Million Dollar Donations To PotUS Elections

From here: Million-Dollar Donors in the 2016 Presidential Race - excerpt:

MegaBucks to elect a PotUS?!? Did you know that the post was for sale?

Well, it is in America - that country with a two-party system that is rigged by Gerrymandering and the Electoral College. Any democracy that, five times in its history, allowed a LOSER of the popular-vote to win the presidency should have redone its voting practices from the very beginning more than two-centuries ago.

But Uncle Sam did not. Why not?

Because, as has been typical also since two centuries, since the beginning BigMoney was and is paramount historically in America's electoral process. And especially at the level of the presidency.

Whyzzat? Because it is at that level that America deviates from the common rule that all elections for public office should observe the Same Sacred-rule: One Voter, One Vote and only One Vote!

And so? The deviation from the common-rule started at a time in history (Amendment 12, 1812) when the Electoral College was defined (wrongly).

A Q&A from off the Internet (here):

(As we all know, the electoral process was subsequently change to include both the PotUS and Vice-PotUS together.)

And some other Fast Facts (from here):

BUT:

Which means what? That if YOUR VOTE was for a loser of the popular-vote then it is discarded, thrown-away, torn-up, destroyed - etc. etc. ad nauseam! It's as if you never voted!

So, what is needed?
*That Congress passes a law stipulating that the popular-vote in the Electoral College is the one and only Valid Vote for the presidency to be reported to Congress by each state.
*That the donation-amount to any election campaign nationally should be limited to a fixed amount to be decided by state and national legislatures.

 

For instance, for any given election, the maximum amount that can be given here in France is around $5000.

Should it be that other sources were employed, the candidate (even if elected) will go before a court of law. Which is happening as I write - the election of Sarkozy, French president a decade ago, was reputedly partly financed by Libyan strongman Gaddafi. Sarkozy will be going to court and tried for accepting an illegal donation. (For which he allowed Gaddafi to watch the 14th July annual military parade with him (and others) down the Champs Elysee AND also to sleep in his tent that was set up on the presidential grounds of the Elysees Palace during his entire stay of about 4 days.)

 

Dang, ignorance of history is rampant in parts of America, the Electoral College was defined in Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. The 12th Amendment fixed a flaw in the process. Can you imagine without the 12th that Hillary would be VP to Trump?

 

@LafayetteBis ... you have to take into account that the usa is made up of 50 individual states, aka sub-countries, where each are free to govern themselves and every state has different laws & regulations, this is why we have the electoral college, so that each state has a voice and that voice is 'supposed' to follow the voices of their individual constituents... and that's where the 'flaw' resides, some states 'twist' the rules of engagement (winner take all) and now some think they can just allocate all of their ec's to the majority winner after the election results come in, even if 100% of that states votes were for the minority candidate... that's 100% illegal and will get tossed out by scotus...

the only way that we can use 'majority' wins, is if we standardize all our laws/regulations and erase all the states borders and remove their 'names' & declare the entire territory 'america' ('united states' no longer being needed, as they'll be no more states)...

 

A load of pathetic nonsense. Especially the notion of "sub-country". What next? Indiana is going to issue passports in order for its citizens to enter Ohio of Illinois? And, let's see those passports at state-entry border controls!

Here are some voting aspects that apparently you need to understand regarding Gerrymandering and the Electoral College, both means-of-manipulation of the popular-vote. The definition of which is:

No country can PRETEND to be a democratic republic if
*By Gerrymandering that manipulates the popular-vote at the state level to assure that one or the other in a two-party system illegally obtains the majority-vote of one-party. Or,
*An Electoral College (EC) that destroys the votes of electors at the national-level of presidential voting! Do you UNDERSTAND that the EC majority-rule-winner is anti-democratic? Because it allots to the total EC votes to the majority-winner - meaning that it throws-away, denies, negates, destroys the minority popular-vote of the states residential voters.

That may be Your Democracy but it is most certainly not mine ... !

Not really and not at all.

Uncle Sam must institute a natural majority-voting process that consists of:
*ONLY THE RESULTS OF THE RAW POPULAR-VOTE,
*Conducted in a fair and simply decent manner unwarped by voting manipulations.

The reasons for those manipulations are lost in history. People like you think that because OUR FOUNDING FATHERS* conceived of these manipulations they must be valid and natural. When historically they are not. I don't know what you were taught in High-School Civics Class but you did not learn that:
*The southern states were very concerned that European migrants were settling mostly in the northern states. (In 1812, there were only 18 states in the USofA.)
*The southern states also had no other major production except agriculture (meaning "cotton") that was the bulwark of their local economies. And, for that reason, slaves were essential to produce the cotton competitively!
*So in order to manipulate the popular-vote in their favor an Electoral College was necessary to assure that in some key-states they could maintain a majority, which is why it thought necessary to institute the majority-rule by which the Winner Took All the EC votes. As if, the opposition votes had never existed. (They were thrown out the window!)

So now you explain here, please, how unconcerned you are that YOUR VOTE for PotUS can be counted and then thrown into the trash. And how/why such a manipulative measure is NOT UNFAIRNESS. Which in some states is a non-incentive to even vote ... !

*Gerrymandering was first employed by the governor of Massachusetts (William GERRY) in 1812 and the Electoral College was instituted in 1804 and made an Amendment to the Constitution in 1812. (Both were willful legislations with the intent of manipulating the popular vote.)

 

And another factoid: In 1812, the US consisted of only 18 states, of which 8 were "southern" ...

 

The majority always wins. In a presidential election, the majority of states elects the president.

 

You fail to understand that the states report to Congress the entire number of the Electoral College vote - despite the fact that the candidate WON ONLY THE MAJORITY PERCENTAGE!

Which means that all those minority votes AGAINST the majority were simply torn-up and thrown away!

In any Real Democracy on earth simply the popular-vote is sufficient to elect the Head of government.

Never took a class in Civics that taught you how the EC "manipulates" unfairly the popular-vote? I'm not surprised.

Wakey, wakey ... !

PS: And you certainly never took a class in US history that relates how the voting process was manipulated from the very beginning in order to emphasize the southern-state votes - without which they would not accept the Constitution!

 

Doesn't matter how much the Hating Right Party raises .............. Trump support is a Losing Platform

We had a Republican runoff Special Election on Wed to replace Walter Jones ( R ) who died

Walter Jones was well like and a moderate Republican voting for what was best for North Carolina ......... not what was best for his party

The Loser in this runoff was Dr. Joan Perry who ran constant negative ads blasting her opponent Greg Murphy a moderate who doesn't support Trump

Murphy supports expanding medicaid in NC

Murphy won the runoff by 60 %

 

Funny how civics is no longer understood. First, there are 50 sub-countries call States. The Federal Government was created to provide regularity 'between' the States (regulation) so your silly whine about issuing passports is just plain, well uneducated. That is why the Federal Government cannot dictate how elections are held in each State because that is an intra-State issue and the Federal government handles inter-State issues.

The Framers were better educated than probably 98% of current congress critters (one bartender comes to mind) and definitely better educated on the humanities that the useful idiots on the left.

 

Finally! Maybe America will get a fair-and-genuine HealthCare System.

Economically, HealthCare is not a business. Neither should it be a business. It requires very expensive talents and therefore means. Moreover, unlike buying cares one should not have to go to an ER to get healthcare. By then, in most cases it is Far Too Late in the process. Healing is out of the question far too often.

The country is on a Eating Binge. Yes, obesity is skyrocketing in America and bringing with it its inevitable ailments.

From here:The Stunning Rise of Obesity in America - excerpt:



Lord knows what happened in 1980 to spike the chart aggressively upward. (Except for the fact that Reagan was elected and I don't see how that could have any possible affect on average weight in America.)

Nonetheless, amongst both sexes the weight trend is clearly there. I am not sure what can be done about it.

Aside from taxing obesity and asking everyone to come in for a weighing when they submit their tax declarations, which is clearly out-of-the-question.

The article linking the above infographic is well worth a read ...

 

Why do Democrats have such a problem with basic understanding?

America, for the umpeenth time, is not a democracy, it is a republic with elected leaders.

 

Oh Gawd, he would of been quickly Arkancided. Poor fella was so depressed he put 3 round in his own head and rolled himself into a rug and jumped into the Potomac river

 

It would take a constitutional amendment to get rid of the electoral college. Not a law passed by congress. Each state has the power to change how they award their electoral votes. Maine and Nebraska does it via congressional districts. Whomever wins a congressional district gets that electoral vote. The final two electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who received the most votes in that state. All states could go to that or another form if they desired. Pennsylvania debated going the CD route several years ago, but decided not to as Pennsylvania decided that would dilute the the voting power of Pennsylvania. With 20 electoral votes, Pennsylvania is a major power broker when it comes to the electoral college drawing the candidates into that state to campaign and spending money within the state. If Pennsylvania had gone to the CD route, that would mean 18 separate small elections with little to no incentive for the candidates to visit that state.

Each state has the power to effect change in how it awards it electoral votes. But outside of Maine and Nebraska, each has decided on the winner take all. It doesn't matter which party controls those state's legislatures, none of them are willing to dilute their perceived power in the electoral college. Pennsylvania is the prime example.

Use California as another example, 55 electoral votes. Solid Democratic. Keeping the current winner take all, the Democratic controlled legislature and governors knows California's 55 electoral vote will go to the Democratic candidate. Using the Congressional district method, a more fair method, the Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton wouldn't have received 55 electoral votes but 48. New York, solid Democratic, instead of 29 Hillary would have received 20 electoral votes. If you're a Democrat in either New York or California, you don't want to dilute your electoral power. The same can be said of Republican held Texas for them.

 

That bit of trickery (Amendment 12 institution the Electoral College in 1812) was instituted as a sine-qua-non by the southern-states to sign onto the Constitution. They had insisted insisted upon the rule to sign onto the original Constitution. Then, later once again to get Amendment 12 passed. Why?

In order to maintain slavery in the South and thus protect their major source of Income (which was growing/selling cotton).

It took a Civil War to finally free the slaves. That is, 620,000 Americans (north and south) had to die in order to make them "free" - who were, at the time, the primary source of economic income. Little did America's leaders realize that automation in the early 1860s was already on its way, and the slaves would be replaced in the fields by machinery - even to pick the cotton. (See here.)

And yet, because we can be such a Thick Country, southern blacks did not achieve the least bit of real economic-freedom (unless they had moved to the North). Blacks were rarely treated with equitability in terms of Job Opportunity or Voting until the post-WW2 years. And even that came inch-by-inch. I recall what had happened in the 1950s to get black children into the same tax-funded "state-universities" in the south!

The Civil War had been over for a century and STILL not all blacks in southern states were as "free" as those who had moved north. It has taken a long, long time for blacks to become members of what economists call a "Middle-class".

And many still have not got there. The two outburst riots in the Watts community (1965 & 1992) in Los Angeles are a modern lesson. Can't happen again?

Oh, yes, it can! Except that the blacks will not be alone - there will be also a colouring of pale-yellow mixed in! (You know, of the kind of those women recently elected to public-office whom Trump has invited recently to "go-back-home"!)

PS: Amendment 12 must be neutered of its first-past-the-post rule in order for America to become a Real Democracy.The Real Evolution of American Democracy is still very much alive!

 

Actually it Article II, Section 1 which begat the Electoral college and gave the power to the states to appoint their electors in any manner each state legislature may direct or deem fit. Many states from 1792 until the civil war didn't have a popular vote, the state legislature awarded their electoral votes. That waned as time went by. The 12th basically just correct the chaos caused by the Jefferson/Burr election.

The states, any state could via their state legislature make any changes they want in how they award their electoral votes today. Article II, Section 1 gives them that power. If a state wanted to make awarding their electorate vote proportional, they could do it without an amendment. Go via the Maine, Nebraska route, Congressional District, than can do it or any other method of awarding their electoral votes. Per Article II, Section 1, this power rests with each state legislature.

48 states don't want to change from winner take all. If they did, they could do so without a constitutional amendment. A constitutional amendment would be needed to revoke or do away with the electoral college. But any changes in how a state awards their electoral votes, they can do that by themselves. They won't change as states see change as diluting their political power they have in awarding their total amount of electoral votes. Pennsylvania is the prime example. Whichever party that controls the state legislature doesn't want to split their electoral votes with the opposing party's presidential candidate.

 

What's it to you Frenchy? How many times must we tell you that we are a Republic. Don't you get it? We don't want to be like you.
Trump won 30 states and drunken Hillary won 20. Do the math.

 

A POLITICAL "GAME" BOARD

What we have and what you don't seem to understand is an artificial political game-board. I could care less of how a miserable manipulation of the popular-vote was decided two centuries ago! At that time, most people had not the faintest idea of the definition of the words "republic" or "democracy". Because most were illiterate migrants from Europe!

You repeat what is already well-known ... but that does not make it right and acceptable. First-past-the-post in a horse-race may rightfully determine the winner, but not in politics. A country (or state) SHOULD NOT NEGATE any popular-votes, which are the True Expression of Voter Preference and therefore the essence of any true democracy.

And particularly when the state-vote is just one of quite many in a presidential election across 50 states. The popular-vote, which is the method employed in ALL OTHER POLITICAL VOTING, is the rule. The person with the largest number of votes is the winner.but that does not mean YOUR OR MY VOTE should be torn-up and thrown away just because we did not vote for the winner!

(And no, I'm any BS about the states being "independent" is nonsensical. Their independence is limited to state-boundaries beyond which it is is corralled in matters that are NOT residential to the state! On a national level, the vote is nation-wide. (Duhhhhhhh!)

What the US needs is a fresh look at its voting system. But that system is so stymied by electoral manipulation that neither Dems nor Replicants would ever want to change the manner of voting in either state nor national elections. (And it has been that way for over two centuries!!!)

Our two-party system is a laughable joke! Which is why no other developed nation has ever adopted it!

MY POINT

We need a party of the Center, because in fact both Dems and Replicants vote almost from the Center; that is, one way on some matters and another way on other matters. It takes a matter of considerable consequence for them to vote either wholly Left or wholly Right. The more a nation's people are educated, the more they draw well-thought opinions about their candidates. That is wholly goodness!

This has happened as we have become a further educated nation and people can tell the difference between an electoral hoax and a damn-fine political argument! It has become FINALLY of significant importance to most voters that parties have solid arguments indicating that they MERIT a vote for office. (Regardless, they will be either liked or disliked for reasons that are impertinent to the position but also highly pertinent to "how they come across. But that also depends upon the educational calibre of the constituency.)

 

I would suggest you watch "America's Book of Secrets," The Billionaires Agenda." It was done by the history channel.

 

I live in France, and watch French TV. And I am not "hooked" on that either. (Twenty-seven channels available and the political debate is the worst blah-blah-blah in Europe.)

Nonetheless, French politics is very different from the US - particularly as regards elections.

The French politically talk a lot - emotionally - but actually "say" nothing:
*The Left is there to protect the privileges gained - like one of the best almost-free Healthcare Systems on earth as well as almost-free post-secondary education (my children's annual school fee was about $1K).
*The Right tries to maintain a free market-economy in a country that believes government should meddle in everything. (French law is contained in ten Very Thick Books that sit on every lawyers desk.)
*Which is why the country is politically stagnant. (France has a GNP equivalent to that of California.)

The only singular difference with the US being (1) a plethora of parties and (2) the political-parties here in France cannot be financed by billionaires. Contributions to political parties have a maximum amount. From off the net here:

And also from here:

Believe me, the above makes for a Very Different Political Campaign because the individuals must sell themselves (on their own merits) and not the platform of any given political party.

 

HISTORY LESSON

Blah-blah-blah! Sub-countries ONLY IN YOUR HEAD!

Ever take a course in Civics? I doubt it if that is what was taught you!

That notion is simply a convenient phrase imagined by the Right who are determined to maintain political control of the country in anyway they can. Nonetheless, it must be recognized that BOTH PARTIES employ Gerrymandering and the Electoral College where they can. That fact has been proven TWICE in the last 30 years regarding presidential elections!

From here:
- United States presidential elections in which the winner lost - Wikipedia
Excerpt:

Never taken a Civics course, have you. Because if you had, the above would certainly have been told you or you would have read it. Which, then, should have sparked the question, "What happened?"

The answer to which is the fact that the Electoral College voting-"system" manipulates the popular-vote in some states by means of the First-Past-the-Post-Rule. And BOTH political parties thought that was a "damn fine idea" for manipulating presidential voting.

So, if you think the presidential election is of the came kind and nature as a horse-race, then or course you may think also that you're right. However, better minds see through the evident manipulation.

Of course, since this evident error (in any democratic nation) was allowed to enter first the Constitution and then re-specified in Amendment 12, the American people over two centuries have come to learn that: "That's how we elect presidents in the US!"

Which should read, "That's how we WRONGLY elect presidents in the US!"

Yes, the US was the first real-democracy on earth. But, we - as a Nation of States - got it wrong in terms of presidential electoral fairness and HAVE NEVER CORRECTED THAT WRONG. Either in national or state-elections!

WHY IS THAT WRONG IMPORTANT?

Because, from the get-go, we knew that the European King's had usurped total power unto themselves. And that that had to go!

So, pray tell, why should we - some two centuries later - accept that the manipulation an usurpation of the popular-vote be acceptable?

No way, José .... !

Post Script:
*Freedom was not a notion that we as a country thought up all alone. When next in Paris, I suggest you go to the Café Procope - one of the city's longest-open restaurants since the 17th century. There you will find numerous proofs of how Americans and the French discussed "liberty" and "democracy" in the late 1700s.
*If you go there, note this name-plate on the wall:

*Both Jefferson, Franklin and (it seems) ... frequented the Procope to discuss "liberty" with their French counterparts. (Of course, who was doing the translating is not known!)
**My Point, - the US was not the only place on earth where the fundamentals of liberty were being discussed. (But the French did need another century to effectively implement a democracy in France.)

 

republicans changed the rules and said money is like speech and corps are people so corps and the rich can spend as much as they want influencing government

 

correction, dems did that & still do

 

we are a republic, each state gets an equal say, that's how it works, it IS the best way, & why it made the usa such a powerhouse, which is why the ilk of progs hate it & want to dispand the UNITED STATES of AMERICA by eliminating the electoral college & eventual collaspe of the federal gov while creating 50 minuute countries that will be weak globally...

that is the intent of all y'all globalists/progs, to create as much kaos & dissent in an effort to impose socialism, aka totalitarianism...

 

I've been working on trying to get a viable third party ever since Perot first ran in 1992 to challenge the two major parties. Not much luck. Yes, money talks here. Both major parties owe their hearts and souls to corporations, wall street firms, lobbyists, special interests, mega money donors, etc. they donate tens of millions of dollars to both major parties and their candidates. One does not bite the hand that feeds them. We do have politicians, candidates that talk bad about wall street, corporations etc. but it is done with a wink and a nod.

All told, we here have the best government money can buy.