Gerrymandering should be outlawed and the Electoral College repealed

But then we agree. It won't happen anytime soon.

If you bold the other 3 words in front of that, you'd be more accurate. I find it normal since that's the way I'm used to it. Our head of state doesn't have executive power so I don't need to vote for him. Our prime minister has and I feel I have ample influence on it. As I said, no votes are lost and everyone's vote weighs equally.

I answered it. Yet I ask in return, why do people need to be politically engaged in it to be part of the discussion. In America's case, it would the wrong order to try and realise it. You'd need to know what the public thinks first, hence the suggestion to poll it. In the Netherlands, I know there is a majority in favor of changing the constitution, if it weren't for the political climate and huge blockade to change the constitution. It requires 3 cabinets to change the constitution which means 2 congress elections have to be held in order to realise it. With growing political apathy, it's currently not recommended, but the project could have started at the end of congress' term to make it less taxing. Yet, I made the argument knowing there is support for it.

 

And we Americans don't need uninformed uninterested foreigners telling us how to run our government or elect the President. The electoral system is not supposed to reflect a national popular WHICH WE DO NOT HAVE in this country. There are NO national popular elections or voting in this country. It is the States that would not change the system as it would not work in electing a President who represents all the states. The Electoral College serves it's purpose well and will continue to do so.

 

Again the People do not elect the President, the States do so in whatever manner the state legislature of that states decides to use. The state legislature could choose the electors pledged to the candidate the state legislature wants to support and it would perfectly constitutional and not on citizen would have ground to sue in court. They could of course vote out the state legislature if they didn't like it. And our Constitution guarantees to the states a Federal Republican and not a Democracy which the state would have never ratified as the form of government.

 

It won't be changed for such a petty reason. California does not speak for the rest of the country.

 

Funny how you want to claim direct election of a head of state/government is "normal" to you, when your country does not have such elections, and you have never participated in such an election - your PM, the head of government, is appointed by the King, whi, himself, is not elected.

You did, and I appreciate that.

They don't - I simply take them more seriously if they are.

 

The governor cannot do it. The Constitution gives sole authority to each state legislature as to how the each states electors will be choosen.

This almost happened in Florida 2000 where Gore kept holding up the certification with his frivolous lawsuits, the Florida state legislature was prepared to decide who the electors would be in order to protect the electoral votes of the state.

 

The governor does have a say in the matter - the legislation must be signed into law like any other.
As you said, he cannot cancel them on his own.

 

I'm not so sure the Constitution gives SOLE plenary power to the State Legislature no mention of the governor. As with Florida 2000 had the vote for the electors still been tied up under a court order at them they had to be certified to the House of Representatives the state legislature would have held a vote and selected them and the governor would have had no say in the matter. Reading the constitution it the state legislature of a state decided to choose them next time they would just choose to do so.

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."

 

Election law is a law like every other. Signed into law by the governor.
Now, it may be that in certain circumstances the legislature may be able to act as you suggest, but if standing legislation needs to change, then the governor needs to sign it.

 

Not necessarily, the Constitution grants plenary power to the State Legislature cutting out the governor, it does not say "each state" but specifically the LEGISLATURE.

 

And, as I said, if the legislature decides to do this thru conventional legislation - as found in all elction law across all 50 states - it must be signed by the governor.

 

Not according to the Constitution. It does not state the Governor must agree or have any role in it. So a strict reading gives that power SOLEY to the state legislature and were such an instance arise and a governor tried to intercede on that plenary power and it went to the SCOTUS guess which way they would rule.

 

You miss my point. I will let you.

 

Eliminate; Los Angeles, New York and Washington D.C. and the rest of the country is; Normal. If you eliminate these three, the Democrats would never win another election again. What does L.A. and N.Y. have in common ? Sanctuary voter fraud.

 

I see it perfectly well and no the Constitution gives plenary power to the state legislature, it is an explicit power. And I am sure in every state it is a state constitutional matter not a legislative matter and governors like presidents don't ratify or veto constitutional amendments they have no role in them. So how would a governor stop them and how would he win in the SCOTUS?

 

I was replying to the idea that Californians are somehow less worthy.

 

Wrong. Democrats live all across the nation. If you spread out some of the Dems across those big empty red states like Wyoming, Republicans would never win.

Consider: Only twice in the last thirty years has the GOP won the popular vote. Think about that long and hard, and then think about how easy it would be to permamently destroy the GOP by merely moving some Dem voters around.

 

Yeah...I don't think you know what the word "civics" means.

 

Understanding civics means understanding how our countries government works. Some here apparently don't know much the why of how our government is structured.

 

I know you're trying to save face, but "civics" is commonly understood as the study of the rights and duties of citizenship. There is overlap with social studies and government, but civics is a separate topic.

 

Apparently you would have to understand what your duties are but with the recent election the left has thrown that concept out the window; thus, the question if they ever understood them in the first place.

 

Stop with the partisan bickering. This is why we can't have nice things in American politics.

 

And idea that has no merit.
Just like the idea their vote was minimized.

 

All the Californians votes counted the same in the election in which they voted.

 

Of course gerrymandering was all fine and great when democrats completely controlled the process from 1940 to 2000. Now that the GOP got control of the state legislatures and a majority of governors it's suddenly not ok? The definition of hypocrisy.