One Man, One Vote

I met this fellow recently who was telling me all about America and all the advantages that Americans have in terms of democracy that are wanting in other countries.

He said, “Here, every vote counts, no matter how rich you are, how poor, no matter where you live, every vote counts!” I listened for awhile as he ranted on and maybe at another time I would have argued or discussed the point with him, but I just listened.

I have a different opinion of things than he does. I have written about it on this blog—you know like, how in Iran the mullahs are still facing resistance when they steal elections, but in America when a similar group of rogue, medieval, inquisitional court judges did the same thing, people just went back to their televisions (remember Bush/Gore 2000?).

I got to thinking, Rhode Island has two senators, Nevada has two and California has two. You can add up a whole bunch of those low population states to add up to the population CA with its two senators. So as far as the senate goes, your vote counts a lot more in Rhode Island or Montana than in New York or California. Fewer than 25% of Americans vote for half the senators. It isn’t quite the one man one vote that this man envisions.

In most countries when there is an election for president or another office of that sort, they count up the votes and whoever has the total votes wins. We function with an archaic system—an electoral college that functions in a way where the popular vote doesn’t count only the number of electors that you win. The smaller the population the more disproportionately the voters vote counts. A voter voting in Rhode Island with three electors has six times the voting power of a Californian. Well—that doesn’t sound very one person one vote to me!

Here is what has happened as a result of this: a majority of the voters believe in birth control, gun control, staying out of wars, and changing America’s focus from war to peace, but with the way the government is setup now — the people who believe in those things have less say than the minority.

Oh, speaking of the minority! Let’s look at the Senate itself! In order to get anything passed there these days you need 60 votes, which means it is controlled by the minority. That doesn’t sound very one person one vote—when the minority can stop a bill that the majority wants.

But the latest outrage of all was delivered to us by the supreme court—you know those same mullahs who gave us Bush, wise decision on their part! Now they say we have to protect the corporations, that they are more citizens than human beings— after all, they last forever! Wasn’t it Caligula who made his horse counsel of Rome?

I knew that if I was to bring these things up to this fellow he would just get very upset and I would ruin his afternoon. So where do we go from here?

First, lets de-citizenize corporations. Then we will see where we go from there. Write Obama tell him what you think, make sure to send him a joint as well—he is still suffering from MDS.



  1. Anonymous on

    I’d like to mention that states like New York turn in their ballots in the early afternoon, hours before the polls close; if you vote in the evening your vote does not matter because the electoral college doesn’t see any necessary to wait until the end of the vote casting.

    Christians A.KA. “Born Again” like Bush Jr. are told in church to vote in the morning to prevent not being counted, and it works for them even though they are a minority (and they literally pledge allegiance to the Christian flag preferentially to the American flag); so I say if you vote you must do the same thing or accept that you’ll only be wasting your time voting later in the day.

    Another point worth considering is Christian fanatics assume that if they win they have manifest destiny to push their personal religious agenda onto others even if victory means trampling on the constitution! I don’t see how this approach significantly differs from fascism, or doing the devil’s bidding; they do want total control and have been training lawyers to take on the ACLU and other groups that try to preserve personal freedoms for all, which makes them a clear and present danger to the life liberty and the pursuit of happiness of all not in total agreement with what they think.

    “Only a corrupt depraved government could invent a crime you commit against yourself.” – Carmen Yarrusso

  2. Anonymous on


    The senate doesn’t comprise our entire government.

    You’re forgetting the 435 congressmen we have, 53 of which come from CA.

    America discovered long ago that the electoral system is the best available. Remember Hillary.

    Ed, look at what the hard drugs have done to you. You’ve turned into a babbling idiot.


  3. Anonymous on

    Don’t Ask Ed

  4. Anonymous on

    Cause congress can pass bills unilaterally right?… ppsh gimme a break.
    Your political system is a testament to mediocrity, and it’s ignorant morons like you that keep it that way.

  5. Anonymous on

    The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

    Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.

    The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes–that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

    The Constitution gives every state the power to allocate its electoral votes for president, as well as to change state law on how those votes are awarded.

    The bill is currently endorsed by over 1,659 state legislators (in 48 states) who have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.

    In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. This national result is similar to recent polls in closely divided battleground states: Colorado– 68%, Iowa –75%, Michigan– 73%, Missouri– 70%, New Hampshire– 69%, Nevada– 72%, New Mexico– 76%, North Carolina– 74%, Ohio– 70%, Pennsylvania — 78%, Virginia — 74%, and Wisconsin — 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Delaware –75%, Maine — 77%, Nebraska — 74%, New Hampshire –69%, Nevada — 72%, New Mexico — 76%, Rhode Island — 74%, and Vermont — 75%; in Southern and border states: Arkansas –80%, Kentucky — 80%, Mississippi –77%, Missouri — 70%, North Carolina — 74%, and Virginia — 74%; and in other states polled: California — 70%, Connecticut — 74% , Massachusetts — 73%, Minnesota – 75%, New York — 79%, Washington — 77%, and West Virginia- 81%. Support is strong in every partisan and demographic group surveyed.

    The National Popular Vote bill has passed 29 state legislative chambers, in 19 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Oregon, and both houses in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, and Washington. These five states possess 61 electoral votes — 23% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.


  6. Anonymous on

    The testament to our political system is that we are the world’s most powerful. EVER!

  7. Anonymous on

    That proves YOU KNOW NONTHING OF HOW THE STATES WORK!! The electoeial college elcets people here not the one vote. stick to plants with your track record in law your nowere man just a bad trip. a sell out by any other name is a sell out, no one follows failures at all? and like marc you are a failure!!so stay in your college and let the real people do the work, something you sure like to take the creit for?? ung!

  8. jimmy on


    You sound like you are actually fearful of what Ed writes. Why do you resort to name-calling ad hominem attacks? Because you don’t have a good argument and you can’t dispute what Ed wrote in a civil manner. You are the babbling idiot. You. Anonymous internet tough guy. You probably profit from Cannabis prohibition.

    The electoral college is not the best system, it’s a farce, and like Ed, I will point to election 2000, when the Supreme Court picked the president and betrayed us all.

    If the people were really in fact represented by elected officials who carry out the will of the majority, the unjust Cannabis prohibition would be finished. Unjust and hypocritical.

  9. Anonymous on

    If it was good enough for Franklin, Jefferson, Washington and the rest of them. It’s good enough for you and I.

  10. jbird on

    Cannabis prohibition wasn’t cool for those guys but is cool for us?
    Wake the fuck up…
    Our founding fathers made the constitution because it gives us our inalienable rights that should never be tampered with, while the majority of statutes and legislation are based on cultural changes that obviously occur from technological and social advancements. “All men are created equal”.

  11. Anonymous on

    Pay attention, this discussion wasn’t about prohibition. It was about the electoral college and our system of government. You and I probably agree about prohibition. YOU seem to be the one needing to wake up and READ for comprehension before spouting off topic rants.

  12. Anonymous on


    Our system was set up this way for a reason: it keeps the larger states from simply being able to tell the smaller ones what to do. Yes, small states like Rhode Island have the same number of Senators as a large state like California, but in the House of Representatives the number is much smaller. Large states have their power in the House. Origionally the people only voted for the House and it was up to the state legislatures to vote for the Senators. In this way the states had control of the Senate. If the Senators wanted to keep their jobe then they would vote the way their state told them to. The 17 Amendment passed in 1913 took away the election of Senators from the states and gave it to the people. This sadly has proven to be a mistake and has led to massive corruption. It wasn’t until after the Amendment passed that Senate seats were essentially auctioned off to the highest bidder. Senators no longer work for their own states but instead serve their corporate masters. If they attempt to go against the corporations then they are publicly smeared as being “against business” or “against progress.” Now you have people who live several states away contributing to Senate election funds and financially supporting candidates who live elsewhere in the country. You have people like Michael Bloomberg and George Soros attempting to buy elections and push their “progressive” agenda which is simple fascism-lite. The 17th Amendment has led to the legislature being controlled by the rich minority. It also has led to many of the unjust laws passed in the 20th century. Think about it: do you actually think the legislature would have voted for the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act if they weren’t taking money from the corporations and unions for their reelection funds? Do you think alcohol would have been banned? Desegrigation would have happened much earlier than it did, and many of the gun control laws never would have been passed. The corporate-controlled Congress has basiclly ignored the Constitution since about 1920. Most federal laws passed since then have technically been unconstitutional. The CDSA, the Federal Reserve, the Clinton gun ban, the Wall Street bailouts, and the currently debated Health Care Bill are all unconstitutional. No where in the constitution does it give the government to do ANY of these things. Our judges and lawyers no longer even care about the Constitution when arguing law, they cite “precedent” and “case history.” The system has since been designed to fuck you and take away your rights. The government wants to be able to tell you what you can eat and drink, it wants to be able to tell you what medical care you can recieve and how much you will have to pay for it. It wants to say how much money you can be allowed to make and how you can spend it. The majority of Americans believe in the right to own firearms but the polititions want to register them and take them away so that you can not oppose their fascist policies. We are on the verge of falling into Communism if we don’t wake up and fight against what is happening to America. We have to fight for our rights and not allow these bastards in Congress to take anything else away from us. They do not “know better than you” how you should live your life! Oh and one more thing, Will you guys in California please vote out Nancy Pelosi this year? Her botox-frozen face and sense of moral superiority give me the creeps.

  13. tulip on

    If your want to style your short hair in a different way, small plates of this GHD styler would give you a perfect to deal with troubled hair. If you want your long hair in fashion, and look sexier, charming, our ghd iv styler is your best choice.