Civics Education in the US

Not surprising because he did not win in any state-EC in the country.

True enough, the two-party system is cast in concrete in the US. At least, in the mentalities of Americans today.

It would take a Wholly New Generation to make the major-changes to America's "voting apparatus" leading to a true expression of the presidential popular-vote in most states ...

PS: Ditto gerrymandering ...

 

You lie...

10 countries have Electorial colleges

France
In France, an electoral college is particularly formed by the Grands électeurs consisting of local elected representatives (French departmental councillors, French regional councillors and French mayors). Since the beginning of the French Fifth Republic, these Grands électeurs are responsible for electing the senators.[5] Prior to the 1962 French presidential election referendum, the President of the French Republic was elected indirectly by these Grands électeurs; prior to the adoption of the French Constitution of 1958, the President of France was elected by the French Parliament.

 

Which of the 38 sovereign states do you think will ratify an amendment to reduce their political power?

 

Bad guess.

No, I don't want a one party system.

In 1787 they travelled by horse and carriage. Obviously, it took a long time to get anywhere, thus the perceived need for "electors".

 

Apparently it is because the corrupt blue population centers are itching to use and import more populations of illegals, to create more and more permanent government dependent voters, to subvert the Republic into a Banana Republic towards Complex benefit. Claiming that the EC is valued just to elect some "Orange God" is just more tripey BS. The same exact system elected Obama and Clinton. We all know that truly opening the floodgate of illegal voters is what this is about, wish -one- lefty would just be honest about it instead of all the transparent subterfuge, projections and bent, inaccurate versions of our laws, again ironically in a thread on civics education.

The specific intent of the Framers was NOT to have a Democracy because as thousands of posts to this forum evidence among other sad realities of human nature and frailty they evidence, Democracies are an instant race to the bottom of governing forms, and not a stable form of persistent government. The EC is just one of many methods to protect against the instability and injustice of Democracies that the Framers were well aware of via the study of thousands of years of human history.

Were the EC removed, the United States would dissolve near instantly in a flurry of secession movements with real teeth. You may think that's would be fine, but it would not be.

 

More Q.E.D. of the necessity of an Electoral College. Just be thankful that people with the above level of awareness on display in writing for all to see get to vote at all.

 

No, it's not, but arguendo, guess you just forgot to mention the crucial necessary context that Perot WITHDREW FROM THE RACE and then came back in, if you even knew that at all.

 

How many other state governors have held cabinet meetings in foreign countries? I am dying to know that, thanks in advance.

 

Has anyone considered a more obvious problem with having a pure direct popular vote system in the United States for electing a president.?

All the votes would have to be counted.

During presidential elections every four years anywhere from 2-3 million votes cast for the president are not counted. Mainly due to procedural and submission errors. These are spread across literally tens of thousands of voting sites. Going from counting 98% of votes accurately to 100% would be one hell of a task.

Every close presidential election would turn into a nightmare aftermath of recounts, lawsuits, and refusals by one side to concede. It would make Florida 2000 look like a family picnic. The chaos we see today would be elevated many times over.

 

Wrong. Just simply wrong.

If you're having a debate with a user, and another user comes along and misinterprets one post several posts into that debate, scolding you and snarkily implying that you don't know what you're talking about, are you obligated to explain every detail from the previous half a dozen or so posts from both yourself and the other user?

 

Yes.

 

Very thoughtful and robust post. I'm going to look at that website.

Meanwhile, in an effort to keep it simple, knowing my audience here:

Conservatives often wax nostalgic for the 1950s, an era they see as ideal for many reasons. I say let's give them one of the greatest things of that decade, the Eisenhower tax code.

https://mises.org/library/good-ol-days-when-tax-rates-were-90-percent

It would need some adjustments, a reduction in loopholes and so forth, but at least then the conservatives couldn't whine about it being socialism.

 

How does that have ANY relationship to how many popular votes Perot got vs how many Electoral votes? You say it's a "necessary context". How??

 

Then how was the 17th Amendment passed? That reduced the power of the legislatures THEMSELVES, yet it was passed.

If the voters tell their reps that they will be voted out otherwise they can make the reps do just about anything

 

Going by your writing style your avatar is well-named

 

Why are you so insecure you feel you must be like everyone else? That’s a pretty fallacious argument.

 

Socialism no longer exists. It was replaced by Social Democracy. Let's not forget, socialism as a political philosophy denied the market-economy where goods/services competed for clients. With socialism, the government provided "everything". (Which, of course, is why socialism failed.)

What Social-Democracies bring to the market-economy is to say "not all can be provided fairly-and-equitably to people from uniquely a competitive market-economy".

For example, we don't find companies who provide policing of cities, or privatized fire-fighters. And, given the nature of illness, neither should we expect healthcare to be privatized. Because when it is, its cost goes ballistic. Meaning what?

Meaning that the human-being cannot survive without adequate healthcare. But, not all can afford it - which is why "ER" became such a popular TV-series. There are no ER's in Europe because healthcare is nationalized. When you need help, you will get it and without any fabulous cost. Whyzzat?

Because in a National Health Service, it is the state that decides what service-prices are, and the state pays for providing health care. For instance, here in France it costs me $20 to see a doctor - the state tops-off the cost of that visit.

And that works, as a good number of studies have provided in the results of NHS vs Privatized Health. In terms of the national level of overall health, healthcare costs far less to provide per-person in the Europe than in the US. (The American GP earns $200K a year on average, whilst in the EU that same individual earns from one-half to one-third less.)

And the state in Europe has provided his/her entire medical-schooling at the personal tuition cost to the student of less than $1000 per year. So in the EU there is no monumental schooling-debt to repay! Whilst in the US, postsecondary tuition-debt is the largest type of personal-debt!

My Point?
*America's private-debt to GDP ratio is one of the highest such ratio of any developed country (OECD). See that fact confirmed here.
*And no country should allow private-debt to become so monumentally high when it concerns costs driven by public-institutions!
*As a nation, we must learn to live within our means without creating debt-mountains that our children will be required to pay in ages to come. (I.e., raise upper-income taxation and not lower it!)

So what should we do about it? Subsidize state-schools to provide free, gratis and for nothing these tertiary-levels of education: Vocational, Associate, Bachelor, Masters, Doctorate.

NB: And we missed-the-boat on that last objective. Hillary had incorporated into her platform Bernie's idea that tertiary-level schooling be subsidized for all families earning up to a total of $100K annually! Meaning what? This -The truly-poor were screwed out of a solution that would have allowed their children an exit from poverty by the Electoral College system!

 

Interesting. So which 38 states do you think will ratify an amendment to reduce their political power?

 

Whichever ones have inhabitants who are more concerned that their individual vote counts than that their "State" has more power. Most people I know can't give a flying fandango about how their state votes, or their state in general, they have their own politics and don't care about their state. How typical of cons to be 150 years out of date with how most people feel.

 

So, South Dakota?

 

So no trains in your world?

 

Of course they do, 5 states right now are fighting the state of Washington about interstate commerce. Which Washington state is clearly violating

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fo...l-export-terminal-overcomes-first-hurdle/amp/


Then you have the states fighting over water rights most notably Georgia trying to steal Tennessee water and south Carolina.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.aj...nessee-border/ADiDZhQFqSFts6oIarQA8H/amp.html

 

Water rights and Interstate Commerce are not who is the President. I live in a very red part of a blue state and I'm of the demographic that is supposed to be Trump's main strength, I am neither and I really resent people who try to act as if my vote doesn't matter because it doesn't agree with what most of my neighbors or people my age are "supposed" to think. Who is President affects me as an individual, water rights affect me as part of a group.

 

It sounds like your a transplant and want the values of the place that you helped destroy.

 

I've lived where I live my whole life and I've never destroyed anything. Stop acting as if everyone has to fit their stereotype