(http://i.imgur.com/sCry34t.png)
The next president of the U.S. will not be elected by "popular vote" but rather will be elected by the U.S. Electoral College.
Did you know that the President and Vice President are not elected by the "popular vote"? They are not but are in fact chosen by the U.S. Electoral College as directed by the 12th Amendment.
What does this mean? Well it means that a candidate can get more individual votes than another and still not be elected to the office of president. That is a fact. It will be the total electoral votes decided state by state that will determine who is our next President. In Florida we have 29 electoral votes.
"Each state's Certificates of Ascertainment confirms the names of its appointed electors. A state's certification of its electors is generally sufficient to establish the qualifications of electors."
"The process for selecting Electors varies throughout the United States. Generally, the political parties nominate Electors at their State party conventions or by a vote of the party's central committee in each State."
{b]So, why even vote? There is a very good reason for that. It is a winner take all when it comes to the electoral votes and those are driven by "individual voters", all of us registered to vote in Florida as well as some select other states. The popular vote more or less drives the electoral vote almost all of the time but that reality is not set in stone.[/b]
For instance " Some States, however, require Electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two categories—Electors bound by State law and those bound by pledges to political parties"
"There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires Electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their States".
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require that Electors be completely free to act as they choose and therefore, political parties may extract pledges from electors to vote for the parties' nominees. Some State laws provide that so-called "faithless Electors"; may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector. The Supreme Court has not specifically ruled on the question of whether pledges and penalties for failure to vote as pledged may be enforced under the Constitution. No Elector has ever been prosecuted for failing to vote as pledged.
The following states legal requirement for the electoral vote;
ARIZONA
ARKANSAS
DELAWARE
GEORGIA
IDAHO
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
IOWA
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
LOUISIANA
MINNESOTA
MISSOURI
NEW HAMPSHIRE
NEW JERSEY
NEW YORK
NORTH DAKOTA
PENNSYLVANIA
RHODE ISLAND
SOUTH DAKOTA
TENNESSEE
TEXAS
UTAH
WEST VIRGINIA
Want to know more? Click this link:
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/about.html
As it should be... or amend the constitution
Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 05, 2015, 05:48:26 AM
As it should be... or amend the constitution
Indeed that is currently what Amendment 12 dictates. There are many individuals, including myself that think it is time to use the "popular vote" to elected our President and Vice President for one simple reason being the ability for power and money to corrupt our system and influence the Electoral College. There is no reason not to let the individual voter be the deciding factor. IMO
The electoral college *is* decided by popular vote. The bigger issue than the electoral college is the fact that the winner gets all the state's votes (in most states). Getting rid of the electoral college wouldn't necessarily change that. The only thing that would change in getting rid of the electoral college would be that politicians would care less about smaller states.
Quote from: Tacachale on November 05, 2015, 12:44:58 PM
The electoral college *is* decided by popular vote. The bigger issue than the electoral college is the fact that the winner gets all the state's votes (in most states). Getting rid of the electoral college wouldn't necessarily change that. The only thing that would change in getting rid of the electoral college would be that politicians would care less about smaller states.
Did you read the link I included?
There is no legal requirement in all the states that the electoral votes follow the "popular vote" with some States having no requirement at all. The Supreme Court ruled long ago that those who have a vote in the Electoral College are not bound to vote along party lines or in line with the popular vote. It's like a "gentleman's agreement" in many ways and in today's politics we are lacking many gentlemen and women. Florida is one of the few states that has a recourse if the Electoral College does not follow the popular vote. Most other states do not.
There have been 4 elections, do date, where a president has WON the popular vote, but LOST the election. Most recently the 200 election with Bush vs Gore.
Bush had 50,456,002 votes and Gore had 50,999,897, but Gore still lost.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000
The other elections where:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1824
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1876
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1888
And water is wet. Moving on.... (you would think, but there are still many intelligent people that still feel they have a say in the presidential race after the primaries. I'm even skeptical of that.)
I still haven't heard a good argument for WHY we vote for the POTUS.
Here's another question: Why do people even bother running on a 3rd party platform?
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on November 05, 2015, 01:04:58 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on November 05, 2015, 12:44:58 PM
The electoral college *is* decided by popular vote. The bigger issue than the electoral college is the fact that the winner gets all the state's votes (in most states). Getting rid of the electoral college wouldn't necessarily change that. The only thing that would change in getting rid of the electoral college would be that politicians would care less about smaller states.
Did you read the link I included. There is no requirement that the electoral votes follow the "popular vote" with some States having no requirement at all. The Supreme Court ruled long ago that those who have a vote in the Electoral College are not bound to vote along party lines or in line with the popular vote. It's like a "gentleman's agreement" in many ways. Florida is one of the few states that has a recourse if the Electoral College does not follow the popular vote. Most other states do not.
I don't need to read it, I know how the electoral college works. Electors are indeed selected by the popular vote for President; in all but two states, a slate selected by the winning candidate's party then casts their votes for President. There have been some cases where electors don't follow the popular vote, but this is rare, and it's never affected the outcome of the election. Over half of the states have laws prohibiting this.
Quote from: Tacachale on November 05, 2015, 01:19:35 PM
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on November 05, 2015, 01:04:58 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on November 05, 2015, 12:44:58 PM
The electoral college *is* decided by popular vote. The bigger issue than the electoral college is the fact that the winner gets all the state's votes (in most states). Getting rid of the electoral college wouldn't necessarily change that. The only thing that would change in getting rid of the electoral college would be that politicians would care less about smaller states.
Did you read the link I included. There is no requirement that the electoral votes follow the "popular vote" with some States having no requirement at all. The Supreme Court ruled long ago that those who have a vote in the Electoral College are not bound to vote along party lines or in line with the popular vote. It's like a "gentleman's agreement" in many ways. Florida is one of the few states that has a recourse if the Electoral College does not follow the popular vote. Most other states do not.
I don't need to read it, I know how the electoral college works. Electors are indeed selected by the popular vote for President; in all but two states, a slate selected by the winning candidate's party then casts their votes for President. There have been some cases where electors don't follow the popular vote, but this is rare, and it's never affected the outcome of the election. Over half of the states have laws prohibiting this.
Reading is a good thing at times. This is one of those times. :)
Are there restrictions on who the Electors can vote for?
There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires Electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their States. Some States, however, require Electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two categories—Electors bound by State law and those bound by pledges to political parties.The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require that Electors be completely free to act as they choose and therefore, political parties may extract pledges from electors to vote for the parties' nominees. Some State laws provide that so-called "faithless Electors"; may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector. The Supreme Court has not specifically ruled on the question of whether pledges and penalties for failure to vote as pledged may be enforced under the Constitution. No Elector has ever been prosecuted for failing to vote as pledged.
Today, it is rare for Electors to disregard the popular vote by casting their electoral vote for someone other than their party's candidate. Electors generally hold a leadership position in their party or were chosen to recognize years of loyal service to the party. Throughout our history as a nation, more than 99 percent of Electors have voted as pledged.
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on November 05, 2015, 01:23:18 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on November 05, 2015, 01:19:35 PM
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on November 05, 2015, 01:04:58 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on November 05, 2015, 12:44:58 PM
The electoral college *is* decided by popular vote. The bigger issue than the electoral college is the fact that the winner gets all the state's votes (in most states). Getting rid of the electoral college wouldn't necessarily change that. The only thing that would change in getting rid of the electoral college would be that politicians would care less about smaller states.
Did you read the link I included. There is no requirement that the electoral votes follow the "popular vote" with some States having no requirement at all. The Supreme Court ruled long ago that those who have a vote in the Electoral College are not bound to vote along party lines or in line with the popular vote. It's like a "gentleman's agreement" in many ways. Florida is one of the few states that has a recourse if the Electoral College does not follow the popular vote. Most other states do not.
I don't need to read it, I know how the electoral college works. Electors are indeed selected by the popular vote for President; in all but two states, a slate selected by the winning candidate's party then casts their votes for President. There have been some cases where electors don't follow the popular vote, but this is rare, and it's never affected the outcome of the election. Over half of the states have laws prohibiting this.
Are there restrictions on who the Electors can vote for?
There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires Electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their States. Some States, however, require Electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two categories—Electors bound by State law and those bound by pledges to political parties.
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require that Electors be completely free to act as they choose and therefore, political parties may extract pledges from electors to vote for the parties' nominees. Some State laws provide that so-called "faithless Electors"; may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector. The Supreme Court has not specifically ruled on the question of whether pledges and penalties for failure to vote as pledged may be enforced under the Constitution. No Elector has ever been prosecuted for failing to vote as pledged.
Today, it is rare for Electors to disregard the popular vote by casting their electoral vote for someone other than their party's candidate. Electors generally hold a leadership position in their party or were chosen to recognize years of loyal service to the party. Throughout our history as a nation, more than 99 percent of Electors have voted as pledged.
Yes, as that says, in over half the states (I'd have to look up which ones) there are laws binding the electors to follow their pledge and vote according to the popular vote. Sometimes these laws have been passed after an election where one of their electors voted "faithlessly"; this famously happened in Washington where electors are now bound by a $10k fine. I think that was the last time it ever happened on purpose, though it still happens occasionally by accident. And again, it hasn't ever affected the outcome of the election.
Quote from: Tacachale on November 05, 2015, 01:33:03 PM
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on November 05, 2015, 01:23:18 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on November 05, 2015, 01:19:35 PM
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on November 05, 2015, 01:04:58 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on November 05, 2015, 12:44:58 PM
The electoral college *is* decided by popular vote. The bigger issue than the electoral college is the fact that the winner gets all the state's votes (in most states). Getting rid of the electoral college wouldn't necessarily change that. The only thing that would change in getting rid of the electoral college would be that politicians would care less about smaller states.
Did you read the link I included. There is no requirement that the electoral votes follow the "popular vote" with some States having no requirement at all. The Supreme Court ruled long ago that those who have a vote in the Electoral College are not bound to vote along party lines or in line with the popular vote. It's like a "gentleman's agreement" in many ways. Florida is one of the few states that has a recourse if the Electoral College does not follow the popular vote. Most other states do not.
I don't need to read it, I know how the electoral college works. Electors are indeed selected by the popular vote for President; in all but two states, a slate selected by the winning candidate's party then casts their votes for President. There have been some cases where electors don't follow the popular vote, but this is rare, and it's never affected the outcome of the election. Over half of the states have laws prohibiting this.
Are there restrictions on who the Electors can vote for?
There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires Electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their States. Some States, however, require Electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two categories—Electors bound by State law and those bound by pledges to political parties.
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require that Electors be completely free to act as they choose and therefore, political parties may extract pledges from electors to vote for the parties' nominees. Some State laws provide that so-called "faithless Electors"; may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector. The Supreme Court has not specifically ruled on the question of whether pledges and penalties for failure to vote as pledged may be enforced under the Constitution. No Elector has ever been prosecuted for failing to vote as pledged.
Today, it is rare for Electors to disregard the popular vote by casting their electoral vote for someone other than their party's candidate. Electors generally hold a leadership position in their party or were chosen to recognize years of loyal service to the party. Throughout our history as a nation, more than 99 percent of Electors have voted as pledged.
Yes, as that says, in over half the states (I'd have to look up which ones) there are laws binding the electors to follow their pledge and vote according to the popular vote. Sometimes these laws have been passed after an election where one of their electors voted "faithlessly"; this famously happened in Washington where electors are now bound by a $10k fine. I think that was the last time it ever happened on purpose, though it still happens occasionally by accident. And again, it hasn't ever affected the outcome of the election.
As you mentioned before, the issue isn't the Electoral College - it's the winner-take-all nature of how the electors are awarded. That said, direct popular vote would be better, if only because it would more accurately reflect the distribution of votes.
I provided the list of states in my original post as well as a link for the complete break down. The bottom line is that it is not written in stone or by law that the electoral vote must follow the popular vote. That is assumed, lets be clear about that. Understanding the process with clarity is why I start these posts and add links. Most folks are not at all clear on the process, even those who think they know the ins and outs are often surprised by the nitty gritty contained in the facts. :)
Quote from: Adam White on November 05, 2015, 01:42:18 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on November 05, 2015, 01:33:03 PM
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on November 05, 2015, 01:23:18 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on November 05, 2015, 01:19:35 PM
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on November 05, 2015, 01:04:58 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on November 05, 2015, 12:44:58 PM
The electoral college *is* decided by popular vote. The bigger issue than the electoral college is the fact that the winner gets all the state's votes (in most states). Getting rid of the electoral college wouldn't necessarily change that. The only thing that would change in getting rid of the electoral college would be that politicians would care less about smaller states.
Did you read the link I included. There is no requirement that the electoral votes follow the "popular vote" with some States having no requirement at all. The Supreme Court ruled long ago that those who have a vote in the Electoral College are not bound to vote along party lines or in line with the popular vote. It's like a "gentleman's agreement" in many ways. Florida is one of the few states that has a recourse if the Electoral College does not follow the popular vote. Most other states do not.
I don't need to read it, I know how the electoral college works. Electors are indeed selected by the popular vote for President; in all but two states, a slate selected by the winning candidate's party then casts their votes for President. There have been some cases where electors don't follow the popular vote, but this is rare, and it's never affected the outcome of the election. Over half of the states have laws prohibiting this.
Are there restrictions on who the Electors can vote for?
There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires Electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their States. Some States, however, require Electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two categories—Electors bound by State law and those bound by pledges to political parties.
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require that Electors be completely free to act as they choose and therefore, political parties may extract pledges from electors to vote for the parties' nominees. Some State laws provide that so-called "faithless Electors"; may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector. The Supreme Court has not specifically ruled on the question of whether pledges and penalties for failure to vote as pledged may be enforced under the Constitution. No Elector has ever been prosecuted for failing to vote as pledged.
Today, it is rare for Electors to disregard the popular vote by casting their electoral vote for someone other than their party's candidate. Electors generally hold a leadership position in their party or were chosen to recognize years of loyal service to the party. Throughout our history as a nation, more than 99 percent of Electors have voted as pledged.
Yes, as that says, in over half the states (I'd have to look up which ones) there are laws binding the electors to follow their pledge and vote according to the popular vote. Sometimes these laws have been passed after an election where one of their electors voted "faithlessly"; this famously happened in Washington where electors are now bound by a $10k fine. I think that was the last time it ever happened on purpose, though it still happens occasionally by accident. And again, it hasn't ever affected the outcome of the election.
As you mentioned before, the issue isn't the Electoral College - it's the winner-take-all nature of how the electors are awarded. That said, direct popular vote would be better, if only because it would more accurately reflect the distribution of votes.
I agree Adam. In today's world direct popular vote would be better and more honest. When the founding fathers decided to go with the electoral college the size, breadth and morality of this nation was far different. It should be the individual voters (popular vote) that decides who becomes our President and Vice President.
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on November 05, 2015, 01:47:24 PM
I agree Adam. In today's world direct popular vote would be better and more honest. When the founding fathers decided to go with the electoral college the size, breadth and morality of this nation was far different. It should be the individual voters (popular vote) that decides who becomes our President and Vice President.
There are a lot of stupid things about the Constitution that may have made sense to a bunch of guys in the 18th century - but are questionable now.
Quote from: Adam White on November 05, 2015, 01:50:17 PM
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on November 05, 2015, 01:47:24 PM
I agree Adam. In today's world direct popular vote would be better and more honest. When the founding fathers decided to go with the electoral college the size, breadth and morality of this nation was far different. It should be the individual voters (popular vote) that decides who becomes our President and Vice President.
There are a lot of stupid things about the Constitution that may have made sense to a bunch of guys in the 18th century - but are questionable now.
Those things were not stupid at the time but there are indeed many portions of the Constitution that no longer fit and are open to interpretation depending upon individual ideas and politics. Of those one of the most straight forward to change would likely be to the amendment for the electoral college. My guess is that it would be those who manipulate the college votes would stand up to fight that change. But to my view it is the most fair and honest thing for all political parties. Let "all" the voters decide, not the handpicked few.
What else is "questionable" in that document? Those incredibly insightful men even left you a mechanism to make changes. Use the mechanism.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 05, 2015, 08:30:31 PM
What else is "questionable" in that document? Those incredibly insightful men even left you a mechanism to make changes. Use the mechanism.
Yes there is a mechanism in our system to address changes to an amendment but it is a politically volatile and difficult process, especially with today's political environment and corruption. Right now the issue I am addressing is Amendment 12 and the Electoral College. As insightful as our forefathers were, they could not have planned for or seen all the social and political issues facing this nation down in a system that is now corrupt. To my view we need to elect our President and Vice President via "popular vote". I am not alone in this belief. I think if enough people begin to understand how the electoral college has been impacted by partisan corruption we will see an effort undertaken to change the amendment and change the process. Having said that I am not one of those individuals who thinks we need to rewrite the constitution but changes are sometimes necessary to preserve the integrity of the process. It has been done before.
It was meant to be a difficult process. Seems to me you and others have a hard time giving the founders credit. Corrupted system? I think they saw plenty... dirty politics...Those guys invented it.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 05, 2015, 09:37:02 PM
It was meant to be a difficult process. Seems to me you and others have a hard time giving the founders credit. Corrupted system? I think they saw plenty... dirty politics...Those guys invented it.
Actually I give them a lot of credit. They were amazingly insightful in the drafting of the Constitution. I have been angered by many of the attempts to re-write all that they did by those with self serving agenda's. In this one instance however I believe that the truly democratic thing to do is to empower the individual voter with the understanding and reality that yes, each and every vote goes to the person it is cast for rather then massed together in the hope that those in the Electoral College will do the right thing. That rarely happens in politics anymore. Such a move would give the power of the vote solely to each and every individual regardless of political affiliation. Money and politics can by electoral votes. Buying the votes of all American voters is not so easy. :)
Yet no real examples of electoral chicanery? Zero chance of any possible amending here...try guns...or ERA...lol
It's only broken if your candidate loses...
Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 05, 2015, 09:51:04 PM
Yet no real examples of electoral chicanery? Zero chance of any possible amending here...try guns...or ERA...lol
Historically there are examples but I tell you what, I am honestly not going to take the time to ferret them out right now. If you think the Electoral college is working fine and honestly that is your right. However after decades of being both inside and outside of politics and exposing corruption I know the current process is flawed and manipulated and there is nothing in the constitution or the laws of most states to deal with that. That should concern anyone who understands that our politicians are bought and our political parties are using a playbook the average voter simply does not understand. I along with many others think we should use the individual votes cast (popular vote) to decide our election of the top two office holders in our country. That is truly empowering the people and putting the future in their hands as opposed to the hands of an entity called the Electoral College.
Quote from: stephendare on November 05, 2015, 09:56:04 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 05, 2015, 09:51:04 PM
Yet no real examples of electoral chicanery? Zero chance of any possible amending here...try guns...or ERA...lol
you mean other than the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections? In 2000, Al Gore had a commanding lead in the popular vote, if you remember.
Or the 2006 controversies in Ohio?
Or any number of suspicious changed votes nationwide in electronic voting?
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/06/us/politics/us-voting-flaws-are-widespread-study-shows.html?_r=0
Indeed Stephen those are great examples. :)
Quote from: blizz01 on November 05, 2015, 09:55:09 PM
It's only broken if your candidate loses...
That is not true. It is broken when the individual will of the voter can be over ridden by a group of individuals picked by political parties, which is how the members of the Electoral College are chosen with a few exceptions in some states. Honestly folks, time to step away from a partisan mindset and look at what might be best for all Americans who vote regardless of party. That is exactly why I am suggesting that the Electoral College may no longer be the way to decide Presidential elections.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 05, 2015, 08:30:31 PM
What else is "questionable" in that document? Those incredibly insightful men even left you a mechanism to make changes. Use the mechanism.
Yes, there is a mechanism - but the very fact that it has had to be used shows how "questionable" some of the decisions by these "insightful" men actually were.
Unless, of course, you're cool with slavery. Or the fact that States could deny women the right to vote. Or that the President isn't elected by direct, popular vote. (Not that I am saying you, Bridge Troll, feel this way).
The so-called "founding fathers" were a group of elitists who were highly undemocratic in nature - they drafted a document which enshrined the status quo and protected their class interests. I don't think they did this because they were evil and I don't think they did this on purpose (for the most part) - they drafted the kind of document you'd expect them to.
I think it's well past time to scrap it and develop a newer, better constitution. And that one will likely need to be changed in a few hundred years' time (if not sooner).
I have no doubt you feel the way you do... but really... good luck with that. Use the amendment process... even the founders used it with the first ten. Scrap it for a better version... rofl... did you really say that?? ::)
Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 06, 2015, 10:11:25 AM
I have no doubt you feel the way you do... but really... good luck with that. Use the amendment process... even the founders used it with the first ten. Scrap it for a better version... rofl... did you really say that?? ::)
I did indeed and I honestly believe that.
Quote from: Adam White on November 06, 2015, 10:16:45 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 06, 2015, 10:11:25 AM
I have no doubt you feel the way you do... but really... good luck with that. Use the amendment process... even the founders used it with the first ten. Scrap it for a better version... rofl... did you really say that?? ::)
I did indeed and I honestly believe that.
I know you do... your grandchildren will have died of old age before that happens...
Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 06, 2015, 10:40:44 AM
Quote from: Adam White on November 06, 2015, 10:16:45 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 06, 2015, 10:11:25 AM
I have no doubt you feel the way you do... but really... good luck with that. Use the amendment process... even the founders used it with the first ten. Scrap it for a better version... rofl... did you really say that?? ::)
I did indeed and I honestly believe that.
I know you do... your grandchildren will have died of old age before that happens...
Of course - Americans are strangely averse to admitting when they get something wrong or don't do something well.
Quote from: Adam White on November 06, 2015, 10:54:01 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 06, 2015, 10:40:44 AM
Quote from: Adam White on November 06, 2015, 10:16:45 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 06, 2015, 10:11:25 AM
I have no doubt you feel the way you do... but really... good luck with that. Use the amendment process... even the founders used it with the first ten. Scrap it for a better version... rofl... did you really say that?? ::)
I did indeed and I honestly believe that.
I know you do... your grandchildren will have died of old age before that happens...
Of course - Americans are strangely averse to admitting when they get something wrong or don't do something well.
The US Constitution may have flaws... but it certainly should not be "scrapped for a better version". That most appear to lack the will to simply amend the objectionable parts is no reason to scrap and start over... in fact it shows amending is the best and easiest way to make changes you so long for...
Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 06, 2015, 11:04:35 AM
Quote from: Adam White on November 06, 2015, 10:54:01 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 06, 2015, 10:40:44 AM
Quote from: Adam White on November 06, 2015, 10:16:45 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 06, 2015, 10:11:25 AM
I have no doubt you feel the way you do... but really... good luck with that. Use the amendment process... even the founders used it with the first ten. Scrap it for a better version... rofl... did you really say that?? ::)
I did indeed and I honestly believe that.
I know you do... your grandchildren will have died of old age before that happens...
Of course - Americans are strangely averse to admitting when they get something wrong or don't do something well.
The US Constitution may have flaws... but it certainly should not be "scrapped for a better version". That most appear to lack the will to simply amend the objectionable parts is no reason to scrap and start over... in fact it shows amending is the best and easiest way to make changes you so long for...
Scrap, massively amend, whatever. It's all the same to me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUl6PooveJE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUl6PooveJE)
I am not in favor of scrapping the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. I am however saying that the Electoral College no longer is an adequate measure of the independent voter. Each and every vote should go directly to the person it is cast for. This particular amendment no longer functions well in today's society and can be politically and financially manipulated. This should not represent a challenge to party politics in that it does not impact their ability to interact on an open stage with the voters and earn their votes for their party or candidate. The only people opposed to this would be those who would lament the control the Electoral College now presents in that there is no standard law from state to state regarding how the members of the college are elected or a lawful standard regarding how the electoral votes are cast. That is not enough in today's world of politics.
Quote from: Adam White on November 06, 2015, 11:21:33 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 06, 2015, 11:04:35 AM
Quote from: Adam White on November 06, 2015, 10:54:01 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 06, 2015, 10:40:44 AM
Quote from: Adam White on November 06, 2015, 10:16:45 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 06, 2015, 10:11:25 AM
I have no doubt you feel the way you do... but really... good luck with that. Use the amendment process... even the founders used it with the first ten. Scrap it for a better version... rofl... did you really say that?? ::)
I did indeed and I honestly believe that.
I know you do... your grandchildren will have died of old age before that happens...
Of course - Americans are strangely averse to admitting when they get something wrong or don't do something well.
The US Constitution may have flaws... but it certainly should not be "scrapped for a better version". That most appear to lack the will to simply amend the objectionable parts is no reason to scrap and start over... in fact it shows amending is the best and easiest way to make changes you so long for...
Scrap, massively amend, whatever. It's all the same to me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUl6PooveJE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUl6PooveJE)
I know Adam... baby=bathwater... its all dirty...rofl
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on November 06, 2015, 11:54:17 AM
I am not in favor of scrapping the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. I am however saying that the Electoral College no longer is an adequate measure of the independent voter. Each and every vote should go directly to the person it is cast for. This particular amendment no longer functions well in today's society and can be politically and financially manipulated. This should not represent a challenge to party politics in that it does not impact their ability to interact on an open stage with the voters and earn their votes for their party or candidate. The only people opposed to this would be those who would lament the control the Electoral College now presents in that there is no standard law from state to state regarding how the members of the college are elected or a lawful standard regarding how the electoral votes are cast. That is not enough in today's world of politics.
I'm sure there is a landslide of "above average" voters like you to make this happen. I welcome it...
Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 06, 2015, 12:15:52 PM
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on November 06, 2015, 11:54:17 AM
I am not in favor of scrapping the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. I am however saying that the Electoral College no longer is an adequate measure of the independent voter. Each and every vote should go directly to the person it is cast for. This particular amendment no longer functions well in today's society and can be politically and financially manipulated. This should not represent a challenge to party politics in that it does not impact their ability to interact on an open stage with the voters and earn their votes for their party or candidate. The only people opposed to this would be those who would lament the control the Electoral College now presents in that there is no standard law from state to state regarding how the members of the college are elected or a lawful standard regarding how the electoral votes are cast. That is not enough in today's world of politics.
I'm sure there is a landslide of "above average" voters like you to make this happen. I welcome it...
It will not be a landslide of voters that will get this off the ground if it happens. It will initially be public discourse and requests for changes made to the legislators of this nation. As we all know that is a long convoluted process but one that would put the issue before all the voters. The truth is that many simply do not understand our election process or the electoral college. Once they do, I can imagine many may see the electoral voting system is not truly representative of individual votes. What will happen going forward on this issue I haven't a clue. I am only stating my opinion of the issue. :)
Then it's over Hilliary Clinton is the winner and will become the first real Female President of The United States of America! ;D
(http://i.imgur.com/27f0vVr.jpg)
Quote
Thursday 5 November 2015 14.37 EST Last modified on Friday 6 November 2015 07.06 EST
Share on Pinterest Share on LinkedIn Share on Google+
Shares
3,367
Comments
644
Save for later
Given the kind of things the Republican presidential candidates have been saying every day for weeks now, you might reasonably conclude that US politics is stuck not just in another decade, but in a previous century. Ben Carson thinks Obamacare is "the worst thing that has happened in this nation since slavery". To boost an argument against gun control Carson also said that Hitler would have killed fewer Jews in the Holocaust "if the people had been armed". Donald Trump, meanwhile, would expel 12 million undocumented migrants because so many are "criminals, murderers and rapists". Carly Fiorina asserts that "every single policy" Hillary Clinton espouses, including paid family leave and equal pay for women, "has been demonstrably bad for women".
Ben Carson claims Jewish people might have stopped Holocaust if they had guns
Read more
This Republican race to the political bottom is happening because America's conservatives are losing the culture wars. The US is now beyond the electoral tipping point, driven by a new progressive majority in the electorate: racial minorities (black and Hispanic) plus single women, millennials (born between 1982 and 2000) and secular voters together formed 51% of the electorate in 2012; and will reach a politically critical 63% next year.
And each of these groups is giving Clinton, or whoever emerges as the Democratic candidate for the 2016 White House race, at least a two-to-one advantage over a Republican party whose brand has been badly tarnished.
The country today, particularly the bigger urban centres, is being dramatically remade by the hi-tech, internet, big data and energy revolutions. Just as important are the revolutions in migration, the family, gender roles and religion. Together these revolutions are producing seismic and accelerating changes to the economy, culture and politics – which is what animates so many Republican candidates. America is emerging as racially blended, immigrant, multinational, multicultural and multilingual – a diversity that is ever more central to its political identity. We are not talking here about trends, but profound demographic changes accompanied by a dramatic shift in values. They have produced a country where racial minorities form 38% of the population, and 15% of new marriages are interracial. One in five global migrants end up in the US, and thus nearly 40% of the populations of New York and Los Angeles are foreign born, as are 50% of Silicon Valley's engineers and more than half of US Nobel laureates.
For full story click the link below.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/05/america-conservative-us-2016-white-house?CMP=share_btn_fb
http://digg.com/video/electoral-college-explained?utm_source=digg&utm_medium=facebook
^I had no idea Digg was still around. I wonder what Friendster is up to.
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on November 09, 2015, 09:35:04 PM
http://digg.com/video/electoral-college-explained?utm_source=digg&utm_medium=facebook
Why watch prejudicial junk like that?? Simply propaganda.
BT, everyone know what Digg is about and the style in which they do things. If you don't watch though you have no idea about the information it contained. Tell you what, look at the presentation and tell me what is factually incorrect about what was shared. What was shared was factual, like the source or not. :)
Quote from: Tacachale on November 09, 2015, 10:42:42 PM
^I had no idea Digg was still around. I wonder what Friendster is up to.
Let me know on my MySpace page and I'll put you in my top 8.
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on November 11, 2015, 11:25:44 AM
BT, everyone know what Digg is about and the style in which they do things. If you don't watch though you have no idea about the information it contained. Tell you what, look at the presentation and tell me what is factually incorrect about what was shared. What was shared was factual, like the source or not. :)
Really CC? When the article you site is titled..."Why The Electoral College Is Garbage" it is.. in fact... prejudicial and propaganda not worthy of my time. I'm sure it is chock full of "facts"... most propaganda is... Here is a video for you... I'm sure you will remember this gem...lol
https://www.youtube.com/v/oyIFqf3XH24
Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 12, 2015, 06:40:13 AM
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on November 11, 2015, 11:25:44 AM
BT, everyone know what Digg is about and the style in which they do things. If you don't watch though you have no idea about the information it contained. Tell you what, look at the presentation and tell me what is factually incorrect about what was shared. What was shared was factual, like the source or not. :)
Really CC? When the article you site is titled..."Why The Electoral College Is Garbage" it is.. in fact... prejudicial and propaganda not worthy of my time. I'm sure it is chock full of "facts"... most propaganda is... Here is a video for you... I'm sure you will remember this gem...lol
https://www.youtube.com/v/oyIFqf3XH24
But on the upside, we all learned that digg still exists.