# The spoiled-brat American electorate



## Dak (Feb 28, 2005)

Excellent piece. Thanks for posting.


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

Praire tornado......

Eliminating our electoral college!!!! Are you sure you want California, New York, Florida and Texas to elect the president???

Pretty far out. You are a true far reaching Libratard. Trying to sneak a few things by us :rollin:


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

> In order to vote, a prospective American voter needs to pass a very simple 25 question test about how our democracy works. The questions would be random taken from a publically available pool of 100 questions. The questions would be very easy and straightforward for anyone who has taken a basic civics class, can read English, and has taken an hour to review questions. Provided you get a 70% on the test you would be able to vote. 70% is not a very high mark to achieve, thereby ensuring that anyone with a small modicum of basic American civics knowledge would pass, but it would eliminate uniformed voting by those who have an opinion, but really don't have a clue.


damn.......there goes the plan for the 12 mil illegals from Mexico! :rollin:


----------



## jacobsol80 (Aug 12, 2008)

Prairiewind said:


> I have done some more thinking about this overnight and I believe we need to also add one more important change to our American democratic system.
> 
> In order to vote, a prospective American voter needs to pass a very simple 25 question test about how our democracy works. The questions would be random taken from a publically available pool of 100 questions. The questions would be very easy and straightforward for anyone who has taken a basic civics class, can read English, and has taken an hour to review questions. Provided you get a 70% on the test you would be able to vote. 70% is not a very high mark to achieve, thereby ensuring that anyone with a small modicum of basic American civics knowledge would pass, but it would eliminate uniformed voting by those who have an opinion, but really don't have a clue.
> 
> How old are you? Haven't heard of the voting rights act of 1965? In short. WE CAN'T DO THAT!


----------



## jacobsol80 (Aug 12, 2008)

Prairiewind said:


> I think the solution to fix many of the issues outlined in the article above starts with serious governmental reform.
> 
> First and foremost, I think we need to revamp the rules for elected officials.
> 
> ...


Three terms is too many. Limit it to two, just like the POTUS.

Pay the congressman/senators what they are worth. Say $2 million a year. Then require them to be subject to ALL laws they pass and don't allow them to take ANY compensation from ANYONE for ANY reason.

I'm with you if we include UNIONS in the campaign financing prohibition.

Eliminating the electoral college as it is currently being proposed is not a good idea.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> In order to vote, a prospective American voter needs to pass a very simple 25 question test about how our democracy works.


Well since we are a republic I don't agree. I also don't agree, because who is going to decide what the right answers are. I'll tell you who should vote. The people who bring a copy of last years taxes, and if they didn't pay any they don't vote. Those are the people who make this nation work. The others are freeloaders living of those who pay the taxes.


----------



## floortrader (Feb 5, 2009)

Who hired this idiot to change the world. He can't even create some jobs.


----------



## kohler (Sep 10, 2010)

Because of the state-by-state winner-take-all electoral votes laws (i.e., awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) in 48 states, a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in 4 of the nation's 56 (1 in 14) presidential elections. Near misses are now frequently common. A shift of 60,000 votes in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of 3,500,000 votes.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Elections wouldn't be about winning states. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. Every vote would be counted for and assist the candidate for whom it was cast - just as votes from every county are equal and important when a vote is cast in a Governor's race. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.

Now 2/3rds of the states and voters are ignored -- North Dakota, among 19 of the 22 smallest and medium-small states -- and big states like California, Georgia, New York, and Texas. The current winner-take-all laws used by 48 of the 50 states, and not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution, ensures that the candidates do not reach out to all of the states and their voters. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. Policies important to the citizens of 'flyover' states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to 'battleground' states when it comes to governing.

The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes--that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for president. It does not abolish the Electoral College, which would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action, without federal constitutional amendments.

The bill has been endorsed or voted for by 1,922 state legislators (in 50 states) who have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.

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). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. Support for a national popular vote is strong in virtually every state, partisan, and demographic group surveyed in recent polls in closely divided battleground states: Colorado-- 68%, Iowa --75%, Michigan-- 73%, Missouri-- 70%, New Hampshire-- 69%, Nevada-- 72%, New Mexico-- 76%, North Carolina-- 74%, Ohio-- 70%, Pennsylvania -- 78%, Virginia -- 74%, and Wisconsin -- 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Alaska -- 70%, DC -- 76%, Delaware --75%, Maine -- 77%, Nebraska -- 74%, New Hampshire --69%, Nevada -- 72%, New Mexico -- 76%, Rhode Island -- 74%, and Vermont -- 75%; in Southern and border states: Arkansas --80%, Kentucky -- 80%, Mississippi --77%, Missouri -- 70%, North Carolina -- 74%, and Virginia -- 74%; and in other states polled: California -- 70%, Connecticut -- 74% , Massachusetts -- 73%, Minnesota -- 75%, New York -- 79%, Washington -- 77%, and West Virginia- 81%.

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 30 state legislative chambers, in 20 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas (6), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), Maine (4), Michigan (17), Nevada (5), New Mexico (5), New York (31), North Carolina (15), and Oregon (7), and both houses in California (55), Colorado (9), Hawaii (4), Illinois (21), New Jersey (15), Maryland (10), Massachusetts (12), Rhode Island (4), Vermont (3), and Washington (11). The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington. These six states possess 73 electoral votes -- 27% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com


----------



## fhalum (Oct 7, 2008)

Plainsman said:


> I also don't agree, because who is going to decide what the right answers are.


I think the kind of test he was referring to would be one that would have clear-cut answers, rather than opinions - a test about how our democracy works. Maybe it would be multiple choice questions such as "What are the three branches of our government?" or "Which of the following is explicitly prohibited in the Bill of Rights?" I think questions like that would have a very definite answer that conservatives and liberals alike could agree on.



Plainsman said:


> I'll tell you who should vote. The people who bring a copy of last years taxes, and if they didn't pay any they don't vote. Those are the people who make this nation work. The others are freeloaders living of those who pay the taxes.


In theory, perhaps. But if you are referring to income tax alone, you would be eliminating a large number of people, even though they may have held steady jobs all year. Wasn't it something like 40% of American households that paid no federal income tax for 2009 due to various deductions and credits? And that isn't just the lower-income population, either. A family of 4 making up to $50,000 could still pay no federal income tax. Using last year's return would eliminate a large percentage of the country from voting - many of them from middle class households. However, even though they may not have paid federal income tax, they likely paid Social Security taxes, sales tax, etc. Would those count?

What about my wife? Would she be able to vote? She's a homemaker, so she hasn't worked outside the home in over five years. No payroll taxes. No income tax. No Social Security taxes. Would she be allowed to vote, or would she be considered a freeloader?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Wasn't it something like 40% of American households that paid no federal income tax for 2009 due to various deductions and credits?


I don't know if it was that much, but if it was doesn't it concern you that it will near 50% soon. When it does it will not be hard to figure out what will happen. It will simiply become another form of slavery. It could turn into 30% of the productive paying the way for 70% of the people. When the majority find they can vote themselves wealth we will become a full fledged socialist or communist country.



> What about my wife?


Do you file together? Does your family contribute to the United States, or do they live off it?

I understand that there are people who don't pay any taxes that are conservative just like me, but they are a minority. I know that some of those would vote for America before they vote for themselves, but not many. When they walk in that booth and think if they pull the conservative lever the government boob may get ripped from my mouth. If I pull the liberal lever, I may get another ten grand for doing nothing.

Both parties buy votes. This is how they do it: The liberals tax the productive and use those taxes to buy the vote of the lazy. The conservatives creat tax breaks to let the productive keep more of the money they earned. Now I ask which is more greedy, wanting to keep what you have earned, or using a liberal politician like a gun to rob your productive neighbor and get money from him you have done nothing to earn?


----------



## Rajun Cajun (Sep 5, 2010)

Plainsman said:


> > In order to vote, a prospective American voter needs to pass a very simple 25 question test about how our democracy works.
> 
> 
> Well since we are a republic I don't agree. I also don't agree, because who is going to decide what the right answers are. I'll tell you who should vote. The people who bring a copy of last years taxes, and if they didn't pay any they don't vote. Those are the people who make this nation work. The others are freeloaders living of those who pay the taxes.


I TOTALLY AGREE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## floortrader (Feb 5, 2009)

Is Prairewind just more hot air from a left wing liberal wacko. Now that's name calling.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I don't think that is name calling. The far right and far left fringes have some extremists. Like you I think they are not mentally balanced. If you choose to call that wacko I get your drift. I think Obama is a far left extremist. To be as far left as he is you have to be out of touch with reality. Of course there are a lot of liberals that think that communism has not worked, because they were not in charge. I hope every nation full of idiots don't have to be communist for 100 years just to prove it to themselves. 
I think Obama is racist, Marxist, hates capitalism, hates America as it is currently etc. He is unbalanced or evil. Or Muslim/Marxist would explain it. Whatever, what we see is not what we get. He is hiding his belief system (whatever it is) because he knows the vast majority of America would not accept it.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

Where did Breakwind go? :wink:

Plainsman, you have a way of putting things that are so easy to understand that I'm sure many here find themsleves saying..."why didn't I think of that?" But I hope everyone catches your comment above where you said a lot of liberals think the only reason communism didn't work is because they weren't in charge, because that says SO MUCH about how their minds work. Just search archived posts from the liberals on here and one thing you will note right off the bat is, generally speaking, they are based on "because I said so", and much more often than not the posters become very scarce when they are pressed for facts to back up their statements and/or beliefs.


----------

