Only the total majority vote!

That isn't what he is suggesting. You sure use cheesy tactics.

The idea of winning by the popular vote is entirely reasonable. The winner take all system is done to maximize the impact of each State.

https://www.fairvote.org/how-the-el...MI9cfOmNCC4gIVghh9Ch0M6w4gEAAYASAAEgL9UfD_BwE

Republicans HATE this idea because they would never win another national election - not in the lifetimes of anyone posting here.

 

Keep working on that Amendment, lemme know how that goes.

 

I didn't argue it could pass right now. I'm sorry I was talking over your head. Next time I'll try to dumb things down a bit.

 

Yes, and so what! It is 200 years old and WAS MANIPULATE FROM THE GET-GO IN ORDER FOR THE SOUTHERN STATES TO KEEP SLAVERY!

Have you EVER taken a course in American history? Methinks not.

Constitutions change! They are not cast in concrete!

We need to get rid of the EC-vote of "Winner Takes All". We need to get rid of Gerrymandering the state vote by arbitrary districting!

Now, YOU respond by telling me its not necessary AND WHY ... !

 

Amendments to the Constitution must start with their voting by Congress, and passage is conditional upon the fact that two-thirds of the states approve. (Or, something like that proportion ...)

So, the states have to put the vote to the people. If the people do not accept it, then the MANIPULATION OF THEIR VOTING remains.

Two hundred years! Two hundred years! And we still have not learned the first-principle of any democracy. That the popular-vote is KING! (Pun intended ... !)

PS: Everybody is waiting for the Supremes to do the dirty-work. Which they do not want to do! They might consider the manipulation of Gerrymandering by "districting" the vote - but that's about all they can do. The Constition must express the will of the people ... !

 

An amendment required a 2/3rds vote in both the House and the senate, then ratification by 3/4ths of the states. Ratification is done by the state legislatures. In the representative republic we live in, the state legislatures are our representatives, we elect them to represent us.

What the framers did was put in some checks out of fear of tyranny rule by the majority. The framers gave us a representative republic, not a direct democracy as a result. They also feared the formation of political parties calling them factions. The fear was the formation of political parties would lead to governing for the good of the party and not the good of the country. Which in my opinion is front and centered today.

 

Well, up until this last election - given that the Replicants had (1) majority rule in both chambers of Congress, (2) primacy amongst the Supremes as well as (3) Donald Dork as Replicant PotUS - I thought that we had was - yes - tantamount to Tyranny Rule!

Got that wrong, have I? We'll see next year when Donald Dork loses again the Popular-vote and has himself AGAIN elected by the EC! What a laugh that will be ...!

 

James Wilson and Gouverneur Morris proposed electing the President by popular vote. Oliver Ellsworth called for Electors from each State choose the president. The people would choose their representatives , who in turn select the Electors. Some states it's "winner take all" and some it may be proportional but the power is still in the states. The argument that some of the founding fathers wanted to have the people elect the president was argued against by Elbridge Gerry who responded "it would alarm and give a handle to the state partizans, as tending to supersede altogether the State authorities". The Founders intended the Electoral College to be a roadblock against the potential abuses of democracy. They worried that some would like to have a monarch as king".

Every 10 years we seem to go through the process of "gerrymandering". It is why control of the state houses is so important. Many times those who are in power do overstep the line and grossly abuse the power by packing districts with majority voters or try and disenfranchise minority voters by cracking districts to either rearrange the districts and move groups to other districts or create a district where the majority of the minority is in one district. So far the only recourse has been the courts.

Thomas Jefferson said it best " A Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent can take away the rights of the other forty-nine percent."

A Republic is a nation of laws that protect the rights of the minority against the tyranny of the majority. We have elected officials, a President who is not a king, a judicial system to protect the citizen against the unlawful.

It may seem unfair to you but it is our laws and we have checks and balances to carry out those laws. Our Constitution allows for changes under Article Five.
Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

Which is the gist of our argument. We are not or at present, a true Democracy. We are a Republic, which is quite different from any other previous form of government.

 

Dear Boardies.

Please review your history,
the evolution of the Constitution
and the argument between
Big States and Small States compromised.


Now, Imagine - - -


I value breadth of appeal along with popular vote.
But, popular vote without provisions for breadth of appeal
is a recipe for tyranny.

Tyranny of the popular majority void of rural life experiences.
Example, remember the 55 MPH maximum speed limit
conceived by Atlantic Coast folks void of western experience.
Reminds me of gun restriction proponents today


Moi

Heaven Is Not A Democracy
And Democracy Is Not Heaven.
Nor





​

Those who support Popular Vote Only,
Please support the Angel's Rebellion too

 

Bollocks! The same everlasting BS from the Rabid Right who do not want to understand that there is fundamentally no difference between the two words. You and others like you have never taken a course in Civics!

For your edification (from the online dictionary!):
*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 so your bloated entry that I quote is just so much blah, blah, blah ...

 

Somebody needs a nap.

 

Your premise would allow the majority rule, if over 50%, as they so wished. What a wonderful concept for tyranny. Free speech would be limited. All guns could be confiscated. All business could become the property of the state and run by the state of majority. Any race could become slaves to the majority. Religions that offended the majority could be outlawed. The death penalty and torture could be used to punish those who did not adhere to the rules of the majority. Health care would be doled out as the state saw fit and could be open to death panels. All forms of energy could be outlawed even if it meant the loss of millions of jobs. The state elites could confiscate all personal property for the use of the state and doled out as the majority in power wished. Oh Yeah! Didn't we fight a world war over these exact things? I believe the people of Poland and mainly the Jews can testify to the treatment Germany used on their citizens. Cuba comes to mind as using these tactics to suppress their citizens. Now we have Venezuela getting counseling from Cuba and the Russians on how to crush all minority rights and thought. If your Civics class taught you the majority have unlimited rights then you must have slept during that session. Then again, the liberal take over of higher education, may have filled your head with such tripe.

 

Electing Trump was not a mistake.

 

That seems to be the premise the OP is operating off of. That Trump got elected and so therefore the system needs to change.

(I suspect he wouldn't be arguing this if Hillary had been elected)

 

Every president was elected by the E.C. frenchy.

 

I suspect you're right. One of the reason's Hillary lost was she didn't excite the Democratic base. Although the Democratic base was larger by 6 points over the GOP base. The Democratic base turnout was only 3 point larger than the Republican base which means a higher percentage of Republicans turned out to vote than the Democrats. Put it another way, more Democrats stayed home than Republicans. In plain English, Hillary failed to energize her base of support, if she had, she would have won.

This was especially true in the three deciding states of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania where Democrats vastly out number Republicans. That and independents, the non-affiliated voters going to Trump allowed him to carry those three states. Not only did Trump carry the non-affiliated, independent vote nationally, he won independents by a 48-41 in Pennsylvania, 52-35 in Michigan, 50-40 in Wisconsin. Independents enabled Trump to squeak by in those three deciding states.

An unenergetic Democratic base and independents put Trump into the White House.

 

Derp derp... I got me an idea... let's stick every vote in a giant pile and whoever gets the most wins... derp...

What could go wrong?

Why hasn't this been tried before?

 

Viewed another way, Trump was able to win the Rust Belt states that in the past were heavily unionized and many Democrats had just taken for granted.
The trade policies that Trump supported were something these Rust Belt states had long been wishing for and could only have hoped for in their wildest dreams. The message Hillary was expounding to the rest of the Democrats seemed to the Rust Belt out of touch with their reality.

Bill actually warned her she should make a stronger effort to reach out to the Rust Belt states, but apparently Hillary did not heed her husband's advice.
Originally coming from Arkansas, Hillary should have known better, but she had lost touch with her roots.
(She had been living in New York for the prior 16 years)

 

what is interesting if comparing the voting percentage Obama in 2012 received from various groups to the percentage Hillary received from the same Groups in 2016. Groups considered strong Democratic.
Union Households Obama 58%, Hillary 51
Democratic Base Obama 92% Hillary 89%
Blacks Obama 93% Hillary 89%
Hispanics Obama 71% Hillary 66%
Asian Obama 75%, Hillary 65%
Whites Obama 39% Hillary 37%
Woman Obama 55%, Hillary 54%
18-29 age group Obama 60%, Hillary 55%
High School or less Obama 53%, Hillary 46%
Poor, making under 30,000 Obama 60%, Hillary 53%

and so on. All Hillary needed to do was to get the same people who voted for Obama to vote for her. She couldn't do that and she couldn't inspire them to get out to vote.

 

We should never have a president serving in office, that the American people soundly rejected in the voting booth. Had Clinton received 3 million less votes than trump, and still elected president I would be saying the same thing.

Party has nothing to do with this.

 

Breadth of Appeal
counts.

That is the beauty of Democracy.

Why couldn't Hillary score a few low electoral vote states
in the Great Red Middle? Many traditional Democratic Party
supporting Labor states.
Thus, Hillary lost. Did not win.



Moi

Heaven is Not A Democracy
And Democracy Is Not Heaven
Or
Support The Angel's Rebellion

​

 

Wasn't she suppose to have been married to the 1st black president? People just didn't, and still don't, like her.

 

yes, many considered Bill the first black president. Where Bill connects with people, has a natural likability, has charisma, is/was very political savvy. Hillary didn't connect, she wasn't a bit likable, had the charisma of a wet mop, came across as aloof and elitist and she still isn't like by most or should I say a majority of Americans.

Only 11% of Americans view Hillary very positive, 16% somewhat positive, 27% positive over all. 36% view her very negatively, 16% somewhat negative, 52% of all Americans have a negative view of her with 20% neutral.

https://www.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/18233NBCWSJApril2018Poll.pdf

You're correct, she still isn't liked.

 

Between Clinton and Trump Trump was no mistake. The country is cooking right along. So there is nothing to complain about, unless your just some partisan hack.

 

The usual blah-blah-blah of no real consequence.

The country is "cooking-right-along" because it exited the Great Recession in the last two years of Obama's administration.

Don't believe that? Then see here: The Bureau of Labor Statistics Employment-to-population Ratio History

Note at the turn upwards from the statistic's low-point of October 2013, long before Donald Dork took office in 2017 ... !