Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You are trying to understand it, I will give you a "C" for effortDamn my jaw just dropped to the floor, you never understood it? You have been indoctrinated well not to comprehend something people over 200 years ago knew so well.We are not the same, Again how many times does it have to be pointed out? People in Wyoming are different then people Living in Los AnglesI'm a fan of proportional representation. But the US system in no way ensures equal representation for voters. I can't understand how the posters who say it does arrive at that conclusion. Perhaps they've heard it somewhere.
And that is somehow supposed to mean that their vote is supposed to count for more than the vote of a Californian?
What kind of fucked up logic is that?
Oh, I understand it perfectly. The EC was partially created to insulate against the "tyranny of the majority", but at that time, the largest state, Virginia, was only 12.6 times larger in population than the smallest state, Delaware, and not 61 times larger.
Try again, and this time, do it with talent.
Which states? Do you know who your delegate is?Does anyone know who their Electoral College Delegate is?The United States is the only country that elects a politically powerful president via an electoral college and the only one in which a candidate can become president without having obtained the highest number of votes in the sole or final round of popular voting.
—George C. Edwards, 2011
Why do we need to stick to outdated legislation when it comes to one of the most important political decisions in the life of the whole country? Why not popular vote? We believe in equality and democracy but for some reason let somebody decide the fate of of this country for us.
in some states you actually vote for the candidates's slate of electors directly....so if they have a ballot they know who they are.
True Democracy never lasts. It always has and always will destroy countries who are true democracies.
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
What we are seeing now is the wolves not caring what the lambs think and the powers that be are wanting to disarm the lambs.
NO, what we are seeing is the the lamb is becoming increasingly psychotic as it constantly gets outvoted, so it goes around threatening everyone with its gun. OH, yeah, and the Wolves are vegan. BUt don't tell that to the Lamb, he's paranoid. And he believes in Jesus!
Look, there's no good reason for the electoral college. It distorts democracy, and it's given us some of the worst presidents we've ever had.
Bush, Quincy Adams, Harrison, Hayes- NONE of these guys are considered GOOD presidents. The people had called it right, but fuck it, we've got this weird relic from the 18th century.
I think the "fly-over" country problem sometimes cited by electoral college advocates is a concern....but its not like that really helps the "fly-over" states now. ...Its the awarding of electoral votes on a winner-take-all basis that is the problem.
"Fly over" states are "flown over", ignored. That's what it means.
With the current system, 80% of states and voters are politically irrelevant in presidential elections.
Analysts already say that only the same 7 or 8 states will matter in the 2016 presidential general election. -- Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Wisconsin, Colorado, Iowa and New Hampshire
A nationwide presidential campaign of polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits, with every voter equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods.
The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states, including polling, organizing, and ad spending) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows. When and where every voter is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.
With National Popular Vote, when every voter is equal, everywhere, it makes sense for presidential candidates to try and elevate their votes where they are and aren't so well liked. But, under the state-by-state winner-take-all laws, it makes no sense for a Democrat to try and do that in Vermont or Wyoming, or for a Republican to try it in Wyoming or Vermont.
youre just a ray of sunshine.
The US constitutional system of governance is, by inspection, better than anything else history has offered up.
That said, if you can get enough stupid people in one room at the same time....they can fuck up any system.
.
Maybe you should think before replying. He said you have to amend the constitution. You want to do away with the EC.....amend the Constitution.You claim to love itBlaming me for not loving equality and advocating 'limited' democracy at the same time. Just wow!when your constitution, which you haven't amended, strictly forbids it. You can't have it both ways.We believe in equality and democracy
You cannot be that stupid. Try actually reading my posts first and then come back for a discussion. Constitution is not only about rights and liberties. When times change we, as a nation, have a right to amend the laws and live according to new rules. Two words: slavery and homosexuality. The former was legal but now it is not. The latter was once outlawed and now is widely recognized. Tell me how Constitution is above common sense and ever-changing environment once again.
It leads to ludicrous gridlocks that make people point their fingers and laugh and downgrade credit ratings..
The US constitutional system of governance is, by inspection, better than anything else history has offered up..
It leads to ludicrous gridlocks that make people point their fingers and laugh and downgrade credit ratings..
The US constitutional system of governance is, by inspection, better than anything else history has offered up..
Now you're apparently only left with silly, nonsensical answers.......rendering the popular vote completely irrelevant, since the electoral college decides the outcome.So what? Are you kidding? The popular vote is entirely meaningless, so why spend all that time and money on elections when it's all for show?Uh huh, the 2000 Presidential election sure showed us that.
Four times in history, presidents have been elected despite losing the popular vote. So what? Given that we have had 60 presidential elections, that seems like a pretty good batting average - sure beats the hell out of area voting.
Because it isnt. She/he who wins the PV wins that state's electors insofar as terms go (the electors actually casts votes for their parties).
Nonsense.
The outcome is decided long before the EVs are cast
Explain exactly how those two things interact.No doubt that's what the founding slave holders thought.I see, so you'll decide what the need is.How about if we just completely do away with the electoral college. No one but wealthy, connected people will ever miss it.
The small states that benefit the most from the EC would never go for it. There is no need in discussing the fantasy of eliminating the EC.
It would be much like making a plan to walk on the ocean floor without first addressing the fact that you can't breath underwater. There is no need discussing a post electoral-college America since there will never be a post electoral-college America.
Quite to the contrary. The body didn't think one way or another about any number of topics. Compromise and negotiation delivered us this imperfect system which could be further perfected by inclusion of the mandate that the President Elect garner a plurality of the popular vote IN ADDITION TO the majority of the electoral vote.
Thanks professor, that explains everything.Which states? Do you know who your delegate is?Does anyone know who their Electoral College Delegate is?The United States is the only country that elects a politically powerful president via an electoral college and the only one in which a candidate can become president without having obtained the highest number of votes in the sole or final round of popular voting.
—George C. Edwards, 2011
Why do we need to stick to outdated legislation when it comes to one of the most important political decisions in the life of the whole country? Why not popular vote? We believe in equality and democracy but for some reason let somebody decide the fate of of this country for us.
in some states you actually vote for the candidates's slate of electors directly....so if they have a ballot they know who they are.
it isnt like there is one delegate.....they are awarded depending on who wins the presidential election...each candidate has their own slate.
No, you're wrong again, and about so many things too. Elections are all about competing answers to the same contrived questions.Well of course campaign dollars are the most important thing about elections.It seems as though the loss of WTA would steer dollars out of rural America
I bet you have a good laugh at those who think elections are about determining policy direction.
Poor choice of words on my part.
Elections are not about competing answers to the same question; they are about the questions getting asked themselves. That is simply the truth in the current polticial system. If you question someone's integrity, you vote for the other gal/guy. In any binary system, you end up with this sort of relationship.
What I should have said was that if you want the rural areas to matter, getting rid of WTA may not be the best way to address it.
Thanks professor, that explains everything.Which states? Do you know who your delegate is?Does anyone know who their Electoral College Delegate is?Why do we need to stick to outdated legislation when it comes to one of the most important political decisions in the life of the whole country? Why not popular vote? We believe in equality and democracy but for some reason let somebody decide the fate of of this country for us.
in some states you actually vote for the candidates's slate of electors directly....so if they have a ballot they know who they are.
it isnt like there is one delegate.....they are awarded depending on who wins the presidential election...each candidate has their own slate.
Exactly, there is no democratic process in selecting electors.Thanks professor, that explains everything.Which states? Do you know who your delegate is?Does anyone know who their Electoral College Delegate is?
in some states you actually vote for the candidates's slate of electors directly....so if they have a ballot they know who they are.
it isnt like there is one delegate.....they are awarded depending on who wins the presidential election...each candidate has their own slate.
lol.... I dont know which states do it that way...........i think generally tho its big-shots in the respective parties...state party chairmen etc that usually get the nod.
Exactly, there is no democratic process in selecting electors.Thanks professor, that explains everything.Which states? Do you know who your delegate is?in some states you actually vote for the candidates's slate of electors directly....so if they have a ballot they know who they are.
it isnt like there is one delegate.....they are awarded depending on who wins the presidential election...each candidate has their own slate.
lol.... I dont know which states do it that way...........i think generally tho its big-shots in the respective parties...state party chairmen etc that usually get the nod.
No.And since the Electoral College decides the Presidential election, the popular vote is meaningless, just a symbolic gesture.Here's one explanation...I guess it demonstrates the weakness of a Union.
Constitutional Topic: The Electoral College
Constitutional Topic The Electoral College - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
The Framers were wary of giving the people the power to directly elect the President — some felt the citizenry too beholden to local interests, too easily duped by promises or shenanigans, or simply because a national election, in the time of oil lamps and quill pens, was just impractical. Some proposals gave the power to the Congress, but this did not sit well with those who wanted to see true separation of the branches of the new government. Still others felt the state legislatures should decide, but this was thought to make the President too beholden to state interests. The Electoral College, proposed by James Wilson, was the compromise that the Constitutional Convention reached.
Today, in every every state, citizens vote directly for electors — as represented on the ballot by the candidates with which they are associated — but in most states the electors are still not legally bound to vote for any particular candidate. An elector could, in theory, throw his or her vote to any candidate! Since each candidate has his or her own slate of electors, however, and since the electors are chosen not only for their loyalty but because they take their responsibility seriously, this almost never happens. It last happened in 1988, when it had no impact on the outcome of the election.Which states? Do you know who your delegate is?Does anyone know who their Electoral College Delegate is?The United States is the only country that elects a politically powerful president via an electoral college and the only one in which a candidate can become president without having obtained the highest number of votes in the sole or final round of popular voting.
—George C. Edwards, 2011
Why do we need to stick to outdated legislation when it comes to one of the most important political decisions in the life of the whole country? Why not popular vote? We believe in equality and democracy but for some reason let somebody decide the fate of of this country for us.
in some states you actually vote for the candidates's slate of electors directly....so if they have a ballot they know who they are.
it isnt like there is one delegate.....they are awarded depending on who wins the presidential election...each candidate has their own slate.
Today, in every every state, citizens vote directly for electors — as represented on the ballot by the candidates with which they are associated — but in most states the electors are still not legally bound to vote for any particular candidate. An elector could, in theory, throw his or her vote to any candidate! Since each candidate has his or her own slate of electors, however, and since the electors are chosen not only for their loyalty but because they take their responsibility seriously, this almost never happens. It last happened in 1988, when it had no impact on the outcome of the election.Which states? Do you know who your delegate is?Does anyone know who their Electoral College Delegate is?Why do we need to stick to outdated legislation when it comes to one of the most important political decisions in the life of the whole country? Why not popular vote? We believe in equality and democracy but for some reason let somebody decide the fate of of this country for us.
in some states you actually vote for the candidates's slate of electors directly....so if they have a ballot they know who they are.
it isnt like there is one delegate.....they are awarded depending on who wins the presidential election...each candidate has their own slate.
