Comments on: Want Your Vote Counted? Vote Republican

By: coffeestainednews

coffeestainednews — Tue, 06 May 2008 04:43:08 +0000

“I’m considering not voting anymore as it is probably a waste of time and hope, and I wish I had the power to convince all Americans to boycott presidential elections until we elect the head honcho by popular vote.”

I’d stand with you in a heart beat for that!

Many young people enter into with a belief that their vote could really make a change, become the deciding factor as to who will become president - only to realized they were disillusioned.

Our Voting Process is bullshit. If the superdelegates fork over the nomination to HRC i’m not casting a vote for president. I’m not on that ‘Lesser of 2 Evils’ - Willie Lynch is dead!

By: Karen

Karen — Sat, 03 May 2008 02:30:19 +0000

Brad K:
perhaps the good city folk in Tulsa and Oaklahoma City have heard of the concepts of compassion, treating animals kindly, not letting their natural instincts run wild to shorten their lives. Perhaps you should watch more TV yourself, and for gambling you might take up online poker. At least there, the participants can be expected to be there by choice.

By: Karen

Karen — Sat, 03 May 2008 02:22:20 +0000

At least, with staggered primaries, politicians get to attempt to focus on issues important to people of a particular state. Campaigning probably does accomplish something. Were everyone to vote on the same day, the only reasonable campaigning a pol could do would be via the media… and media presentations are edited by producers and other individuals who want spin the message.

On the other hand, the electoral college is absolutely ridiculous. Popular vote should determine each party’s nominee, and also the winner of the general election. Eliminating the electoral vote would also make subtle vote-counting fraud in a close state far less meaningful. A 50.5/45.5 split would not give an entire state’s votes to one individual.

By: Brad K

Brad K — Fri, 02 May 2008 23:32:20 +0000

I think you are missing the point of the US Constitution. The Bill of Rights sets out how to make things work.

Step 1 is to expect the government to work, to serve the people and keep the nation safe.

Step 2 If Step 1 fails, sue for redress of grievance. You can write your congressmen, the President, or your local dog catcher. You can write the New York flaming Times. You can hire a congressional lobbyist (or a congressman or senator or three). These are all quicker and cheaper than suing for redress of grievance, but you never know.

Step 3, the 2nd Amendment to the Bill of Rights, and one humongous part of the reason the various states voted to ratify the Constitution - if Step 2 fails, pick up your gun and blow the current, tyrannical government away. That is, “When in the course of human events ..”

Step 2 and Step 3, because they exist, help keep pressure on for Step 1 to work. I am thinking we are still bobbling somewhere between Step 1 and Step 2. It sounds like you might be closer to Step 2 than I am.

As for the ’silly’ woman. Here in Oklahoma, the good city folk in Tulsa and Oklahoma City watch too much TV, and just don’t know what the heck a chicken is. Well, they watched the highly paid tree huggers looking for a cause to keep their names in the papers - and Tulsa and OKC sold out - voted to ban cockfighting in Oklahoma. Essentially two counties swung the whole state.

I could easily envision an intermediate step to doing away with the electoral college - let the number and assignment of votes stand as they are now. Only take the ‘electors’ out, and use the answers. In 1800 it took some dude riding pretty steady to get from the outer states to Washington, DC, to settle up and make a president, and there was no time to check with the folks back home if something went awry. That is no longer true. We no longer need the people in the loop, nor the distractions of voting rules and who is bound to do what. Would that help any?