It's time to move to the popular vote deciding elections

Dutch Uncle said:
Human nature. Some people claim a babies need to be taught hate. While there's truth in that statement, the deeper truth is that babies are pure Id; all they care about are their needs, not those of others.

They need to be culturally/socially indoctrinated such as learning to share and not to stick a pencil in another baby's eye when fighting over a toy. In the Freudian model, that's the Super Ego.

Cavemen followed the law of the jungle; might makes right. They know what they want and, if able, will take it by force. In short, without social indoctrination, they are full grown men who are pure Id. This includes committing rape, murder and theft if they so desire. If they exist in a relatively sophisticated tribe, there'd be social restrictions on unsociable behavior with banishment being among the harshest penalties.

A banished caveman would be more likely to commit rape than a modern man since modern people are socially indoctrinated from birth to adulthood.

At least that's the way I see it. I could be wrong. :)
Click to expand...
I disagree strongly. We would have never survived as a species if we were "adults who are pure Id." Cooperation, civility, community, stable social structure are all survival methods our species has had since our beginning. Having males who just grabbed whatever female was closest to force sex upon would destabilize the clan. Males of many species, including ours, want to know that the children they are helping to feed are THEIRS. That being said, there are some more primitive cultures who offer women to guests and/or share each other's mates. They are uncommon compared to the monogamous cultures that most humans had and still have today.
 
Ross Dolan said:
Let me start by saying I think this will not change. The minority love being in control...and in our country, the minority is in control.

BUT...California now has 54 EC votes...and Wyoming has 3.

California has a population of 39,000,000...meaning it has one EC vote for every 722,222 citizens...while Wyoming as a population of 590,000...meaning it has one EC vote for every 196,000 citizens.

That simply is not fair.

California's 39,000,000 people are represented in the Senate by 2 senators; Wyoming's 590,000 are represented in the Senate by 2 senators.

That also is not fair.

Nothing going to be done about it...but we ought all to acknowledge that it is not fair.
Click to expand...
the best solution is to repeal the 17th
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Human nature. Some people claim a babies need to be taught hate. While there's truth in that statement, the deeper truth is that babies are pure Id; all they care about are their needs, not those of others.

They need to be culturally/socially indoctrinated such as learning to share and not to stick a pencil in another baby's eye when fighting over a toy. In the Freudian model, that's the Super Ego.

Cavemen followed the law of the jungle; might makes right. They know what they want and, if able, will take it by force. In short, without social indoctrination, they are full grown men who are pure Id. This includes committing rape, murder and theft if they so desire. If they exist in a relatively sophisticated tribe, there'd be social restrictions on unsociable behavior with banishment being among the harshest penalties.

A banished caveman would be more likely to commit rape than a modern man since modern people are socially indoctrinated from birth to adulthood.

At least that's the way I see it. I could be wrong. :)
Click to expand...
but many human insititutions you consider evolved are just as backward and animalistic but just a larger more horrific scale.

zionists are also big "might makes right" advocates, for instance.

you don't actually believe in morality.

you actually believe in totalitarianism and mindless conformity as tool to actually exaggerate anti-social behavior.
 
Ross Dolan said:
Let me start off by saying that I do not expect things to change. The minority loves being in control.

BUT...California now has 54 Electoral College votes...and Wyoming has 3. California has a population of

Let me start by saying I think this will not change. The minority love being in control...and in our country, the minority is in control.

BUT...California now has 54 EC votes...and Wyoming has 3.

California has a population of 39,000,000...meaning it has one EC vote for every 722,222 citizens...while Wyoming as a population of 590,000...meaning it has one EC vote for every 196,000 citizens.

That simply is not fair.

California's 39,000,000 people are represented in the Senate by 2 senators; Wyoming's 590,000 are represented in the Senate by 2 senators.

That also is not fair.

Nothing going to be done about it...but we ought all to acknowledge that it is not fair.
Click to expand...
The minority isn't in control, Ross. The majority is in control. Good luck changing the Constitution.

IMO, pining about the impossible is a waste of energy. Notice that not a single Democrat whining about the EC has 1) agreed it's nigh impossible to change and, more importantly, 2) chosen to discuss more viable alternative.
 
Libhater said:
So, me pointing out how kamala's illegals are raping and murdering our young girls makes me not acting like a Christian? LOL!
No, it's the Christian in me that abhors the acts of leftists that allow these evil acts to continue. GOD is on my side here, and HE certainly isn't on the side of kamala.
Click to expand...
trump's illegals. And Boehner/Ryan's illegals under Obama.

But thanks for playing.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
you're showing your ignorance

the minority cannot, in any way, ram laws through our system.

the minority can only prevent laws being rammed through by the majority.

a system designed by the founders that actually works the way it was intended
Click to expand...
Nope. But you aren't 'smart' enough to follow along. The minority in the nation has the ability to have a majority in the Senate. The minority in the nation is able to gerrymander (yes...both sides do it) so that the House can be controlled.
 
BartenderElite said:
Most Americans support this, and there is really no justification for elections being decided by the electoral college.

Why should some votes count more than others? People always talk about how candidates will ignore some states without the electoral - but do they understand the irony of that? Candidates literally spend all of their time in a minority of "swing" states right now.

Outside of our country, people do not understand how more people can vote for someone, but they still lose the election. This archaic system was a concession to the slave states, and it's time to move on from it.
Click to expand...
why?.....the system we have has worked exactly as intended for over 200 years......every person who votes gets equal representation and every state gets two votes......can't get any more equitable than that........by the way, your continued claim about slavery is pure ignorance.......small states who did not allow slavery, like VT, NH and ME, demanded protection against large states like VA that did.......
 
BartenderElite said:
Right now, California gets ignored. Completely.

Why should an Iowans vote count more than a Californian's?
Click to expand...
not true......they have more electoral votes, more congressional seats than everyone else.......note they still insist on winner take all......conservatives in California are the ones being ignored......
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
I disagree strongly. We would have never survived as a species if we were "adults who are pure Id." Cooperation, civility, community, stable social structure are all survival methods our species has had since our beginning. Having males who just grabbed whatever female was closest to force sex upon would destabilize the clan. Males of many species, including ours, want to know that the children they are helping to feed are THEIRS. That being said, there are some more primitive cultures who offer women to guests and/or share each other's mates. They are uncommon compared to the monogamous cultures that most humans had and still have today.
Click to expand...
First, we nearly didn't survive. Second, results count. Homo sapien sapiens have been around for about 300,000 years. Modern civilization has only been around for about 10,000. Maybe 20,000. The written history of human beings for the past 10,000 years has been written in human blood.

Why did it take us so long to become "civilized"? Even today, there is human violence against humans around the globe. Percentagewise, yes, we're getting better as a species, but the veneer of civilization is very thin.

Notice that the deaths of humans in Ukraine and the ME get the most press, presumably because they are "white", while the deaths in Africa get short shrift, presumably because they are "black".

Long story short; human beings are one forebrain from being animals. We're all one step from becoming murderers, rapists or victims of the same if civilization collapsed for natural or man-made reasons.

From 2023
More than 238,000 people died in global conflict last year, according to a new study released Tuesday, marking a massive 96 percent increase year over year in deaths related to conflicts. The startling figure, found in the Institute for Economics and Peace’s annual Global Peace Index, reflects, in particular, the impact of two highly deadly wars: in Ethiopia and Ukraine.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine resulted in at least 82,000 deaths in 2022, the study estimated. But even more deaths were reported in Ethiopia — over 104,000 — in that conflict between the national government and regional forces in Tigray.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
I still don't see why you think "cavemen" would be any more likely to commit rape than a modern man. He'd be more likely to kill the neighbor's poodle and present it to a woman as a sign of what a good provider he is. lol
Click to expand...
Especially given that primitive man relied a lot on scent to find a female in estrous. There were studies that showed the smell of male sweat triggers ovulation in females.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
I disagree strongly. We would have never survived as a species if we were "adults who are pure Id." Cooperation, civility, community, stable social structure are all survival methods our species has had since our beginning. Having males who just grabbed whatever female was closest to force sex upon would destabilize the clan. Males of many species, including ours, want to know that the children they are helping to feed are THEIRS. That being said, there are some more primitive cultures who offer women to guests and/or share each other's mates. They are uncommon compared to the monogamous cultures that most humans had and still have today.
Click to expand...
he said children are purd Id. not adults.

you people are dumb and dumber.

he's bad at psychology and you can't read.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
The minority isn't in control, Ross. The majority is in control. Good luck changing the Constitution.

IMO, pining about the impossible is a waste of energy. Notice that not a single Democrat whining about the EC has 1) agreed it's nigh impossible to change and, more importantly, 2) chosen to discuss more viable alternative.
Click to expand...
^^ elects self to know the possibility of all things.....

:tardthoughts:
 
Dutch Uncle said:
The minority isn't in control, Ross. The majority is in control.
Click to expand...

I think you are kidding yourself here, Unk. Everything about the federal government and federal elections are DOMINATED by the minority. TOTALLY.


Dutch Uncle said:
Good luck changing the Constitution.
Click to expand...

As regards to changing it with regard to the EC or the composition of the Senate...I have stated many times that I think it almost impossible for that to happen right now. The minority is effectively in control...and the minority does not intend to give up such control as it has to the majority.


Dutch Uncle said:
IMO, pining about the impossible is a waste of energy.
Click to expand...

Refusing to at least discuss the possibility, no matter how small, is a waste of a democracy.


Dutch Uncle said:
Notice that not a single Democrat whining about the EC has 1) agreed it's nigh impossible to change and, more importantly, 2) chosen to discuss more viable alternative.
Click to expand...
Nonsense.

Many Democrats agree that it is almost impossible to get the change via the options open at this point...and almost every Democrats discusses more viable alternatives...fairness.

It is possible for discussions recognizing both those things to occur.

It is happening right here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top