The Electoral College - yet again

Its not open to debate. We have 50 states. Each has its own election. The states then report in with their results via electoral college process. The popular vote is meaningless other than to amuse me with the lefts inability to grasp common knowledge of our constitution.

 

Is just another ploy to improved the chances of a Democrat in the WH..

Proof:
All of the parties to this compact have the power to, now, allocate their electoral votes in proportion to the national popular vote; none of them will because they know it means the Democrats will NOT win the White House.

Please, try to be honest.

 

A person could win the election with 0% of the popular vote.
The US isn't a democracy; like all other western nations, the people do not elect the head of government.

 

This is the sole and entire reason liberals and Democrats want to dismantle it.

 

The majority of people also voted three times against Bill and Hillary Clinton; if Hillady had won a few thousand more votes in a few key states, the electoral college would have produced, as it did in 1992 and 1996, a president that a majority of voters did not want being elected.

The election of the President does not require, and is in no way predicated upon. the consent of the people.

 

No we want to replace it with a proportional electoral college so that third parties would have an even chance of a say. I don't care how much republicans AND democrats want to keep their two party power system in place.

 

If you were literate, you would notice that I'm making an ought claim and not an is claim. I know how the constitution works, and the way the constitution works sucks.

Literally the entire point of the American revolution was the idea that governance requires the consent of the people. Aren't conservatives supposed to be very into the ideals of the American Revolution?

 

Amend the constitution.
Good luck.

 

Apparently, that didn't matter n 1992 or 1996, when the majority of the American voters did not want Bill Clinton as President.

Your consent to be governed is expressed in your Congressman and, now, Senator. There has NEVER been consent of the people needed for the election of the President.

 

Then leave the U.S. if you dont like it. Is that literate enough for you?

 

It was bullshit when Bill Clinton got elected too

Nah. I'm pessimistic about the possibility of change, but I think I'll stay here and try to make things better anyway.

 

Good, same here... Ill be here to ensure you dont make things liberal kinda "good".

 

No President has ever been elected by the people.

 

Oh, you'll be sorely disappointed, considering I'm an esoteric anarcho-communist who thinks that humanity should adopt a new, techno-nomadic way of living and ruthlessly interrogate all past tradition.

I would prefer there to be no president, but if there is one, he ought to at least be elected by the people. That would be the only sensible way to handle it.

 

The Constitution guaranties to the states the federal government will NOT be a democracy.

 

The why not do it the proper way through a Constitutional amendment instead of trying to do a run around? And BTW you still have Article 1 Section 10 to get around.

 

I disagree, the whole point of conservatives is to preserve what the Founders' created. You will not see conservatives demanding something unconstitutional without at least going through the amendment process. They will not simply whine and riot hoping things will change by force of tears alone...

 

Not a problem to feal with. At all.

 

Okay, have fun running "Fall of the Roman Republic V2" then

 

Who said anything about not going through the amendment process?

It's funny, because I have always held what you said right here: that conservatives are all about stopping progress to keep us as similar to 18th Century America as they can. And it's other conservatives who jump three feet in the air with rage denying the statement. You, on the other hand, agree with me.

 

Its not about stopping progress, its about advancement that retains our Constitutional protections, not allowing things like rights to be relegated to privileges as the progs desire in things like gun control. Conservatives do not oppose the amendment process, its progs that attempt to use the courts to bypass the process that appear to be the problem now.

 

mvymvy with the talk about the scheme to get enough states to engage in a compact to undermine the Constitution and Electoral College with the proportional vote agreement to get around the Constitution and the amendment process.

 

NFL players would like to know if they also oppose those who use the Presidency to shut down First Amendment rights? Or does that only apply to the 2nd Amendment?

 

I don't see the need to have a Senate that represents the Senate. Whats the point?

 

You have, one, and just one, course of action: Amend the Constitution.