If the POT was a fact based party interested in strengthening democracy.......

The Electoral College is a protection of minority rights, the minority being states with small populations. Democrats hate that idea.

 

The intent of the Founders was to not allow for the tyranny of the majority. Instead, they've given us the tyranny of the minority.

 

Dems rightly don't like seeing the country ruled by the minority.

 

Can you provide a list of Democrats who provided such legislation? Or is this just out of left field?

 

I haven’t forgotten. Even when Republicans control the power, preventing bad legislation (which is most legislation) is an important part of governing. The President is not a king.

BTW you would be well advised to control your snarky comments. Your arrogance is reinforced by lack of intelligent comments, a not uncommon trait for insecure children.

 

Unless they’re the minority. Democrats always feel they’re the rightful rulers.

 

That would be a tyranny of Democracy.
You're welcome

 

Not only was the creation of the Electoral College in part a political workaround for the persistence of slavery in the United States, but almost none of the Founding Fathers’ assumptions about the electoral system proved true.

For starters, there were no political parties in 1787. The drafters of the Constitution assumed that electors would vote according to their individual discretion, not the dictates of a state or national party. Today, most electors are bound to vote for their party’s candidate.

And even more important, the Constitution says nothing about how the states should allot their electoral votes. The assumption was that each elector’s vote would be counted. But over time, all but two states (Maine and Nebraska) passed laws to give all of their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the state’s popular vote count. Any semblance of elector independence has been fully wiped out.
https://www.history.com/news/electoral-college-founding-fathers-constitutional-convention

It would be a disservice to yourself to remain ignorant on the topic.

 

Of course they do. Which is why they want to do away with the electoral college and institute federal regulated elections.

 

You may have forgotten - or more likely never learned - that the United States is just what the name implies: a union of largely sovereign states with a federal government small in size with few and limited powers. The federal government overstepped it’s Constitutional authority long ago, much to the delight of Democrats.

 

.

 

The electors are required to vote for the will of the people.
That would mean cast their votes for which ever candidate received the most votes in their state.
Just as the Constitution requires.

You were saying?

 

I've learned to expect all manner of word salad from you but.............yikes!

 

Every state is allocated a number of electoral votes equal to the number of senators and representatives in its congressional delegation. See the problem or do I have to spell it out?

You were saying.

 

None are so blind as he who won't see. Not only are you refusing to see verified results of your parties egregious irresponsibility, you view criticism as right wing agenda. This is an example of blind, religious-like following. The great weather and scenery does not cover up facts.

California leads the nation in poverty.
Californians pay the highest taxes.
California is the worlds 5th largest economy.
California has some of the most toxic beaches.
California public schools rank with the lowest.
California roads cost twice as much to maintain, yet road conditions rank with the worst.
California ranks with the highest on income inequality.
California obesity rate is 30%+ (Not the worst, but far from healthy)

These are all easily verified facts for anyone willing to notice.

Noticing results does not mean that I support the right wing of live a miserable life. Quite the opposite. I am fortunate to earn a good living and wouldn't mind giving up half my earnings if your party was delivering on their promises. They are not. Closing ones eyes and being offended does not change these facts.

I said "uninformed" and you revealed who you believe to be uninformed with that comment. I disagree.

 

His agenda was popular because it favored America and Americans. It was unpopular with left wing cultists because the goals required work. He was a better President than Bush or Obama, he just wasn't one of the DC movers and shakers. He was a shoe in for reelection until Covid gave the political establishment, including the MSM, an issue they could run with. Biden's value is that he's one of the guys, he has no desire to slow the socialist/globalist drift. He stands for nothing, just drifts with the flow.

 

And yourself also.

There were political parties. Or have you not ever heard of The Federalists and Anti-Federalists? Which started to form even before the Constitution was signed. Thomas Jefferson hated political parties, and yet he supported the Republican party because he felt that there needed to be some opposition to The Federalists because he believed that they were too inclined to legislative powers eventually leading to an oligarchy.

LINK: First Party System (constitutionfacts.com)

 

You will need to point it out.
Thanks

 

We live in a Republic. Not a Democracy where the majority rules.
Glad I was able to teach you something today.

 

Every state is allocated a number of electoral votes equal to the number of senators and representatives in its congressional delegation. Meaning CA gets two electors for its two senators and so does WY. WY having a smaller population by over 39M. Meaning the citizens of WY and other similarly low population states are disproportionately represented in the EC. Just as they are in the Senate. Got it?

 

Dressing with that word salad?

 

I see nothing that has anything to do with democracy. You are confusing the drive to totalitarianism with democratic politics.

 

Then you are blind.

 

Sorry, I couldn't break it down in less than 11 words for you.
If 11 words makes a word salad for you, I have no help I can offer.

 

No, I don't got it.
Wyoming has 3 electoral votes because it has 1 seat in the House of Representatives and 2 seats in the Senate. 1+2=3. The number of electoral votes that is allotted to each state is exactly the same as each states total representation in both houses of Congress. \

California has 2 senators and 53 members of the House of Representatives. 2+53=55

Just an FYI for your (Got it) claim, since you seem to be lagging behind so bad

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. In the United States Senate all states are represented equally. Regardless of size or population, each state has two senators, who serve six-year terms.

Now you got it.