Maybe We DO Need A 25th Amendment Solution?

I like to think I would be ideologically consistent in that scenario, but who can say for certain?

 

You made no point for me to concede.

Passing by majority a proposition that violates the constitution is not the same as electing a leader through a straight up popular vote. Try again.

I did know that. Its part of the growing library of useless and irrelevant knowledge that has been accumulating since I started discussing literally anything with conservatives. Still pales in comparison to the accumulation of bullshit I've been subjected to though.

Its not about what I want or what would work better. Its about what will inevitably happen with absolute certainty. The minority consistently usurping the will of the majority using a system the existence of which cannot be justified will rip this country to shreds.

 

so how are electoral votes decided?

I likely won't I don't believe we should just toss out the Constitution if our party doesn't win.

 

Typo. I meant pretending it isn't determined by popular vote isn't going to get you anywhere.

The constitution is outdated in many respects. If the states decide to amend it to go to popular presidential vote I personally would support that. It likely won't happen if course. I would probably be ok with an indirect presidential election through the house of representatives even.

 

it isn't it's determined by the Electoral College. Whether or not the candidate gets the state's electoral votes is based on popular vote within the state.

Well it likely won't happen because the Constitution is not outdated. If it was we would have amended it. Congress the executive and the Judiciary are capable of doing that.

well we already have an indirect presidential election that's what the Electoral College does. And you think we should have electoral style process for Representatives? So the person that wins the majority vote in the district gets one vote and the person who loses gets no votes.

Yeah I'm cool with that.

 

Good point.

 

Sorry but Hillary’s loss is why the EC is so necessary. During the election she obviously didn’t give a **** about large chunks of the country. She admitted it. And when/if she won, she wouldn’t have given a **** about large chunks of the country. Case closed.

 

Ah. You choose to lie to yourself. Good to know.

No need, as my example makes the point clearly and concisely.

The system we live under is designed to protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority, as evidenced by the innumerable instances where the majority by design, does not always rule.

You apparently are OK with two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner; I imagine you hold this view because you believe you are one of the wolves.

And so you agree - you do indeed not have a right to vote for President.
Glad we could establish this.

Far from it.

 

No Presidential election has ever been decided by the popular vote.

 

The electoral vote of each state is determined by the popular vote of that state. In theory the electors could vote against their constituents, but I don't think that would go well.

All but three presidential elections in the us were essentially determined by national popular vote. Republicans are enjoying the facade of the electoral college at the moment, but I think in my lifetime it will probably come to an end.

 

The minority does not have the right to elect the president. That's not a right. They have the right to vote, but there is nothing guaranteeing their right to elect someone they prefer.

 

Actually it was FIVE Times.

1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, 2016.

 

Fair enough my mistake.

 

It will come to an end, and in fact it shouldn't have gone on this long, but liberals love to live on top of each other as far away from people not like them as possible.

 

Flame baiting garbage

DIvisive nonsense as always

 

You think urban and high population density areas are more homogenous than rural? Come on now, diversity is not exactly the Republican party's thing. I think you have it backwards. People who want to live far away from people who are different from them tend to vote Republican

 

I didn't say that "urban and high population density areas are more homogenous than rural." I find it interesting that you somehow read that in to what I wrote. That's an almost Scott Adams-esque example of creating your own reality to match the movie in your head.

So let's try this again. This is what I actually said: "... but liberals love to live on top of each other as far away from people not like them as possible."

The key word here is "Liberals" not whatever diversity movie that's running in your head. Data seems to back that up. I won't bother posting yet another electoral map of the 2016 election, but it clearly shows blue areas being very blue, but concentrated in a minuscule part of the country. That's why in population terms, Hillary won the popular vote by 3 million votes but lost the electoral vote by a near landslide.

My entire point is that you guys would never lose another election if your people were spread out a bit better. But your diversity side note was interesting, and I can see why you guys are so gullible. If you are not hearing the story that matches your preconceived notions, you'll just make it up and pretend I posted it.

Amusing!

 

I'm intrigued. Please explain your thesis.

 

Liberals "who live on top of one another" tend to live in an incredibly diverse culture FULL of people "not like them".

Huge fail there Lil guy

 

Wow, you're running the same movie in your head that T_K_Richards is! Since you copied my explanation of his misfire, you clearly are not going to understand it if I explain it again. But for the purposes of politics, what is so "incredibly diverse" about people who are all on the same sheet of music politically?

 

And the fact that he is leaders of a people where a substantial number of his opponents insist on making national discourse into an ongoing Jerry Springer show doesn't alter your view, does it?

 

I understand what you said and I pointed out how stupid of a statement it was. People who live in high population density areas obviously live around a more diverse population. Ethnically, politically, religiously, etc. Claiming otherwise is nonsense. The fact that these areas are voting Democrat does not make them homogenous. Your claim is so wrong it's the opposite of reality.

I am glad you amuse yourself. Unfortunately your point doesn't hold up when confronted with reality or scrutiny of any kind. Even in regions that vote Democrat in high percentages there are still huge numbers of conservatives. It's not liberals who are seeking or living in places that lack diversity of political opinion. It's rural conservatives.

Here is an interesting question: Do people tend to become more liberal when they live in a high density area and do they tend to become more conservative when living in a low density area? Or, is it like you think that people tend to migrate toward regions that match their political views. My guess is it's a bit of both, but it would be hard to confirm.

 

You clearly have no idea of what "the big population" centers are like. Claiming that all those millions of people think alike is beyond stupid.

But hey...you have your "opinion" and you treat it like gold

 

Did you actually read the rambling and ranting from the link in the OP???

 

And thus, my point, proven. Thank you.

False. Every election save one was determined by the electoral college.
In the one that was not, the winner had neither the most electoral votes not the greatest share of the popular vote.

It takes just 13 states to block an amendment; the 13 states most likely to do so contain about 7% of the population.
Thus, your dream is more of a delusion.