>>MOD WARNING<< Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dead

It's amazing, Civics 101. There has NEVER been a NATIONAL election in this country about anything.

 

Go back and read the one I started about his McCain comment.............................then take your foot out of your mouth.

 

Politicians aren't ones to think public opinion is "on the wrong side of an issue." If gun rights advocates want to protect gun rights, they need to make sure they have the public on their side. Gay marriage was "wrong" and then it was right. The pols went from defending civilization to acceptance with hardly an eye blink.

See above about gay marriage. Rights are at risk when public support is lost.

You may be able to hold off things without public support--if you lose support--but it's risky to resolve internal conflicts between supporters by giving into extreme views.

Better to work out a position the public will support. That would mean not trying to get something the public won't support in the long-run because you can't satisfy or overcome absolutists on your team.

 

I their STATE not on the FEDERAL level.

I know pity the students. And I'm right here directly addressing them, you should try it.

 

You are a history teacher and think we have a national election?

We have a national election DAY. It's the day when all the states decide who they are going to put on the EC to elect the president. What California decides is completely unrelated to what Wyoming decides, except that they both made a decision.

 

Look at you, ignorant of the fact Hillary did not "win" a majority of the "popular vote".

 

The voting process for everyone after the one vote that results in the majority for your state is a complete waste of time and completely meaningless. In a system where the candidate who received the most votes cast would win, every vote would matter.

 

The US is a democratic republic with a completely anti-democratic method of electing its president.

 

You know this how?

Another Justice will likely step up to save the institution, the weakest by far of the three branches on government. All it takes is a majority vote of Congress and agreement of the President to stack the Court. No other branch has so little protection.

Maybe you should stop thinking of running the table.

 

Partially democratic as, for example, some votes are based on securing a plurality?

 

The problem is that electing people like GW Bush and Trump becomes EVERYONE's problem because their inattention to their jobs and their blatant incompetence adversely affects everyone when they leave the country in a "great recession" or when they all but ignore a pandemic that destroys an eight year economic expansion and kills 200,000 people and counting. Imagine a world spared of GW Bush and Trump presidencies. I was never a fan of Gore and I didn't particularly like Hillary (who did), but I believe both would have been far less disastrous to this country than Bush an Trump. In the end, the people (as a whole) choose correctly and the electoral college prevented the will of the people from being enacted.

 

I am bored of this subject. If you don't get that the EC is anti-democratic and results in many people casting irrelevant votes, than I can't make you understand.

 

The compromise between the house or reps and the senate was the one that appeased the smaller states. The EC was created for the reason I previously showed.

 

If we are the United STATES, and each state gets a voice respective of their population size, and the states choose their electors by the citizens of that state, and the states then cast their votes, that makes it incredibly fair.

Otherwise, we'd be the Divided People of America.

 

How many "should" we have lost?

 

Did you see you sidestep my question?
I did.
If the majority should rule - if, as you say, more people should have more "voice" than fewer people - who do you believe should have won in 1992 1996 2000 and 2016?

 

Translation:
You ran out of MSDNC talking points.

 

The Electoral College was a compromise, but not the only option. We certainly don't need it now to hold the country together.

States have powers, but secession is out of the question.

@Bush Lawyer expressed an opinion. What's wrong with that?

You know what he knows how?

My wife and I were in Australia and decided we wanted to see the Parliament House of New South Wales in Sydney. We got there late and got a really great tour of both chambers. The fellow doing the tour really opened up when he realized we were history teachers who were familiar with both the Canadian and US government. He was extremely knowledgeable about government in this country, far more than most Americans.

Fact not in evidence.

Nonsense. You were making a snide comment to @Bush Lawyer and I asked why his expressing a view on the Electoral College bothered you.

You're blowing smoke.

Says the man who doesn't back up his opinions with cites.

 

I'm gobsmacked.

 

You think you would have passed?

 

There's a presidential election, often called a national election because it is an indirect election of the President and Vice President, the only two national offices. What's your problem?

So what? In the early years, many states didn't hold popular elections to choose electors. That doesn't mean we don't what have now what has come to be called a "national election."

 

So it’s possible statistica did account for reluctance to answer honestly and the violence policy bunch didn’t, explaining the discrepancy between the two sources?

Good point. Unfortunately not everyone sees it that way. Ideologues I believe we call them.

 

So what? Lol. Your way is unconstitutional. I prefer the constitutional method. Please work towards changing the constitution, instead of pretending I'm in the "so what," category. I like our constitution. You don't. It's your job to change it. I like it the way it is. You can bitch all day, all night, 24/7. It's still my way until 34 states tell me it is not.

 

Easily less than half that number. British Columbia (5.1m people) in Canada has lost 229 people. Scaled up to our 331m (multiply by 66), they would have 15,144 deaths.

 

No EC, no United States. Certain states will not tolerate further erosion of State’s rights. My state is one of two that splits electoral votes instead of winner takes all. You could say we are progressive in that respect even though it’s the “conservative” position. But we would not tolerate elimination of the EC. If you want “fairness” or “democracy” you should work within your state to split electoral votes.

If certain demographics keep pushing to erode state powers nothing would be out of the question.

I explained that with the golf analogy.

I don’t for sure. Maybe he was a US citizen and renounced his citizenship and moved to Oz. That’s not my understanding though and it’s why I asked a question. Unlike you who just “guessed” about him knowing more about the legal aspects of American history than I. You assumed things about both of us.

Most Americans are not knowledgeable about government or the history of this country.

LOL. You keep reintroducing the fact the US messes in other people’s business and seem to dislike it. Yet you interject yourself into a conversation of which you had no part. It’s just funny to me, that’s all.

My post to him explained why it concerned me. For the same reason my giving advice on clubs to a professional golfer should concern said golfer.

Just stating a fact. You appealed to the authority of someone you can’t possibly compare to me as you don’t have enough information to make a valid comparison.

I showed the error of the violence policy center graph today with a link you ignored. You've consistently ignored any links I’ve provided you in the past as well. I don’t mind educating people, but when information is rejected consistently I don’t see much point in it.