Texas Republicans propose State Electoral college

[Narland]

The proposal can be construed as undemocratic, but it is Constitutional -- the US is a Constitutional Federal Republic in Union of member States. The US Constitution guarantees a republican form of government to every State. In a Constitutional Republic the Citizen has three civic votes -- the vote at the ballot, the vote at the grand jury, and the vote at the petite jury. The Citizen also has three civil votes with his opinion -- the vote with the soap box, the vote with the ballot box, and when that fails the vote with the ammo box.

It seems a good way to stop cities from oppressing those in the rest of the state.

How would it be constitutional or democratic? It's a violation of one man one vote.

How are they oppressing the small towns and farms? Be specific.

Re: one man one vote myth. Please reread my post. The Supreme Court blew it on that one. The ballot vote is but one of a myriad of votes the a free people have in a free society -- i mentioned the three civic and three civil votes, and we also have economic votes -- we can vote with our labor (where we cast our productivity by choosing by, with and for whom we work), our wallet (where we cast the fruit of our labor in currency) and our feet (where we live and travel and have our dwelling). It is a despotism such as a police state (or judges legislating from the bench in violation of their oaths of office) that wants to constrain the People to one mere vote at preferable with a rigged ballot box. One only has to look at history of brutal totalitarian regimes that let their subjected play-things vote to give an illusion of freedom and self-determination (self-governance).

The state of Oregon is an example where a few counties with urban population decide for the rest of the state the statutes by which they will live despite the preponderance of rural voters who have diverse interests, concerns and concepts of what constitutes good legislation. In the political-culture war the urban centers shove their legislation through so inconsiderately that not a few times the legislators of the rural counties refuse to show up for there to be a quorum.

[San Lumen]

How would it be constitutional or democratic? It's a violation of one man one vote.

How are they oppressing the small towns and farms? Be specific.

Re: one man one vote myth. Please reread my post. The Supreme Court blew it on that one. The ballot vote is but one of a myriad of votes the a free people have in a free society -- i mentioned the three civic and three civil votes, and we also have economic votes -- we can vote with our labor (where we cast our productivity by choosing by, with and for whom we work), our wallet (where we cast the fruit of our labor in currency) and our feet (where we live and travel and have our dwelling). It is a despotism such as a police state (or judges legislating from the bench in violation of their oaths of office) that wants to constrain the People to one mere vote at preferable with a rigged ballot box. One only has to look at history of brutal totalitarian regimes that let their subjected play-things vote to give an illusion of freedom and self-determination (self-governance).

The state of Oregon is an example where a few counties with urban population decide for the rest of the state the statutes by which they will live despite the preponderance of

We ought to go back to a time when state senates were elected by counties? Do I really have to explain how unfair and undemocratic that is using Nevada as an example yet again?

[Fahran]

Why doesnt every state adopt this if its so great and all about balance?

Federalism and varied regional concerns.

Why do we have to balance anything?

Because ranchers and farmers are vital to Texas's economy, history, and culture and we don't want urban interests to predominate without at least some support from else-where. As I've pointed out previously, a lot of our local tax policies already excessively favor suburban areas.

Once again trees, cattle and dirt don't vote. People vote and if large cities outvote your little town too damm bad.

Except the senatorial districts have similar populations to one another. So it's not an issue of people being out-voted by trees. It's an issue of all the votes for a party coming from a handful of districts that cannot adequately represent the interests of the entire state.

[San Lumen]

Why doesnt every state adopt this if its so great and all about balance?

Federalism and varied regional concerns.

Why do we have to balance anything?

Because ranchers and farmers are vital to Texas's economy, history, and culture and we don't want urban interests to predominate without at least some support from else-where. As I've pointed out previously, a lot of our local tax policies already excessively favor suburban areas.

Once again trees, cattle and dirt don't vote. People vote and if large cities outvote your little town too damm bad.

Except the senatorial districts have similar populations to one another. So it's not an issue of people being out-voted by trees. It's an issue of all the votes for a party coming from a handful of districts that cannot adequately represent the interests of the entire state.

Who cares? Cattle, trees and dirt don't vote. People do and if those votes come from certain areas and give a candidate the most votes so be it. That's how a free and fair election works.

Texas elects an agriculture commissioner, should urban counties not be allowed to vote for that? By your logic they shouldnt since there are no farms in most if in not all of the urban counties

[Narland]

Re: one man one vote myth. Please reread my post. The Supreme Court blew it on that one. The ballot vote is but one of a myriad of votes the a free people have in a free society -- i mentioned the three civic and three civil votes, and we also have economic votes -- we can vote with our labor (where we cast our productivity by choosing by, with and for whom we work), our wallet (where we cast the fruit of our labor in currency) and our feet (where we live and travel and have our dwelling). It is a despotism such as a police state (or judges legislating from the bench in violation of their oaths of office) that wants to constrain the People to one mere vote at preferable with a rigged ballot box. One only has to look at history of brutal totalitarian regimes that let their subjected play-things vote to give an illusion of freedom and self-determination (self-governance).

The state of Oregon is an example where a few counties with urban population decide for the rest of the state the statutes by which they will live despite the preponderance of

We ought to go back to a time when state senates were elected by counties? Do I really have to explain how unfair and undemocratic that is using Nevada as an example yet again?

No, but the States do need to once again be represented in the Congress. The best way to do that is to repeal the Amendment and let the respective State Legislatures decide the best course of action for a return to Senatorial representation.

You keep using this word Democratic as though it is a good thing. Democracies are evil and must be tempered by constitutional representation, checks and balances, and division of powers in order to ameliorate their consistent impetus to mobocracy, corruption, injustice and outright totalitarianism.

Democracy is a weasel word that can mean different things. Murderous Communists consider themselves democratic. The Germans under that Austrian runt considered themselves democratic. Even North Korea thinks it is democratic. Democracies historically have failed without a strong bulwark to ameliorate its harm. Trying to turn the Unites States from a Constitutional Federal Republic into a mere democracy is foolhardy at best, and irreversibly ruinous at worst.

[San Lumen]

We ought to go back to a time when state senates were elected by counties? Do I really have to explain how unfair and undemocratic that is using Nevada as an example yet again?

No, but the State's do need to once again be represented in the Congress. The best way to do that is to repeal the Amendment and let the respective State Legislatures decide the best course of action for a return to Senatorial representation.

We are talking about state legislature here. What does the 17th amendment have to do with this?

[Narland]

Federalism and varied regional concerns.


Because ranchers and farmers are vital to Texas's economy, history, and culture and we don't want urban interests to predominate without at least some support from else-where. As I've pointed out previously, a lot of our local tax policies already excessively favor suburban areas.


Except the senatorial districts have similar populations to one another. So it's not an issue of people being out-voted by trees. It's an issue of all the votes for a party coming from a handful of districts that cannot adequately represent the interests of the entire state.

Who cares? Cattle, trees and dirt don't vote. People do and if those votes come from certain areas and give a candidate the most votes so be it. That's how a free and fair election works.

Texas elects an agriculture commissioner, should urban counties not be allowed to vote for that? By your logic they shouldnt since there are no farms in most if in not all of the urban counties

The People who cut our trees to build your houses, herd the cows, and grow your food from the dirt for you (so you do not have to) care. And this is the problem of Urban arrogance and why City folk who wouldn't know a mulberry from a hemlock have no business governing anything outside the jurisdiction of their concrete and steel towers.

[San Lumen]

Who cares? Cattle, trees and dirt don't vote. People do and if those votes come from certain areas and give a candidate the most votes so be it. That's how a free and fair election works.

Texas elects an agriculture commissioner, should urban counties not be allowed to vote for that? By your logic they shouldnt since there are no farms in most if in not all of the urban counties

The People who cut our trees to build your houses, herd the cows, and grow your food from the dirt for you (so you do not have to) care. And this is the problem of Urban arrogance and why City folk who wouldn't know a mulberry from a hemlock have no business governing anything outside the jurisdiction of their concrete and steel towers.

I do know a bit about plants as Im big into hiking so think before you make stupid comments like that.

Yeah how dare anyone not in small town or farm be allowed to vote. Comments like yours are why there is a rural-urban divide. Have you ever been to a major city or do you just generalize like every else?

[Narland]

No, but the State's do need to once again be represented in the Congress. The best way to do that is to repeal the Amendment and let the respective State Legislatures decide the best course of action for a return to Senatorial representation.

We are talking about state legislature here. What does the 17th amendment have to do with this?

You asked. State legislature determine Statue, and those statutes determine (pre-17th Amendment) how the Senators were selected.

[The Two Jerseys]

Re: one man one vote myth. Please reread my post. The Supreme Court blew it on that one. The ballot vote is but one of a myriad of votes the a free people have in a free society -- i mentioned the three civic and three civil votes, and we also have economic votes -- we can vote with our labor (where we cast our productivity by choosing by, with and for whom we work), our wallet (where we cast the fruit of our labor in currency) and our feet (where we live and travel and have our dwelling). It is a despotism such as a police state (or judges legislating from the bench in violation of their oaths of office) that wants to constrain the People to one mere vote at preferable with a rigged ballot box. One only has to look at history of brutal totalitarian regimes that let their subjected play-things vote to give an illusion of freedom and self-determination (self-governance).

The state of Oregon is an example where a few counties with urban population decide for the rest of the state the statutes by which they will live despite the preponderance of

We ought to go back to a time when state senates were elected by counties?

Unironically, yes.

Do I really have to explain how unfair and undemocratic that is using Nevada as an example yet again?

Do I really have to explain how unfair and undemocratic proportional representation in both houses is using New Jersey as an example again?

[Wallenburg]

Republicans trying to destroy the democratic process for partisan gain? Must be Tuesday already.

[San Lumen]

We ought to go back to a time when state senates were elected by counties?

Unironically, yes.

Do I really have to explain how unfair and undemocratic that is using Nevada as an example yet again?

Do I really have to explain how unfair and undemocratic proportional representation in both houses is using New Jersey as an example again?

So you think having 2 or possibly four people represent 85 percent of Nevada's population is perfectly fair and democratic and 15 percent having permanent control over the upper house is perfectly ok? Its likely nothing would ever get done.

[Narland]

The People who cut our trees to build your houses, herd the cows, and grow your food from the dirt for you (so you do not have to) care. And this is the problem of Urban arrogance and why City folk who wouldn't know a mulberry from a hemlock have no business governing anything outside the jurisdiction of their concrete and steel towers.

I do know a bit about plants so think before you make stupid comments like that.

Yeah how dare anyone not in small town or farm be allowed to vote. Comments like yours are why there is a rural-urban divide. Have you ever been to a major city or do you just generalize like every else?

I did not imply that you did not know the difference, but I do not want people who never grew up in anything but their disneyfied urban bubbles trying to legislate statutes totally irrelevant to how things operate in rural (county) jurisdiction, no more than you would want someone like me (whose forte is ranching, mining, and timber) using my expertise to create statutes and ordinance micro-managing how city-folk live their day to day lives. I am under no delusion that this is a fitting role, but the converse sadly has not been held true.

[The Two Jerseys]

Unironically, yes.

Do I really have to explain how unfair and undemocratic proportional representation in both houses is using New Jersey as an example again?

So you think having 2 or possibly four people represent 85 percent of Nevada's population is perfectly fair and democratic and 15 percent having permanent control over the upper house is perfectly ok? Its likely nothing would ever get done.

So you think that one corner of the state having the power to ram through legislation benefiting only them and shafting the rest of the state is perfectly fair and democratic and that small part of the state having permanent control over both houses is perfectly ok? It's likely the rest of the state would want to secede.

[San Lumen]

I do know a bit about plants so think before you make stupid comments like that.

Yeah how dare anyone not in small town or farm be allowed to vote. Comments like yours are why there is a rural-urban divide. Have you ever been to a major city or do you just generalize like every else?

I did not imply that you did not know the difference, but I do not want people who never grew up in anything but their disneyfied urban bubbles trying to legislate statutes totally irrelevant to how things operate in rural (county) jurisdiction, no more than you would want someone like me (whose forte is ranching, mining, and timber) using my expertise to create statutes and ordinance micro-managing how city-folk live their day to day lives. I am under no delusion that this is a fitting role, but the converse sadly has not been held true.

Im confused. Do rural areas not have representatives in the state capital? Are those representatives totally mute?

So you think having 2 or possibly four people represent 85 percent of Nevada's population is perfectly fair and democratic and 15 percent having permanent control over the upper house is perfectly ok? Its likely nothing would ever get done.

So you think that one corner of the state having the power to ram through legislation benefiting only them and shafting the rest of the state is perfectly fair and democratic and that small part of the state having permanent control over both houses is perfectly ok? It's likely the rest of the state would want to secede.

A fair representative democracy apportions seats based on population. You have more population you get more seats. Not a difficult concept. Republicans controlled the Nevada legislature as recently as 2014.

There is no active succession movement in Nevada.

[Fahran]

Who cares? Cattle, trees and dirt don't vote.

You keep reciting this point when it has already been pretty well refuted. The senatorial districts are proportionate in terms of population. We're not talking about cattle, trees, and dirt. We're talking about people.

People do and if those votes come from certain areas and give a candidate the most votes so be it. That's how a free and fair election works.

It's not the only way free and fair elections work, especially because we don't live in a unitary system.

Texas elects an agriculture commissioner, should urban counties not be allowed to vote for that? By your logic they shouldnt since there are no farms in most if in not all of the urban counties

How does this even logically follow from any of the arguments I've made? I'm arguing for consideration of factors beyond the popular vote, namely regional interests. It doesn't logically follow from my argument that urban districts shouldn't get any say at all. I want districts and people to have an equal say. That's the whole point. Under the proposed policy, they would.

[Fahran]

We are talking about state legislature here. What does the 17th amendment have to do with this?

Your article brought up the 17th Amendment...

[San Lumen]

Who cares? Cattle, trees and dirt don't vote.

You keep reciting this point when it has already been pretty well refuted. The senatorial districts are proportionate in terms of population. We're not talking about cattle, trees, and dirt. We're talking about people.

People do and if those votes come from certain areas and give a candidate the most votes so be it. That's how a free and fair election works.

It's not the only way free and fair elections work, especially because we don't live in a unitary system.

Texas elects an agriculture commissioner, should urban counties not be allowed to vote for that? By your logic they shouldnt since there are no farms in most if in not all of the urban counties

How does this even logically follow from any of the arguments I've made? I'm arguing for consideration of factors beyond the popular vote, namely regional interests. It doesn't logically follow from my argument that urban districts shouldn't get any say at all. I want districts and people to have an equal say. That's the whole point. Under the proposed policy, they would.

If its so great why doesn't every state adopt what is clearly a marvelous system?

Why is Mississippi placing a referendum on the ballot in November to get rid of a electoral college for Governor and Attorney General that is nearly identical to what Texas is proposing?

[Fahran]

If its so great why doesn't every state adopt what is clearly a marvelous system?

Because not every state has the same political culture, economic concerns, history, etc. Again, you're asking questions that have already been addressed.

Why is Mississippi placing a referendum on the ballot in November to get rid of a electoral college for Governor and Attorney General that is nearly identical to what Texas is proposing?

The systems aren't identical. The one in Mississippi is far more of a compromise than what the Texas Republicans are proposing and, while I'm unfamiliar with its precise structure and makeup, it's quite probable they differ in that respect as well. I'm not really in favor of a singular political model for every corner of the world. I have no idea why anyone else would be given recent history.

[San Lumen]

If its so great why doesn't every state adopt what is clearly a marvelous system?

Because not every state has the same political culture, economic concerns, history, etc. Again, you're asking questions that have already been addressed.

Why is Mississippi placing a referendum on the ballot in November to get rid of a electoral college for Governor and Attorney General that is nearly identical to what Texas is proposing?

The systems aren't identical. The one in Mississippi is far more of a compromise than what the Texas Republicans are proposing and, while I'm unfamiliar with its precise structure and makeup, it's quite probable they differ in that respect as well. I'm not really in favor of a singular political model for every corner of the world. I have no idea why anyone else would be given recent history.

No it was not a compromise in the slightest. It was part of the constitution drafted after Reconstruction ended to reduce the voting power of certain areas and groups specifically African Americans. It was done with the deliberate intent of ensuring victory for one side. Its being placed on the ballot for repeal because Republicans realize how bad it would look if a Democrat wins in the future and they overturn the election after its thrown into the state legislature.

Again I ask why is the change needed? Do rural counties not have representatives in the legislature? Are they somehow mute?

There is absotuely zero need to to change from who gets the most votes to a electoral college unless your trying to rig the election in your favor but you clearly cannot see that and try to rationalize it with so called balance.

[Fahran]

No it was not a compromise in the slightest. It was part of the constitution drafted after Reconstruction ended to reduce the voting power of certain areas and groups specifically African Americans. It was done with the deliberate intent of ensuring victory for one side. Its being placed on the ballot for repeal because Republicans realize how bad it would look if a Democrat wins in the future and they overturn the election after its thrown into the state legislature.

What you described seems to suggest that both the popular vote and the electoral college vote matter. I'm not familiar with the electoral or policy history of Mississippi so you could well be correct that the policy serves a racially discriminatory purpose on paper. I will point out that the results in Mississippi don't really seem to show that off paper though.

Again I ask why is the change needed? Do rural counties not have representatives in the legislature? Are they somehow mute?

Rural districts tend to have more power in the legislature at the moment. Hence why this policy would likely translate to a bit more rural power over gubernatorial elections. But you can't really compare Texas politics to Mississippi politics for the reasons I previously mentioned. Abbott is polling very well with racial minorities. The divide from him isn't really racial. It's political and, to a lesser extent, urban-rural.

There is absotuely zero need to to change from who gets the most votes to a electoral college unless your trying to rig the election in your favor but you clearly cannot see that and try to rationalize it with so called balance.

Then why do you keep arguing for changing the Electoral College at the federal level?

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Again I ask why is the change needed? Do rural counties not have representatives in the legislature? Are they somehow mute?

Rural districts tend to have more power in the legislature at the moment.

Oh really? Tell us how, so we can put a stop to that.

"One Person One Vote" should be in the constitution, where it would have more strength and be immune from being changed by a court.

[Fahran]

Oh really? Tell us how, so we can put a stop to that.

Um, there's more of them in Texas...?

"One Person One Vote" should be in the constitution, where it would have more strength and be immune from being changed by a court.

This policy proposal doesn't actually violate the principle of "one person, one vote" as defined by existing precedents. It literally just means that you have to attract votes from several different, proportionate districts instead of trying for a landslide in a couple districts.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Nobody cares that more people live in cities.

Most people live in cities. But nobody cares that they live in cities.

This is pretty basic logic here.

Ignoring the trivial fallacy that people who live in cities don't care about themselves, we have:

X is Y, X cares that {X is Y}, them caring doesn't matter for Z reason not specified, ONLY X cares that {X is Y} ... therefore X = Y but it doesn't matter.

You haven't proved anything. You have strongly inferred by your choice of fallacy to try and cover it: "most people" is a thing you don't care a fuck about. And by speaking for country people (not-X) but requiring that they not care, you have negated their interests too.

So ... neither country people nor city people care that most people live in the city. But apparently you do? Do you live on boat?

Why in the hell are still arguing about the methods of democracy? Shouldn't that be one of the things you don't care a fuck about?

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

Who cares? Cattle, trees and dirt don't vote. People do and if those votes come from certain areas and give a candidate the most votes so be it. That's how a free and fair election works.

Texas elects an agriculture commissioner, should urban counties not be allowed to vote for that? By your logic they shouldnt since there are no farms in most if in not all of the urban counties

The People who cut our trees to build your houses, herd the cows, and grow your food from the dirt for you (so you do not have to) care. And this is the problem of Urban arrogance and why City folk who wouldn't know a mulberry from a hemlock have no business governing anything outside the jurisdiction of their concrete and steel towers.

The people who study to become doctors to cure your diseases, write your books, and manufacture all your consumer goods (so you do not have to) care. And this is the problem of rural arrogance and why rural folk who wouldn't know a light rail system from a subway system have no business governing anything outside the jurisdiction of their farmhouses and fields.