Gerrymandering and the Winner-Takes-All Rule of the EC Have To Go

They don't. They affect, however, the elections to the HofR and also the state-elections to state-legislatures (for which Gerrymandering was designed principally). Gerry was the Governor of the state of Massachusetts in 1812 and was the first to manipulate voter geographic-districting to obtain his desired voting outcomes.

It worked so well, other states began to do the same. Manipulation of the popular-vote has a Very Long History in the US - and nobody teaches that historical fact in high-school Civics. (Or at least they didn't when I took Civics an eon ago in Massachusetts, of all places!)

Definition from here:

I would not have employed the word "influence" in the above sentence. Gerrymandering effectively manipulates the popular-vote to produce a particular voting-outcome.

From the point of view of "fairness" the rule is clear: One person, one vote! And not one vote that is "torn-up and thrown-away" because it was given to a losing candidate in any given state as is executed presently by the Electoral College.

Any nation that is concerned about Honest Liberty does not negate-votes for the purpose of manipulating a desired outcome in the election of an American president! (And if you won't believe that, go look at the definition of "liberty" here.)

The essence of the popular-vote today in America is contradictory:
*Elections are patently indicative of the people's choice in any election. Which means a country should not and DOES NOT ELECT AS Executive Head-of-the-nation candidates that lose the popular-vote.
*But, of course, because politics is about deciding how state- and Federal-taxation revenues are spent, some political-parties see it as way to manipulate elections to their devious ends. Which is manifestly dishonest and should be considered a crime with its appropriate punishment ...

 

And that doesn't matter either, Europe took decades to catch up to the USA and even now we have to defend there butts , since they have no money in defense

 

There are some pragmatic and practical reasons for political representation districting and that winner take all system.
However, on the downside, having only one possible electable representative from each district leads to the two-party system. (The solution would be to make the districts a little bigger and allow two or three representatives to be elected from within each district)

 

We've already discussed the winner-take-all rule multiple times, and you've been told why it's important to be there.
No point in making the other side have to repeat themselves again and again.

I think you have started at least 6 threads over the past 6 months complaining about the Electoral College.

 

If you don't like the method of choosing the president, the constitution can certainly be amended. It only takes 38 states.

 

It is unimportant and disastrous because it does not report the True Vote for the presidency.

It is therefore illicit and we should dump the mechanism but keep the institution. Let the states handle the vote, but they report to Congress ONLY the popular-vote statistic.

Then and only then will the US have the truly national voting result (for the PotUS) in a True Democracy within a Bonafide Voting System -THAT is what I said originally and you refuse to accept.

Period, the discussion ends there. Get it ... ?

 

None whatsoever! It's like saying that a woman's rape "has some sexual benefits"! Yes, for men!

No, it doesn't if you have a rerun of the vote between the two top candidates candidates in the "primary vote" by means of a "secondary vote". The "party" becomes irrelevant in the sense that finalist candidates could possibly come from the same party? (And why not? As long as it is ruled that the elected candidate be that of the final majority-vote.)

How can that happen? If the candidate were purely an Internet Candidate in any give constituency. That is a likely way that voting will go in the future anyway. The amounts of money necessary for useless 20-second spot TV-commercials will push the candidatures onto the Internet - which is already becoming just another broadcast mechanism like TV ...

 

The True Vote for the presidency is by the States which is represented by the Electoral College.

 

Can you please cite the language in the constitution that implements the "true vote" for the presidency?

 

Having a tiny area of densely populated handout takers controlling the country is why we have the EC in the first place.