Posted on 11/02/2017 6:55:44 AM PDT by fuzzylogic
Summary: Stephen M. Silberstein, a member of George Soros’s far-left Democracy Alliance, sheds light on the extent of Soros’s socialist agenda for America. Silberstein’s foundation backs a panoply of leftist groups that fight for higher taxes on the rich, wealth redistribution schemes, single-payer socialized medicine, burdensome regulation of energy markets, judicial activism designed to advance a radically egalitarian agenda, and the replacement of the linchpin of federalism, the Electoral College, with a national popular vote.
(Excerpt) Read more at wikileaks.org ...
Soros is as close to the devil as you will find walking the earth
Trump should suggest it after he wins the popular vote in 2020. Do it in a sarcastic manner.
Riiiight
Let the island of Manhattan usurp the votes of the entire state of Wyoming.
The EC is a masterpiece of brilliance.
bfl
I don’t know if it is a “talking point”, or where I heard it, but I heard that campaigns are based on the strategy of winning the battleground states, of winning the electoral vote, state by state.
And the idea is, that if we had the popular vote determine elections, that campaigns would be run differently.
For example, Trump never visited California after the convention, because there was no way he would win the electoral vote in such a Democrat state. If we had the popular vote as decisive, he may have visited to try to trim Hillary’s lead in that state. But under the current system we have, with 48 of 50 states allocating electoral votes on a winner take all basis, it made no sense for Trump to go to California.
So if we had the popular vote as decisive, the campaigns would have been run differently, and we would have seen campaign time, ads, resources, etc. allocated differently among the states, than we saw actually happen in this election.
And if campaigns had been run differently, you may well have seen different vote totals.
And for all Hillary’s bitching and her henchmen bitching, remember Hillary got 48% of the popular vote. 52% of America wanted another candidate. She can hardly claim to be the choice of a majority.
The Clintons didn’t bitch about the electoral vote, when Bill Clinton won two elections and got less than 50% of the vote each time.
Fine, but it must be replaced by a scheme where each individual state, regardless of its population, is part of the formula for determining the election’s winner.
We have that scheme now in our legislative bodies: Senate is equal representation the states, House is population-represented.
“Socialist” is not the correct description of Soros’ goal... “Neo-Stalinism” is much better descriptor. Stalin turned the “great USSR Socialist experiment” into a killing and terror field, and became just another Czar... as seems the trend on all “worker paradises”.
Soros seeks totalitarianism, under the seductive label of “Socialism”… the fave of all those who think they deserve to live on another’s labor, at another’s expense... which used to be called slavery, but now is “economic justice”. He enlists the (misnamed) “progressive” army of useful idiots in his evil cause of envy and greed. History shows Socialism creates murderous sociopaths as leaders.
Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, Chavez, Ted Kennedy, Obama and Hillary just to name a few.
Yeah, let’s become euro weenies! NOT! Escapees from Dumbassistan?
Kinda like letting NYC and LA decide EVERYTHING for the rest of the naiton? Nah. May as well stop sending reps from all those “icky” states since they don’t do anything anyway. ;-)
1. Why is this man not in prison yet?
2. He wants the rich to be taxed when he , and his like put their wealth into off shore accounts.
The 10th & 17th amendments plus the electoral college were the stoppers for the USA becoming an empire. One of the three is already gone.
If we had a true popular vote, the last bastion of fraud would determine the outcome of a close election. Recounts would last years!
Ending the EC would give about 5 states total control over the entire country.
No, and HELL no.
Absolutely, you play the game according to the rules. There’s no way Trump could win CA, so why bother putting ANY resources against it....vs. coming to Michigan MULTIPLE times and flipping it red.
I agree, the EC and the way we separate districts for counting (and control) is the best way to minimize fraud. Even if you completely compromise an area, it could only be localized to that area, pulling it off nationwide is impossible...at least for a single actor to accomplish.
Break the power of the peutocracy *, resident in the Penthouse Archipelago of a few mega-cities, to dictate to the rest of us.
* peutocracy - rule by Peurile Effite Urban Twits
I highly recommend reading the entire thing.
We need voting by congressional districts.
The candidate winning a district would get one electoral vote out of those representing districts.
The remaining two electoral votes would go to the winner of the popular vote in that state.
This is the fairest method and puts each congressional district on equal footing and encourages those to vote in extremely red or blue states by knowing that THEIR vote in THEIR district DOES matter.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.