I guess those people don’t count for greenman.Yeah more people voted for Tump in California than did in Texas but this is more fair somehow lol.
If you've already read them yourself then you should be able to put forth a reasonable argument without going into a moonbeam length post.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.
“lt is a great system, and I consider myself lucky to have been born in this time and this place.” - Mr. GreenjeansIt kinda weirds me out that Conservatives in the US that say that they are for small government and individual rights think that the views of local government apparatuses are more important than the views of the people.
The People: "We the people of the....."
The .gov: "Just going to stop you there..."
Maybe they count a little, like 60%?I guess those people don’t count for greenman.
No, it does not, we still vote for representatives at the state level.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.
The states elect the president, not the people, it's a very simple concept. If the states decide that it's unfair they can have a constitutional convention and change the system.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.
No one is calling for a direct democracy wtf, I swear you just have a script you read fromThe states elect the president, not the people, it's a very simple concept. If the states decide that it's unfair they can have a constitutional convention and change the system.
I'm not a fan of direct democracy because it's based on the foolish notion that a million stupid people will make better decisions than one stupid person. You can't increase a sum by adding zeros.
To this day I'm still waiting for any semi-coherent answer as to why electing the president in the same manner we elect each and every other elected official in the entire country is bad.No one is calling for a direct democracy wtf, I swear you just have a script you read from
You are a fan of keeping white people in power even when they become a minority.The states elect the president, not the people, it's a very simple concept. If the states decide that it's unfair they can have a constitutional convention and change the system.
I'm not a fan of direct democracy because it's based on the foolish notion that a million stupid people will make better decisions than one stupid person. You can't increase a sum by adding zeros.
Why should states with less populace have a disproportionate say in the presidential election?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.
If no candidate receives a majority of electoral votes, the Presidential election leaves the Electoral College process and moves to Congress. The House of Representatives elects the President from the three (3) Presidential candidates who received the most electoral votes. Each State delegation has one vote and it is up to the individual States to determine how to vote. (Since the District of Columbia is not a State, it has no State delegation in the House and cannot vote). A candidate must receive at least 26 votes (a majority of the States) to be elected. The Senate elects the Vice President from the two (2) Vice Presidential candidates with the most electoral votes. Each Senator casts one vote for Vice President. (Since the District of Columbia is has no Senators and is not represented in the vote). A candidate must receive at least 51 votes (a majority of Senators) to be elected. If the House of Representatives fails to elect a President by Inauguration Day, the Vice-President Elect serves as acting President until the deadlock is resolved in the House.
This was in fact Trump’s coup plan. Just have Pence say he couldn’t count some votes, Biden fails to get to 270, Republican house delegations install Trump as president.Another problem with the EC if no one reaches 270 each state gets one vote for POTUS. That is insane considering the size of Wyoming vs CA
Won’t someone think of the land owners?Why should states with less populace have a disproportionate say in the presidential election?
Any country's democratically elected gov't is supposed to enact policies beneficial to the majority.
How unexpected that he doesn’t actually know what the concepts he’s arguing against are.No one is calling for a direct democracy wtf, I swear you just have a script you read from
Rush told him 30 years ago what to think while he was listening to the radio at job sites. No new learning has occured since then.How unexpected that he doesn’t actually know what the concepts he’s arguing against are.
This sounds remarkably like DEI for crappy, low populace white states. I thought DEI as a concept was bad? I thought making rules that benefit a minority group of people was bad?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.
And it’s DEI based entirely on arbitrary lines drawn on a map, those lines often drawn with exactly the electoral college in mind.This sounds remarkably like DEI for crappy, low populace white states. I thought DEI as a concept was bad? I thought making rules that benefit a minority group of people was bad?
Yes but without the Electoral College a tiny state like PA would be completely ignored by Presidential candidates - GreenmanAnd it’s DEI based entirely on arbitrary lines drawn on a map, those lines often drawn with exactly the electoral college in mind.
If you’re on the east side of the Delaware River in New Jersey your vote for president means shit. If you pack up and drive 10 minutes west into PA your vote matters a ton.
You just described the senate you knucklehead.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.
Who gave a party that right. There's 0 in the constitution about party rights.The states elect the president? Is he still parroting this stupid shit? If you want to be accurate, the parties elect the president as the electoral college consists of people the parties picked. Some states require the electoral members to match the popular vote but I suspect this Supreme Court would strike that down if it was ever challenged as it completely ignores the main point of having electors versus an election based on the popular vote.
The closest a state would get to electing the president would be if the senators (state or Congress) were the ones voting for the president and that clearly doesn’t happen.
Who gave a party that right. There's 0 in the constitution about party rights.