USA a false democracy?

Awww did I hurt your widdle feelings?

 

Not a bit! In fact, you gave me great satisfaction by stooping to such a level in these TWO replies. My suspicions about your maturity and intelligence are confirmed BY YOU!! Thanks! And now, since you've proven the pointlessness of trying to communicate with you, I'll put you on "ignore". Buh-bye!

 

Please do, I find your posts droll at best.

 

Nope, people still get to vote.

 

That vote doesn't matter though.

Why would anyone in Wyoming or Alaska ever bother to vote again?

And that isn't even the major problem with a popular vote, it's just one of many.

 

So things would be like they are now just with different states.

 

Bullshit without evidence, but I don't need any!

Elections have become very, very close races. Imagine the vote ending up 6,001,000 to 6,002,000 in favor of the Democrat, and imagine Wyoming having 2,500 more republicans than democrats. Do you think Wyoming would wish they had voted?

I'll say it's not major!! LOL!!

QUESTION: Do you believe your vote should be equal to others? YES or NO.

WTF are you afraid of? I think you won't answer because you know your answer would be obvious bullshit, so you can't say "yes" and you can't say "no".
Based on your ridiculous answers in this thread, I'll put you down for a "no, it should count for more".

 

The national vote is never that close.

Essentially whoever wins California, Texas, NY will win the election every time. The rest of the nation will reflect those major three meaning democrats will have a complete lock on power for as long as anyone can see.

That is not what the founders intended.

 

You don't know ANY of that. None. Not that close? I used numbers that would be easy to grasp to illustrate a PRINCIPLE. You pedantically took it as THE case to debate, which have very obvious flaws which I just pointed out.

And you don't know any of what you said. You can't.

 

Yes I do, it's not rocket science it's just simple math.

Politicians will only campaign in certain parts of the nation because that's where the votes are meaning most states won't get any of their unique issues addressed.

 

The truth that you won't admit is that you know the population of rural areas are generally Republican and even right wing, and you want them to count more than other people so you can watch your party win more often, even if it means fewer people voted for their candidate(s).

The better strategy for you and your party would be to abandon corrupt and insane policy ideas and policies that are harmful to the people while favoring the wealth of the rich.

Right. The founders wanted to have a white popular vote, as I showed with EIGHT links, while the RW opposition here produced ZERO links to any evidence.

 

Now now that is an over simplification to an extent of misrepresentation. If you look into the debates and conversation they had the creation of a voting system the electoral college wasn't for the people. It was a compromise to work around, slavery, over influential groups, ignorance of the American people, and a populist president. There were no parties during the creation of the constitution. The drafters assumed the electors would vote according to their discretion. This "lib" comment is uneducated partisan nonsense.
What Is the Electoral College and Why Was It Created? - HISTORY

Interesting, but one would assume adding a popular electoral college would require an amendment, which would make the change moot.

 

YES!!! And as soon as you cite the actual history, they tune out and substitute their opinion.

 

Why not? At that point "states" are no longer important. The vote is now in the hands of the people.

This doesn't make sense. Do you understand what is meant by the popular vote?

Again, this would eliminate colleges and give uniformity the election process.

Do you not understand how law works? Federal law trumps state and local laws.

 

You are making a very important accusation and you should be able to justify it.

So do it! How? By finding info on the net that confirms your opinion! And we discuss it here!

I frankly think that all political-media is biased for one reason or another. But the BIGGEST reason is MONEY-MONEY-MONEY! About which we must be very, very careful.

So, where does one get honestly unbiased news? Good question.

See here: News Sources

Excerpt:

We got a problem ...

 

I have found Japan World News to be refreshing in its objectivity. Here is their online site: https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/

 

Apportioning electors by means of the personal-vote and not that of a cockamamie Electoral College assignment is a fine idea. One elector per 50000 votes, with voting on-line and summation of numbers reported on-line to the Senate.

Which, if you took the US map, and conformed the states by their Electoral College that improvisation would look like this:


Now; if we could only take that bit from ... uh, Texas ... then saw it off and throw it away?

(No way, Hosay ... ! ;^)

 

I disagree with the attitude expressed above.

Health Care is a National Requirement in Europe, which is why it is almost free, gratis and for nothing. And it is also a good reason why Europeans live 2-years longer than Americans.

When one looks at the US's Discretionary Spending, it is not healthcare that gets the money. By far&large it is the DoD that gouges more than 50% out of the total.

And, why so much? Have I somehow missed WW3 in the news ... ?

 

I suppose then that I'll go to heaven two years before you go to hell. You are free to disagree with that too. But it won't do much good because people who aren't fit to be free or made fit by the vigors of freedom, surely aren't fit for heaven.
As for our DOD funding, perhaps that's why there is no WW3. And no doubt why you aren't ruled by Nazi's, Communists, or merciless tyrants.

 

^^^^
A statement of abject ignorance.
No western Democracy elects its head of government through a popular vote of the people.

 

Correct.
Heath care spending falls under entitlements - money that gets spent regardless of available revenue - and exceeds defense spending by nearly a factor of 2.

 

Just think of a disaster a recount would be if we had a popular vote. The election between JFK and Nixon would have had a nationwide recount.

 

Infantile blah-blah-blah - with no sense or reason ...

 

That's a fair point.

 

And

We elect our leaders. What do you call that?