It was in response to this Isn't the hypocracy on the ones who supported Clinton, after the OIC brought 8 felony charges for impeachment and defended him and said obstruction of justice, PERJURY, witness tampering and subornation of perjury were not impeachable matters and voted to not remove once he was impeached now castigate Trump when there were no charges brought, no obstruction of justice charges, and no bribery or extortion here. Who are the real hypocrites here. Have you compared Nadler's view on impeachment in 1996 to now?
I agree, and I would add that we typically see low voter turnout because so many people live in states that always vote the same way, so there's no point to them even voting. Something closer to a popular vote might increase voter turnout because more people's votes would actually count at the national level.
I accept your concession of the Article 1 Sec 10:3 argument. Again: How does a winner with 41% of the vote fit into the concept of the NPVC? Doesn't this mean 59% of the voters do NOT want that person as President?
Still waiting for you to describe how the framers intended the states to choose their electors and support it with relevant text.
I think there are other election laws we need to enforce first. Right now, the issue is whether a candidate can marshall the wealth and stealth of other nations in US presidential elections. If we decide that other nations get to play in our presidential elections, it's really pretty much game over for democracy. I'm sure it's fun to discuss the EC, but there are MULTIPLE election issues more important than that.
True. Trump is working on that. I hoping America will wake up and realize our founders knew what they were talking about.
That is why the EC is here to stay ! Although I do prefer the rules from years ago, when only land owners could vote. How do you think that would work out for the democrats, considering how many of them don’t work & have their hand out? The democratic core..... lol
If states elect our political officials we do not even have the resemblance of democracy where the voting citizens elect their government.Minority rule makes absolutely no sense.We spend MILLIONS for a coast to coast presidential election to elect NO ONE???How stupid is that????
Majority rule is necessarily the tyranny of the majority. That's why we have a constitution. We are under constitutional rule.
It is my opinion that right now, hypocrisy is owned by the people who continue to support Trump. If that is not your opinion, okay with me.
You mean by voting for him based on his campaign promises he has worked hard to keep unlike dem Presidents?
As with her wealth tax Warren has no clue (or doesn't care) that her proposals require Constitutional amendments. The left is against the EC only when they lose. If they win they are all for it. Actually the left is against anything when they lose. If they lose an election they usually look to get the courts to do their bidding, or, lacking anything else, they just form a coup d'état.
1) Warren NEVER said, what you have mistakenly claimed in the OP Title. Warren NEVER used the word "WILL". Here is her Exact Quote: My goal is to get elected—but I plan to be the last American president to be elected by the Electoral College. I want my second term to be elected by direct vote. 2) Since abolishing the EC would require a Constitutional Amendment, it would be IMPOSSIBLE. Any Everybody (Already) KNOWS That. Since the GOP has control of so many State Legislatures. 3) There is a difference between saying "I WANT to Eliminate the EC" and "I WILL Eliminate the EC". Your OP Title is completely FAKE (and Mischaracterized). Do you see the DIFFERENCE Between the Following 2 Statements: 1) "I Want to sleep with Margot Robbie" 2) "I WILL sleep with Margot Robbie" ^That is why your Blatant Mischarcaterization of Warren's Statement in the OP is an Epic FAIL. Carry on.
Actually, I mean that he is an ignorant, narcissistic, lying, draft dodging, womanizing, classless boor...all of which seemed to matter to his continuing supporters at other times and with other people. Thank you for asking.
And I countered it with the Democrats stance in the Clinton impeachment and the TRUE hypocracy that is going on.
Perhaps that would be true if the President could make law, but he can't. That power is reserved for the House of Representatives - which has evenly apportioned representation. Whoever taught you civics did you a disservice.
Not really. They didn't trust people to pick the President (or even senators). The EC, as it is now, simply mirrors the popular vote in each state. That is not what the Founders had in mind. As I get older, I find myself agreeing with the founders (some of them) more and more: people have to be saved from themselves. The rabble does not make smart decisions.
Laughing a what, what are you claiming I got wrong or something. Are you denying the Democrats said perjury, obstruction of justice, subornation of perjury and witness tampering did not warrant impeachment and removal from office?
The EC levels the playing field between the large and small states and prevents the larger populations of the large states and in particular the large urban areas from dominating the electoral process. Without the EC large cities would control the outcomes. Iceland does not have an EC but has constructed their voting system so that every rural vote is equivalent to three urban votes. That is their way of avoiding the tyranny of the majority.