Abolish the popular vote !

[TurtleDude]

Mob rule? You mean like J6 ?

weak, very weak. try again

 

[soap box]

weak, very weak. try again

Well the democrats never, I repeat never mobbed the capitol.

So you're whining about how republicans can't get enough votes to get in the white house because of changing demographics.

 

[TurtleDude]

Well the democrats never, I repeat never mobbed the capitol.

So you're whining about how republicans can't get enough votes to get in the white house because of changing demographics.

well it is easy to buy the votes of the many with the tax dollars of the few. and the birth rates of those on the public teat tends to be higher than high net tax payers. Top doctors, attorneys and engineers tend to delay having kids and when they do, they don't tend to have lots of children. The progressive income tax was designed to help politicians pander to the many

 

[soap box]

well it is easy to buy the votes of the many with the tax dollars of the few. and the birth rates of those on the public teat tends to be higher than high net tax payers. Top doctors, attorneys and engineers tend to delay having kids and when they do, they don't tend to have lots of children. The progressive income tax was designed to help politicians pander to the many

So the tax code and too many kids are stealing future elections from the republicans???

Tax the poor??? Make America rich again? These are answers so that an archaic system from the 18th century can let a republican candidate slip in the white house through the EC back door? ? ?

 

[TurtleDude]

So the tax code and too many kids are stealing future elections from the republicans???

Tax the poor??? Make America rich again? These are answers so that an archaic system from the 18th century can let a republican candidate slip in the white house through the EC back door? ? ?

I have long said that the progressive income tax favors democrats winning elections and should be repealed. when politicians can buy the votes of the many, at the expense of the fewer, it is a rigged game. A flat tax would greatly undercut the power of politicians to pander to the many by promising only to raise the taxes of "the rich"

better yet, though politically impossible to implement, would be a system where the more you pay in taxes, the more votes you have

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Sure, sounds democratic to me too until I remember that the EC gave the election to the candidate with fewer votes twice in our recent history.

The Electoral College has NEVER "given the election" to the candidate with fewer votes.

In fact there has only been one President of the United States of America (John Quincy Adams) who received LESS than 50% of the electoral college votes and that election was not decided by the Electoral College. The slimmest Electoral College victory was that of Rutherford B. Hayes who received 50.14% of the votes.

You appear to forget that it is ONLY the votes of the members of the Electoral College that elect the President.

But what's worse is that republican state legislatures are asserting that they may decide to change the voters choices when they consider those votes to be wrong.

The "voters" have no constitutional right to have any say in the election of the President of the United States of America. The governments of the several states DO have a constitutional right to have complete say in the election of the President of the United States of America.

The Electoral College was designed so that it would prevent a minority of the states (which had a majority of the population) being able to "control" the election of the President of the United States of America. As it is now, if 50%+1 of the voters in (a specifically selected) 13 states (which, together, have approximately 50% of the US population) were to vote for "Candidate A" and all of the other voters were to vote for "Candidate B" then "Candidate A" would be elected to the office of President - DESPITE the fact that they only received around 25% of the popular vote. Obviously the Electoral College does not function as it should.

Also, both the current system and a nation wide "popular vote" system have the capacity of producing a situation where the President belongs to "Party X" while "Party Y" commands a majority in either (or both) of the House of Representatives and the Senate. That, of course, is a recipe for gridlock - UNLESS "Party Y" commands a 60+% majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate (which, of course, is a recipe for disaster).

Many of us want our votes to be counted. If we all must accept the president and their policies, we should be allowed to vote for the person.

That makes sense except for one thing - there is no "must accept" involved. In fact, the way that the system currently operates is that there is a huge incentive for "The Losers" to absolutely reject the policies and president of "The Winners" and to do everything in their power to defeat, delay, and hinder "The Winners" from actually accomplishing anything REGARDLESS of how beneficial that accomplishment would be for the country. After all, it is much easier to win the next election if you can run on the

"The _[fill in the blank]_ said that they would solve the problems of the country and they have accomplished absolutely nothing.
It's time for a change so vote for us."​

platform than it is if you run on the

"The _[fill in the blank]_ said that they would solve the problems of the country and they have made a good start.
That means that it's time for a change so vote for us."​

platform.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

And I would suggest you look at the history of the makeup of the EC. What we have is NOT what was originally designed.

Quite right.

What was originally designed was that the -plutocratic- upper echelons of American society would have control over the Executive Branch, the Judicial Branch, and the Senate.

"The People" would be able to elect the members of the House of Representatives who would be able to enact any legislation that the Executive Branch, the Judicial Branch, and the Senate "felt like allowing them to enact" (read as "considered did not harm the interests of the -plutocratic- upper echelons of American society").

 

[CharloTexan]

The Electoral College has NEVER "given the election" to the candidate with fewer votes.

In fact there has only been one President of the United States of America (John Quincy Adams) who received LESS than 50% of the electoral college votes and that election was not decided by the Electoral College. The slimmest Electoral College victory was that of Rutherford B. Hayes who received 50.14% of the votes.

You appear to forget that it is ONLY the votes of the members of the Electoral College that elect the President.

The "voters" have no constitutional right to have any say in the election of the President of the United States of America. The governments of the several states DO have a constitutional right to have complete say in the election of the President of the United States of America.

The Electoral College was designed so that it would prevent a minority of the states (which had a majority of the population) being able to "control" the election of the President of the United States of America. As it is now, if 50%+1 of the voters in (a specifically selected) 13 states (which, together, have approximately 50% of the US population) were to vote for "Candidate A" and all of the other voters were to vote for "Candidate B" then "Candidate A" would be elected to the office of President - DESPITE the fact that they only received around 25% of the popular vote. Obviously the Electoral College does not function as it should.

Also, both the current system and a nation wide "popular vote" system have the capacity of producing a situation where the President belongs to "Party X" while "Party Y" commands a majority in either (or both) of the House of Representatives and the Senate. That, of course, is a recipe for gridlock - UNLESS "Party Y" commands a 60+% majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate (which, of course, is a recipe for disaster).

That makes sense except for one thing - there is no "must accept" involved. In fact, the way that the system currently operates is that there is a huge incentive for "The Losers" to absolutely reject the policies and president of "The Winners" and to do everything in their power to defeat, delay, and hinder "The Winners" from actually accomplishing anything REGARDLESS of how beneficial that accomplishment would be for the country. After all, it is much easier to win the next election if you can run on the

"The _[fill in the blank]_ said that they would solve the problems of the country and they have accomplished absolutely nothing.
It's time for a change so vote for us."​

platform than it is if you run on the

"The _[fill in the blank]_ said that they would solve the problems of the country and they have made a good start.
That means that it's time for a change so vote for us."​

platform.

Yes, we are aware of how the US Constitution is written. We are bemoaning exactly that. Because there is only one thing worse than a tyranny of the majority, and that's a tyranny of the minority. You understand we are talking about a tyranny over the people of a country (America for instance), not the tyranny over the Electoral Collegians, right?

 

[TurtleDude]

Yes, we are aware of how the US Constitution is written. We are bemoaning exactly that. Because there is only one thing worse than a tyranny of the majority, and that's a tyranny of the minority. You understand we are talking about a tyranny over the people of a country (America for instance), not the tyranny over the Electoral Collegians, right?

what tyranny?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I have long said that the progressive income tax favors democrats winning elections and should be repealed. when politicians can buy the votes of the many, at the expense of the fewer, it is a rigged game. A flat tax would greatly undercut the power of politicians to pander to the many by promising only to raise the taxes of "the rich"

The 2020 US budget was $7,490,000,000,000.

The population of the US is 335,305,317.

The average household size in the US is 2.51.

That makes around 133,587,775.697 "taxation units".

The 2020 US budget is $56,068.00 per "taxation unit".

The average household income in the US is $67,521.

That means that the average US household would have to pay around taxes at around 83.04% of its income in order to come up with it's "fair share" of $56.068.00.

Of course, any household that earns less than $56,068 could "make up the difference" by providing "compulsory unpaid labor" of a sufficiency to make up the difference.

And, naturally, a household with an income of $10,000,000 would be quite happy to be paying taxes at the rate of 0.56068%

better yet, though politically impossible to implement, would be a system where the more you pay in taxes, the more votes you have

The US already has a very similar system, it's called "campaign fund contributions". The more "campaign fund contributions" you make the more say that you have in government. And, the more that an elected representative advances the interests of the "campaign fund contributor" the more likely they are to receive further "campaign fund contributions" from the same "campaign fund contributor".

<SARC>This system is perfectly equitable since ANY American (regardless of race, color, creed, gender, national origin, sexual orientation, education, employment status, or any other factor) is 100% free to make a "campaign fund contribution" in the $1,000,000+ range in order to help insure that their personal interests are advanced.</SARC>

 

[soap box]

The Electoral College has NEVER "given the election" to the candidate with fewer votes.

In fact there has only been one President of the United States of America (John Quincy Adams) who received LESS than 50% of the electoral college votes and that election was not decided by the Electoral College. The slimmest Electoral College victory was that of Rutherford B. Hayes who received 50.14% of the votes.

You appear to forget that it is ONLY the votes of the members of the Electoral College that elect the President.

The "voters" have no constitutional right to have any say in the election of the President of the United States of America. The governments of the several states DO have a constitutional right to have complete say in the election of the President of the United States of America.

The Electoral College was designed so that it would prevent a minority of the states (which had a majority of the population) being able to "control" the election of the President of the United States of America. As it is now, if 50%+1 of the voters in (a specifically selected) 13 states (which, together, have approximately 50% of the US population) were to vote for "Candidate A" and all of the other voters were to vote for "Candidate B" then "Candidate A" would be elected to the office of President - DESPITE the fact that they only received around 25% of the popular vote. Obviously the Electoral College does not function as it should.

Also, both the current system and a nation wide "popular vote" system have the capacity of producing a situation where the President belongs to "Party X" while "Party Y" commands a majority in either (or both) of the House of Representatives and the Senate. That, of course, is a recipe for gridlock - UNLESS "Party Y" commands a 60+% majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate (which, of course, is a recipe for disaster).

That makes sense except for one thing - there is no "must accept" involved. In fact, the way that the system currently operates is that there is a huge incentive for "The Losers" to absolutely reject the policies and president of "The Winners" and to do everything in their power to defeat, delay, and hinder "The Winners" from actually accomplishing anything REGARDLESS of how beneficial that accomplishment would be for the country. After all, it is much easier to win the next election if you can run on the

"The _[fill in the blank]_ said that they would solve the problems of the country and they have accomplished absolutely nothing.
It's time for a change so vote for us."​

platform than it is if you run on the

"The _[fill in the blank]_ said that they would solve the problems of the country and they have made a good start.
That means that it's time for a change so vote for us."​

platform.

Who got more votes? Trump or Hillary? Bush or Gore?
I am talking about ending the EC. That's to say I don't need your explanation of what the rules are now.

You need a new calculator. Your example about the 13 states, so more people voted for one than the other. Not convinced, a million republican votes for president in California is exactly the same number as a million republican votes for president in Oklahoma. Except that currently, only the million from OK get to go to the final EC tally and the republican votes in CA disappear.

 

[mrjurrs]

Quite right.

What was originally designed was that the -plutocratic- upper echelons of American society would have control over the Executive Branch, the Judicial Branch, and the Senate.

"The People" would be able to elect the members of the House of Representatives who would be able to enact any legislation that the Executive Branch, the Judicial Branch, and the Senate "felt like allowing them to enact" (read as "considered did not harm the interests of the -plutocratic- upper echelons of American society").

And yet we restrict the peoples representation in the EC with no restriction of what you describe as the plutocracy...

Those that have the gold make the rules...

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Yes, we are aware of how the US Constitution is written. We are bemoaning exactly that. Because there is only one thing worse than a tyranny of the majority, and that's a tyranny of the minority. You understand we are talking about a tyranny over the people of a country (America for instance), not the tyranny over the Electoral Collegians, right?

Yes, I quite understand how some people can confuse "MY Guys do not have total power." with "tyranny".

The US DOES have the type of governmental system that the Founding Fathers had as their Original Intent.

If you don't believe me, try actually reading the Constitution of the United States of America IN THE CONTEXT of the laws in force at the time it was ratified. The Founding Fathers would have been 100% opposed to having "The People" actually select the President of the United States of America (a position that they thought should only be filled by the choice of "The Right People").

 

[soap box]

Yes, I quite understand how some people can confuse "MY Guys do not have total power." with "tyranny".

The US DOES have the type of governmental system that the Founding Fathers had as their Original Intent.

If you don't believe me, try actually reading the Constitution of the United States of America IN THE CONTEXT of the laws in force at the time it was ratified. The Founding Fathers would have been 100% opposed to having "The People" actually select the President of the United States of America (a position that they thought should only be filled by the choice of "The Right People").

Right, and that was 230 years ago. The founding fathers could watch a soldier fire a shot every 6 seconds, and they had no idea there would be a rifle that could shoot 50 rounds a minute. The world has changed.

Do you trust the american people to choose a president, or should the state legislatures choose for them?

 

[soap box]

I have long said that the progressive income tax favors democrats winning elections and should be repealed. when politicians can buy the votes of the many, at the expense of the fewer, it is a rigged game. A flat tax would greatly undercut the power of politicians to pander to the many by promising only to raise the taxes of "the rich"

better yet, though politically impossible to implement, would be a system where the more you pay in taxes, the more votes you have

Ok , so too many poor people are voting for lower taxes and the solution is to give more votes to wealthy taxpayers who pay more and have fewer kids?????

Ok whatever

 

[TurtleDude]

Ok , so too many poor people are voting for lower taxes and the solution is to give more votes to wealthy taxpayers who pay more and have fewer kids?????

Ok whatever

people voting for the wealth of others is problematic in the long run

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Who got more votes? Trump or Hillary? Bush or Gore?

Mr. Trump received 304 votes and Ms. Clinton received 227 votes. Unless I miss my math, that means that Mr. Trump got more votes than Ms. Clinton did.

Mr. Bush received 271 votes and Mr. Gore received 266 votes. Unless I miss my math, that means that Mr. Bush received more votes than Mr. Gore did.

I am talking about ending the EC. That's to say I don't need your explanation of what the rules are now.

Well you most certainly do need some help in getting your terminology straight.

BTW, did you know that, in some states, NEITHER Mr. Trump, Ms. Clinton, Mr. Bush, nor Mr. Gore received a single vote?

You need a new calculator. Your example about the 13 states, so more people voted for one than the other.

You will note five things here:

[1] I never specified which states;

[2] I didn't say that it was LIKELY to happen;

[3] You should check your own calculations before saying that mine aren't correct;

[4] When I do make a mistake, I always admit it;

and

[5] It isn't always a good idea to assume that I don't know what I am talking about just because you don't like what I have said.

Now, here is how someone could be elected to the office of President of the United States of America by obtaining 50%+1 of the vote in only TWELVE (not the 13 that I said previously) states and not a single vote anywhere else.

Not convinced, a million republican votes for president in California is exactly the same number as a million republican votes for president in Oklahoma. Except that currently, only the million from OK get to go to the final EC tally and the republican votes in CA disappear.

And what happened to the Democrat votes from Oklahoma?

 

[soap box]

people voting for the wealth of others is problematic in the long run

Interesting, but do you think we can't trust people to vote for president?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

And yet we restrict the peoples representation in the EC with no restriction of what you describe as the plutocracy...

Those that have the gold make the rules...

That's the system that the Founding Fathers originally intended to set up.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Ok , so too many poor people are voting for lower taxes and the solution is to give more votes to wealthy taxpayers who pay more and have fewer kids?????

And you can be 100% certain that those people would be all for raising the taxes that they pay and lowering the taxes on "the poor" - right?

Ok whatever

 

[TurtleDude]

Interesting, but do you think we can't trust people to vote for president?

I think extraconstitutional powers that the 16th amendment gave the congress should be abolished along with a progressive income tax

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Interesting, but do you think we can't trust people to vote for president?

I don't know. Would you trust the people of a country that bought around 1,500,000 "PetRocks" in less than six months (or that buy around 500,000 "ChiaPets" annually [or where over over 30% believe that the creation story contained in 'The Bible' {but not the creation story that is contained in other "Holy Books"} is literally true]) to vote for president?

 

[EdwinWillers]

And I would suggest you look at the history of the makeup of the EC. What we have is NOT what was originally designed.

Ok, so how does that address what I said? In fact, how is that not identical to what I said?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I think extraconstitutional powers that the 16th amendment gave the congress should be abolished

Did you know that those powers delineated by the 16th Amendment are NOT "extra-constitutional"? Do you know that that is because they ARE contained in the constitution?

along with a progressive income tax

OK, I'll bite.

[1] Please tell us at what rate your "flat tax" would be levied (show your working).

[2] Please show us how much revenue that 'flat tax" would raise (show your working).

[3] Please show us what reductions in spending (if any) would be needed to match that revenue to spending (show your working).

[4] Please show us how the deficit (if any) that would result if there were no reductions in spending and that level of revenue was all the US government had (show your working).

[5] Please tell us how you would deal with those people whose income (after taxes) was insufficient to sustain life (show your working). [Alternatively, please tell us what level of income would be allowed before being taxed at all (show your working).]

PS - Do I have any realistic expectation that you can answer those five requests in a logical and rational manner? Not on your nellie.

 

[mrjurrs]

That's the system that the Founding Fathers originally intended to set up.

Nope, the founders indicated a system that would have the House be proportionally divided. That is no longer the case.