Only the total majority vote!

You think that you-plural are the only ones?

Every European country has a constitution. And it is nonetheless a Social Democracy - because that was and still is the common will of the people.

Maybe the US needs a devastating war on home ground (just like Europe had) to drive that point home ... ?

 

Right, so you think that the electoral vote for PotUS can be ascribed to the contender who assembled the majority of votes?

Effectively meaning that you elect a person that YOU HELP ELECT AN INDIVIDUAL FOR WHOM YOU DID NOT VOTE! (Wow!)

That's what can happen in an Electoral College!

For your edification from here: Why the Electoral College is the absolute worst, explained -

 

Total nonsense. Just make up your own alternative facts, eh?
https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/life-expectancy-by-re/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel={"colId":"Location","sort":"asc"}

In fact in the US, Latinos live longer than whites.

If you want to live longer, move to a liberal State.

 

Ayuh,..... A Constitutional Republic stops the tyranny of a majority,....

In a Social Democracy, New York, 'n California would be the only 2 states needed to elect a President,.....

 

Maybe you failed the course?
We're not a democracy

 

Most of the institutions today’s lefty activists complain about were designed to thwart the pernicious effects of too much democracy. They’re anti-democratic by design. Rather than flaws that require remedy, these institutions were, and are, essential safeguards for individual liberty.

The Framers knew that in its pure form democracy could be dangerous. The writings of the founding era are replete with warnings of this fact:

• “Real liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments,” Alexander Hamilton wrote. “If we incline too much to democracy we shall soon shoot into a monarchy, or some other form of a dictatorship.”

• Thomas Jefferson lamented that “a democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51 percent of the people may take away the rights of the other 49.”

• James Madison argued that democracies “have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”

• John Adams concluded that democracy “never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”

 

That has nothing to do with winner take all.

The EC failed to do their Constitutional duty when they put trump in office. The protection against mob rule is not winner-take-all, it is the ability of electors to reject the votes of their State if a threat like trump is seen. They failed to do that.

Any real Republican patriot would have refused to cast his electoral votes for trump.

 

You are not looking at the Americans who eat rib eye steaks and drink beer and whiskey.

If you smoke, add another 2 1/2 years on your life.

Also people in liberal states spend more time on life support in hospitals.

 

In 2016, the Electoral College worked precisely as intended. It prevented Hillary Clinton’s 6-million-vote victory in California and New York from cancelling her 3-million-vote loss in the 48 other states. The Electoral College distributes popular support and gives minority interests more sway in each state.

If we did away with the Electoral College in favor of the national popular vote, the election would be decided in a handful of states such as California and New York, and the 48 other states would get disenfranchised. Minority interests would never heard. The Electoral College was designed specifically to prevent the tyranny of big states over small states. The Electoral College doesn’t reflect one-man-one-vote, and it wasn’t designed to. Saying Electoral College failed to do their Constitutional duty is just nonsense.

As one political commentator said, after the 2016 election, "Let's not pretend that this is some great effort to increase democracy... This is an effort to win elections. And right now today, the progressives believe scrapping the Electoral College is the best way for their movement to win more elections." Democrats proposing to abolish it merely want to shift the balance of power in their favor, by changing the rules of a game they lost fair and square.

 

So like I said. Zero evidence

 

You still live in the dark-ages?

Instead of the popular-vote deciding elected representatives you'd rather a King and his family to run the country. (In fact, given the multimillionaires in Congress, that is pretty much what you have ... )

Tiresome and mindless bullshat. You go on Ignore ...

 

There is no such thing as the national popular vote. Each state has a popular vote, and uses that to apportion its electoral college votes as the state itself has decided. The nation as a whole does not.
This is part and parcel of our federal system.

Its LITERALLY a feature not a bug.

 

We don't have a democracy fella, we have a constitutional federal republic.

 

.

You've got it quite wrong, and the site Fact Check has investigated.

Its report here: False Claim of California Registering Noncitizens to Vote - excerpt:

Should the false-claim perpetrated by "Students for Trump" surprise anyone?

Nope - he's the guy who patented "How to get elected PotUS with falsehoods!"...

 

Start shooting big talker

 

I think I have responded to this wrong statement a hundred times here. So, once more for someone who is not looking at the entire thread.

There is no functional difference between the definitions of a Democracy and a Republic.

From the online dictionary:
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.

Adding the words "constitutional federal" to your comment DOES NOT IN THE LEAST CHANGE THE ESSENTIAL MEANING OF THE WORD "REPUBLIC";

Moreover, the fundamental quality of a democracy is defined by how it elects its representatives to both local, state and national legislatures as well as the Executive.

As regards the US, it has made two errors that are fundamentally contrary to ethical electoral representation in government:
*Gerrymandering is a sham device employed by states to manipulate voting boundaries such that the outcome of votes favor a particular party. This has been proven, and one wonders why the Supreme Court has not accepted to consider the petitions for rectifications that have been made!
*The Electoral College by means of its "winner takes all rule" manipulates state voting outcomes by giving the total vote to whoever wins the state's popular vote. Which means, for instance, that all the votes given to Hillary Clinton in the last election in states where Donald Dork won the popular-vote never ever counted. This was unfair and should be made illegal!

Both of the above "errors" have been manipulating elections in the US since the beginning of the 19th century. It is high-time that the US dumped both rules that manipulate the voting process and allows only the result of a fairly conducted popular-vote to decide our elected representatives to Congress and the Presidency ... !

 

There are indeed distinctions, though the fact that you cannot detect them tells me discussion with you would be fruitless.

The United States is comprised of 50 states and some assorted territories. Those states choose the Federal Executive, and they used to choose Senators as well before we amended that out. The Senate was originally intended to represent purely the state's interest IE each state was represented in that body for its own sake, not the sake of its constituency which while a fine distinction is in fact a distinction. The House was directly elected by popular vote in each district of each state. The dysfunction you see in Congress today stems from two problems 1) no term limits 2) direct election of senators meaning every senator is campaigning to the masses, not to the legislatures of each state who know how to run a railroad and put forth senators to represent the interests of the state at the federal level.

In the same vein as direct election of senators, direct election of the president by simple popular vote would likewise be a catastrophe. No campaigning would ever be done outside of Texas, New York, and California. No delegations from other areas would be listened to, as no matter what they said even if they got every single one of their citizens to vote in lockstep they could not outmatch the numbers in SF, LA, San Diego, Sacramento, Houston Dallas El Paso San Antonio Austin, New York City and Albany.
^ Those cities? They would be electing the person who nominates judges and cabinet members.
Everyone else? Would be poor oliver twist.
The electoral college was made to fight the tyranny of the majority. What you complain of is a FEATURE not a bug.

 

I do not allege that millions of illegals play a voting role in CA. I examined our own registration form. I concluded the only thing preventing illegals from voting here is if they happen to be honest. If honest, they won't vote. Can they vote? Can they cross the border illegally? They can definitely illegally cross the border. To assume they are sticking to being legal in the voting system makes no sense. CA has refused to look into this, at least in a way as if they think it is serious.

Democrats defend the illegals so naturally they claim illegals do not vote.

 

Democrats never protest against the electoral college when they win the office of the president.

Above argument is entirely accurate.

 

That's a horrible thing to do to the president of your country. There is no reason for that.

I disagree with their assessment.

What about the conspiracy theories the HORUS came up with and spent millions and two years of investigation, tying up the government for their pride? They got nothing out of it because nothing was done that could lead to charges. He did nothing wrong and yet those narcissistic politicians cannot bear to accept that they didn't get what they wanted.

Those are the folks who need to be evaluated. I'm fairly certain those same folks that signed that report or whatever would say those folks are as sane as you can get. If that's sanity, I want no part of it.

 

Well stated. And very fair.

 

Oh not another one. I suppose you also think you should be able to vote for American Presidents?
Oh and..........the Don sends his regards.........and affirms telling the Paris Accord to go to hell.

 

And your France was aiding and abetting in that cause. Unfortunately blockades prevented it. Not a history buff are you?

 

The popular vote has as much constitutional relevance as the potato vote, which is to say absolutely none whatsoever.

Democracy is overrated, which is why practically no advanced Western democracies elect their head of state by national popular vote.

ALL majoritarian nations appoint the PM by a system similar in effect to the electoral college.

 

YOU NEED BADLY TO EITHER TAKE OR RETAKE A COURSE IN CIVIC VALUES ... !

Bollocks! Come to Europe!

Only one state, France, allows the President to nominate/institute a small number of seats in the Senate - and only the Senate. The presidential electoral-voting is by means purely of a "popular-vote". And why?

Because when Europe reconstituted itself after WW2, they looked to the US for a model of governance. And they all said, "We don't want anything like the US's Electoral College!"

Today, damn few EU-states elect a president - aside from France. It is the the majority in the single legislature that elects a Prime Minister as well they should since that party also won the electoral majority in the country!