Inconvenient fact for trumpanzees

StoneByStone said:
But the president isn't supposed to be decided by the number of states. It's supposed to be decided by the people. Often the people pick a Democrat, but the Republican still wins because we have a system that favors state lines.

And the Democrats controlled most states before the party switch. Really, the system favors Conservatives, which are currently the Republicans.
Click to expand...

The president is supposed to be decided by the electoral college. The Constitution never included (and still does not) any mention of the people having any role in this process. But the people do essentially decide the presidency by determining which candidate receives their state's electoral votes. It is not decided by who wins the most states but a majority of electoral votes.The system insures more widespread support.

When you say "often the people pick a Democrat, but the Republican still wins...." How often does that happen?
 
Flash said:
The president is supposed to be decided by the electoral college. The Constitution never included (and still does not) any mention of the people having any role in this process. But the people do essentially decide the presidency by determining which candidate receives their state's electoral votes. It is not decided by who wins the most states but a majority of electoral votes.The system insures more widespread support.

When you say "often the people pick a Democrat, but the Republican still wins...." How often does that happen?
Click to expand...

3 times. But the constitution was not implementing the electoral college for enlightened reasons. It was to get slave states in the union. I don't think preserving that is worthwhile. It has long outlived its purpose. It now is taking the election from the top vote getter. I am sure the founders did not want that.
About 30 years ago, you could have got Repubs and Dems to abolish it. It was just too much trouble to do it. Changing the constitution is a big job that not only requires the house and senate vote but 3/4rs of the states to ratify.
In 1970, there was a joint resolution to change it. But some senators said it worked for a couple of centuries, why change it. Now we know why.
 
Flash said:
The president is supposed to be decided by the electoral college. The Constitution never included (and still does not) any mention of the people having any role in this process.
Click to expand...

Nope, don't care about muh constitution. Do we have a Democracy or not? If the answer is yes, then the people decide who is in the government.
 
Nordberg said:
3 times. But the constitution was not implementing the electoral college for enlightened reasons. It was to get slave states in the union. I don't think preserving that is worthwhile. It has long outlived its purpose. It now is taking the election from the top vote getter. I am sure the founders did not want that.
About 30 years ago, you could have got Repubs and Dems to abolish it. It was just too much trouble to do it. Changing the constitution is a big job that not only requires the house and senate vote but 3/4rs of the states to ratify.
In 1970, there was a joint resolution to change it. But some senators said it worked for a couple of centuries, why change it. Now we know why.
Click to expand...

Yes, only 3 (although some would include 1824 and 1876). My point is that it has not been "often." The electoral college has other benefits unrelated to any slavery issues by requiring more widespread support across the country. Regardless of the original intent, we have to look at current benefits.

I don't think we could have ever gotten 3/4 of the states to ratify an amendment to abolish it.

What winning percentage would be required in a direct popular vote?
 
StoneByStone said:
Nope, don't care about muh constitution. Do we have a Democracy or not? If the answer is yes, then the people decide who is in the government.
Click to expand...

No, we are a republic that specifically sought to avoid majority rule.

Does a democracy require a majority vote to win office? Most of our officials do not require a majority to win.

Are any nations a democracy that elects its president by direct popular vote?
 
StoneByStone said:
If issues mattered, then the "small government" Conservatives would back candidates like Ron Paul. However, both times he ran, he didn't even come close to winning.
Instead they support Trump who, let's be honest here, is a cult of personality. It doesn't matter that outsourcing has increased under Trump, it doesn't matter that Trump is putting Israel First, it doesn't matter that he couldn't make a deal for the wall, it doesn't matter that he broke nearly all of his promises. All that matters is that he acts the way the Right wants him to.
Click to expand...

funny-people-funny-pictures-funny-kids-funny-messages-funny-moments-Favim.com-573238.jpg
 
StoneByStone said:
Well yeah, that's what makes them urban areas. But most of the land is rural. This rigs the elections for the Republicans as long as we have the electoral college.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't you uneducated fool. Would you like it better if it was "rigged" so that two or three states decided nearly every election?
 
StoneByStone said:
As much as I'd love to break away from the two party situation we're currently in, I think the best thing is to just say the person with the most votes is the winner. Like even typing that sentence feels weird because how is that not already a thing?!
Click to expand...

Never going to happen. Most Americans are much smarter than you and don't want New York and California determining the Presidency every election cycle. If California were still true blue, leftists like you would be bloviating the opposite argument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top