No, they had armed thugs paid to do their bidding.They did then.
That makes no sense at all in a vote for an individual that represents all the states. Everyone has a say in the Presidential election. It should be the epitome of "one man, one vote".Because the U.S is a Constitutional Republic, a democratic form of government, not a pure democracy. It's a conglomeration of fifty states that agreed to the constitution and bill of rights. The EC is in place to ensure that the less populace states have a say in the presidential election. Every state has rights and can enact laws that fit their circumstances, as long as those laws fit within the constitution.
Honestly let one state leave and totally fuck their economy and no one else will do it for a considerable amount of time. Don't let anyone do it and that resentment will simmer.
*points at the UK and Brexit*
I mean that's the entire reason governments have power (internationally and internally) now.No, they had armed thugs paid to do their bidding.
@Greenman has been told all this many times, he just ignores it because he has no good answer.
We (the UK) had incredibly favourable terms in the EU. No new members would be allowed to enter with what we had. We were mental to leave, but if you don't let people have that power (to leave) they become children and blame everyone else for their problems.Also a result of decisions made by the EU not to roll out the red carpet when the UK came to make agreements. They are arguably treated less favorably than new candidate nations.
Correct.He likes the system as is because it gives him outcomes he prefers, not because it is intrinsically more fair or superior in any way. He just won't say that.
We (the UK) had incredibly favourable terms in the EU. No new members would be allowed to enter with what we had. We were mental to leave, but if you don't let people have that power (to leave) they become children and blame everyone else for their problems.
I agree! While the Confederacy was one of the most evil political entities ever to exist I don't see anything that indicated once states got in they could never get out and I think they had a valid point in that respect.
The thing is the North had something that mattered more, which was a stronger military, and so the legal particulars aside that question was decided conclusively.
I mean that is accurate (and we are still blaming the French a bit for this (kinda with a bit of merit)) but at least we can't blame the EU for pretty much everything like we were (honestly it was ridiculous, we were blaming them for the shape of fruit at one point).I'm not sure this has resolved the UK's tendency to blame outside groups for their own decisions. Seems to be the immigrants turn again.
Ok, the system is nonsensical to you. To me it makes perfect sense as the point is to try and create equal representation for the various states. It's all about protecting the minority population from being controlled by the majority. The direct democracy happens at the state level. The system works.That makes no sense at all in a vote for an individual that represents all the states. Everyone has a say in the Presidential election. It should be the epitome of "one man, one vote".
If the system works why do presidential candidates ignore the small states?Ok, the system is nonsensical to you. To me it makes perfect sense as the point is to try and create equal representation for the various states. It's all about protecting the minority population from being controlled by the majority. The direct democracy happens at the state level. The system works.
But the president represents the people of the US not the states!Ok, the system is nonsensical to you. To me it makes perfect sense as the point is to try and create equal representation for the various states. It's all about protecting the minority population from being controlled by the majority. The direct democracy happens at the state level. The system works.
It's not equal representation in the least.Ok, the system is nonsensical to you. To me it makes perfect sense as the point is to try and create equal representation for the various states. It's all about protecting the minority population from being controlled by the majority. The direct democracy happens at the state level. The system works.
Do local people really elect local government with gerrymandering? How is it in some states a party can win 60% of the vote but get <50% of the seats of government?The people elect local government, isn't that democracy?
It's not equal representation in the least.
How many Californians or Texans are worth 1 electoral vote? How many Wisconsinites?
By 'minority' I believe he means 'residents of a lower than average population state', which is a bizarre way to define a 'minority' as people don't define themselves that way. Although it's an interesting thought exercise, if you chopped California up into like 5 states that would all still be Democratic a bunch of people would go from a 'majority' to a 'minority' just by virtue of drawing some new lines on a map, with nothing actually changing in people's lives.But the president represents the people of the US not the states!
You say that it protects "the minority" so I'll ask you which minority it protects? If it was an election that elected a bunch of people I might agree with you but this is electing an individual that everyone in the US gets a vote on. To then say that some of those votes are irrelevant is odd, why bother to have an election at all at that point and why not go to a parliamentary system?
I mean defining a minority as "people who didn't win an election" and then giving them extra weight in an election is just (and I get that this word is overused right now) bloody weird.By 'minority' I believe he means 'residents of a lower than average population state', which is a bizarre way to define a 'minority' as people don't define themselves that way. Although it's an interesting thought exercise, if you chopped California up into like 5 states that would all still be Democratic a bunch of people would go from a 'majority' to a 'minority' just by virtue of drawing some new lines on a map, with nothing actually changing in people's lives.
Regardless though, the EC does not protect small states. As @K1052 pointed out the EC protects the interests of states that are split close to 50/50. Almost all of those states are large though, so really the EC just protects a handful of large states.
The real question here is if you want a president elected by all 50 states (popular vote) or want one elected by about 5-6 states. (Electoral College)
Start by reading the federalist papers and then the constitution and bill of rights. That will answer most of your questions. It will take me a month to type it all out.But the president represents the people of the US not the states!
You say that it protects "the minority" so I'll ask you which minority it protects? If it was an election that elected a bunch of people I might agree with you but this is electing an individual that everyone in the US gets a vote on. To then say that some of those votes are irrelevant is odd, why bother to have an election at all at that point and why not go to a parliamentary system?
Which part of me should read this? 3/5 or 2/5?Start by reading the federalist papers and then the constitution and bill of rights. That will answer most of your questions. It will take me a month to type it all out.
Let's ask James Madison, also known as 'The Father of the Constitution':Start by reading the federalist papers and then the constitution and bill of rights. That will answer most of your questions. It will take me a month to type it all out.
There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections.
Yeah. I'm not doing any of that. Representation of the people in an election for an individual is pretty simple. Either everyone gets a vote that counts or someone's being disenfranchised.Start by reading the federalist papers and then the constitution and bill of rights. That will answer most of your questions. It will take me a month to type it all out.