Impeachment trial

A TRULY HONEST DEMOCRACY IS NON-MANIPULATIVE OF THE POPULAR-VOTE

In many ways, YES!

You think the world is waiting for American democracy to get its act together? Wrong!

I am a Yank that has lived in Europe for a long, long time. I have seen the way elections are carried out here - and I can attest to the fact that the "political influence" of BigMoney has very, very little affect on political outcomes here. Which means, yes, that some crooked people do get elected here in Europe - and particularly those in ex-communist countries that are now members. They are enriching themselves whilst in office.

This rot will take a while to be overcome - but change is in the European air as "the people" finally understand the intrinsic value of the pure popular-vote and its necessity to be unmanipulated in any truly honest democracy.

Which was most certainly the historical outcome expected in 1804 when Congress instituted an "Electoral College" because it was afraid of in-state vote-manipulation in this newly-found collection called the "UNITED States of America".

Let's not forget that "liberty" was a notion in the 18th century. It was just an "idea" that was taking seed in two places on earth. One was in France and the other over in the British "colonies". The French king was overthrown and guillotined. But, the French fumbled the ball, and Napoleon eventually put his family in control of France.

That did not happen in the US - but in 1804 Congress did implement the manipulation of the popular-vote by means of an Electoral College. That college in any state, at the time, most certainly was run by some people who had a vested-interest in the outcome of a popular-vote for the presidency!

The outcome of which is the fact that the popular-vote does NOT have the same consequence in all the states! Which means what? This: Because of the winner-takes-all rule, which means all-the-state EC-votes go to the unique popular-vote winner - but NOT IN PROPORTION TO THE POPULAR-VOTE OUTCOME. The winner takes all the state's EC-votes!

Anyone who insists that such a voting-mechanism IS fair and acceptable must be ignorant of the reason we, the sheeple, wanted a popularly-elected-democracy in the first place more than two centuries ago!

But that, boyz-'n-girlz is NOT what happened, thanks to the manipulative Electoral College that was instituted in 1803!

So, what is the significant difference (as regards "liberty") between the US and the European Union? This:
*In the EU, the "head-of-state" is elected by the party that obtains the-most-votes in the popular-assembly - which is also known as "parliament" in Europe and the "H-of-R" in the US.
*And, any national "Senate" in Europe - where there are a few - has very little political influence in managing the nation.

 

POLITICAL BELIEFS

The essence of any democracy is that political-parties DO think alike at least upon certain political-values. Like the freedom-of-speech. When that does not happen, then party-politics typically dissolve - whereupon a dictator can become "head-of-state". Which does not typically happen in countries with a substantial experience in democratic-politics. (Small "d"!)

Having seen/witnessed the dysfunction of numerous European national parties that come and go, the only reason I can find (for their demise) is because they are far too numerous in any given country. And, in those countries, a two-party system simply does not or cannot either prevail or take root.

With one exception, that I suggest as a good example. Great Britain. It too has (mostly) a two-party system. (Labor and Conservative - but both characterize themselves in a similar way. That is, Labor is "Center-left" and the Conservatives are "Center-Right". (But both are centrist-parties because that is where elections are won!)

And, the only reason the same rule exists (for the most part) in the US is because we are an ex-BC (British Colony) - and we carry with us almost the same political outlook as do the Brits. With the Brits being a wee-bit more able to vote as head-of-state a purely Leftist-candidate...

Whyzat? Because the political-outlook of its voters are of that nature - Center-left and Center-right. Meaning that an All-Left party (like Communism) just does not make it into the House of Commons (the British legislature). And, it is in the Commons that the head-of-government is decided by means of whichever party has the majority in parliament.

Moreover, it seems (to me) that the dominance in the public-mind is changing in many European political-parties. (And maybe even in the US?) That is, people no longer identify themselves as members of a given party. They vote for whichever candidate they feel best suits their political outlook at any given moment!

Which is kinda-sorta dangerous. Politics is as eminently difficult profession. Because few professions are so dependent upon public-affection for a political candidate to get elected. But that's politics! Because at the heart of any political movement is a human-factor that is key. And that factor is called "belief", which is amazingly fluid in human-nature.

Politics and religion share the same "mental motivator" that is called the "human conscience". Which is that "thing" that houses itself in the upper-brain and fixes behaviour according to a specific set of Mental Rules-or-Preferences (or not if such rules simply do not exist). Which some people consider to be about as interesting a political-venue as drinking warm cat's-pee. Which is why they don't vote?

And, of course, political parties fight one another in trying to convince voters that "their rules/beliefs are the only correct ones". Which is tantamount to a mountain of blah-blah-blah ...

 

They can believe any unprovable-BS that will sooth their sorry souls (having lost the presidential election). Which amounts to absolutely nothing. The White House is no longer owned either by its incompetent recent occupant or by the Replicant Party!

The overwhelming "evidence" of voting fraud simply is indigestible BS. In fact, just the opposite has happened. Undertaken with professional diligence, the vote-counting has been uniformly correct and therefore irreproachable. Has any state proven fraud in the last presidential elections results?

The New York Times has undertaken an effort to prove electoral-fraud. See here:
The Times Called Officials in Every State: No Evidence of Voter Fraud

If you disagree, then please do find and report the indisputable evidence to fraud reported and post it HERE! By "indisputable" is meant officially registered fraud in the last presidential election. Not just "accusations" posted in either the news or over the Internet.

And keep the BS voting-fraud allegations to yourself if you cannot substantiate them in a justified manner ... !

 

JUST THE FACTS, MA'AM

Which means absolutely NOTHING. Had fraud existed the Replicants that were positioned in state vote-counting units would have found them and blared-the-news to the world.

Unfortunately for them, there were none - not one that could be credibly brought before a court of law. Not one!

From Yahoo News, here: The 2020 election wasn't 'stolen.' Here are all the facts that prove it. Excerpt:

Need more be said ... ?

 

Wrong! Legal voting is the basis of a true-democracy.

As a typical liberal, you do not care for laws, but I do. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that the Governor violated the State's Election Laws. Changes to the Election Laws should have been voted on by the legislature. They can not be enacted by the Governor as an Executive Order. I would bet that you supported Obama violating the US Constitution by issuing laws by Executive Orders. Like most liberals the US Constitution and legally passed laws are not important to you. Your more worried about someone that can not legally vote in an election be allowed to vote anyway. As long as they vote for your party that is.

If that were true, then there would be no need for Gerrymandering laws. The DNC has long supported an end to Voter ID laws because they would stop someone from illegally casting votes in someone else's name. The claim that is disenfranchises minorities it total BS. As you pointed out, just as these laws are the same for one race as another. After all, that is the standard your post sets.

You have misrepresented the purpose behind Voter ID laws. They are designed to allow any legal resident, including those nationalized citizens, to vote. They do not single out only those born in this country. Further, the GOP and the majority Americans, support Voter ID laws.

Now, your being disingenuous. Italy, France, Austria, Ukraine and too many others to mention. All have had challenges of voter and election fraud. To claim otherwise is a false narrative.

That is because the US has the longest serving Government the majority counties in the world. All of the European countries have change their form of Government many times since the US enacted their US Constitution. Every European nation has some form of document that was the basis of their current government, and they refer to it when passing laws. If you do not know that, then you should not comment on what is going on in the US. You fail to understand the basics of this country.

Which is Dead Wrong in any country that allows elections to be manipulated by political-parties in order to obtain/enjoy political dominance in law-making!

PS: Further reading suggested - Students Unhappy in School, Survey Finds
[/QUOTE]

 

The United States is a union of sovereign states. Taking a popular vote for Presdient in each state and having electors go as "winner take all" is democracy. A couple of states split the EC's proportionally and that is their right as sovereign states to make election rules. The number of House of Representatives for each state is based purely on population, both citizens and non-citizens. The number of electoral votes for President is also based on population. So, the electoral votes ARE in proportion to the popular vote outcome....of each sovereign state.

The EU Parliament is the only European body to be directly elected by the voters of the countries. The "head-of-state", essentially the same as President of the United States, is appointed by Parliament. That would be like having the U.S. House of Representatives vote for President of the United States. That would never fly here. We, the people, through the union of states elect our President. That's far more democratic than the EU.

 

So, the majority of Republicans (70%) , 50% of Independents and 11% of Democrats think election integrity failed and don't think Biden is in place legitimately. That does amount to something. As you said yourself, politics is based on "belief" and the "human conscience". Having nearly half the countries' voters questioning election integrity means that the current administration needs to address the concerns of the country in order to "unify", and the beliefs of the citizenry are far more compelling than any article link from New York Times or any other Left State Media outlet. New York Times, a once-respected paper even though historically somewhat left-biased, became completely biased tabloid trash over the last few years.

We're not done yet.

The Supreme Court will decide whether or not to hear cases in Pennsylvania, Georgia and Michigan on February 19th. Those cases were opened before inauguration, and the Supreme Court has not declined or closed them.

Election investigations are still ongoing. Until the S.C. decides to hear or decline the cases, then some (but not all) the 2020 election disputes are not resolved. We also have a few states and counties still investigating their own internal election issues. We have a little something called due process here.

 

Trump has been acquitted by the Senate, with good peace of the childish President of the Chamber who was looking for a childish vendetta [and I say this regardless her Italian surname].

This is reality. The rest is political fantasy.

 

I have come to see the Electoral College as disfiguring to our democracy, but the system you describe, above, is not necessarily better, in that a person who receives NO votes, becomes the head of state, just because he/she leads the Party that receives the most votes. This means, instead of voting for individuals, for every office, a person would be more inclined to be voting for a Party, if one was focused upon who will lead their nation. We have straight party voters here, too; nevertheless, as you are doubtless aware, our populace often consciously chooses to elect a leader & legislature of DIFFERENT Parties, as a means of balancing the excesses of either one. I am not endorsing any of these practices, merely pointing out that, while Europeans & Americans have different systems, neither one can be said to be perfectly representative; the people of each place have simply adapted to their particular system. And as to claims that the European version is intrinsically better, I would point out that it was, essentially, that system which brought Adolf Hitler to Germany's Chancellorship.

I think we Americans have something better in the works, at the moment, called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. They are a group of states which have agreed to award all their state's electors to whoever gets the greater popular vote for President. At present, they only total 196 electors; the compact takes effect once they reach 270, guaranteeing that whoever wins the popular vote will also win our Presidency (regardless of Party).

https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/state-status

 

YOUNGER AND FAR MORE INTELLIGENT

It amounts to nothing actually.

The basic fact of the matter is that those who oversee the election - that is, they witness how the votes are opened and counted - saw no irregularity in the process that they could validly claim. Nada, niente, nothing, tipota!

Not one serious irregularity in the entire process across the US. Not one!

So, Replicants can have a long soulful cry over their loss. Then they might think about how to run a country without all the shame-'n-pain that has eroded the US as a "first-class democracy".

Were there any irregularities of a nature to disqualify the election, they would have not been hidden until after Biden was sworn in as PotUS. But, of course, that genuine logic does not fit-well with the distorted minds that presently run the Replicant Party.

From Yahoo News: The 2020 election wasn't 'stolen.' Here are all the facts that prove it.

It should be obvious why I employ the word "Replicant". Those who once ran a decent Republican Party are long-gone. Long, long gone.

The party needs badly New Blood - younger and far more intelligent ...

 

Yes exactly....that's what they should have done to Hitler and his mob right away.
That's exactly what we should be doing so history does not repeat itself.
But sad to say it may already be too late...the let tRump off again.

 

POLITICAL INTEGRITY

Your point made above is Highly Irrelevant.

The fact that the head of the majority-party in a parliament/congress actually assumes the responsibility of Executive is not the least bit irrelevant.

In fact, it is highly relevant given the fact that the popular-vote justifies their election to office. They are therefore the True Representatives of the peoples-vote. Which is all that just-fully matters especially in the selection of the executive-body that will run the country.

What matters is the bedrock-fact that the US is a three-power administration - Executive, Representative and Judicial. I, for one, am not the least bit doubtful of the shared responsibility because they (Executive, Congressional and Legal) are "counterbalancing forces" in the administration of a nation.

And it is that factor that matters most to maintain a country's political integrity ...

PS: It is my personal observation that what destroys politics is male vanity. The US needs many more females in both Congress and the presidency as well. It's high-time that such a fundamental innovation has become a real necessity. (See here.)

 

You are quite right.

So, time will tell ... !

 

You should really work on expanding your vocabulary; though I finally figured out what you were trying to say, it was far from the clearest way of putting it. I wouldn't fault you, if English were not your first language, but you did say you were an ex-pat, didn't you?
May I suggest, first, that you put as much effort into learning descriptors other than "relevant" & "irrelevant--" especially for when they need to be modified by highly, not the least bit, & so forth-- as you do into your text editing functions of colorization, italicization, & the like. Secondly, in the meantime, to avoid obscurity, you should limit your use of vague references like, "your point made above," where there is more than one point made, as well as words like, it, this, & that, when you have not clearly defined to what those words are referring.

So the translation of your reply is:
1) My point that just because people cast more votes for Representatives from one Party, does not necessarily mean that they prefer the leader of that Party to head their government, is highly irrelevant. I would state the reason, here, except you give none. Is that what passes for a debate argument, in France?
"Your argument, sir, is tres irrelevant."
"Well, yours is super-tres irrelevant!"
"But yours is irrelevant a l' infinity!!"

2) Having the chief executive be the head of the majority party in Parliament (our House of Representatives) is not the least bit irrelevant. I, of course, never said it wasn't relevant, only that it was not democratic. And I stick to my argument that, because the person's PARTY got the most votes, is not the same as the PERSON who heads it, having the most support.

Basically, all you are arguing for is going, "all in," on whichever Party is running the government. That does not make it, de facto, more representative to have a leader who got zero votes, but whose Party received the most votes. Ahh, but we can see how splendidly this system's working in France, n'est-ce pas?

 

And each of those states, as you said, run their own elections. With both parties involved in the process.

So that makes it extremely difficult to have any wide spread fraud in any election.
Far easier to fraud local elections than national ones.

 

Where do these number come from?
The only one likely true is the republican number.

 

Dems only needed to cheat about a half dozen elections in six large Democrat-majority cities in a handful of US swing states. No one on the right ever claimed "wide spread" fraud. The fraud was precisely targeted where it needed to be, except for Pennsylvania where the AG and Governor changed election laws across the state without consent or approval of the state legislature.

 

If you think Rs are incompetent in those handful of states. So be it. Then they get what they deserve.

But I don't think those Rs are incompetent.

 

I will believe trumps own people when they say there's not enough fraud to make a difference.

 

First define legal-voting before making such a statement. Here's my definition: It consists first and foremost with one's identity as a citizen, and then the right-to-vote is automatically conferred. That is, it cannot and should not be denied given that it is fixed by law.

But, in the US your vote can be manipulated. By this "thing" called the Electoral College. In fact, manipulation of the popular-vote begins there. Howzat?

All citizens should have the right to vote those they want to represent them in state and national elections. In most democracies, the pure popular-vote is sufficient. It is certainly sufficient in other elections in the US. But, not for the presidency!

Some how and for some reason now lost in the mists of time the Electoral College voting-process was considered necessarily "different". And that difference dates from its initiation into law in 1803, when Congress decided that the EC would decide the number of total votes allocated to any state when voting for the presidency. Moreover, and entirely unfair, the winner of the vote will assume ALL THE EC VOTES. Which means what?

This: Your vote will be torn-up and thrown-away if it is not for but against the majority-vote winner. Yes! You will be deprived of your-vote for the presidency in the national voting count if you have voted for the loser of two candidates!

Where's the inherent fairness of a democracy that rips-up and throws away the votes of a "supposedly" free-people?

Which is why such voting unfairness must be corrected. For the presidency, each citizen's vote must be treated impartially and not-submitted to such an aberrant manipulative rule!

You don't know me so you have no right whatsoever to judge me. Why debate should dredge in personal insults is unacceptable.

Changes in election laws should be voted by national parliaments/congress and such is perfectly sufficient. States in the US have no fundamental right to manipulate voting laws for the presidency or any other elective-position. Or, they "should have no such right". (And what they do inside their boundaries as regards voting-law is also an acute problem in America.)

Let's face the truth: In 1803, Uncle Sam made a BigMistake by finagling the voting procedure because - at that time - its leaders were very concerned about the manipulation of said procedures in the state elections.

We are now far more than two centuries later. It's been a long time since we should have corrected the national voting system for the presidency!

And we point the finger of blame at other countries that manipulate the popular-vote? We shouldn't.

Uncle Sam needs to see the voter-manipulation culprit by looking into a mirror ... !

PS: Necessary reading here: 2020 Should Be the Last Time We Vote Like This

 

All you have shown is your lack of knowledge of how things work here. You questioned why we refer to the US Constitution that is more the two centuries old, but you failed to realize that this country is more then two centuries old. With a name like Lafayette, I assume that you are living in France. Yet, you did not seem to know that there were claims of fraud in your 2017 elections. You claimed that Europeans rarely challenge elections, but we both know that is total male bovine excrement. Now, you are questioning the Elector College. Let me explain to you why the founding fathers included that in the US Constitution. There are currently 50 States in the United States. Many of them have relatively small populations. If the elections were based solely on the popular vote, then they only would need to hold elections in a few states. You might be surprised to learn that France used an electoral collage until 1962. You might also be surprised that not everyone in France is allowed to vote. Some districts restrict voting to those over the age of 25 while other allow anyone over 18 to vote. As with the US, France has restriction on who can legally vote, "the insane, certain classes of convicted criminals, and those punished for certain electoral offenses" sometimes lack the right to vote. " These same restriction exist in the US. So, the definition of who can legally cast votes are as above. They also have to be either born in the US, or have completed the process to become a nationalized citizen. There are some here that have not completed the process, or are here illegally that attempt to vote even though they do not have the right to do so. This is the reason behind voter ID laws.
While the Federal Government does have some basic national election laws, the US Constitution makes it the right of the states to determine how the elections will be conducted within their state. That is why the State election laws are more important. As I stated, a Governor can not change those laws by Executive Order. Those laws must be changed by the state's legislature. The Governor of Pennsylvania used the Executive Order to change the laws because the state's legislature refused to change the laws.
This was no different then the four times that President Obama used Executive Orders to change Federal laws. Such actions are a violation of the US Constitution. The Constitution defines the powers and responsibilities for each federal branch. The Congress, to include the Senate, that the responsibility of passing bills to become laws. The President has the right to either sign the bill into law, or veto it. The Congress can override a Presidential Veto by a 2/3 majority in each house of the legislature. The President also has a responsibility to ensure the laws passed by Congress are faithfully enforced. By using Executive Orders to enact laws, President Obama violated both of these requirements specified by the US Constitution.
I hope that clears up you misunderstanding of the US form of Government. Feel free to ask questions. In the form of questions, not illogical statements.

 

Blah, blah, blah.

Moving right along ...

 

Bollocks! I was born and raised in the US and started my career there. I know the country Very Well.

As for you? You are blind to the facts because you were never taught them or ever sought them. Or, even, considered how key-elements may affect the Quality of Life. (Meaning particularly Healthcare Services and Tertiary-level Education.)

Thus you espouse typical Rabid-Right nonsense.

Yes, Uncle Sam is more than two centuries old. And he's creaky as well as needing restructuring of key services-provided to the American people. (Of which National Defense is NOT A KEY PRIORITY!)

More attention/resources must be paid to the two key national-expenditures - Healthcare and Tertiary Education - in order for Americans to have a better life both health-wise and financially ...

 

Ah, so your reading, "skills," are only on par with your writing skills. Not terribly surprising. Let's see what else you have to offer:

MORE ON things we already know--

Instead of just droning on, w/ impractical suggestions, did you bother to check out my link about the solution to the problem that's more than two-thirds of the way there?

https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/state-status

All I see is
MORE ON erratic changes in text color,
MORE ON random italics,
MORE ON uncalled-for emboldening,
and MORE ON combining bold print with Caps lock,

Now, MORE ON Repeating himself:

and MORE ON designing an argument as if it were wallpaper:

I knew this would be in there-- MORE ON saying things that are irrelevant, meaningless (or would you call it highly meaningless?), and just wrong:

Without getting one person to actually vote for their, "True Representative;" curious.

Also, let's learn that it was a notion, long before that, as in ancient Athens' democracy, or that of the native American Iroquois Confederacy

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.hi...roquois-confederacy-influence-us-constitution

From the article:

"When the delegates to the Constitutional Convention met in 1787 to debate what form of government the United States should have, there were no contemporary democracies in Europe from which they could draw inspiration. The most democratic forms of government that any of the convention members had personally encountered were those of Native American nations. Of particular interest was the Iroquois Confederacy, which historians have argued wielded a significant influence on the U.S. Constitution."<end snip>

Do you want to know MORE ON that? To start, just follow the link. No editing tools required.