America's flawed democracy

I thought the EC was run by popular vote.

 

Those reasons addressed the issues facing the founders at that point in history. Not the least of which was finding a compromise that would allow for ratification of the Constitution. It was an imperfect compromise resulting in an outdated burden on the democratic principles the country is based on.

https://www.history.com/news/electoral-college-founding-fathers-constitutional-convention

 

Gotta love it when a non-American feels the need to criticize the greatest civilization that has ever existed. America has brought more peace and prosperity to the world than any nation in history. Please save your advice unless you have done the same.

 

States must remain Republics, they may change their voting requirements so as to become oligarchies but they're really limited in that respect too by female suffrage and Voting Rights Acts.
States are still not sovereign. The Constitution PERMITS them broad powers. If they were truly sovereign they could do whatever they wished and tell the Feds to **** off.

 

Out of curiosity, what motivated you to respond to a post that had nothing to do with the election system with a post that is about the electoral college?

 

I get your meaning. After some contemplation, I agree that every ideology needs an opposition. Challenging our views is the best way to hone those views, to better define what we value.

That said, however, I refuse to give credence to a party who came so close to doing permanent damage to our democratic processes, all in the name of tax cuts for rich people and a plethora of conservatives justices in lifetime positions. The GOP needs some drastic reformation before I'd even consider maybe supporting a candidate for office.

 

Okay, say you got 13 countries forming a union for safety and economic benefits. Would you want each country to have a vote or give more votes to a country with more people? And if you were a country with less than one vote would you agree to a union?

 

They are. The President's election is not.

 

Simple: I read the title of the post and found that the first answer to it (page 1, you can find it easily...) was very much to the point.

Any other question?

 

A popular vote state by state.

 

You seem to be under the impression that the Federal Government can make the States do anything. It can't. And the States can tell the Feds to **** off. If they choose to do so. The only reason that they don't is because they choose not to.

 

My post didn't have a title.

 

It's obvious I meant the title of the thread (page 1; I'm sure you will be able to find it eventually!), but go ahead, you can continue to play stupid, it's so funny.

 

And this is where the imbalance starts, you see. The states decide on the senate, the states decide on the President, and together, the senate and the President decide on the Supreme Court.
Unless you change the imbalance in the senate, you need to at least modify the EV, which is the suggestion I made earlier.

 

You think insulting me will change my mind. I'm not sure what that means but I'm sure you will be able find it eventually.

 

Did I say you are stupid? To me, the fact that you hadn't understood that I was refering to the title of the thread (and not that of your post) could only be the result of your playing stupid, which is a common game on this forum. Glad to learn it wasn't your intention.

 

Yes, you simply use a silly way of saying it.

 

Sorry, but that would mean that only the votes on the east and west coast would count and would screw the rest of American states.

 

A Frenchman simply wouldn't understand the concept of independent states and having those states elect the president. He means well but, of course, he is wrong.

 

Blah, blah, blah and more pathetic blah from the Rabid Right.

Tiresome nonsense ... without a shred of factual evidence to sustain the argument ... !

 

Things started going down hill after Reagan repealed the Fairness Doctrine.

We should get the ball rolling and restore it.

 

THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE

Thanks for the hint. I had already left the states when it was struck down by a commission (two Reps and two Dems, but all selected by Nixon!)

Which is why I did not recognize it when you mentioned it.

About the Fairness Doctrine:

The bit in red above was a decision made 20/25-years before the Internet was introduced to the world and 70-years nowadays since the Fairness Doctrine was introduced in 1949.

Methinks the Internet has changed the exchange of opinion as regards "diversity of viewpoints" since it's inception ...

It is now worse-than-ever or better-than-ever depending upon one's attitude towards free-expression in debate ...

And this Debate Forum proves that point time and time again ... !
.

 

I certainly agree that the Fairness Doctrine should be implemented again. But I'm not so sure that the court would again rule in its favor. Here's why..

Bold part...Channels are no longer limited like they were then. In fact we have an abundance of channels and with the internet there is no limit.

 

A conservative court wouldn't allow it, but a liberal court most certainly would. It wouldn't be restored as written, but updated for modernity.

 

United States is a commonwealth of different states.
In European Union every country has its own voting rules and voting system.
Why don't you force European states to give up their electoral rights first?