Only the total majority vote!

ONLY THE TOTAL ELECTORAL-VOTE SHOULD INSTALL A PRESIDENT

From here: Mueller's report would have signaled the end for anyone other than Trump

This excerpt

Typically, when any country makes a colossal mistake in its choice of Executive governance, it finds a way to replace the individual. Not in America, however. They go on and on and on (ad nauseam) until the next election. (We did get rid of Nixon, but this time around we are failing miserably to get rid of Donald Dork. Ask yourself, Why?)

Great democracy-of-the-people all that? Of course! The people deserve it - they elected the jerk-in-chief!

But, how did they do that! By means of the Vote-manipulation Error produced by the hallowed Electoral College since time immemorial; which, for the fifth time in history, elected an individual who actually LOST NATIONALLY THE POPULAR-VOTE. Will wonders never cease to make one barf!

PS: What vote-manipulation error? The fact that in the Electoral College "the majority winner takes all the votes of the state-EC!" Which means that the plurality of the popular-vote supplants the majority-voting process across the entire country. Anyone who calls that a "democracy" has never taken a course in Civics - whereby in all other elections (national, state and local) only the total majority vote will install an elected official!
PPS: And all we need do is pass a law by which the Electoral College must allocate the-total-popular-vote in proportion to the state-reported EC-votes given to Congress! (And it is the Congress that announces the winner!)

 

No thank you.

 

Another anti-constitutionalist.

Move to Mexico if you don't like it here.

 

I live in France. Move to France if you want to live longer. Live anywhere in Europe and you'll likely live longer than in the US. (See here.)

The only element of the Constitution that needs rescinding is the 12th Amendment, which stoopidly established the Electoral College that manipulates the popular-vote for the presidency - and gave us Donald Dork.

The EC-mechanism is so deleterious to fundamental democracy that NOT ONE OTHER DEVELOPED COUNTRY HAS EVER ADOPTED IT ... !

 

That's perfect because we don't want a democracy, we want a REPUBLIC!

 

Article II, Section 1, Clause 3 "stoopidly" (LOL) established the Electoral College in 1788. "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". The Electoral College wasn't due to the 12th Amendment.

The 12th Amendment, ratified in 1804, required each member of the Electoral College to cast one electoral vote for President and one electoral vote for Vice-President (instead of two votes for President). Prior to the 12th Amendment, there was a possibility of multiple candidates winning presidential electoral votes from a majority of electors. The 12th Amendment doesn't need rescinding.

 

Bad idea. How many threads have you started about this? Five? Ten?

Why should I bother explaining again why it's a bad idea?

 

How do they say "hypocrite" in French?

 

If you take Mexicans and blacks out of the equation in America, Americans live to be 90.51 years old eating rib eye steaks and drinking beer and whiskey.

 

That will dissolve the union.

The states that make up the United States of America agreed to join into a union under certain conditions, like a contract. Some of those conditions were:
-The Union operates as a republic (not a democracy).
-The leader of the Union is elected via the Electoral College (not a popular vote).

Altering these would be tantamount to breaching a contract and legitimize secession, and many states would secede before they would submit to being effectively ruled by faraway urban centers that can elect, enact and overrule with their superior numbers.

The United States of America would become the Coastal Urban Centers of America, and the rest of it would become a different nation (or different nations).

Im not necessarily saying that would be a bad or a good thing. But the bottom line is that the progressive urban regions simply cannot enforce their will on the conservative rural regions. Its never going to happen.

 

Not after all the middle easterners are moving there.

 

Didn't give you anything. Macaroni Macron is your man.

 

If we wanted pure democracy, we would do away with Congress and the President. Each citizen would vote on every piece of legislation directly.

Or, we could do it this way: Say a bill comes before the senate. Before each state's senators could vote, all of the citizens in the state would vote, and then the senators would have to cast their votes in alignment with the proportions as voted by the population. If the citizens of the state voted 55% for, 45% against, then the senators would split their votes into 100 parts, 55% for and 45% against.

Sorry, that just isn't the way it is done. R E P U B L I C

 

The great majority of the voters disagree.

Watch more and more states pass the law that despite the state's winner that the state's EV will go to the national winner.

 

And watch how fast that changes when Donald Trump wins the popular vote.

 

Benedict Donald will never win the popular vote.

Fourteen million more vote against him last time than for him, and now that he has ****ed up this term, it may be twice that number.

 

If by "great majority" you mean Democrats, then they’ve become more stupid with each passing year. The presidency is our only office subject to a national election, and the founders created the Electoral College to prevent heavily populated states (like New York and California) from exerting their will on the rest of us. So when all this happens, when their plans come to fruition and the toilet paper and food disappear as in Venezuela (socialist paradise), I call dibs on the tapirs in the zoo.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news...la-zoo-animals-kass-0818-20170817-column.html

 

Once again, go out and buy a dictionary!

There is no essential difference between the two words! Except in the erratic minds of Rightist Replicants ...

 

Once again, for the hundredth time on this forum, there is no essential difference between the two words!

Off the internet:
Democracy - a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.
Republic - a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.

Duhhhhhhhhhhhhh ... !

 

Dictionary definition:
Republic - a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.
Democracy - a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.

 

And unadulterated sarcasm is yours.

You'd be happier on a Message Board. Go find one ...

 

If you had your house bombed out from underneath you, what would you have done?

Sit in the rubbish and cry ... ?

 

Like a good many others on this forum, you are confused. There is no fundamental difference between a democracy and a republic.

You just want to think that state-rights are supreme over national-rights. If that's the case, the next time the US is attacked - we'll have an election in every state to see who fights the enemy.

The notion that there is a difference between a democracy and a republic stems from the fact that you have never had a Good Course in Civics.

Your bad ...

Nope! They are fundamentally one in the same. From google's on-line dictionary:

 

Making up your own statistics because you don't like the factual ones?

Ask me why I am not surprised ... !

 

Right, you shouldn't. Last time you tried, you got it wrong ...