Supreme Court deciding Faithless Electors in the Electoral College case.

The key word, which you used several times, is "was."

 

Funny I've never heard any brag that we are the worlds largest republic,it's always we are the worlds largest democracy???? Which we are not according to our voting for president and vice president, in a democracy the majority rules.

 

We haven't been a Nation of States since 1865. Quick, without looking, who is your State's Lieutenant Governor? Do you even HAVE a Lieutenant Governor? And yes, he is like the Veep, but just about everyone can name the current US Veep

I know lots of people who live in Red States and Rural areas who didn't vote for Trump. Disenfranchising 3 million of them in favor of Wyoming seems a lot more consequential than satisfying the Southron Planters who haven't existed since 1865 themselves

 

None of that changes the reason for the EC. It is to protect the smaller states from larger states.

 

Uh....how do the tiny States have any more real say in how the country is run anyway? They may have more say over who gets to be President but not that much more and why does that matter so much anyway?

 

You don’t want a democracy. It would be awful. It’s one of the most dangerous systems known to man. Democracy means if there’s 100 people and 51 of them vote to oppress, rape, torture and commit genocide against the other 49 then it’s law.

 

How does it protect anybody to disenfranchise 3 million individual people?

 

If they choose not to vote, that is their problem.

 

And that's precisely the problem with the EC. Under the EC if my state has 1000 people and 501 of them vote for Joseph Stalin against 499 who vote for Abe Lincoln then ALL of my State's Electoral votes go to the Big Red One. The EC would be an interesting historical curiosity if all of the States determined their EC votes proportionately. Explain to me how THAT protects the smaller states from the larger

 

What in the devil are you talking about, do you understand what "disenfranchised" means?

They DID vote, their votes just didn't COUNT.

Democracy or Republic, one man one vote is the law in any free nation anywhere.

 

Sure their vote counted. They just weren't the deciding vote.

 

No, 3 million votes were discounted. They didn't vote for the loser, they just didn't count at all.

 

Hilary lost because she did not think some of the smaller states were important enough to waste time campaigning. And that is exactly the reason why the EC was set up this way. I want to hear about how a candidate is going to address issues important to me, not issues in California or New York.

There were a lot more votes than that, that did not count. Every vote that was not a deciding vote did not count at all. The election results would not have been changed, if they did not vote. ​

 

we need to do away with the electoral college... let the voters make the choice

do we really want to vote, and then have the electoral college, say... we disagree, so we're voting for someone else

that is like saying, you can vote.... and it will count as long as we agree with your vote... that is the way one gets dictatorships

 

one vote should equal one vote, your vote should not have more weight depending on what state you live in

and if the electoral college doesn't have to vote the will of the people... it's even worse

 

I don't know of any candidate on either side who goes to a state and addresses themselves even a lot to the way that State thinks. This is because no candidate on either side addresses themselves very much to State issues at all. Doing that is a pretty sure way to lose, as all the States but that one are going to turn against you so the candidates run on NATIONAL issues

If there is no real difference between uncounted votes and losing votes then explain to me how Trump could have won with the same vote totals if the Electoral College did not exist at all.

 

You don't think candidates talk about farm issues vs urban issues, national parks vs no national parks, water rights, federally owned land, military bases? The number of issues are practically endless. When they come to a campaign stop, they talk about local issues.

Why would a candidate waste his time on a state with a couple of million when he can spend the same amount of time in a state with thirty million and influence fifteen times as many voters?

Their votes were counted.

You are wasting your time. There is one reason for the EC. I have repeated that reason numerous times. You might not like it, but that is the way it is. Get over it.

 

And the Senate only reinforces the inequity.

 

Which is a good thing ... Pure democracy is tyranny.

 

I notice you didn't answer my question, but I didn't expect you would.

You can repeat a misperception all you want, that does not make it so. Besides eliminating runoff elections and satisfying the Southern States the EC is an outmoded anachronism and the "one reason" all the Trumpers like it is it gave us Trump.

 

In re the bolded: Conservatives really like this, and for the reason that is contained in the final sentence.

 

POLITICS AND THE CHANGE OF AGES

The voting system of America was rotten from the get-go.

As I never tire of saying, high-school studies in American history do not tell the true-story about how or why the 12 Amendment (which created the Electoral College) was passed.

Technically, it was supposed to "facilitate" elections in the early history of the American republic. But, lower minds got their hands on the matter because they saw how easily it could influence elections. And the southern-states were very much concerned that massive amounts of migrants were settling in the northern-states, thus giving these states a numbers advantage in the HofR.Which the founders decided to offset with a Senate that was constituted only of two representatives from each state of the union.

For the longest time initially the US was a called a "union of states" because the states (at the end of the 18th and debut of the 19th century) were being peopled by Europeans who sought out their own kind (because they did not speak English). So, some states had larger factions of these "immigrants". It took at least another generation, if not a further two generations, to generate a population that was truly "US born and bred".

This is the why and how that the original states decided that they wanted VERY MUCH to be able to have a "further say" in the election of a PotUS. Which was quite a struggle initially and many historians say was a reason why the Civil War was fought. From here:

The two sides, North & South, were fighting a silly-war over the definition of a word.

And, to my mind at the very least, that contention during a time called the Agricultural Age was key. Since agriculture was central to the generation of wealth and employment in the early part of the 19th century.

Ages change, however. The predominance of the Agricultural Age changed with the advent of the Industrial Age brought about by the invention of the Steam Engine. Whereupon, populations drifted off land-farming and into large cities with industrial production (based upon "electricity"). The US entered fully the Industrial Age.

MY POINT?

And, lo and behold, what is happening nowadays? The world is entering the Information Age! So, lets take note, that "things/circumstances/way-&-means" are changing at a very high speed all around us everywhere on earth ...

 

I don't remember what your question was and I really don't care. This is the reason the EC is used:
"Over the final 100 days of the election, Trump made a total of 133 visits to Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina, Michigan and Wisconsin. Over the same time period, Hillary Clinton visited the first five of those states a total of 87 times. She never traveled to Wisconsin during the 102 days between the convention and the election."
It would be even worse, if there was no EC. Why visit the smaller states at all when they can concentrate on visit a half dozen states and have face to face contact with so many more people.
I am just as important as a person in California or NY.

No one was disenfranchised. They all were allowed to vote and their vote was counted. Their vote was simply not the deciding vote.

You have heard the reason numerous times. Asking new questions will not change the fundamental reason.

 

Here is a perfect example why the EC is used:
"The Space Force is asking local leaders across the country to nominate themselves to host the headquarters of U.S. Space Command. Once the nominations are received, the Air Force will evaluate the options based on the previous criteria and the top scoring candidates will receive a site visit for additional research. The Air Force expects a final selection for the preferred headquarters in early 2021"
https://www.airforcemag.com/space-f...-us-why-you-deserve-to-host-space-command-hq/

If there was no EC, the decision would likely be made to just put it in California because that would get the administration a lot more votes.

 

Because our system has check and balances. There’s three branches of government with four sets of members which I’m sure, hope, you’re well aware of.

The judiciary is appointed by the presidency who changes every four years so the likelihood is a divided court, like we have now 4 liberals and 5 conservatives (or 4 and one wishy washy).

The presidency is voted on the electoral vote by the states; apportioned based upon their electoral vote so each state has a proportionate representation for deciding who becomes president. This is a mix between popular vote and representative vote wherein both the population and state sovereignty is respected through a compromise.

The Congress then is apportioned one by popular vote, the house which is determined based upon population size. And then the senate which is based upon equal representation of each state.

The system is set up to make sure no one method gets an advantage over the other. It’s set up to check both population size with state sovereignty and a check on state sovereignty with population size.

There’s absolutely no reason to change it to benefit one over the other.