Would you support having an American monarch IF it kept the courts separate from politics?

The United States still leads Conservative over liberal: https://news.gallup.com/poll/225074/conservative-lead-ideology-down-single-digits.aspx

 

Do you think it will be significant if the democrat wins by 10M 20M 30M and he still wins? At a certain point people are going to stop seeing the elections as legit and states that are blue will stop complying with federal laws.

 

I'm sorry - I asked a question:
You fully understand the popular vote does not in any way shape or form matter in determining the winner of a Presidential election.
Why then do you keep lying to yourself about the significance Hillary having 3 million more votes that Trump?
Well?

 

Why don't you attempt to amend the Constitution instead of having a Civil War. Haven't you Dems attempted this nullification stuff in the past? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_Crisis

 

Don't ever expect an answer to this question

 

Because its tooooo haaaard...
Ask him - - he'll tell you.

 

Its not a lie, the legitimacy of US elections are becoming at risk. I can tell you one things, you don't have many more years left of this stupid democrats win the most votes republicans win the presidency and most seats stuff before the federal government is completely ignored and states do what ever they damn well please.

 

How is the legitimacy in question? Have the process outlined in the US Constitution not be followed? I mean if you have a bunch of non-citizens voting, you might have a point...but if the process outlined is being followed, how are they not legit?

 

Why amend it when all the liberals could run to Canada and watch conservative democrats and conservative republicans right it out? After the civil war then we can amendment the constitution, its always easier after a catastrophic

 

See, there's another lie, as proven by the fact you fully understand the popular vote does not in any way shape or form matter in determining the winner of a Presidential election -- since the popular vote total does not determine the winner, you are fully aware of the fact the popular vote total is not related to the legitimacy of the election.
So, again:
Why then do you keep lying to yourself about the significance Hillary having 3 million more votes that Trump?

 

Because until you do, the electoral college remains and the popular vote is irrelevant.

 

Its because its out dated and the smaller and smaller minority that benifits from it, refuses to let it go, its ridiculous that you need 3/4ths of the states because it allows for a few million to stop the rest of the countries will.

Most countries in Europe tried the electoral college and got rid of it because it was stupid as duck.

 

1. LW makes claims about Republican "Bad XYZ." 2. Is told that it is actually Democrats who do/did "Bad XYZ" and that Republicans did it is a projection. 3. LW googles facts and finds out that "2" is correct. 3. So instead of just being quiet and appreciating being educated, they either produce a red herring or pretend that they don't understand.

Old as the hills. Tiresome. Not surprising though.

 

It's true that democracy should be one person one vote, and the winner should be the one with the most votes, so the US system is flawed. Anyone who suggests ignoring the popular vote is foolish.

 

Oh, you're back to siding with the majority. How droll.
You can't do a thing about the EC until you amend the constitution, and it doesn't matter how much you whine about it.

This is a statement of abject ignorance or dishonesty, as you cannot name one such country.
In fact, you cannot name one such country which popularly elects its head of government.

 

Let us know when you change the constitution.

 

According to who it's a smaller minority? Gallup says that most American ID as Conservative...that seems to be reflected in our Govt. No country in Europe elects the head of their Executive branch though a popular vote...many, like England have less direct representation in who their PM is...in fact the PM is appointed by an unelected Monarch.

Again, though...how is it not legit if it's done following the process laid out in the Constitution? The Constitution has been amended 27 times over the course of our History, with the latest being in 1992....it's hardly an outdated process...you simply have to have the support of the people to get it done. Your views however are in the very small minority.

Well yes....3/4 of the States would be well more then a majority of the states, and should be able to stop the "will" of 1/4....what is that 12, 13 states v the remaining 37? Why should 13 states get to determine the 37 get to do? I thought you supported "majority" rule a little while ago?

 

When the only defense you have for something is it's in the Constitution then you Know your in the wrong

 

This rant didn't answer my question, however, the fact that politicians have been gerrymandering districts forever is not a secret.

 

Go live in a Democracy....we don't live in one, we live in a Constitutional Republic

 

Wow....speechless....guess this is the new motto of the Dem Party....well maybe no new...

 

?? What a weird thing to say. We have a mechanism, in the constitution, for changing the constitution. Until then, we have to follow the constitution, because, well, to do otherwise would be unconstitutional.

 

Said no educated, intelligent man of the world, ever.
You don't have to like the fact (x) is in the constitution and that to change (x) you have to amend the constitution, but it remains a fact.

 

The Constitution should require enough states to reach a majority of the population to call for referendum and 2/3rds majority vote should be required to Pass.

 

Amend the constitution.
Until then, it says what it says, no matter what you think.