Tell it like it is

5 posts / 0 new
Last post
pmconusa
Online
Last seen: 3 min 30 sec ago
Joined: 04/20/2000 - 12:01am
Tell it like it is

There are 261 million people in the United States over the age of 18. In the 2016 Presidential election fewer than 135 million voted. The winner got over 62 million votes and the loser 65 million. Why didn’t the one with the most votes win? Because the system is rigged to give the more populous state voters an edge. In fact, if the candidate won the popular vote by 1 vote in each of the top 12 most populous states and the remainder all voted for his opponent, the loser could theoretically get over twice as many votes. It has been legally morphed into a system where only a candidate from either the Republican or Democrat parties can be elected President. We now are faced with two parties, both promising the same thing that neither can deliver.
Trump was assured a chance of getting some Democrat votes regardless of their party affiliation because he assured everyone he would do nothing to eliminate the predominant entitlement program, Social Security and Medicare. The truth is it is these entitlement programs that will ultimately bring down our political and economic system as we know it.
People are clamoring for a change, but who are these people? They are the upper middle class who bear the brunt of the tax and debt burden and are seeing taxes take a higher percentage of their income. They were the ones who flocked to Trump because he was going to do something to reduce their tax burden. He was also perceived as an uncorrupted outsider.
Hillary Clinton’s reputation was further reduced by the actual exposure of her corrupt dealings and as a corrupt politician caused her to fall to nearly the bottom of the pack. Had the Democrats nominated Bernie Sanders instead, I believe he would have won in a landslide. He would have gotten the youth vote with the possibility he would forgive their student loans. Even Hillary did not go that far.
The crisis we now face is that those in power are perceived to have won unfairly. They did, not because of any involvement of the Russians or anyone else, but they played the system better than the opposition and because of the inequality of the value of votes, won. The divide between the haves and those who have more will not change because it is a fatal characteristic of our economic system and the politicians of both parties have assured us they will not.
The 126 million who did not vote were indifferent because they have come to realize that it doesn’t matter whether you vote for a Republican or Democrat, the toothpaste is out of the tube and nothing is going to put it back. Why waste your time voting if it is not going to make a difference? If they were given a choice of none of the above, it would have won in a landslide.

Melvin Udall
Offline
Last seen: 59 min 56 sec ago
Joined: 05/01/2002 - 12:01am
Not sure whether this rates a

Not sure whether this rates a TOR alert, but this statement:

"Because the system is rigged to give the more populous state voters an edge."

gives me pause. You use "rigged" when the system was "designed" as I see it, and is memorialized in the Constitution, is it not? Are you suggesting that the Constitution should be abandoned when you find it "rigged" things, and otherwise enshrined and enforced when you do choose?

How convenient. Sounds like you are ready for office.

By the way, I just read that as to the popular vote last November, HRC won California and New York by a combined 5 million votes, and lost the rest of the country by more than 2 million. She also won 92 percent of the vote in the District of Columbia.

The article reminds us just how different these two states..."the headquarters of every major media outlet in the nation"....are from the rest of the nation.

Bruce Libby
Offline
Last seen: 15 min 6 sec ago
Joined: 01/17/2006 - 7:08pm
ustthink how muchbetter of we

Just think how much better off we would be if pm...... was sitting beside Ruth "Buzzy" Ginsburg on the SCOTUS,
or just more frigged up!

pmconusa
Online
Last seen: 3 min 30 sec ago
Joined: 04/20/2000 - 12:01am
According to Webster, one of

According to Webster, one of rig's meanings is to arrange in a dishonest way. You are right, the framers designed the Constitution to favor those who hold or held elective office, which at the time of the founding, was a very small cadre of the population, about 6% if you believe the population count. Design has a much nicer connotation but in the case of the real meaning as used in the Constitution, rigged is a pretty good synonym for designed.

It was done this way to obviate the possibility of anyone, not of the elected class, ever getting the office of President or Vice President. This subtlety is lost on those who have become victims of the Progressive movement who believe Democracy means majority rule and why you now have a large body of the electorate who believe they have been cheated out of their candidate.

Having emasculated the vast majority of the Constitution to their own ends, neither Republicans nor Democrats want the Constitution's voting system abolished because it would allow someone like a Ross Perot to actually get elected if it were purely by popular vote. It is why the idiots in Maine are falling for the rank choice voting method pushed by the party whose primaries, like the federal system, gives extra votes to members of the party hierarchy. They saw how Trump, won the Republican nomination and do not want a repeat.

Melvin Udall
Offline
Last seen: 59 min 56 sec ago
Joined: 05/01/2002 - 12:01am
So just where do you really

So just where do you really stand on the Constitution?

Log in to post comments