>>MOD WARNING<< Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dead

i wouldn’t vote for people that supported allowing the legislation and Gov pick electors that would vote the opposite if the people

 

You're pretty shameless about making stuff up.

Yet another personal attack.

 

Okay. I wouldn't either.

 

Nothing made up they are your own words making fallacious statements about US Civics.

 

I disagreed intensely with Ginsberg's views on the Second Amendment. So on this point only I am pleased to see some good come out of that useful but traitorous idiot's time in our White House. Now that the Supreme Court is about to have a solid pro-Second Amendment majority, I see no further utility in keeping the Traitor Trump in the White House for another term.

This frees me up to vote for Biden, restore sanity to the White House. I just sent a $100 donation to his campaign.

On the other hand Ruth Bader Ginsberg was an astoundingly intelligent, driven and deeply caring human being. She made enormous advances for equality in our Republic. I admire her greatly, just as Justice Scalia admired her greatly.. I would remind people on all sides that there was a time in this Republic, before the extremes of hate coming from the political parties took over, that conservatives and liberals could work together. Could find common ground and points to agree on. I'm old enough to recall such times, such examples.

So I'll welcome the new Justice, and will approve of her positions on one of my issues of concern. On other issues though, well we'll just have to wait and see but I do fear the court swinging too far in a direction that will yank health insurance out from under the feet of millions of Americans.

At least we stand a chance of being rid of the malfunction known as Trump.

 

You:
Post 861:
If you realize "demo" from "democracy" comes from the Greek "demos" for people, you will understand why you are wrong. The electoral college is anti-democratic because the majority of Americans do not elect the president.
Also post 861:
It really should not be controversial to want the candidate who receives the most votes to actually win the election.

How does your second clause - "most votes" not negate the premise of your first clause - "majority"?
How does your "person with the most votes" argument uphold your notion of democracy when the majority of people could not want that person for President?

In 2016, 51.8% of the the electorate did not vote for Hillary -- how is your version of democracy, where the majority should elect the president, served by her winning the election?

 

Thus, the electoral college.

In your system, the President could lbe elected by 25% of the people.
Does that serve democracy?

Clearly.

 

You're misrepresenting my position.

If the moderators won't put a stop to it, I think I may stoop to your level.

 

Another whopper. What's with you, anyway? Something is definitely off.

 

Definitely something way off with you.

 

Agreed. Wording of poll questions is a fine art, especially if you are after a desired result of the poll.

Seems hard to find out if guns are owned or not if none of the questions are designed to get an answer. Or are you saying the preface disclaimer is supposed to be disingenuous?

I’m starting to think we have no idea who owns guns. I know in my state the official stats show we have low percentages of ownership. Yet I know people all over the state in all kinds of demographics and they all own firearms. Could be coincidental, but based on how I've become aquatinted with them in various ways they are a pretty random sample.

 

Then debate it, prove I am.

 

You keep claiming there is a national popular vote we all vote in, that is specious nonsense. You have never voted in a national popular vote, candidates do not campaign for national popular votes, voting patterns are not for a national popular vote. It is statistical and political folly to pretend that adding up all the unique and separate popular votes, 51 in all, and claiming that is exactly what the outcome would be were there campaigns and voting patterns for a national vote.

Refute it.

 

Uh huh.

https://www.infoplease.com/us/government/elections/presidential-elections-1789-2016

 

So long as the person who receives the most votes wins, that is a democratic system. Now, if you think we should implement a system that would result in the eventual winner receiving the majority of votes cast, that's fine, but then you would probably argue that considering the people who didn't vote, the candidate didn't receive a majority of the electorate, or some nonsense like that.

The EC isn't going anywhere so it's irrelevant. The founders created the system so the country would not be stuck with a president chosen by uninformed people, but in a bit of cosmic irony, that is exactly the result of that system today.

 

I think one good source is better than one good and one bad, but I get your point. I do watch right leaning journalists, just not the looney tunes "prime time" winners on Fox.

 

You are trying to make a distinction where none exists. A country is composed of states, as a states is composed of counties. There is no difference. And the implied ad hominum was rude.

 

It was a Fairleigh Dickinson University survey. There is also a new study published in American Politics Research showing the same results.

 

And states are composed of counties.. States and their counties are managed by their respective Governors and the country is presided over my a President and the houses/senators/congressmen, well in its most simplest chain of hierarchy.. we don't cast votes for other state so yes a straight up and down vote works fine at the state level BUT WE ALL "STATES" vote for the President.. Without the EC low pop states would have no voice.. But the argument is moot as it will never change in yours or my life time, so pick a fight you have the time to finish

 

This isn't true. Say, Wyoming has 1,000,000 people. Those 1,000,000 people would have EXACTLY the same voice as any 1,000,000 people in California or New York, or Texas, etc. The EC makes votes in certain "swing" states far more important, and thus gives outsized "voice" to people of those states to the detriment of the less "important" states.

 

Nope, you are not looking at the BIG PICTURE.. Take any state you like but without the EC you would simply have 9 states that would elect a President.. Sorry but that's hardly the way the founders OR we Americans in rural area's want it.. You have a candidate worthy of the Presidency then do like Trump and with the support of the majority of the states..

 

If you do a Google deep dive into one side or the other, you get a lot of search results biased in that direction. It's so bad, I do most of my browsing in private mode.

What I don't like is a harangue, left, right, or even center.

 

Of course the rural states don't like it. Rural areas tend to be more conservative and it is a benefit that a preferred candidate can receive fewer votes and still win the election. I read if Biden won the popular vote by five percent, he would still only have an 80% chance of winning the election. That is insane. Combine that with the fact that gerrymandering has resulted in far more representation in Congress for the Republicans than percentages of votes cast, and the President who received fewer votes and the Republican controlled Senate that received fewer votes stacking the federal courts, and no rational person could possible argue that we live in a democracy. The US is the tyranny of the minority.

 

It is what it is brah.. Still the best place to live

 

How does the winner getting, say, 25% of the votes, correspond to any meaningful definition of democracy?

If the electoral college is anti-democratic because the majority of Americans do not elect the president, how is your "system" not similarly anti-democratic?