security systems in women’s vaginas to make God happy, you are probably voting for the lesser evil, just as we high-falootin’ city folk do. Your good-ole-boy neighbors are likely mostly just trying (since I know what state you’re in) to buy up a shit-ton of guns and kill some wolves to take their mind off the fact that they just voted for Satan, the head of the Electrolux Money-Sucking Party to come and steal all of their money, make their farms go bankrupt, and replace them with Archer Daniels Midland farms spraying Monsanto brand glyphosate on county sized plots of land to grow toxic corn that has soaked up the glyphosate in its kernels and feed it both to you and to the cattle you eat.

      Rural middle class people and urban middle class people want the same thing, a tiny piece of the pie on which they can live and put food on their families. Rural and middle class people are both people.

      One person; one vote.

      Your rural redneck with a shotgun shooting ducks and the occasional neighbor is of no greater value than an urban Bernie Goetz who just wants to protect himself on the subway and shoot the occasional neighbor.

      Neither of them should be voting Repugnican.

  5. otto says:

    16% of the U.S. population lives outside the nation’s Metropolitan Statistical Areas. Rural America has voted 60% Republican. None of the 10 most rural states matter now.

    The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 15% of the population of the United States. 16% of the U.S. population lives in the top 100 cities. They voted 63% Democratic in 2004.

    Suburbs divide almost exactly equally between Republicans and Democrats.

    • Adding to this, New York State is always viewed as if it encompassed New York City and nothing else. But, the truth is that more than half of the states residents live in the vast area that we city folk call simply “upstate”, which stretches from about 1 hour out of the city for about 300 miles towards Montreal and for about 360 miles towards Buffalo.

      “Upstate” is generally staunchly republican. But since there are some Democrats up there and a whole lot Republicans in the city and its suburbs, the state as a whole ends up being fairly evenly split. Pataki was the Republican governor of New York State for 12 years.

      New Jersey, where I sheepishly must admit to living now even though I still self-identify as a New Yorker, has also had Republican governors and has one now. You may have heard of our current governor, Bridge Bridgie.

  6. otto says:

    With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with a mere 23% of the nation’s votes!

    But, the size of the population of where you live, does not determine how much, if at all, your vote matters.
    Candidates ignore California, New York, Georgia, New Jersey, Illinois

    Analysts concluded months ago that only the 2016 party winner of Florida (29 electoral votes), Ohio (18), Virginia (13), Colorado (9), Nevada (6), Iowa (6) and New Hampshire (4) is not a foregone conclusion.

    One analyst is predicting two million voters in seven counties are going to determine who wins the presidency in 2016.

    The indefensible reality is that more than 99% of presidential campaign attention (ad spending and visits) was invested on voters in just the only ten competitive states, of all sizes, in 2012.

    Two-thirds (176 of 253) of the general-election campaign events, and a similar fraction of campaign expenditures, were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Iowa).

    38 states had no campaign events, and minuscule or no spending for TV ads.

  7. otto says:

    A nationwide presidential campaign of polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits, with every voter equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods. The big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami do not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida. In the 4 states that accounted for over two-thirds of all general-election activity in the 2012 presidential election, rural areas, suburbs, exurbs, and cities all received attention—roughly in proportion to their population.

    The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states, including polling, organizing, and ad spending) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows. When and where every voter is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.

    With National Popular Vote, when every voter is equal, everywhere, it makes sense for presidential candidates to try and elevate their votes where they are and aren’t so well liked. But, under the state-by-state winner-take-all laws, it makes no sense for a Democrat to try and do that in Vermont or Wyoming, or for a Republican to try it in Wyoming or Vermont.

    • I think I’d feel even worse about this if I felt that politicians actually did anything specifically in the states that matter after the election. At least I’m cynical enough to believe that they only represent their constituency … i.e. their large campaign contributors.

      • otto says:

        Bush White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer acknowledging the reality that [then] more than 2/3rds of Americans were ignored in the 2008 presidential campaign, said:
        “If people don’t like it, they can move from a safe state to a swing state.”

        The number and population of battleground states is shrinking.

        Issues of importance to non-battleground states are of so little interest to presidential candidates that they don’t even bother to poll them.

        Charlie Cook reported in 2004:
        “Senior Bush campaign strategist Matthew Dowd pointed out yesterday that the Bush campaign hadn’t taken a national poll in almost two years; instead, it has been polling [the then] 18 battleground states.”

        Policies important to the citizens of non-battleground states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

        “Battleground” states receive 7% more federal grants than “spectator” states, twice as many presidential disaster declarations, more Superfund enforcement exemptions, and more No Child Left Behind law exemptions.

        Compare the response to hurricane Katrina (in Louisiana, a “safe” state) to the federal response to hurricanes in Florida (a “swing” state) under Presidents of both parties. President Obama took more interest in the BP oil spill, once it reached Florida’s shores, after it had first reached Louisiana. Some pandering policy examples include ethanol subsidies, steel tariffs, and Medicare Part D. Policies not given priority, include those most important to non-battleground states – like water issues in the west.

      • You just couldn’t leave me in blissful ignorance, nor even the content cynicism.

        Thanks for the depressing info.

  8. otto says:

    Most Americans don’t ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. We don’t allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

    Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed recently. In the 41 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range – in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.

    More than 2,710 state legislators (in 50 states) have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the National Popular Vote bill.

    The National Popular Vote bill has passed 34 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 261 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), New Mexico (5), North Carolina (15), and Oklahoma (7), and both houses in Colorado (9).

    The bill has been enacted by 11 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

    NationalPopularVote.com

    • Most Americans don’t ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House.

      I’d echo that sentiment as well as the one about feeling that my vote mattered … or at least was counted.

      As it stands today, unless either candidate won by one vote in my state, my vote made no difference. Sure it got tallied in the popular vote. How much good did that do in 2000?

  9. ECA says:

    tHE 5 major METRO AREAS…

    1 New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 20,182,305 19,567,410 +3.14% New York-Newark, NY-NJ-CT-PA Combined Statistical Area

    2 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 13,340,068 12,828,837 +3.99% Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA Combined Statistical Area

    3 Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN-WI Metropolitan Statistical Area 9,551,031 9,461,105 +0.95% Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI Combined Statistical Area

    4 Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 7,102,796 6,426,214 +10.53% Dallas-Fort Worth, TX-OK Combined Statistical Area

    5 Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, TX Metropolitan
    Statistical Area 6,656,947 5,920,416 +12.44% Houston-The Woodlands, TX Combined Statistical Area

    Math time..
    20 million
    12.8 million
    09.4 million
    06.4 million
    06.6 million
    53 million people is NOT 6%
    A voting population of 240 million..means that is 1/4 of the voting population.. AND they estimate 53% voted last election(I would contest that, at 30%) at 53% the population would STILL be a 1/8 OF THE PEOPLE but percentages ALWAYS stay the same 25%..

    STATE Pop:
    http://www.enchantedlearning.com/usa/states/population.shtml
    PICK one…those 5 cities, have more people then EVERY STATE..
    And the TOP 2, out number all but 6 states…individually…

    • You put an awful lot of fairly rural suburbs into those numbers you lumped together as city folk. Those people are voting right alongside your gun-toting neighbors for the Repugnican candidate. Does it matter whether they drive their Naggravators to the mall or whether they drive their pickups to the border of the national park to shoot wolves?

      They all decided their interests were the same in the voting booth. They all voted for racism, misogyny, xenophobia, gush-up Reaganomics, voter ID laws, abstinence only sex-ed, lower minimum wage, shutting down social security and medicare (even if they use them), and a host of other things that benefit Wall Street and gazillionaires.

      Metropolitan statistical areas include some pretty rural places.

      And, inside the big square states, there are still cities. So, voting by state isn’t going to change anything anyway.

    • otto says:

      None of the 10 most rural states matter now.

      16% of the U.S. population lives outside the nation’s Metropolitan Statistical Areas.
      Rural America has voted 60% Republican.

      The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 15% of the population of the United States. 16% of the U.S. population lives in the top 100 cities.
      They voted 63% Democratic in 2004.

      So, the biggest cities are almost exactly balanced out by rural areas in terms of population and partisan composition.

      Suburbs divide almost exactly equally between Republicans and Democrats.

      Big cities do not always control the outcome of elections. The governors and U.S. Senators are not all Democratic in every state with a significant city.

      Even in California state-wide elections, candidates for governor or U.S. Senate don’t poll, organize, buy ads, and visit just in Los Angeles and San Francisco, and those places don’t control the outcome (otherwise California wouldn’t have recently had Republican governors Reagan, Dukemejian, Wilson, and Schwarzenegger). A vote in rural Alpine county is just as important as a vote in Los Angeles. If Los Angeles cannot control statewide elections in California, it can hardly control a nationwide election.

      In fact, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland together cannot control a statewide election in California.

      Similarly, Republicans dominate Texas politics without carrying big cities such as Dallas and Houston.

      There are numerous other examples of Republicans who won races for governor and U.S. Senator in other states that have big cities (e.g., New York, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts) without ever carrying the big cities of their respective states.

  10. ECA says:

    “Popular Vote bill”

    It was a BILL, and the people didnt VOTE on it..
    THEY VOTED IT to close down any chance to use a popular vote..it was only popular among THEM…not US..

    PS… I would prefer if you said things on your OWN, and your OWN opinion..not this undigested political BS..

    • Who the fuck is Us and Them??!!?

      There is no Them. There is only Us. All homo sapiens on this planet are incredibly closely related. 70-80,000 years ago we went through an evolutionary bottle-neck. There were only 2-7,000 people on the whole planet.

      We’re all Us. We’re all close cousins.

      You said, “PS… I would prefer if you said things on your OWN, and your OWN opinion..not this undigested political BS..

      ECA, please take a look in the mirror. You act as if you are speaking for every would-be farmer that Archer Daniels Midland has put out of business. You don’t. Why don’t you try speaking for yourself?

      Just say it. You personally want your vote to count for three of my votes.

      You want that. Not all of the bankrupt would-be farmers who voted to make themselves bankrupt because it benefited Monsanto, ADM, and Wall Street.

      And, if bankrupt farmers are intrinsically worth so much more to you than city folk, why don’t the former farmers think so? Why don’t they vote for a higher minimum wage and medicare for all?

      Most of these rural residents you claim to speak for are voting for Wall Street’s uber-wealthy to take more of their own hard-earned dollars. It’s an abusive relationship and they just keep coming back for more.

    • otto says:

      Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1
      “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.”

    • otto says:

      Of the Top Ten States by total agricultural receipts (by largest to smallest), which provided over half of the total of the U.S, Total Agricultural Receipts Ranked by State from StuffAboutStates.com which were surveyed recently, support for a national popular vote was CA – 70% (enacted the National Popular Vote), IA – 75%, NE – 67%, MN – 75%, IL (enacted), NC – 74%, WI – 71%, and FL – 78%.

  11. ECA says:

    Do you want to go back to the 60’s and 70’s and discuss HOW they bankrupted the farms??
    The Corps STOPPED buying food, and made an artificial, Scarcity..Forcing price up…This was done so farmers couldnt meet their bills…and lost the farms.
    WHO OWNS the farms?? A good share of them are owned by BANKS and CORPS..
    Farmers dont care about min wage, they never paid it, as they never were paid enough. Average price on the stock market is 0.03 per pound for most commodities..Goto the store and find a 5lb bag of grass…and tell me its worth 15 cents.
    Goto the frozen food section and look at a 1lb bag of veggies..look at all the different prices.. If you can get it at $1.50 feel Lucky..you are only paying 50 TIMES the stock price.
    Farms used to have 50-100 people managing and do things around the farm…NOW?5-10..
    Cheap labor?? NOPE..They dont want the jobs..KIDS dont want the jobs, Very FEW want those jobs…
    Working in a dairy, can get you $10-15 per hour..easy, if you like the Muck..There are allot of parts to this…its not the farmer alone..it the processors and the gatherers(major equipment gets rented and picks everything, almost automated) the processor ships to OTHER processors like Birdeye..and repackaged,,, In the old days, it was FRESH and shipped to STORE distributions…

    NOW let me ask…HOW close is the nearest voting booth to the farmer?? we are talking from 2-20 miles…I think he has other things on his mind.

    Otto, I love percentages..they say so much without a basis..the basis is HOW MANY FARMERS VOTED…no one else. If you dont have BASE numbers a percentage means very little.

    Dont look up Voter fraud on youtube…its full.

    • Do you want to go back to the 60’s and 70’s and discuss HOW they bankrupted the farms??

      In all honesty, no.

      I’d much rather discuss that it was the people whose farms were bankrupted who voted for the people who implemented the policies that bankrupted them.

      While I would agree that the Democraps suck, they are far far better than the Repugnicans. I would love another option. But, these are the two we’re stuck with.

      Repugnicans, even pre-Reagan, were solidly pro-big business and anti-small business and actual human beings even then. And, it was the people in middle America who voted them in.

      So, if we’re going to talk about giving these people more representation, how about if we also educate them in the numerous ways in which they continue to vote against their own self-interest due to deliberate distraction issues like abortion and school prayer?

      You worry about them being represented. Why not worry about them being lied to and used and abused? Why not worry about the fact that such people are in an abusive relationship with their elected officials and just keep coming back for more beatings?

  12. Just maybe the way out of that mess is for like minded people to form another national political party of independents or non aligned, or what ever label! This how many other countries including Canada try to divide and conquer the two old line parties!

    • Good idea. IMHO, three major parties would be far better than two. And, twelve would be better still.

      But, my personal preference is still for zero political parties.

      I want to vote for human beings, not a cadre of puppet-masters ensuring that all candidates in the party meet certain guidelines. Or in the case of the Republican Party today, that all candidates are complete mind-clones agreeing on every single issue.

      • ECA says:

        i WOULD LOVE IT..
        What I find entertaining, is all the other Democratic based nations, DONT have 2 groups…they have MANY groups to represent EVERYONE..and in many of those nations, EACH group has to be represented in a congress…

        And its entertaining to watch even Japan and other nations in a heated debate, Throwing things, and Yelling at each other..

      • Sounds cool. Fist fights beat filibusters, especially now that our senators don’t even need to keep talking. They just say filibuster and they’re done. I want the full protocol of talking ’til you drop … then the filibuster ends. I have no idea why as soon as the Repugnicans say they’re going to filibuster, the Democraps just say “Oh well. I guess we lose then.” It’s fucking pathetic … and pathetic is not enjoying it.

      • ECA says:

        leTS ASK…
        A person that works 6 months of the year, and takes about 1/2 day off to CALL and get contributions…PAYS to be in a CLUB(yes they pay to STAY an elected official), Lies, Cheats, Steals…Does not tell his constituents ANYTHING…gets re-elected over and over and over…even tho nothing gets done in his STATE…
        And gets over $150,000 per years from those that elected him, and van VOTE himself more…not asking it from his OWN state..

  13. ECA says:

    What I find funny, is that MANKIND thinks he/she/it can do a better job of taking care of the world. And FAILS almost every time..
    MOST of the problems we have were CREATED by us..
    Using plastics rather then Bamboo..
    Using nylon and polys, rather then Hemp
    Taking Wood, making PULP, to make Fake wood..
    Shipping it over seas to be made into products, to be shipped BACK, to be made for sale.. is labor REALLY that cheap in other nations?? WHY??
    we would rather STRIP our nation for TRADE, and make money selling to others, buying it back CHEAP, and selling it asif, it was made in the USA.,..
    we would rather pollute other nations then our OWN…

    MOST of our problems are OURS..what happens in 1 area of the planet, can affect MANY…
    we would rather take Gas/oil from other nations, then to use our OWN…only for the reason that, when they RUN OUT, we can sell OURS to them for higher prices..which is strange…as its reported that MOST oil in the USA, we ship OUT, because its the wrong kind and has to much sulfur in it..

    This is getting to convoluted…
    LETS just say it this way…FEW animals SPIT in there own yards…they would rather do it in the neighbors, and not have to deal with it..Those animals that DO spit in there own yards, tend to get to a point, they MOVE AWAY from it, or DIE in it…from disease or pestilence..

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: