Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns SHTF Guns - A more realistic approach?

That was VERY well said Hawk; one of the most profound things you�ve ever said on the subject of politics.

Now, to be honest, Obama is a far cry from a Marxist. I actually know two Marxists, honest to goodness dedicated communists (and they�re into guns, and support the 2nd Amendmen � Don�t ask, I don�t get it either), and both of those guys call Obama right wing�I just burst out laughing when they say that, but then they make their case and from their viewpoint, he�s rather right wing.

And Romney as a NeoCon; I don�t know. I just see him as a populist who will adopt any position that will bring him power�Oh wait, just like Obama. See, you were right; not much difference at all. And both are firmly in the right and left hand pockets of the big banks.

Yeah, the incidental differences between them mean little in the larger picture, since they are both in the pockets of the big banks. My point being, they're both about expanding government at the expense of liberty from one angle or the other. For those more interested in retaining and restoring liberty than anything else, there's not much to choose from between them.

Which is why the electoral college has to be changed in order to give third party candidates a realistic chance of prevailing. Winner-takes-all assures that the ruling elite will never lose its grip on power to the detriment of the rest of us who are ruled.

Interesting point, Raisuli.

You caught that too, eh?

I'm actually only about 90% sure it's him.

The electoral college doesn't need to be eliminated; where the change has to be made, and the only place it can be made, is on the state level. If the electors from each state were proportioned according to the percentage of votes received by each candidate then the system would be more truly representative of the wishes of the electorate. It is the individual states, not the federal government, who select the electors and who determine how those electoral votes should be cast.

I agree, BUT does your theory fix the problem with 2 counties in an entire state, swinging the whole state???

Like nevada, reno and vegas carried the whole state for Obammy

I have the answer, let's elect the electors instead of the presidential candidates. Let the electors campaign in their respective states for the vote and than let the electors vote for the president as they do now.

Actually that is the system currently in place, with the exception of having the electors campaign in place of the actual candidates. When you vote in a presidential election, you are actually electing a slate of electors. These electors then go to Washington DC where each one of them casts two votes -- one for president and one for vice-president. These ballots are then sealed, and passed to the president of the senate, who tallies them, and announces the result to congress. Five days later the president-elect is sworn in as president.

It's hard to believe this thread was nominated for Hijack of the Year, BEFORE it degenerated into a political discussion. It was headed in a much better direction with Hobbits.

By apportioning the electoral vote, a candidate would have to receive 100% of the popular vote to pick up all of the electoral vote. For example, in Nevada where population centers (Reno and Nevada) can carry the state, by apportioning the electors between the candidates based on the percentage of the popular vote, a candidate with 60% popularity state wide would only receive 60% of the electors, the other 40% would be pledged to the other candidates based on their percentage of the popular vote.

The advantage of this system is that the "fly over states" -- the true heartland of America -- would become just as important as the states with the largest population in determining who is elected president.

Here's how this would work in the real world:

At the last election Obama took 50% of the popular vote in Florida (a key "battle ground state") and Romney took 49.1% of the popular vote. Because Obama had a 0.9% lead, he received 100% of Florida's 29 electoral votes. Under an apportioned system Obama would have had only 15 electoral votes, and Romney 14 votes. The same would have been true in Michigan, where the vote split 53/46 in favor of Obama who picked up 17 electoral votes, instead of the 9 he would have received under an apportioned system of voting. That would have made the electoral vote 24/22 in favor of Obama instead of 46/0 in his favor. With the vote split 24/22 Utah's 6 electoral votes would be crucial to both candidates. With the vote going 73/26 to Romney, he would have picked up 4 electoral votes, with 2 going to Obama, giving both men 26 electoral votes, as opposed to a 46/6 vote lead for Obama under the current "winner take all" system used by the states.

Would this have made a difference at the last election? Perhaps, perhaps not. But it would have forced the candidates to pay attention to those people living in states where their vote is largely symbolic.

I hadn't thought of the government forcing us to purchase prohibitive liability insurance on our guns as a method of de facto confiscation. If government can legally force us to buy health insurance under penalty of prison, then why couldn't it force us to buy gun liability insurance?

The implication is clear: confiscation is within sight.

Somehow this thread got sidetracked from SHTF guns to a treatise on elections..


LOL...

Redneck whats in your bugout bag? That might help get it back on track! LOL

Gotcha, and that is a great idea

Ah nope. The electors are chosen by each party and the party that wins the general election for president gets to vote for president which is usually for their party. Some states have modified that a little. The electors meet in their respective State capitals usually in the Secretary of State's office. None go to Washington. They no longer vote for president and vice president. They for president and the vice president on the same ticket. I've been to an electoral college and I've read the US Constitution. I know of what I speak of.

What I was speaking of is voting for individual electors and letting the electors pick the candidate of their choice.

There's truth in that! And I'm guilty as charged. Back to our regularly scheduled programing.

i'll agree that when the [bleep] hits the fan, that knowing a gun is handy and ready can be comforting.