The Fair Vote

Yes, the electors appointed by the several sovereign states choose the president.

Not sure about this other vote you're talking about. I see nothing in the constitution about it.

 

Not what the "Founding Fathers" believed.

Population dense area could / would commit tyranny on more rural folks.

BTW where does the 500X come from? Argument sake?



Heaven is not a Democracy
Democracy is not Heaven

 

Nope. Everything I said is absolutely verifiable fact.

Also, you seem to be unfamiliar with faithless electors. I am sure you will Google them as soon as you read this post, and become an instant expert.

 

Again, the American people do not choose the president. The Electoral College chooses the president.

 

This would allow Democrats to stuff the ballot boxes in areas they control so they win every time.



¯\_(º¸º)_/¯

 

Well, it’s a demonstrable fact that they were. Lol

 

Address what I actually said, not what you make up and pretend I said.

 

Why should wife open unpopulated empty space elect the president of the United States, instead of the people of the United States?

 

I did.

Here you go, proof that the.public does not vote for a POTUS, btw:

Even though the aggregate national popular vote is calculated by state officials, media organizations, and the Federal Election Commission, the people only indirectly elect the president, as the national popular vote is not the basis for electing the president or vice president. The president and vice president of the United States are elected by the Electoral College, which consists of 538 electors from the fifty states and Washington, D.C. Electors are selected on a state-by-state basis, as determined by the laws of each state. Since the election of 1824,most states have appointed their electors on a winner-take-all basis, based on the statewide popular vote on Election Day. Maine and Nebraska are the only two current exceptions, as both states use the congressional district method. Although ballots list the names of the presidential and vice presidential candidates (who run on a ticket), voters actually choose electors when they vote for president and vice president. These presidential electors in turn cast electoral votes for those two offices. Electors usually vote for the nominees of their party to whom they have been pledged, but some "faithless electors" have voted for other candidates or refrained from voting.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College

To this day, it never fails to amaze me how little knowledge knowledge individuals such as yourself have about the government you worship religiously. One would think that since you have such a belief system that you would understand it's intricacies.

Evidently, like most religion, statism's requires ignorance of it's followers. It explain much.

 

The founders didn't allow voting at all. The Ec was just THEM choosing who to put in charge. The EC as it exist today was an attempt to give small agri states oversized power to avoid Civil War (that didn't work).

 

The opposite. Most Americans were rural until just before WW1 and most states were +/- 200k of each other until we started pushing West.

 

Why should California and Wyoming each get two senators?

 

?

White landowners where allowed to vote

 

For the thousandth time state rights, good gawd why is this so complicated?

 

It isn't. Some folks are either incapable of understanding, willfully ignorant or intentionally obtuse.

 

Shall we cut the simplistic inanity about the Founding Fathers. You did no live in those time and very-evidently you have no idea whatsoever of what they were like.

They committed themselves to a venture that could have cost them their lives. They won that bet. Let's be grateful for that, and beyond that let's be careful.

The passage in 1812 of the Electoral College was intended SIMPLY to get the presidential vote to Congress, which was difficult given the fact that in 1812 they did not have the Internet! The colonies did not even have railroads!

The ability to manipulate the popular-vote was devised that year as well, when Governor Gerry of Massachusetts "invented" gerrymandering in order to assure his party won the voting district being manipulated. And we have been voting with that fundamental mistake of voting-manipulation ever since!

The manipulation is even worse in the Electoral College with its winner-takes-all-the-votes of the state's EC! The EC should be collecting the popular-vote in the state and SIMPLY send it to DC, where Congress can count ALL THE STATE popular-votes and declare the winner!

It is high-time that Uncle Sam "grows-up" and fixes his two-century old manipulation of the popular-vote* ... !

*Which, if it had existed 3-years ago, would have prevented Donald Dork from occupying the Oval Office!

 

Huh?

Gerrymandering has been around longer then America existed

 

Kolter: [You know the Electors can vote as they wish regardless of their written declarations to vote as the vote went it would be Constitutional for them to vote their conviction so there are no assurances.]

Yes, that is yet another "curiosity" of the presently antiquated Electoral College.

It is tantamount to MANIPULATION of the popular-vote. I vote for the presidency and some jerk back in the US tells me that my vote (because it was not for the majority) was "wrong" and therefore has been thrown-away and uncounted? What (in heaven's name) is THAT SORT OF DEMOCRATIC-LUNACY?

Have you ever taken a lesson in Civics where that particular subject arose? In the US - not-likely ... !

 

That is NOT THE POINT!

The argument is quite-simple as regards the illegitimacy of the popular-vote system today in the ECs:
*The vote for the Presidency is NOT A STATE VOTE (except geographically), it is a National Vote for the highest-office-in-the-land.
*There was in 1812 (when the 12th Amendment was passed) no easy way to get the vote to Congress in the DC. Even collecting the vote across the "ex-colonies" was a monumental task, which justified the necessity of an "Electoral College" to do so.
*For these reasons, the Electoral College is of no great necessity, moreover it covers a stark manipulation-of-the-popular-vote that is dishonest and should be disallowed. Namely, the Winner-takes-all EC-vote Rule*.
*In any popular-vote nationwide only the un-manipulated vote at the level of of each state-voting mechanism is right-and-proper. Meaning quite simply, "the raw popular-vote in each state is the ONLY VOTING RESULT that should be communicated to Congress".

*This rule was passed because the southern-states threatened to leave the "United States" - because they had overall a lower population than northern-states and thus lower voting-weigh in the HofR! Due to the simple fact that most of Europeans who left Europe preferred to live in those states. So, in order to mollify the south, the ECs were allowed the "winner-takes-all" rule, which significantly assisted incumbents to remain.

To this day, some of those incumbents spend ages in DC! Which creates "political blocks" in a two-party system. The benefits of a two- or multiparty electoral system is a good debate but for another day. From here: How Congress Works

Why the above rules? Well, it's difficult to say. But, my opinion would be this:
*The real voice-of-the-people is that of the HofR. However, such voices in a country where barely 50% of the population votes in National Elections (and the rate is even lower in state-elections) can lead to disastrous results with Congresses shifting back-and-forth between the two National-Parties.
*However, perhaps that "voice-of-the-people" (HofR) needs a less "emotional body" with longer tenure to "moderate" the law-voting process by a "voice of political maturity"? Which is a policy-making oversight that the Senate accomplishes well.
*Regardless, the Replicants who have "stacked" the Supreme Court as well as having the majority in the Senate can negate any proposition-of-law whatsoever from the Dem-side. (Which, I suggest, simply means that tenures at the SC should be limited to ten-or-fifteen years.)
*So, the American people today and as regards Congress are getting what our forefathers wanted and what-they-need. But unfortunately for the other other "Powers of Governance"*, the present system can lead to where one-party in Congress can dominate the National System of governance. Which, boyz-'n-girlz, is tantamount to dictatorship.
*Methinks ...

PS: And I will say it again: After WW2 Europe had to rebuild its party-system political democracy. Not one chose to mimic the US either in voting-procedures of its Parliaments or nominations to Supreme Courts at the European-level. Both Winner-takes-all voting-rules and Gerrymandering-votes are almost totally unknown in Europe. (And whyzzat? Because none wanted to have a national voting-system as they had witnessed in the US. And, since 1950, so-far so good!)

*There are three: the Executive, Legislative and Judicial.

 

Some people in this thread never taken a course in civics runs to france and say they dont have a electorial college

 

No you didn’t. And the public absolutely votes for president. They just don’t elect him.

 

They shouldn’t.

 

How is it in any way fair that a vote in Wyoming carries 3 times the weight of a vote in California? Everyone should be equal. 1 voter, 1 vote.

 

Please explain why?

 

It doesn't,

2 for states rights