Minority Rule Has To End...

[Vastator]

Yes. The next President elected by the electoral college, will have received less than 50 % of the popular vote. The current system is broken, and ineffective at giving the citizenry an actual representative say in their governance. This will lead to violence , and unrest. Some may argue that it already has.

The electoral college was designed as a compromise between state rights and popular vote.

If the electoral college did not exist, presidential candidates would completely ignore campaigning in smaller battleground states.

I understand that. However unless there are only two candidates in the end... The system doesn't produce a "just" result. I'm not against having the electoral college. I am against having more than two candidates when it comes down to very end.
It defies reason that a person receiving less than 50% of the vote, could become president

Even with only two candidates enough write-ins could still produce a winner with less than 50% of the votes..

"Could"... The system we use now, guarantees it...

 

[JimBowie1958]

I agree. Most people is this country are progressive and I think compulsory voting would keep this country progressing and not regressing.

Yeah, you probably admire how Stalin got 99.99% of the Russian vote, dont you?

 

[JimBowie1958]

This coming election has one result that is guaranteed. The majority of those voting will have to suffer the choice of a minority of voters...
This can only breed animosity amongst the people. We need to rethink our election process, so that the majority of voters have their way, as was intended.
Perhaps we need to hold elections like sports championships. Where in the end there are only two choices; and everyone's vote is brought to bear on one clear winner. Or loser...

Red:
What exactly is it that you anticipate will make that happen?

• Do you think the winning candidate will earn less than 50% of the popular Presidential vote yet earn 50% or more of the electoral vote? That's happened before, you know. Lincoln won with less than 40% of the popular vote, and J.Q. Adams with just ~31% of the popular vote, for example.
• Do you think that the next President will earn less than 50% of the electoral vote?
  
• Do you think the next President will be chosen by the U.S. House of Representatives and they will choose a person who received less than 50% of the popular Presidential vote?
• Some other way?

Remember, "voters," "people," "the citizenry," "Presidential voters," and "the electorate" are each different things.

• People --> everyone
• Citizenry --> everyone who is a citizen of a given country
• Electorate --> everyone who is a citizen that is eligible to vote
• Voters --> everyone in the electorate who casts a vote
• Presidential voters --> voters who cast a vote for President

Why not just have a "run off" election if the top candidate took less than 50% of the popular vote and that run off election would be between the top two candidates?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Another good idea is compulsory voting, which typically sees 90%+ turnout, and delivers a more credible outcome.
Our present arrangement is a hangover from the 19th century, when communications took weeks, between the far reaches of the nation.

Compulsory voting wouldn't help. Not unless the voter is also compelled to,vote for a particular person.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

This coming election has one result that is guaranteed. The majority of those voting will have to suffer the choice of a minority of voters...
This can only breed animosity amongst the people. We need to rethink our election process, so that the majority of voters have their way, as was intended.
Perhaps we need to hold elections like sports championships. Where in the end there are only two choices; and everyone's vote is brought to bear on one clear winner. Or loser...

Red:
What exactly is it that you anticipate will make that happen?

• Do you think the winning candidate will earn less than 50% of the popular Presidential vote yet earn 50% or more of the electoral vote? That's happened before, you know. Lincoln won with less than 40% of the popular vote, and J.Q. Adams with just ~31% of the popular vote, for example.
• Do you think that the next President will earn less than 50% of the electoral vote?
  
• Do you think the next President will be chosen by the U.S. House of Representatives and they will choose a person who received less than 50% of the popular Presidential vote?
• Some other way?

Remember, "voters," "people," "the citizenry," "Presidential voters," and "the electorate" are each different things.

• People --> everyone
• Citizenry --> everyone who is a citizen of a given country
• Electorate --> everyone who is a citizen that is eligible to vote
• Voters --> everyone in the electorate who casts a vote
• Presidential voters --> voters who cast a vote for President

Why not just have a "run off" election if the top candidate took less than 50% of the popular vote and that run off election would be between the top two candidates?

That's what we have in California. Only democrats are on the ballot and I don't vote. I vote against all the initiatives. That's the extent of my voting in state elections.

 

[FJO]

This coming election has one result that is guaranteed. The majority of those voting will have to suffer the choice of a minority of voters...
This can only breed animosity amongst the people. We need to rethink our election process, so that the majority of voters have their way, as was intended.
Perhaps we need to hold elections like sports championships. Where in the end there are only two choices; and everyone's vote is brought to bear on one clear winner. Or loser...

Red:
What exactly is it that you anticipate will make that happen?

• Do you think the winning candidate will earn less than 50% of the popular Presidential vote yet earn 50% or more of the electoral vote? That's happened before, you know. Lincoln won with less than 40% of the popular vote, and J.Q. Adams with just ~31% of the popular vote, for example.
• Do you think that the next President will earn less than 50% of the electoral vote?
  
• Do you think the next President will be chosen by the U.S. House of Representatives and they will choose a person who received less than 50% of the popular Presidential vote?
• Some other way?

Remember, "voters," "people," "the citizenry," "Presidential voters," and "the electorate" are each different things.

• People --> everyone
• Citizenry --> everyone who is a citizen of a given country
• Electorate --> everyone who is a citizen that is eligible to vote
• Voters --> everyone in the electorate who casts a vote
• Presidential voters --> voters who cast a vote for President

Why not just have a "run off" election if the top candidate took less than 50% of the popular vote and that run off election would be between the top two candidates?

Would the run-off election campaign last as long as the election that lead to the run-off?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Would the run-off election campaign last as long as the election that lead to the run-off

Oh Gawd no.

I am thinking that they could do the revote the next day and save costs on redeploying the infrastructure.

 

[frigidweirdo]

This coming election has one result that is guaranteed. The majority of those voting will have to suffer the choice of a minority of voters...
This can only breed animosity amongst the people. We need to rethink our election process, so that the majority of voters have their way, as was intended.
Perhaps we need to hold elections like sports championships. Where in the end there are only two choices; and everyone's vote is brought to bear on one clear winner. Or loser...

Proportional Representation, it's the only way forwards. Works in many places, and means one person one vote.

With that system... The slaves would never have been freed... It has significant drawbacks.

Maybe, but then again it's a different era, and the drawbacks are much better than the drawbacks of the current system. Also, there are different types of PR, like the German system which is half PR and half FPTP, but essentially parliament is made up to more or less represent the people.

 

[Silhouette]

Proportional Representation, it's the only way forwards. Works in many places, and means one person one vote.

Unless it's on gay marriage; where extreme minority behaviors can dictate to the majority "as a protected minority". Except there is no protection for those behaviors in the Constitution. The USSC just made up that there are last Summer.

 

[320 Years of History]

This coming election has one result that is guaranteed. The majority of those voting will have to suffer the choice of a minority of voters...
This can only breed animosity amongst the people. We need to rethink our election process, so that the majority of voters have their way, as was intended.
Perhaps we need to hold elections like sports championships. Where in the end there are only two choices; and everyone's vote is brought to bear on one clear winner. Or loser...

Red:
What exactly is it that you anticipate will make that happen?

• Do you think the winning candidate will earn less than 50% of the popular Presidential vote yet earn 50% or more of the electoral vote? That's happened before, you know. Lincoln won with less than 40% of the popular vote, and J.Q. Adams with just ~31% of the popular vote, for example.
• Do you think that the next President will earn less than 50% of the electoral vote?
  
• Do you think the next President will be chosen by the U.S. House of Representatives and they will choose a person who received less than 50% of the popular Presidential vote?
• Some other way?

Remember, "voters," "people," "the citizenry," "Presidential voters," and "the electorate" are each different things.

• People --> everyone
• Citizenry --> everyone who is a citizen of a given country
• Electorate --> everyone who is a citizen that is eligible to vote
• Voters --> everyone in the electorate who casts a vote
• Presidential voters --> voters who cast a vote for President

Why not just have a "run off" election if the top candidate took less than 50% of the popular vote and that run off election would be between the top two candidates?

Why not just have a "run off" election

Red:
Because the Constitution stipulates that the House of Representatives get to decide who will become the next President in the event of a plurality victory in the general election.

 

[JimBowie1958]

This coming election has one result that is guaranteed. The majority of those voting will have to suffer the choice of a minority of voters...
This can only breed animosity amongst the people. We need to rethink our election process, so that the majority of voters have their way, as was intended.
Perhaps we need to hold elections like sports championships. Where in the end there are only two choices; and everyone's vote is brought to bear on one clear winner. Or loser...

Red:
What exactly is it that you anticipate will make that happen?

• Do you think the winning candidate will earn less than 50% of the popular Presidential vote yet earn 50% or more of the electoral vote? That's happened before, you know. Lincoln won with less than 40% of the popular vote, and J.Q. Adams with just ~31% of the popular vote, for example.
• Do you think that the next President will earn less than 50% of the electoral vote?
  
• Do you think the next President will be chosen by the U.S. House of Representatives and they will choose a person who received less than 50% of the popular Presidential vote?
• Some other way?

Remember, "voters," "people," "the citizenry," "Presidential voters," and "the electorate" are each different things.

• People --> everyone
• Citizenry --> everyone who is a citizen of a given country
• Electorate --> everyone who is a citizen that is eligible to vote
• Voters --> everyone in the electorate who casts a vote
• Presidential voters --> voters who cast a vote for President

Why not just have a "run off" election if the top candidate took less than 50% of the popular vote and that run off election would be between the top two candidates?

Why not just have a "run off" election

Red:
Because the Constitution stipulates that the House of Representatives get to decide who will become the next President in the event of a plurality victory in the general election.

Yes, of course, I am obviously referring to a change in the Constitution, lol.

 

[320 Years of History]

This coming election has one result that is guaranteed. The majority of those voting will have to suffer the choice of a minority of voters...
This can only breed animosity amongst the people. We need to rethink our election process, so that the majority of voters have their way, as was intended.
Perhaps we need to hold elections like sports championships. Where in the end there are only two choices; and everyone's vote is brought to bear on one clear winner. Or loser...

Red:
What exactly is it that you anticipate will make that happen?

• Do you think the winning candidate will earn less than 50% of the popular Presidential vote yet earn 50% or more of the electoral vote? That's happened before, you know. Lincoln won with less than 40% of the popular vote, and J.Q. Adams with just ~31% of the popular vote, for example.
• Do you think that the next President will earn less than 50% of the electoral vote?
  
• Do you think the next President will be chosen by the U.S. House of Representatives and they will choose a person who received less than 50% of the popular Presidential vote?
• Some other way?

Remember, "voters," "people," "the citizenry," "Presidential voters," and "the electorate" are each different things.

• People --> everyone
• Citizenry --> everyone who is a citizen of a given country
• Electorate --> everyone who is a citizen that is eligible to vote
• Voters --> everyone in the electorate who casts a vote
• Presidential voters --> voters who cast a vote for President

Why not just have a "run off" election if the top candidate took less than 50% of the popular vote and that run off election would be between the top two candidates?

Why not just have a "run off" election

Red:
Because the Constitution stipulates that the House of Representatives get to decide who will become the next President in the event of a plurality victory in the general election.

Yes, of course, I am obviously referring to a change in the Constitution, lol.

Well, that's an option....

 

[JimBowie1958]

This coming election has one result that is guaranteed. The majority of those voting will have to suffer the choice of a minority of voters...
This can only breed animosity amongst the people. We need to rethink our election process, so that the majority of voters have their way, as was intended.
Perhaps we need to hold elections like sports championships. Where in the end there are only two choices; and everyone's vote is brought to bear on one clear winner. Or loser...

Red:
What exactly is it that you anticipate will make that happen?

• Do you think the winning candidate will earn less than 50% of the popular Presidential vote yet earn 50% or more of the electoral vote? That's happened before, you know. Lincoln won with less than 40% of the popular vote, and J.Q. Adams with just ~31% of the popular vote, for example.
• Do you think that the next President will earn less than 50% of the electoral vote?
  
• Do you think the next President will be chosen by the U.S. House of Representatives and they will choose a person who received less than 50% of the popular Presidential vote?
• Some other way?

Remember, "voters," "people," "the citizenry," "Presidential voters," and "the electorate" are each different things.

• People --> everyone
• Citizenry --> everyone who is a citizen of a given country
• Electorate --> everyone who is a citizen that is eligible to vote
• Voters --> everyone in the electorate who casts a vote
• Presidential voters --> voters who cast a vote for President

Why not just have a "run off" election if the top candidate took less than 50% of the popular vote and that run off election would be between the top two candidates?

Why not just have a "run off" election

Red:
Because the Constitution stipulates that the House of Representatives get to decide who will become the next President in the event of a plurality victory in the general election.

Yes, of course, I am obviously referring to a change in the Constitution, lol.

Well, that's an option....

OK, smart ass, what do you think about a States Constitutional Amendment Convention?

Trump says he wants one as do a great many others.

I want one too and they can handle this tricky little item while they are at it.

How do you like them apples?

 

[320 Years of History]

Yes. The next President elected by the electoral college, will have received less than 50 % of the popular vote. The current system is broken, and ineffective at giving the citizenry an actual representative say in their governance. This will lead to violence , and unrest. Some may argue that it already has.

Red:

• Why will violence result from this election when it did not after the 2000 election was decided?

Blue:

• The current electoral system is the same one we've had since our founding under the Constitution. The nature and extent of representative voice the citizenry has had is no different now than it has been ever since at least the 1960s. (See the Voting Rights Act of 1965) Why will it now create violence, presumably violence of a sort that we have not previously in modern history experienced, when it has not in other recent years wrought violence due to a President's having lost the popular vote and winning an electoral college majority?

 

[320 Years of History]

Red:
What exactly is it that you anticipate will make that happen?

• Do you think the winning candidate will earn less than 50% of the popular Presidential vote yet earn 50% or more of the electoral vote? That's happened before, you know. Lincoln won with less than 40% of the popular vote, and J.Q. Adams with just ~31% of the popular vote, for example.
• Do you think that the next President will earn less than 50% of the electoral vote?
  
• Do you think the next President will be chosen by the U.S. House of Representatives and they will choose a person who received less than 50% of the popular Presidential vote?
• Some other way?

Remember, "voters," "people," "the citizenry," "Presidential voters," and "the electorate" are each different things.

• People --> everyone
• Citizenry --> everyone who is a citizen of a given country
• Electorate --> everyone who is a citizen that is eligible to vote
• Voters --> everyone in the electorate who casts a vote
• Presidential voters --> voters who cast a vote for President

Why not just have a "run off" election if the top candidate took less than 50% of the popular vote and that run off election would be between the top two candidates?

Why not just have a "run off" election

Red:
Because the Constitution stipulates that the House of Representatives get to decide who will become the next President in the event of a plurality victory in the general election.

Yes, of course, I am obviously referring to a change in the Constitution, lol.

Well, that's an option....

OK, smart ass, what do you think about a States Constitutional Amendment Convention [SCAC]?

Trump says he wants one as do a great many others.

I want one too and they can handle this tricky little item while they are at it.

How do you like them apples?

First, I wasn't trying to be smartass. I didn't know that you had in mind a Constitutional amendment when you proposed the run-off idea. You say that you did; I believe you. I now know we both recognize that such an amendment (process) is the only option for effecting your proposal.

Blue:
What do I think of it in what regard? It's one of the two ways available for amending the Constitution. I don't have a problem with it. I also don't have a problem with the run-off idea you proposed. Indeed, I've long been keen on dispensing with the electoral college. Thus I certainly don't have a problem with using the SCAC approach to achieving that.

Pink:
What does Trump want to accomplish in the SCAC? He's certainly not going to get it done before 8-Nov-2016.

I've seen some of Trump's proposals re: the Constitution:

• Close mosques where "some bad things are happening"
• Open up libel laws "So when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace … we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they're totally protected."
  
• Allow waterboarding (8th Amendment revision)
• Deny Muslim Americans the right to re-enter the country if they leave due to his proposed "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the U.S." (14th Amendment)
• Allow "profiling" (14th Amendment)
• Allow Presidential removal of federal judges (separation of powers)

Now sure as he's directly or by implication proposed those things, I'm sure that Trump likely hasn't actually read, let alone studied the Constitution and Constitutional law/legal theory. As Corey Brettschneider wrote:

It would be one thing if Trump merely displayed a lack of knowledge of the Constitution. Ignorance can be corrected. However, the problem is not just that Trump is ignorant of the Constitution; it’s that he doesn’t care. His political philosophy, to the extent that he has one, is the demagoguery that the Founders designed the Constitution to protect us against.​

The Founders’ fears of a threat to constitutional democracy led them to design a system to thwart potential demagogues, a system built upon three branches of government to check and balance one another’s powers. But these checks are not fail-safe, and historically, even the strongest of constitutional regimes can collapse. Think of the Roman Republic, which also had a system of checks and balances but ultimately gave way to the dictatorship of the Caesars. A President Trump could try to pack the court, repeatedly seek to enact unconstitutional policy, and threaten the judiciary. Indeed, these are all actions he has threatened to carry out if he becomes president.​

Trump has a dictator’s impulse to simply make decisions without regard for his potential constitutional role or its limits. When Khizr Khan confronted Trump at the convention, he demanded that Trump recognize those limits when it comes to individual rights. Trump’s impulsive response to attack not only Khan but his wife reinforces the sense that Trump’s personal constitution is deeply at odds with the restraints demanded by the U.S. Constitution.

The prospect of shaking up our political system has excited Trump’s supporters. But many of those same supporters—including Tea Partyers and traditional Republicans, whose party descended from the drafters of the 14th Amendment—purport to value the Constitution. They should wake up to the fact that the presidency that Trump has in mind will undermine the Constitution they claim to cherish.

So while I don't have a problem with the SCAC process, I have all sorts of problems with what Trump would aim to effect via it.

 

[Unkotare]

Another good idea is compulsory voting, which typically sees 90%+ turnout, and delivers a more credible outcome.
Our present arrangement is a hangover from the 19th century, when communications took weeks, between the far reaches of the nation.

Very bad idea.

 

[JimBowie1958]

First, I wasn't trying to be smartass.

I was just joking with you. You are not a smart ass, you are a....well, lets just leave it at that.

Blue:
What do I think of it in what regard? It's one of the two ways available for amending the Constitution. I don't have a problem with it.

Well, you are one of the few liberals I know that has no problem with it. I take that back; you are the ONLY liberal I know that has no problem with it.

I also don't have a problem with the run-off idea you proposed. Indeed, I've long been keen on dispensing with the electoral college. Thus I certainly don't have a problem with using the SCAC approach to achieving that.

I dont want to give up the Electoral College, just the Congressional decision about who won if it is a tie.

Pink:
What does Trump want to accomplish in the SCAC? He's certainly not going to get it done before 8-Nov-2016.

Obviously he cant get one started prior to his taking the oath of office.

I have read he wants Congressional term limits, a national reciprocity on gun licenses, etc.

As Corey Brettschneider wrote:

​

I am way past the point of caring what some liberal new pundit thinks about anything any more.

Why should I concern myself with partisan propaganda?

 

[320 Years of History]

I was just joking with you. You are not a smart ass, you are a....well, lets just leave it at that.

I guess I "walked into" that one. Touche. LOL

Well, you are one of the few liberals I know that has no problem with it. I take that back; you are the ONLY liberal I know that has no problem with it.

You've said several times now, and it astounds me that you think me a liberal. I bid you find me any liberal who espouses and advocates for any of the economic policy positions and expectations of self sufficiency I do. Perhaps you've forgotten that I a "Social Darwinist" who would sooner unabated capitalism than any form of mitigation for its downsides, preferring instead that individuals strive to overcome them via their own lawful hard work or perish.

Obviously he cant get one started prior to his taking the oath of office.

Why does he need to take an oath of office to do that? Can he not lobby the various state legislatures to solicit the convention of states? The application for the convention has to come from the states. Are you suggesting that Trump run for state legislative office?

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
-- Article V, U.S. Constitution​

 

[JimBowie1958]

You've said several times now, and it astounds me that you think me a liberal. I bid you find me any liberal who espouses and advocates for any of the economic policy positions and expectations of self sufficiency I do. Perhaps you've forgotten that I a "Social Darwinist" who would sooner unabated capitalism than any form of mitigation for its downsides, preferring instead that individuals strive to overcome them via their own lawful hard work or perish.

Well, I had honestly forgotten that, but if you remember your history, Social Darwinism was the Liberalism of its time, so.....

Why does he need to take an oath of office to do that? Can he not lobby the various state legislatures to solicit the convention of states?

Of course he can, but he can more effectively lobby for it as POTUS, true?

 

[320 Years of History]

You've said several times now, and it astounds me that you think me a liberal. I bid you find me any liberal who espouses and advocates for any of the economic policy positions and expectations of self sufficiency I do. Perhaps you've forgotten that I a "Social Darwinist" who would sooner unabated capitalism than any form of mitigation for its downsides, preferring instead that individuals strive to overcome them via their own lawful hard work or perish.

Well, I had honestly forgotten that, but if you remember your history, Social Darwinism was the Liberalism of its time, so.....

Why does he need to take an oath of office to do that? Can he not lobby the various state legislatures to solicit the convention of states?

Of course he can, but he can more effectively lobby for it as POTUS, true?

Red:
And were I speaking to you from that time, I'd be a liberal. But I'm not of that time, I'm of and in this one.

Blue:
I don't see any reason why his lobbying for it as POTUS will be any more or less effective than his doing so as a private citizen.