Maybe We DO Need A 25th Amendment Solution?

The majority of the electoral college elects the president; if there is no majority, then the majority of the house elects the President.
At no time do YOU elect the President.

You do not have the right to vote for President-- you state grants you that privilege.
It need not do so, and if it does not, you have no legal recourse other than to vote in a state government that grants said privilege for the next election.

Did you take government 101? Did you pass?

 

Its also your mistake that the popular vote elected the President-- in fact, it only corresponded to the winner, which carries absolutely zero legal weight.

This is demonstrated no better by the fact there is no federal organ that certifies the popular vote as official - the "popular vote" is nothing more than an aggregate of the 51 elections and has no electoral meaning at all.

 

Yes... what's why so many people of color move out to the sticks - they like living near people who are different than them.

 

Crime. Poverty. Gangs. Drugs. Government controlled by Democrats.
Pert much all you need to know.

 

Either you are willfully ignoring my point or you don't understand.

Essentially the popular vote determined the vast majority of the US presidential elections.

In other words, the outcome would have been the same if the electoral college did not exist.

The electoral college is unnecessary and is clearly over valuing the votes of people who live in low pop. states.

 

That post wasn't even directed at you. Don't be weird.

 

What you're feeling is the direct result of the actions, choices and decisions made by our two major parties back in 2016. Trump could have been easily avoided, all it took was a decent candidate from the Democrats. Feeling frustrated, looked deep within and you will find the reason for that frustration which need not have been.

 

Presidents are indirectly elected by the citizens of the US. People vote and electors vote based on their constituents. Stop ignoring basic facts about how voting works in the US. I do get to vote for president and so do you. No group has a right to elect the president, only to vote, that was my point. Again, it seems you are being willfully obtuse in order to dismiss arguments that you can't counter.

 

Ha! You did it again! I never said homogeneous. That movie in your head is apparently far stronger than reality.

There are conservative people in the bluest areas. Trump is in the White House, surrounded by a District that voted 94% for his opponent. That's not the issue. But as I've pointed out, and you've sadly confirmed by your responses, you're not going to understand it.

 

You can't even respond to my argument can you?

 

Again, you can't understand what I actually wrote, and have to put it through your own filter.

I would think it must be difficult to go through the world that way but I guess you're doing fine so keep stumbling along.

 

I'll be honest, I feel like I've wasted enough time with you already. You demonstrated that not only could you not understand my argument, but you had no intention of doing so because you preferred your version better. So why should I bother to continue with you? In order to have a decent political discussion, we have to understand some basics of what we're discussing and you've demonstrated that you are unable to.

It's not me, it's you.

 

You made a claim. I presented a clear argument showing why you were wrong. You can't dispute my argument, so you are just going to dismiss it. Super impressive... /s

 

Your argument did not address my claim because you never understood what I actually wrote. You addressed what you wanted the claim to be. That's why you can't contribute anything to this discussion.

 

Well lot of land at least!

 

And that's what makes it really great he won LOLOL

 

So cows and tree's vote, btw, the blues have far more electoral then the red cow and tree states, so what happen again

 

I clearly addressed your claim. I'll do it again for you.

You wrote: "but liberals love to live on top of each other as far away from people not like them as possible."

I responded by pointing out that you are wrong. Liberals tend to live in areas with high population density, therefore they live around a much more diverse population than people who live in rural areas. Areas with high population density in the US are inarguably more diverse in political views, religion, economic class, ethnicity, etc. Conservatives who live in rural areas are in fact the ones who "love to live... as far away from people not like them as possible." Rural areas are much more homogenous than urban and many suburban regions.

You were not only wrong, but the opposite of your claim is actually true. Pretty far off base if you ask me.

 

post deleted

 

All this map shows is that the rural areas of the USA, where Trump did better than Hillary, occupy a good deal more area than do the urban areas. (well, duh) With the exceptions of Vatican City and San Marino I believe that is the case with every country in the world.

 

One possibility is the lack of economic opportunities in places other than the metropolitan cities, due in part, because the policies of neoliberalism encourage the creation of oligopolies.

 

See my full response on post #95, then not understand it once again.

 

Your response on post 95 did nothing to address my argument. You were wrong, get over it and move on. I am surprised you find that so hard to accept since it must happen so often.

 

As I've tediously explained, you didn't understand my comment, so you couldn't understand my response to your counter comment.

Sorry, it's beyond you.

 

OK, why don't you explain your brilliant comment that I can't understand? Or are you just going to continue droning on and on and never admit you were wrong.