I'm starting a new political party....

[ect]

I'm not sure if this is the true story...but do you remember the "freemen of montana" and the fbi standoff with them?

Apparently they decided to start their own reserve.

Since the fed reserve creates money out of thin air, that's what they did. Maybe that's why people say the dollar isn't worth more then the paper it's printed on. The old saying was "the dollar is as good as gold".... not anymore. Even bill gates knows that.

Now about the Freemen. To start with the word "Freemen" was not chosen by them, they were using the term Freeman Character under their signatures and the local press tagged them with the name. These People all came together over a number of years because of a common problem, that being the corruption they found in all aspects of government. Some of them had their lives turned upside down when the government stole everything they had over disputed tax bills as small as $700.00. Some lost property because another family member could not make payments on a note with a credit union and on and on. Every one of these people tried to get redress in the courts but soon found that unless you are "connected" you will always lose.

So they first formed study groups to find out what the Law actually said and from there things bloomed. As they came together and exchanged information they found more and more that the persons whom they had elected to protect them were not only arrogant but many were crooked. At some point they decided they had to do something to help not only themselves but all the people that were being ripped off by corrupt "officials".

In their study of Law they found many things that had been forgotten or buried but were still standing Law.

The most important discovery made was concerning self government.

Through studies of U.S. code and State code, they found references to the Common Law. This led them to trace the codes back to the Constitutions, the Declaration of Independence, the Declarations of Rights, the Magna Charta and most importantly the Bible. They found that codes that are in harmony with God's Law worked and those that were man's law only injured people.

They found that there was a supreme Court in this nation before the Constitution and that was the supreme Court first mentioned in the Constitution. This supreme Court was the County Court and that is the Court of original jurisdiction. It was also discovered that after the revolution none of the new States established their Townships, thus they established Justus Township for judicial purposes. The problem arises that our current system will not abide by Law, they only recognize their rules and then only when it works in their favor. Did you ever play a game with some spoiled brat that constantly changed the rules so they could always win?

The next step after finding that none of our "officials" would do their job was to find a way to force them to. It was found in the codes that all public officers had to be bonded. This is supposed to be a personal fidelity bond to assure performance. Without this bond their offices are declared vacant. So they decided to go after those bonds thinking that after three claims the bonding company would pull the bonds or force performance.

It didn't take long to find out that no "official" bonds themselves anymore, they are now insured by the city, county, state or federal agency that they work under. That is blatant misappropriation of public funds, and just try filing a claim against a public officials insurance, fat chance. Well what to do then? How about suing the "officials" in their personal capacity for damages created by their actions or lack thereof? You know the Courts are crooked and they certainly wouldn't hear a suit against themselves, so they found the liening process in the U.C.C. and the bankers handbook (this is supposed to be an almost top secret publication). The offending public official [hereafter called perverts (look that one up in Black's)] would be sent a U.C.C. 4 True Bill, sometimes called confession sheet. The pervert would be given a proper amount of time to answer after which the True Bill would become a default judgment. The default would then be published for the proper amount of time creating a common Law lien. A U.C.C. 3 (writ of attachment) was then issued followed by a U.C.C.1 (writ of execution). this creates a perfected security which is a depositable item. This whole process creates credit, the bank has the option of collecting from the pervert or issuing credit to your account.

The lien drafts (not checks) are partial assignments of the lien. This is the same process the banks use. Remember though the banks don't like anyone to know their secrets or to compete with them.

[Gyps]

interesting. montana...home of the dick (as in cheney).

good to have read this. thanks for posting it, ect.

speaking of gates, word is microsoft is in trouble?! that's insane.

wonder how many jobs we're going to send to india and china and russia and brazil before people here wake up, look around, and realize that we are the newest third world nation (okay so that's a slight exageration).

it's funny how the indians are so arrogant toward us now. and the whole world is pretty much sitting there rubbing their hands together in glee watching this. waiting for our fall. and we stupid americans sit idly by and let the corporations sell us out...little by little...quietly...on the sly, so only those immediately affected realize what's going on and no one else cares...until it hits them.

[ect]

Very good article explains a similarity between the french "riots".

Although I would consider this was a false flag op, strictly due to the articles of propaganda goebbels put forth.

In his manifesto, he says never allow the people breathing room, but also never "over do" it. When we keep this in mind, we see that one "major event" is followed by the next.

In any case, if you don't believe this, this is a good article to "explain" why/how and why it is differen't in the US. We tolerate the growing division because we still believe in the american day-dream belief-system. We had Rosa Parks right? "I'm not a racist...so if it's happening, it's not THAT bad.....is it?"

When I see thousands in the streets all over the world and my country...it should tell you something is up(that's how I woke up), regardless if foxnews lies about it.(even a complete moron should be able to see this, if they're looking, or WANT to look)

It's interesting what he says about the "popular class", they show up to the polls when they realize what's up, and then you see the real face of a country...not just the uber-power elite. It's not so much, "REVOLUTION NOW!"....but, "hey shitheads, we see what your doing and most of us don't like it"....this becomes a political liability. What are you to do? In bush's case, he uses propaganda and DHS to go after political enemies....in France the feds don't seem as ruthless, according to this article.

First, check out 15-19.

Goebbels' Principles of Propaganda

1. Propagandist must have access to intelligence concerning events and public opinion.

2. Propaganda must be planned and executed by only one authority.
a. It must issue all the propaganda directives
b. It must explain propaganda directives to important officials and maintain their morale
c. It must oversee other agencies' activities which have propaganda consequences

3. The propaganda consequences of an action must be considered in planning that action.

4. Propaganda must affect the enemy's policy and action.
a. By suppressing propagandistically desirable material which can provide the enemy with useful intelligence
b. By openly disseminating propaganda whose content or tone causes the enemy to draw the desired conclusions
c. By goading the enemy into revealing vital information about himself
d. By making no reference to a desired enemy activity when any reference would discredit that activity


5. Declassified, operational information must be available to implement a propaganda campaign

6. To be perceived, propaganda must evoke the interest of an audience and must be transmitted through an attention-getting communications medium.

7. Credibility alone must determine whether propaganda output should be true or false.

8. The purpose, content and effectiveness of enemy propaganda; the strength and effects of an expose; and the nature of current propaganda campaigns determine whether enemy propaganda should be ignored or refuted.

9. Credibility, intelligence, and the possible effects of communicating determine whether propaganda materials should be censored.

10. Material from enemy propaganda may be utilized in operations when it helps diminish that enemy's prestige or lends support to the propagandist's own objective.

11. Black rather than white propaganda may be employed when the latter is less credible or produces undesirable effects.

12. Propaganda may be facilitated by leaders with prestige.

13. Propaganda must be carefully timed.
a. The communication must reach the audience ahead of competing propaganda.
b. A propaganda campaign must begin at the optimum moment
c. A propaganda theme must be repeated, but not beyond some point of diminishing effectiveness


14. Propaganda must label events and people with distinctive phrases or slogans.
a. They must evoke desired responses which the audience previously possesses
b. They must be capable of being easily learned
c. They must be utilized again and again, but only in appropriate situations
d. They must be boomerang-proof


15. Propaganda to the home front must prevent the raising of false hopes which can be blasted by future events.

16. Propaganda to the home front must create an optimum anxiety level.
a. Propaganda must reinforce anxiety concerning the consequences of defeat
b. Propaganda must diminish anxiety (other than concerning the consequences of defeat) which is too high and which cannot be reduced by people themselves


17. Propaganda to the home front must diminish the impact of frustration.
a. Inevitable frustrations must be anticipated
b. Inevitable frustrations must be placed in perspective


18. Propaganda must facilitate the displacement of aggression by specifying the targets for hatred.

19. Propaganda cannot immediately affect strong counter-tendencies; instead it must offer some form of action or diversion, or both.

Based upon "Goebbels' Principles of Propaganda" by Leonard W. Doob published in "Public Opinion and Propaganda; A Book of Readings edited for The Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues."

Emmanuel Todd interview on the 'French riots' (full translation)
by Jerome a Paris
Sun Nov 13, 2005 at 12:37:27 PM PDT

Emmanuel Todd, the man who predicted the end of the Soviet Empire before anyone else (and for the right reasons), whose ideas on the French "social fracture" 10 years ago were used by Chirac in his successful campaign to be elected president (and then ignored when he was in power), and whose book After the Empire : The Breakdown of the American Order is a must read to understand the Bush White House, has been interviewed in Le Monde about the current events in the French banlieues. It is a fascinating read, and I provide below a full translation.
Jerome a Paris's diary :: ::

First, as an appetiser, the summary of his "After the Empire" book on Amazon:


A bestseller in Europe, this provocative but erratic manifesto stands Euro-anxiety about American hegemony on its head. French demographer Todd (The Final Fall: An Essay on the Decomposition of the Soviet Sphere) cites Paul Kennedy's theory of imperial overstretch and Michael Lind's notion of the American overclass to paint America as a "predatory" but weakening empire, its unilateralism and militarism a sign of frailty, not strength. Misguided free trade policies, he contends, have hollowed out America's industrial base and decimated its working and middle classes, polarizing the country into a society of plutocrats and plebeians. Dependent on imports, America has degenerated into a parasitic, Keynesian consumer-of-last-resort, injecting demand into the world economy while producing nothing of value. To mask its decline, America pursues a foreign policy of "theatrical micromilitarism," picking fights with helpless Third World countries like Iraq to convince the world's real power centers-Europe, Japan and Russia-of its military prowess and validate its spurious image as global policeman.


And now the interview. Translation - and all associated errors mine.


Q - In 1995, you analyzed the "social fracture", an expression which then presidential candidate Jacques Chirac used successfully for his presidential campaign. Ten years afterwards, where are we?

A- The expression "social fracture" is not mine. It is from Marcel Gauchet, but it is invariably attributed to me. I've given up fighting that. In a note of the Saint-Simon Foundation, at the time, I had described the reappearance of the popular forces after the collapse of Communism, by noting that blue collar workers and employees still accounted for 50 % of the population. From census information, it appeared that the idea from Giscard d'Estaing that "two French out of three" were in the middle class was not true. Between two elections, the political community is regularly blinded by the opinion polls, which reflect the biases of the upper classes. That gave us the polls which showed that Balladur would be elected, or that the referendums on Europe would pass easily... It is only during the election campaigns that the popular classes weke up gradually. Each one then believes to see a change of mood of the electorate, when it is only, in fact, the emergence of the popular classes: the opinion of the people who do not have an opinion on everything constantly. For ten years, poll after poll, the alienation of the working and popular classes with regard to the leading class in the broad sense has only grown: the results of the last referendum of May 29 on Europe demonstrated it again.

Q - Are violences in the French suburbs a consequence of this alienation?

A - In recent years, the French political life has been a succession of catastrophes which have left the foreign observers increasingly amazed and agog. The first catastrophe is the presidential vote in 2002, with a first round which brings the extreme right in the top two candidates and a second round where Jacques Chirac is elected with more than 80 % of the votes. The second catastrophe, if one places oneself from the point of view of the leading classes, is the referendum on Europe. For months, all the commentators were convinced that yes was going to pass and, at the end, the "non" won easily. Shock, surprise, despair. The leading classes just start to fall asleep again, while trying to convince themselves that the situation is become again stable, when occurs the third catastrophe: this crisis of the suburbs (which no one knows yet if it is finished). And, each time, the delegitimation of the leading classes becomes more obvious.

Q - Is the scenario of the catastrophes of which you speak always the same one?

Not, they do not involve the same groups. The Le Pen vote in 2002 is the old French popular vote which forms the heart of vote FN. With the referendum, you see the involvement of part of the middle class, that linked to the public sector, which I would call the petite bourgeoisie d'Etat (lower State bourgeoisie). The third catastrophe, that of the suburbs, bring into play other actors: young people from immigration. Those are still separated from the French popular classes for historical and cultural reasons, although they belong to the same world in social and economic terms. The three groups which I have just described have in common a deep antagonism with regard to the system and the upper classes.

On the other hand, one does not see any solidarity between them. For example, I remain persuaded that the two groups which produced the "non" victory in the referendum (the popular classes and the petite bourgeoisie d'Etat) have deeply divergent interests. The first are in rage against the statu quo, which means, for them, unemployment and falling wages in a world open to competition; the second wishes the maintenance of the statu quo, which leaves it sheltered from free trade and with a guarantee of employment.

Q - Is there an antagonism between these two categories and the third, that of the young people from immigration who burn cars?

A - It is very worrying to see burning cars, buses and nursery schools. And the things can still degenerate. Despite everything, I lean for a rather optimistic interpretation of what happened. I do not say this about the situation of the suburbs, which is by places disastrous, with rates of unemployment of 35 % amongst heads of family and of racial discriminations fro recruitment. But I do not see anything in the events themselves which radically separates the children of immigrants from the remainder of French society. I see the opposite exactly there. I interpret the events like a refusal of marginalisation. All of that could not have occurred if these children of immigrants had not interiorized some of the fundamental values of French society, of which, for example, the couple freedom-equality. As regards other actors, the government-managed police, the local authorities, the nonimmigrant population, I saw exasperation perhaps, but not rejection in block.

Q - Do you want to say that the young people revolt because they integrated the republican model and feel that it does not function?

A - Exactly. I read their revolt like an aspiration for equality. French society is facing a rise in inequality which touches the whole of the developed world. Rather well tolerated in the United States, where its only political effect is the success of neoconservatism, this planetary rise of inequality is resisted more in France. It comes down to some deep anthropological values which were in the heart of the country family structures of the Parisian agricultural basin. This underlying backbone of equality, which goes back to the XVIIth century, or even earlier, is not found at all in the English farming community, where the transmission of land was much more unequal.

When one is in the upper classes, one can be made do with the rise of the inequality, even if one is against it in principle: it is not too uncomfortable. On the other hand, the popular classes or the middle class live it very badly. That gives the Le Pen vote, which has a real component of equality, with a capacity to saying "fuck you" to the elites, and a component of inequality, with the idea of finding a scapegoat lower than oneself (the immigrant). As regards the kids of suburbs with African or North African origin, they are not at all in the same situation as the Pakistanis of England or the Turks of Germany. For instance, the rates of mixed marriages at the beginning of the years 1990 was already around 25 % for Algerian girls in France, whereas it was 1 % for the girls of Turkish origin in Germany and lower for those of Pakistani origins. The simple racial mix of the gangs of young people in France is impossible to conceive in Anglo-Saxon countries. Note that I do not want either to give an idyllic vision of a France of 1789 which would be in play, with the postulate of the universal man, this dream of the républicains ( ed - i.e the French secular model)

Q - What do you think of the reaction of the Republic vis-a-vis the riots?

A - I was not against the idea of a curfew in view of really worrying violences. As a whole, I find that the reaction of the police force and the government was very moderate. In May 1968, one shouted "CRS- SS ", but the police force showed exceptional control. At the time, the media of left said that the police had not used force because the middle-class did not want to kill its own children. Today, in the suburbs, one saw that the Republic did not shoot either at the children of immigrants. Those were not the only ones concerned. There was an effect of capillarity between all youths, even in the most remote French province. The first death, only indirectly linked with the events, brought an immediate drop in the level of violence. The foreign press which makes fun of France should contemplate this example.

I find of particular stupidity for Nicolas Sarkozy to insist on the foreign character of the young people involved in violences. I am convinced on the contrary that the phenomenon is typically French. The racially mixed young people of the Seine Saint-Denis fall under a tradition of social uprising which is frequent in French history. Their violence represents also the disintegration of the African and North African families in contact with the French values of equality. In particular equality of the women. Despite inevitable fits and starts, the second and the third generation of immigrants are integrated relatively well within the French popular classes, and some join the middle class or higher.

If I am not optimistic from the economic point of view as I think that the globalisation will weigh more and more on employment and wages, I am optimistic in the field of the political values. In terms of result, after these two weeks of riots, which does one see? These marginalized people, introduced like outsiders to society, succeeded through a movement which became national to have an impact in the political debate, obtaining changes in the policies of a right wing government (by forcing it to restore the subsidies to associations in the banlieues). And all that in reaction to a verbal provocation of the Minister of Interior which will undoubtedly realize that they have broken his career. One can be more marginal!


A lot of this is compatible, I think, with what I wrote last week (Paris 'riots': My aunt's building burned yesterday night) in that he focuses on economic and social factors and is not so pessimistic on the integration of these immigrants' kids into French society. It is also in line with my article from a few months back in the WSJ (Can Do France), which underlined the real strengths of the French economy while noting that it appeared to be failing because it was betraying some of the principles (i.e. equality provided by the State) that many citizens crave. The idea that the lower classes in France do not tolerate the growing unequality and feel betrayed by the elites which have stealthily encouraged such global trends inside France is a very important one. His description of the different subgroups that have been protesting is also essential and shows that tailoring a political message to reach all of them is not going to be easy, but one item stands out.

Globalisation reaps unequality.

Countries that appear the most successful today are either those that embrace and promote such inequality (in the name of efficiency - "a rising tide lifts all boats"), or those that fight it really (the Scandinavian model with its all-inclusive social net). Doing some half baked reforms does not work, or puts too much of the burden on parts of the underclass (those that have no access to any historical privilèges or that have to face insidious racism in addition), especially at a time when "refome" has become short hand for lower wages and fewer rights for workers. In France, only a few pay the "reforms", but all feel threatened, and this is not so well tolerated, as history shows. Thus the need to change the way the French elites have adapted (too well, as far as they were concerned, forgetting the rest of the country behind them), and the political party that will express this best could win in a landslide. Conversely, if it is ignored, it will feed the appeal of the destructive national-populists and could lead to more unrest

This is also relevant in the USA, I think. Inequality has not become yet a hot political topic, in part because it has not been identified as such, and because it has been historically tolerated as the counterparty to better opportunities. The political force that makes the case today that the "opportunity" side of the balance is no longer available to many could have a head start to work on the "inequality" concept, and bring in a political change favorable to the left.

[Ry]

6. To be perceived, propaganda must evoke the interest of an audience and must be transmitted through an attention-getting communications medium.

Fox News Alerts!

man they follow the Nazi model to the t.

[Iconoclast]

Sounds just like every other Populist party...

[WillWorkForBread]

so when are we gonna hear about why we need an electoral college? i've always hated the idea and thought we should get rid of it... but at the same time i figured there has got to be a *very* good reason it's still around...

[Iconoclast]

so when are we gonna hear about why we need an electoral college? i've always hated the idea and thought we should get rid of it... but at the same time i figured there has got to be a *very* good reason it's still around...

We should get rid of it and find good leaders, not this bullshit "consensus" form of government where nothing gets done until it is too late, and even then the masses fail to do what is right.

[Ry]

The reason we need an electorial college is to prevent regional scape goating. This is a big reason why we had a civil war.

peoole got pissed at the electorial college because Gore lost in it. However, in the last election Kerry got creamed in the popular vote but almost won the electorial college which would have been sweet because all those demcrats would have felt like asses when the college allowed them to win.

Lets take the Sate of North Carolina as an example.... On the Coast North Carolina has several island and a coast line with the pamlico sound. In the center NC has a trangle of cities Durham Chapel Hill and Raleigh and in the West it has mountains.

The maority of the people live in the cities however the marjority of the revenue coming into North Carolina is from tourism on the coast and on the islands of the Outer Banks. In the plains it has tobacco and it has minerals in the mountains. However the owners of these business live in the cities.

If States did not have countied (which act like the electorial college, then there would be nothing to stop the people in the citied from taxing the other areas on enviromentally unique products and occupations. For example the cities are the mob rule could easily decide to raise taxes and require new fishing licesens on commericail fishing. The city people would not care because they don't fish for a living. They could make excuses for this tax and tighter regulations by using trumped up envirnomental concerns. The people in the city could also raise taxes on coal farming goods etc that it has no concern for there by making portions of the state disproportionately pay for the governmentsd wealth which would be un evenly re-distributed to the citie dwellers. The city politicians could not be voted out of office because they have a majority of the population.

Issues of concern for the coast would be ignored. and indeed they are. Beach nurshiment for example did not get one single dime even when Cape Hatteras island was cut in half by a hurricane. They collect millions of dollars from the islands and spend all of the money on the cities normally for pork projects in frivilous construction.

The counties have been gerrymandered. Two of the major islands are in different counties Dare county and Hodge county. by diving them they don:t even have power in a eletoriasl system.

If the country were to base elections on jsut a popular vote then California and the North East would win every election and there would not even be a point of having an election in the South or West, Hawaii or Alaska. Likewise those politicians could set policies to favor the economics of one area at the neglect or exspense of another.

For example the Civil War. Lincoln won because of the electorial college he had less tha 39% of the vote. See an electorial college works better when there are more than just 2 parties as real democracies used to be.

HOwever Lincoln was a railroad lawyer and Norther's boy. The South was making 80% of the entire World's Cotton at that time. The NOrth East's congressmen and President decided to continue to terrif tetiles from England and France who in turn put teriffs on cotton and tobacco. The north did not care because they did not sell cotton the south did and by making textile good exspensive from abroad they created a monopoly for themselves.

Fort Sumter in SC where the first shots of the Civil War were fired was a terrif collection agentcy. But they never tell you that in school. They only talk about slavery and expanding westerward. South Carolina tried to seceed from the union before the Mexican War before there was even an issue of free vs slave states in the west and way before bleeding Kansas.

it was over the issue of taxes and no repersentation in the government. The North held a firm grip over congress who funnled tax money directly into the pockets of railroad tycoons who went west killing Indians. (an act even more prejudice and racest than slavery)

Areas have different interests not just people. Because areas have different environments. So repersentation needs to be by a combonation of population and area.

[Gyps]

here's my view from the research i've done on it...then i'll read Ry's and respond if i am capable.

1. One of the three most commonly cited reasons for an electoral college is that the framers believed that the general public of 1787 had limited education and media exposure, provincial outlooks, and a lack of nationally focused political knowledge.

In today's age where people can more and more live and work wherever they wish state boundaries mean less and less. In the information age, anyone who wants it has full access to the information they need to elect a president. If 49% of Delaware wants candidate X why should their votes not go to that candidate? Why should their votes be cancelled out? State size, location, acessibility, and lack of education no longer has anything to do with the issue. I'm sure the people of Rhode Island and Delaware would agree.

2. Another reason often given is checks and balances, as it relates to the model of three branches of our government. While a nice concept, there is little evidence to suggest that this was ever high on the list of reasons for an electoral college.

In fact, the electoral college allows for district rezoning that can and does skew results in many states. Have you seen some of the erm oddly shaped districts? Anything that can eliminate the risks of manipulation needs to be considered, including elimination of the college.

3. The third most popular reason given is that of the federalist principle, or the implication that the electoral college was part of some sort of master plan to establish perfect balance between powers of the state, the federal government, and the people.

This is where the real small-state vs large state issue comes into play and this was the biggest struggle the founders had in defining the idea of an electoral college.

The first hurdle they had to get past though was due largely in part to the issue of slave states, largely the southern states, who argued that because they had fewer people yet more wealth their votes should count for more somehow. Boy some things never change, eh? In the end a compromise had to be negotiated to even get them past this issue.

Getting back to the "small" state issue, they were equally as vocal and voiced fears that the larger states would control the legislature and the nomination and election of the president. They even threatened to invite foreign intervention and were decided elitist in their arguments, completely overlooking the fact that the larger states maybe should get more votes because the majority of the population did reside there! By many accounts it was quite the temper tantrum. Again, after much haggling compromise was reached, and according to many writings by the founders and debaters of that time, based on the combined numbers of representatives and senators in the country, the smaller states wound up with representation beyond proportion to their populations and with overrepresentation in the electoral college too.

At the time, all this compromise was necessary to bring a speedy acceptance of the constitution. It was felt that they could live with it "for the moment" to get past the hurdles to ratification.

Political parties did not exist yet, nor did the national census, nor did the sophisticated balloting and voting methods we have today. This type of federalism was not some sort of grand design of our nation...it was a necessary concession. Many of the founders felt that the electoral college would never even matter or be put to any kind of serious test. They were mistaken, and debate, criticism, and discussion about it and the possibility of misfired elections haven't stopped since.

There is plenty of anecdotal reference to the amount of time and energy candidates spend on the larger states but no factual proof. And it is a logical assumption that if there were a populace vote this would cease if in fact it even exists. And if this is true, why the popularity of and focus on the states with disproportionate electoral votes in the primaries?

I could probably go on some more but that's good for now. Overall, they just ran out of time, the electoral college never worked as intended, and in reality small states really are overrepresented as it is with the senate, not even the college, being the scale tipping factor.

Oh and if anyone can tell me what difference it makes, whether a state's population is small or large, how a populace vote changes anything, I'd be very interested in some concrete examples. How would every vote counting cause any kind of domination of anything?

Now I'll read Ry's opinion lol

[Gyps]

Okay, Ry. I think I'm done and do understand your points but am of the opinion that they more pertain to state than to federal issues and laws. Seems like local reform would fix most of the problems you describe and that it has very little to do with the president or the way we select and elect who that's going to be. States would have counties even without the college. States would all still have to wrestle with local issues such as you describe of the OBX and such as exist in New York, where the upstaters are always crying that NYC uses the bulk of the taxes. Well guess what? They contribute the bulk too as a whole...even though people conveniently forget that in their arguments.

So I still don't see where the electoral college has any true purpose or ever did, other than appeasement.