Whos law? Again rich or poor? You tell that B's to someone who will be beating today by a cop or arrested today for doing nothing but being of a certain race... Wake up my good sir please wake up.
If 3 people voted and you got 2 votes and I got 1 because I voted for myself with the electoral college I'm your new president because California has more ec votes then you this is funny math...
It's like debating a robot no emotions. I'm glad you live in this made up system you think is active today.The law and Constitution are not responsible for racist attitudes. Nor are they remedies for those. Nonetheless the fact that every American is equal before the law provides the tools to address the problems those attitudes create.
Whoever wins the EC wins the election.
Yawn. The US was never intended by the founders to be a "true democracy." In fact, they were at pains not to create anything like that, and this has been taught at all levels.
There have been five United States presidential elections in which the winner lost the popular vote including the 1824 election, which was the first U.S. presidential election where the popular vote was recorded. Losing the popular vote means securing less of the national popular vote than the person who received either a majority or a plurality of the vote.
In the U.S. presidential election system, instead of the nationwide popular vote determining the outcome of the election, the President of the United States is determined by votes cast by electors of the Electoral College. Alternatively, if no candidate receives an absolute majority of electoral votes, the election is determined by the House of Representatives. These procedures are governed by the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
There have been five United States presidential elections in which the winner lost the popular vote including the 1824 election, which was the first U.S. presidential election where the popular vote was recorded. Losing the popular vote means securing less of the national popular vote than the person who received either a majority or a plurality of the vote.
In the U.S. presidential election system, instead of the nationwide popular vote determining the outcome of the election, the President of the United States is determined by votes cast by electors of the Electoral College. Alternatively, if no candidate receives an absolute majority of electoral votes, the election is determined by the House of Representatives. These procedures are governed by the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
At the very beginning in the early 1770s, nobody, then, new what a True Democracy should be. The talks between Jefferson and Franklin with French intellectuals were orientated towards doing away with monarchic rule. The French king went on to help decisively the American revolutionaries to win their war-of-independence from the British crown, largely helped by Franklin's efforts in Paris to convince the French king to do so.
But what was to replace it? Not even Washington - or most of his fellow Masonic brethren who were leading the revolutionary cause - at the time had a good idea of what and how American democracy should be. It was continuous Work-in-Progress, which led to the idiocy of Amendment 12 of the Constitution establishing the Electoral College as well as no formal challenge of Gerrymandering to consolidate the vote for state-officials.
And for two-hundred more years, Uncle Sam has labored on under the same manipulations of political power. For which, five times in history the loser of the popular-vote won the election to the presidency in the Electoral College!
See that fact substantiated here from WikiPedia: United States presidential elections in which the winner lost the popular vote - excerpt:
Are we going to put up with the continued nonsense that "our political system of voting" is right and proper and egalitarian? How many more "Trumps" have to be elected for the handwriting on the wall to start blinking radically?
How many ... ?
There's nothing wrong with the system as it is.
Brilliant reply!
Any other gems like this one ... ?
If your talking modren cities with huge population then yes surely you don't think all 50 states are created equal?
And why are there two Dakota's?
Surely you can't say all cities are created equal? I mean come on be a realest. Los Angeles is way more important to the American system then some city in the state of Dakota and why are there two Dakota's?
There's nothing wrong with the system as it is.
You have to admit the gerrymandering and winner take all skew things quite a bit. The gerrymandering leading to practically lifetime appointments for some politicians.
Gerrymandering is just the drawing of district boundaries to the detriment of the party you favor. The cure is to win elections.
True. However that sets up a monopoly of sorts. Kinda hard to win when the incumbent is colluding with their piers to select their voters. the system needs some tweaking to inject some competitiveness to the equation. Iowa does things better than most in this regard as an example. Redistricting in Iowa - Ballotpedia
Gerrymandering is just the drawing of district boundaries to the detriment of the party you favor. The cure is to win elections.
Gerrymandering is a practice intended to establish a political advantage for a particular party or group by manipulating district boundaries. The resulting district is known as a gerrymander ...; however, that word is also a verb for the process. The term gerrymandering has negative connotations. Two principal tactics are used in gerrymandering: "cracking" (i.e. diluting the voting power of the opposing party's supporters across many districts) and "packing" (concentrating the opposing party's voting power in one district to reduce their voting power in other districts). A third tactic, shown in the top-left diagram in the graphic to the right, is homogenization of all districts (essentially a form of cracking where the majority party uses its superior numbers to guarantee the minority party never attains a majority in any district).
In addition to its use achieving desired electoral results for a particular party, gerrymandering may be used to help or hinder a particular demographic, such as a political, ethnic, racial, linguistic, religious, or class group, such as in U.S. federal voting district boundaries that produce a majority of constituents representative of African-American or other racial minorities, known as "majority-minority districts". Gerrymandering can also be used to protect incumbents.
You obviously either do not know or do not want to know how gerrymandering manipulates the vote.
From WikiPedia here:
Clearly, for the above reasons, it should be made illegal. The existing county boundaries are sufficient for state and national voting purposes ...
The Constitution leaves these arrangements to the states and we've gotten along just fine for over 230 years.
Just fine?!?
Five times in the history of the US the Electoral College has made president the loser of the popular-vote.
You've got a totally illegitimate definition of "fine" as well as historical myopia ...
There is no requirement for the duly elected President to have won the popular vote.
“Looking at his disciples, he said: ‘Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. Blessed are you who hunger now, for you will be satisfied. Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh.’”
All 50 states have social studies standards which include civics and government:
40 states require at least one course in government/civics.
21 states require a state-mandated social studies test which is a decrease from 2001 (34 states).
8 states require students to take a state-mandated government/civics test.
9 states require a social studies test as a requirement for high school graduation.
The lack of state-mandated student accountability relating to civics may be a result of a shift in emphasis towards reading and mathematics in response to the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act.
Students are also demonstrating that their civic knowledge leaves much to be desired. A National Center for Education Statistics NAEP report card for civics (2010) stated that “levels of civic knowledge in U.S. have remained unchanged or even declined over the past century”. Specifically, only 24 percent of 4th, 8th, and 12th graders were at or above the proficient level on the National Assessment of Educational Progress in civics
From the NYT here: The Electoral College Is the Greatest Threat to Our Democracy - excerpt:
The year 1812 should be given its True Dismal Place in history. It was the year in which America's popular-vote was fundamentally undermined by two manipulations - that of the Electoral College and of the Gerrymandering. For more than 200 years, "democracy" in America has been a lie at worst and an effective subversion of the popular-vote.
The popular-vote, that of the people, is the ONLY TRUE MECHANISM indicating a True Democracy demonstrating the will of the people. In the US, that will has been trampled every two or four years in the voting process of mid-term and full-term elections.
Can't believe it? They never taught THAT to you in Civics Class? Yes, they did not!
It is perhaps the biggest lie ever foisted upon the American people, that they live in a True Democracy. And BigMoney has employed that lie deftly to obtain election outcomes that support its willful desire that moneyed-politics should run-and-ruin American democracy ...
NB: I have been refused access on this forum to post Thread Headers - shall we talk about Freedom of Speech ... ?
Just fine?!?
Five times in the history of the US the Electoral College has made president the loser of the popular-vote.
You've got a totally illegitimate definition of "fine" as well as historical myopia ...
You have to admit the gerrymandering and winner take all skew things quite a bit. The gerrymandering leading to practically lifetime appointments for some politicians.
Good for you my Miss Harris.
Only in America where obtaining an objective is the only thing that counts. Which is also the reason why Replicants have such a following. Because have no little sense of right and wrong as regards affluence - it is only the objective that counts.
Heaven help America! It is suffering from a drastic lack of proper education. The importance of learning Civics is at an all time low* - because some people think that getting into university is key to getting a good job.
Which means effectively that "ethics" fly out the window when King Muney walks in through the door. Which is why America has become an Avaricious Country where only muney, muney, muney counts. And if it didn't, highest incomes would be taxed back to reasonability. But we flatter ourselves in how many millionaires/billionaires there are.
And many of them are good people, who believe in God, flock to church on Sundays ... to show how "religious" they are.
From Luke 6:20-21:
*From here: Current state of civic education in the United States - excerpt:
The Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning & Engagement (CIRCLE) reviewed state civic education requirements in the United States for 2012. The findings include:
Sorry, but you have it backwards. The EC is an important part of our electoral system, and a good thing for the country.
One-liner nonsense without any coherent justification. Tantamount to, "Well, it's always been that way, so why change it?"
Because it is unjust (and should therefore be illegal) to manipulate the popular vote in any way. Or, perhaps that notion of voting justice and fair-play is just too conceptually complicated for you to accept ... ?
When you come back from France and live under our laws, then get back with me.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?