Who was she?

[struth]

No, he pulled the gun and fired it very quickly. That's not accidental. Why pull the gun out in the first place? It wasn't going to protect him from a car.

Yes he was a quick draw, excellent training…it only took a split second for that sadly radicalized leftist to try and take his life

 

[HikerGuy83]

She didn't try and run him over. Not in a million years.

For Trump to say that, he's being totally dishonest.

She didn't intentionally try.

Big difference.

Makes not difference to you if the car is headed your way.

 

[ThisIsMe]

You're not even trying to understand, are you?

Proportional Representation is an electoral system. The US uses First Past The Post.

In an age where we have information at the tips of our fingers, and you can't even go to wikipedia and look it up?

Proportional representation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

First-past-the-post voting - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

There's nothing proportional about FPTP.

In 2017 in Germany the CDU/CSU got 37.27% of the votes with FPTP (because they do both PR and FPTP at the same time) and got 79% of the seats.

With PR they got 32.93% of the votes and 34.7% of the seats.

How can 79% of the seats from 37% of the votes be considered proportional?

Because our electoral system was not designed for “mob rule”, it was designed so that every STATE would have a say, but the gave bigger states more say than smaller ones. The popular vote isn’t even a consideration when it comes to electing presidents. It IS, however, relevant to electing senators and representatives, which is how it was designed.

You have 1 representative for not less than 30,000 people. Those are the people’s representatives, then you have 2 senators for every state, those are the representative for the people and the state.

If you had a popular vote, a small handful of urban areas would control the entire country, and small states would have zero input. The framers didn’t want it that way so they made the electoral system so that even small states had a voice.

However, small states, while having a voice, have a small voice, and bigger states have a bigger voice, that why they get more representatives, and more votes, because they have more people.

So, yes, it is actually proportional, just not in the way that you would like.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Because our electoral system was not designed for “mob rule”, it was designed so that every STATE would have a say, but the gave bigger states more say than smaller ones. The popular vote isn’t even a consideration when it comes to electing presidents. It IS, however, relevant to electing senators and representatives, which is how it was designed.

You have 1 representative for not less than 30,000 people. Those are the people’s representatives, then you have 2 senators for every state, those are the representative for the people and the state.

If you had a popular vote, a small handful of urban areas would control the entire country, and small states would have zero input. The framers didn’t want it that way so they made the electoral system so that even small states had a voice.

However, small states, while having a voice, have a small voice, and bigger states have a bigger voice, that why they get more representatives, and more votes, because they have more people.

So, yes, it is actually proportional, just not in the way that you would like.

Oh, ******* hell, you brought up "mob rule".

What the **** do you think is wrong with the people having a saying in how their country is run?

So if it's not "mob rule", then what? A dictatorship? Some people have more of a say than other people. Why? Why do you think that's better?

Also, your argument about urban areas controlling this is WRONG.

You don't know what you're talking about, you're just listening to the same tired old arguments the rich Republicans make to keep ignorant people thinking what they want them to think.

In Germany, the have PR.

One region (Land) in Germany has 21% of the German population. North Rhine-Westphalia.

In 2017 they voted 32.6% for the CDU (like the Republicans), 26% for the SPD (like the Democrats). They didn't control anything.

California was Trump's biggest state in 2020. It was his third biggest state in 2016, and 2024.

It wouldn't be urban areas controlling everything at all. It's be far more sensible politics because the politicians wouldn't be able to manipulate as much, they'd actually have to listen, because people would have real choice, and they would know if they didn't vote for a party, that that party could disappear from Congress very, every quickly.

 

[Lesh]

A lost woman. Once, divorced from a man, once widowed. Does not have custody of two of her kids. Now "married" to a woman, and they send their 6 yo to a private "social justice" charter school.

It's tragic that she lost her life. But she honestly put her politics before her own children. She messed around with dangerous stuff and didn't need to. A very sad waste, to be honest.

Interesting thy you think you have the right to dictate how other people live their lives

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Many lies have been told about Renee Good on this board, and by Trump and Noem. Who the people around her knew her to be. The very violent right is trying to give ICE the license to kill.

TRANSLATION: "Don't let this be the day white privilege died"

 

[ThisIsMe]

Oh, ******* hell, you brought up "mob rule".

Mob rule, meaning popular vote.

What the **** do you think is wrong with the people having a saying in how their country is run?

We do. If you read the constitution, it never actually says “we the people” were ever supposed to have a vote on who the president or vp is. Our right to vote was extended to the electing of senators and representatives, through a popular vote, and THOSE elected officials were supposed to pick the president and VP by electoral vote.

WE have a direct impact on who our elected officials are, up to congress, as was decided by the framers I don’t see how you don’t see what we have IS proportional. California has more people, so they get 54 votes, Wyoming has fewer people, so they get 3. What is not proportional about that?

So if it's not "mob rule", then what? A dictatorship? Some people have more of a say than other people. Why? Why do you think that's better?

Because it was never supposed to be “all the people from California and New York decide what is best for people in Wyoming and Idaho”.

Why should people in those states have to be subjected to what the people 1500 miles away want? Why can’t they have a voice too?

Also, your argument about urban areas controlling this is WRONG.

Not really, New York City, the urban areas of California, hell, even the major cities in Texas, all blue and would be able to have a disproportionate say in what happened in other states. If I live in Wyoming and I pay taxes, I want to know my vote had an impact on elections. The way you want it, the Dems would just control everything all the time, and people who vote in New York would outweigh people living in other states and their voices wouldn’t be heard .

You don't know what you're talking about, you're just listening to the same tired old arguments the rich Republicans make to keep ignorant people thinking what they want them to think.

No, I’m going by what the cotus says we have.

In Germany, the have PR.

Ok, this isn’t Germany.

California was Trump's biggest state in 2020. It was his third biggest state in 2016, and 2024.

It wouldn't be urban areas controlling everything at all

Sure it would. Did you know that Texas, by all rights, should be a blue state? There are more registered democrats in Texas than republican, all of those democrats are clustered in the big cities. Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, Austin, all blue.

. It's be far more sensible politics because the politicians wouldn't be able to manipulate as much, they'd actually have to listen,

No they wouldn’t lol. If it was your way, the dems would control everything and anyone who was republican would get zero representation ever again. It would be “the blue way or the highway”, permanently.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Mob rule, meaning popular vote.



We do. If you read the constitution, it never actually says “we the people” were ever supposed to have a vote on who the president or vp is. Our right to vote was extended to the electing of senators and representatives, through a popular vote, and THOSE elected officials were supposed to pick the president and VP by electoral vote.

WE have a direct impact on who our elected officials are, up to congress, as was decided by the framers I don’t see how you don’t see what we have IS proportional. California has more people, so they get 54 votes, Wyoming has fewer people, so they get 3. What is not proportional about that?




Because it was never supposed to be “all the people from California and New York decide what is best for people in Wyoming and Idaho”.

Why should people in those states have to be subjected to what the people 1500 miles away want? Why can’t they have a voice too?




Not really, New York City, the urban areas of California, hell, even the major cities in Texas, all blue and would be able to have a disproportionate say in what happened in other states. If I live in Wyoming and I pay taxes, I want to know my vote had an impact on elections. The way you want it, the Dems would just control everything all the time, and people who vote in New York would outweigh people living in other states and their voices wouldn’t be heard .




No, I’m going by what the cotus says we have.




Ok, this isn’t Germany.



Sure it would. Did you know that Texas, by all rights, should be a blue state? There are more registered democrats in Texas than republican, all of those democrats are clustered in the big cities. Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, Austin, all blue.




No they wouldn’t lol. If it was your way, the dems would control everything and anyone who was republican would get zero representation ever again. It would be “the blue way or the highway”, permanently.

So you think the people have a saying in democracy is bad?

You think it's better if one group of people, which naturally YOU SUPPORT, gets more of a say in how the country is run than another group of people?

No, there's no voting process in the US constitution. That doesn't mean 250 years later that Americans can't think "hang on, it's better if the people have a say in how their country is run".

There is an amendment process to change things.

The problem right now is the US is run by the rich, for the rich. And the politicians are all out there to get as much of the pie as they can get by doing what the rich what.

It can't last. Greed is what destroys all empires.


Again, it wouldn't be all the people in California and New York deciding what happens for people in Wyoming. That doesn't happen in Germany where one Land is 21% of the population of the country.

California would vote for Reps and Dems and other third parties. New York would do the same.

Farmers in Wyoming would be able to vote for a pro-farming party, the same as farmers all over the country.

Currently in Presidential elections, the candidates only focus on 5 or 6 states. And they're not Wyoming, California or New York.

Is it better that Ohio, Georgia, Florida and a few others decide the president?

Yes, your idea is WRONG. I've shown what happens in Germany. You don't understand how Proportional Representation works. You're just listening what what people tell you and they're MANIPULATING YOU. Get knowledgeable about these things.


"okay, this isn't Germany"

What a silly argument.

 

[ThisIsMe]

So you think the people have a saying in democracy is bad?

No, I don’t think that. First we’re not a democracy.

I think every state should have a voice. People in small states should be able to vote on things that affect their state, instead of people in large urban areas of other states drowning them out.

You think it's better if one group of people, which naturally YOU SUPPORT, gets more of a say in how the country is run than another group of people?

That doesn’t happen. Larger states get more votes because they have more people. You want a national popular vote, which means small red states would have zero input. Also, I’m pretty sure if the popular vote favored republicans, you’d be against it.

No, there's no voting process in the US constitution.

You should look again.

That doesn't mean 250 years later that Americans can't think "hang on, it's better if the people have a say in how their country is run".

There is an amendment process to change things.

Exactly. I’d you want a change in our election process, then we have a procedure for that.

The problem right now is the US is run by the rich, for the rich. And the politicians are all out there to get as much of the pie as they can get by doing what the rich what.

It can't last. Greed is what destroys all empires.

Agreed, maybe people should look at the corruption and greed in their own party instead of always pointing at the other.

Again, it wouldn't be all the people in California and New York deciding what happens for people in Wyoming. That doesn't happen in Germany where one Land is 21% of the population of the country.

Again, I don’t care about Germany, they don’t have our constitution.

California would vote for Reps and Dems and other third parties. New York would do the same.

Farmers in Wyoming would be able to vote for a pro-farming party, the same as farmers all over the country.

And Dems would win every election because the popular vote favors them, but most Dems gather in big cities, most repubs live in rural areas, which means high population areas like NYC and LA, Dallas etc, would essentially control every election, and people who live in rural Wyoming or Montana would always be subjected to a liberal government, and their views would never be represented. This is why states are given electoral votes, so people in several states can add up their votes to outweigh people in large urban areas.

It works, as we have some republican presidents and we have some democrat presidents. With a popular vote, we’d only ever have democrat presidents and half the country would have no representation.

Is it better that Ohio, Georgia, Florida and a few others decide the election

Do you think it’s better if we only ever had democrat presidents and half the country would never get any say?

Yes, your idea is WRONG. I've shown what happens in Germany. You don't understand how Proportional Representation works. You're just listening what what people tell you and they're MANIPULATING YOU. Get knowledgeable about these things.

The electoral college is proportional. How can you not see this? Bigger states get more votes…

"okay, this isn't Germany"

What a silly argument.

It’s not silly, why do you keep bringing up Germany? We don’t live in Germany.

 

[frigidweirdo]

No, I don’t think that. First we’re not a democracy.

I think every state should have a voice. People in small states should be able to vote on things that affect their state, instead of people in large urban areas of other states drowning them out.



That doesn’t happen. Larger states get more votes because they have more people. You want a national popular vote, which means small red states would have zero input. Also, I’m pretty sure if the popular vote favored republicans, you’d be against it.




You should look again.




Exactly. I’d you want a change in our election process, then we have a procedure for that.



Agreed, maybe people should look at the corruption and greed in their own party instead of always pointing at the other.



Again, I don’t care about Germany, they don’t have our constitution.




And Dems would win every election because the popular vote favors them, but most Dems gather in big cities, most repubs live in rural areas, which means high population areas like NYC and LA, Dallas etc, would essentially control every election, and people who live in rural Wyoming or Montana would always be subjected to a liberal government, and their views would never be represented. This is why states are given electoral votes, so people in several states can add up their votes to outweigh people in large urban areas.

It works, as we have some republican presidents and we have some democrat presidents. With a popular vote, we’d only ever have democrat presidents and half the country would have no representation.




Do you think it’s better if we only ever had democrat presidents and half the country would never get any say?



The electoral college is proportional. How can you not see this? Bigger states get more votes…




It’s not silly, why do you keep bringing up Germany? We don’t live in Germany.

Well, the fun part is the US goes around the world telling everyone they should be democratic.

One of Trump's justifications for taking out Maduro is that he cheated in an election.

The Iraq War had a justification that Saddam wasn't elected and the US would bring democracy to Iraq.

Trump attacked the Ukraine for not having electionss.
The US is barely a democracy, however over time the people have been given the right to vote in a very limited system, so people do say that that is democracy.

Not given by the Constitution, however acknowledged that the US Constitution now protects that Democracy. You have a RIGHT TO VOTE, and this is precedent.

"

1. Fifteenth Amendment (1870): Prohibits the denial of the right to vote based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
2. Nineteenth Amendment (1920): Grants women the right to vote, prohibiting any U.S. citizen from being denied the right to vote on the basis of sex.
3. Twenty-fourth Amendment (1964): Prohibits poll taxes in federal elections, removing a financial barrier that disproportionately affected low-income voters.
4. Twenty-sixth Amendment (1971): Lowers the voting age to 18, ensuring that younger citizens can participate in elections."
   

So the US Constitution, through amendments, has now given people the right to vote. Still not a democracy, as having a vote doesn't necessarily mean your vote is heard, but basically is.

You think every state should have a voice?

But this messes the US up massively. 1) because places like Puerto Rico won't be given statehood because one side doesn't want the other side to get more votes in the Senate. 2) Because states can't separate, for the same reason and 3) because large states get less of a say proportional to their people.

Also, do all states have a voice? No. They have 2 votes among 100. But the senators are taking the money and doing the bidding of rich people. Not what "the state" (what is a state? It's just a geographical and political boundary. The Senators represent the people of that state) but the people don't get a say, the rich do.

And again, you keep bring up the fallacy that the urban areas will control everything by having Proportional Representation.

You have never even tried to make an argument for this, you just say it is so, when in Germany it is not so, and other countries with PR, it is not so.

The thing is, small states wouldn't have a say, but THE PEOPLE OF THAT STATE WOULD.

Yes, there's a procedure to change the electoral system, but the rich LOVE the current unfair system, and they tell people like you lies so that you'll not want to change the system, so they can continue to control you.

And the corruption and greed will not go away without changing to another political system. The demise of the US will not stop until the electoral system changes.

******* hell. You don't care about Germany? You don't need to care about Germany, nobody is saying you do.

What I'm showing you is HOW THINGS WORK. ~

You're literally saying "ignorance is ******* amazing, I'm ignorant and I'm telling you what I don't actually know because I'm ignorant"

How do you know the difference between FPTP and PR?????? You don't because you REFUSE TO LOOK AT OTHER COUNTRIES.

What's the point of this conversation if all you do is spout things that aren't TRUE??????

 

[ThisIsMe]

Well, the fun part is the US goes around the world telling everyone they should be democratic.

Ok, for them that might work, but here, we aren’t set up that way.

One of Trump's justifications for taking out Maduro is that he cheated in an election.

Ok

The Iraq War had a justification that Saddam wasn't elected and the US would bring democracy to Iraq.

Trump attacked the Ukraine for not having electionss.

Ok

The US is barely a democracy, however over time the people have been given the right to vote in a very limited system, so people do say that that is democracy.

Originally, the cotus only ever allowed for the direct election on senators and representatives, that is the only democratic portion of our system.

Article II

www.law.cornell.edu

The cotus says that electors are supposed to be appointed by the legislature of each state. Those electors choose a president and the VP (the president isn’t even supposed to choose his own running mate).

The cotus never actually gives the direct election of the president to the people. The right to vote is supposed to be for senators and representatives only.


It’s a good thing for democrats we don’t do this, because considering there are more red states than blue states, we’d have a republican president every time.

Not given by the Constitution, however acknowledged that the US Constitution now protects that Democracy. You have a RIGHT TO VOTE, and this is precedent.

"

1. Fifteenth Amendment (1870): Prohibits the denial of the right to vote based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
2. Nineteenth Amendment (1920): Grants women the right to vote, prohibiting any U.S. citizen from being denied the right to vote on the basis of sex.
3. Twenty-fourth Amendment (1964): Prohibits poll taxes in federal elections, removing a financial barrier that disproportionately affected low-income voters.
4. Twenty-sixth Amendment (1971): Lowers the voting age to 18, ensuring that younger citizens can participate in elections."

So the US Constitution, through amendments, has now given people the right to vote. Still not a democracy, as having a vote doesn't necessarily mean your vote is heard, but basically is.

You think every state should have a voice?

Yes, every state should.

But this messes the US up massively. 1) because places like Puerto Rico won't be given statehood because one side doesn't want the other side to get more votes in the Senate. 2) Because states can't separate, for the same reason and 3) because large states get less of a say proportional to their people.

Also, do all states have a voice? No. They have 2 votes among 100. But the senators are taking the money and doing the bidding of rich people. Not what "the state" (what is a state? It's just a geographical and political boundary. The Senators represent the people of that state) but the people don't get a say, the rich do.

And again, you keep bring up the fallacy that the urban areas will control everything by having Proportional Representation.

If you had 5 million people living in NYC and 100,000 people living in Wyoming, the people who live in NYC would always win the presidency, and have their interests met, not having any worries about what the people in Wyoming want.

The way we have it now, the people in Wyoming at least have SOME input as to who they want for president for their state.

You have never even tried to make an argument for this, you just say it is so, when in Germany it is not so, and other countries with PR, it is not so.

I don’t care what they do in Germany…….. they are not a part of the us, they don’t have our constitution, our laws, or any of it.

The thing is, small states wouldn't have a say, but THE PEOPLE OF THAT STATE WOULD.

No, because you’d be putting everyone into one big bucket at that point. The millions of votes coming out of NYC would overrule the 100,000s of thousands of votes coming out of Wyoming.

With our system now, those votes from Wyoming can make the state give their 3 votes to the candidate of their choice, rather than having their votes negated by the votes of someone from another state.

Yes, there's a procedure to change the electoral system, but the rich LOVE the current unfair system, and they tell people like you lies so that you'll not want to change the system, so they can continue to control you.

There are rich democrats too, do they like the current system?

I don’t get my politics from other people, I read the cotus and determine that our country should follow its founding, based on that alone.

And the corruption and greed will not go away without changing to another political system. The demise of the US will not stop until the electoral system changes.

If we went to a popular vote, the greed would only increase. Democrats, knowing they would have a permanent lock on government would be afforded liberty to be as crooked as they want, and nobody is going to vote them out.

******* hell. You don't care about Germany? You don't need to care about Germany, nobody is saying you do.

You keep trying to bring up Germany..

What I'm showing you is HOW THINGS WORK. ~

You're literally saying "ignorance is ******* amazing, I'm ignorant and I'm telling you what I don't actually know because I'm ignorant"

How do you know the difference between FPTP and PR?????? You don't because you REFUSE TO LOOK AT OTHER COUNTRIES.

I KNOW what you want. You want popular vote, you think because there are more democrats, they should always have the say, so a popular vote favors you. What you are not understand is, we already have PR.

If you have 20 balloons 4 clowns at one circus, and at another circus you have 10 balloons for 2 clowns, the number of balloons is proportional, right?

Same with the EC. If you have 20 million people in a state, and they are awarded 54 electoral votes, and an other state has 500,000 people, and they are awarded 3 votes, that’s proportional. The more populace state gets more votes.

What's the point of this conversation if all you do is spout things that aren't TRUE??????

What have I said that isn’t true?

 

[Papageorgio]

Many lies have been told about Renee Good on this board, and by Trump and Noem. Who the people around her knew her to be. The very violent right is trying to give ICE the license to kill.

She was probably a good person, who made some very poor decisions that day. I am not sure why a you would want to park perpendicular on a busy street where police activity is occuring.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Ok, for them that might work, but here, we aren’t set up that way.




Ok



Ok




Originally, the cotus only ever allowed for the direct election on senators and representatives, that is the only democratic portion of our system.

Article II

www.law.cornell.edu

The cotus says that electors are supposed to be appointed by the legislature of each state. Those electors choose a president and the VP (the president isn’t even supposed to choose his own running mate).

The cotus never actually gives the direct election of the president to the people. The right to vote is supposed to be for senators and representatives only.


It’s a good thing for democrats we don’t do this, because considering there are more red states than blue states, we’d have a republican president every time.




Yes, every state should.




If you had 5 million people living in NYC and 100,000 people living in Wyoming, the people who live in NYC would always win the presidency, and have their interests met, not having any worries about what the people in Wyoming want.

The way we have it now, the people in Wyoming at least have SOME input as to who they want for president for their state.




I don’t care what they do in Germany…….. they are not a part of the us, they don’t have our constitution, our laws, or any of it.



No, because you’d be putting everyone into one big bucket at that point. The millions of votes coming out of NYC would overrule the 100,000s of thousands of votes coming out of Wyoming.

With our system now, those votes from Wyoming can make the state give their 3 votes to the candidate of their choice, rather than having their votes negated by the votes of someone from another state.



There are rich democrats too, do they like the current system?

I don’t get my politics from other people, I read the cotus and determine that our country should follow its founding, based on that alone.




If we went to a popular vote, the greed would only increase. Democrats, knowing they would have a permanent lock on government would be afforded liberty to be as crooked as they want, and nobody is going to vote them out.



You keep trying to bring up Germany..




I KNOW what you want. You want popular vote, you think because there are more democrats, they should always have the say, so a popular vote favors you. What you are not understand is, we already have PR.

If you have 20 balloons 4 clowns at one circus, and at another circus you have 10 balloons for 2 clowns, the number of balloons is proportional, right?

Same with the EC. If you have 20 million people in a state, and they are awarded 54 electoral votes, and an other state has 500,000 people, and they are awarded 3 votes, that’s proportional. The more populace state gets more votes.




What have I said that isn’t true?

Seriously?

I know the US isn't set up like that. And what I'm saying is the way the US is set up is wrong.
It doesn't benefit the people, it benefits the rich, and the rich are eking out as much money as they can, and watching the country slowly die.

So, I'm suggesting a solution.

Your response "But that's not how we do things here".

So, what's the point of politicians then? If the US is never going to change, no need for new laws, just get rid of them. Oh, no, wait, that'd be change.

The US Constitution ALLOWS for elections in all parts.

1788–89 United States presidential election - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

First US Presidential election under the current Constitution.

28,009 people voted.

Delaware had 500 people vote
Maryland had 7,000 people vote

The lowest and the highest, aside from those states which didn't have voting.

However it's still not the point. The Constitution has evolved since then, with amendments giving people the right to vote.

I posted the evidence of this already.

If you had 5 million people in New York, and 100,000 people in Wyoming, and that were the whole country, then yes, NY would choose the president every time.

However that isn't the case.

The Urban population of the US is 278 million, or 80% of the country. They choose the president anyway.

Mapped: How Much of Each U.S. State’s Population Lives in Cities

About 80% of the U.S. lives in cities. That's 264 million people. But how does it vary per state? We investigate.

www.visualcapitalist.com

The only two states with an urban population below 50% are West Virginia and Mississippi. So, in Senate elections, the urban population essentially controls everything now anyway.

Fine you don't care what happens in Germany

I can't be bothered to talk to someone so ignorant and so unwilling to change that.

Bye/

 

[LibertyWeeps]

Many lies have been told about Renee Good on this board, and by Trump and Noem. Who the people around her knew her to be. The very violent right is trying to give ICE the license to kill.

Just when you think the leftoid lunatics cant get their heads up any higher up their own asses...........they prove us wrong again.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Seriously?

I know the US isn't set up like that. And what I'm saying is the way the US is set up is wrong.

Then we need to change the system, and there is a process to do that.

It doesn't benefit the people, it benefits the rich, and the rich are eking out as much money as they can, and watching the country slowly die.

I honestly don’t know how the electoral college benefits the rich. How would it be any different if we had a fully democrat government all the time?

So, I'm suggesting a solution.

Your response "But that's not how we do things here".

Right, I just don’t ascribe to germanys electoral system since I don’t live in Germany.

If you want their election system, then by all means advocate for it.

So, what's the point of politicians then? If the US is never going to change, no need for new laws, just get rid of them. Oh, no, wait, that'd be change.

The US Constitution ALLOWS for elections in all parts.

1788–89 United States presidential election - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

First US Presidential election under the current Constitution.

28,009 people voted.

Delaware had 500 people vote
Maryland had 7,000 people vote

The lowest and the highest, aside from those states which didn't have voting.

About half of the states used the cotus system and half the states used a popular vote system. If you read the cotus, however, it never gives the election of the president to the people, only the legislature.

However it's still not the point. The Constitution has evolved since then, with amendments giving people the right to vote.

The 12th amendment only reinforces what article 2 says, it still gives the electoral votes to the representatives from each state. At no point does it say the “people” would ever have any part of the process.

I posted the evidence of this already.

If you had 5 million people in New York, and 100,000 people in Wyoming, and that were the whole country, then yes, NY would choose the president every time.

However that isn't the case.

The Urban population of the US is 278 million, or 80% of the country. They choose the president anyway.

But my point was, why the high population states have all the pull and the small states have none? I understand that in a popular vote situation everybody would have to say but people who live in small states may have a different way of living than people who live in high population urban areas. Democrats tend to gather in these big urban city so you would have them people that live in these big cities in other states being able to say and have control over everything and people in the small areas of small states would have no say because they’d be overruled every time

If you had one big state that had 20 million Democrats and then you had 10 small states that only had 5 million republicans between all of them, the 20 million in that one State would have more say than the 5 million across all these other states. I think the 5 million living across 10 small State should be able to have a voice and what happens in their states.

Fine you don't care what happens in Germany

I can't be bothered to talk to someone so ignorant and so unwilling to change that.

Bye/

I don’t see why that’s so hard to understand. Germany is a completely separate country with a different system of government a different electrons process. I know that’s sounds like what you want to be here but it’s just not what we have. I know you long for a popular vote system and the only reason why you do that is because it’s favors Democrats. I guarantee if this was a system that favored Republicans, you and I would not be talking about this right now.