Popular vote is just a way to steal every election for theDemocrats.

Still stings every time you see it huh?

 

Yep, it seems we can't have signifcant political changes without catastrophic failures and violent upheavals first. Got to wait for the old order to break down and chaos to ensue before a new order can be established. It's tragic.

 

The electoral college is Necessary simply Because there is no Express immigration power delegated to our federal Congress.

 

And also because it is the constitutional method of choosing the president.

 

There's not a spec of irony in the majority of people favoring prez elections being up to the majority.

 

as a federalist, the federal doctrine is my Constitution for political life.

 

it is up to the individual States to determine their electoral method.

 

Bleep bloop.

 

i make it a point to understand the federal doctrine better than You, every time we have to quibble.

 

But that will never happen. Most people don't like Republican ideas. It is quite possible that without the voter suppression that is so rampant in the South, we wouldn't have seen a Republican majority over the past few decades. Bush wouldn't have been elected and Trump would still be the sideshow clown that he is and we would all be better off. From this perspective, I see the Republican Party as a criminal enterprise. It would be fitting if they, and their financial backers faced the same fate as the government of Louis XVI.

 

I am guessing that (1) Democrats--who outnumber Republicans, anyway--voted almost in lockstep to abolish the Electoral College, as it has not been especially kind to them; and (2) a great many of these--even among those who actually graduated from college--have not an inkling about our founding principles (or, if they do, then they breezily dismiss them as "outdated" and "too old fashioned").
.....................................................................................................................................
Is there any issue favored by Repubs that is held by a majority of Americans? Not that I blame them on this one. There may never be another Repub prez is the majority of people get to decide.[/QUOTE]

 

Time to debunk another conservative thread.

The Popular Vote is representation of the will of the people, not the electoral college. There's a reason you see massive numbers of Popular Votes in highly populous states, because that's where a majority of Americans live, and its no coincidence that the popular vote--the will of the American People, has gone in favor of the Democrats for at least two decades. Gerrymandering was recently thrown out in Pennsylvania, which Republicans used to rig elections. When the Founders conceived the electoral college, America was not even close to how populated it is today. If you go by the will of the people, Hillary--like or hate her, did in fact win the election. Going down the route of following a popular vote only is the smartest choice, because every voice is heard. Democrats wouldn't only carry the democratic strongholds in the OP, but also Florida, Jews vote well in favor of Dems, PA, Michigan, possibly Arizona, Nevada, democrats would win because this is a democratic country.

The paragraph in the OP reads like a doomsday passage, but Republicans want to desperately cling to the electoral college to keep power. It disadvantages the democrats because Republicans have all the states in the south, plus Texas, which overrides any point balance dems would have carrying the eastern seaboard entirely. Fair elections begin with following the popular vote. The will of we the people.

 

Per the constitution, there is no popular vote for the president. The president is chosen by electors appointed by the several states.

 

The constitution faces an existential problem, on different fronts due to change in America, but on this front, the last two centuries have slowly but surely, made the president "chosen by electors appointed by the several states" simply irrelevant. Think about the population in America when the Founders made this declaration and the population in America now. It made sense to have a president chosen by those appointed by several states when some of the states we have today weren't still even established, but now we have at least three million people residing in America, with that many people, it makes perfect sense to go by a popular vote.

 

So to change it requires the approval of 38 states. Which 38 states do you think will approve of this change you're proposing?

 

Aside from California, New York, and Illinois, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Nevada, Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Michigan, Oregon, Washington state, Delaware, Minnesota, Hawaii, Connecticut, Ohio, Wisconsin, twenty two states already with possibly Arizona and Maryland, other states with less of a democratic majority would take some convincing and some doing the numbers to gain support.

 

So that's 22. It'll take 18 more to modify the current system.

 

Fealty to the popular vote represents pure democracy.

In a true democracy, that is exactly how the presidency should be decided.

But this is not a true democracy.

And I have no desire that it should ever be.

Rather, it is a federal republic.

More to the point, these "highly populous states"--and even more precisely, the very large cities contained within them (e.g. New York City; Los Angeles; Chicago; et. al) are highly populated by Democratic voting blocs (including African-Americans; Latinos; union members; et. al), which always vote Democratic, in large percentages.

So it is reasonable, I suppose, that you would wish to see greater emphasis given to their votes...

Yes, Republicans sometimes bend the rules a bit, by gerrymandering.

But so do Democrats, whenever (and wherever) they may be in power.

In fact, a case from Maryland is just now before the Supreme Court.

And I am betting that Democrats will not be especially pleased with its outcome.

This is just another version of the liberals' mantra that the Constitution is no longer relevant.

Well, this was certainly once the case.

I am no longer sure, however, that it is true.

In the 2016 presidential election, Hillary Clinton won an almost three-to-one majority of the Jewish vote--in keeping with earlier presidential elections.

But Rep. Ilhan Omar recently called into question the loyalty of Jewish Democrats--and, more specifically, of any people who support the state of Israel--by pulling out the "dual loyalty" card.

And Democrats, in general, did not strongly condemn her for this.

So I am guessing that Jewish Americans may no longer feel entirely comfortable with the Democratic Party.

The operative word is "could."

Pennsylvania and Michigan have traditionally been Democratic territory. But Donald Trump--by winning the blue-collar vote there--changed that in 2016.

Whether this will remain a lasting turnaround, or is just for one time (or possibly two, when Trump runs again in 2020), remains an open question, I think.

Arizona was traditionally a red state; but it has become more purple in recent times.

And Nevada--like Florida and Ohio--is truly a purple state.

 

Of course. That is one of the primary reason for supporting popular vote over the electoral college. The other is it gets them a giant step closer to their goal of destroying our constitutional republic, or as Obama put it, "Fundamentally transforming the United States of America."

 

"Popular vote is just a way to steal every election for the Democrats."

That is as Orwellian in its double think as a statement can get. Stealing an election requires the outcome reflecting the wishes of the minority............like the last presidential election and the one in 2000.

 

I am really not certain, exactly, just how following the US Constitution might be described as "tealing an election."

But the Democrats (partially because of their natural tendency, and partially because of a propensity to pout about the 2016 and 2000 elections) prefer a system that is more purely democratic in nature.

And to declare the winner of the popular vote to be the winner of the general election would, indeed, be more democratic. No doubt about it.

I just do not wish to move in that direction.

But let me reiterate that:

I simply do not wish for the US to become more democratic.

There. Is that clear enough?

 

The founding fathers also did not intend for the minority rule over every single aspect of the government. Because the last 2 republican presidents who both won by minority, appointed 4 supreme court justices ( one of those appointments stolen by that panty stain McConnell. ).

We have a senate that was appointed by minority rule, thanks to gerrymandering.

We HAD a Congress who was also appointed by a minority until recently, when even through all their cheating and redistricting, STILL couldnt cheat their way to a victory.

So do you REALLY believe thats what the founding fathers envisioned? A full minority rule in every branch of government? I sure dont.

 

The president needs to be elected by a majority of state electors. That's what the founders established.