Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I Stand Corrected. He received 19% of the popular vote which is significant for a third party candidate. But no Electoral vote.
Quote:
One is that the policies change little from election to election since whoever is at the top of the coalition the swing is the minor parties that enable a coalition to assemble.
No disrespect but can you clarify this point. What position defines the top of the coalition first of all? President? Prime Minister?
Quote:
Another is the ability of the premier or prime minister to blame coalition partners for inaction.
This seems to happen in our current political system anyway. Look at what is going on now between the Executive and Legislative branches. And it certainly isn't the first time these two branches of government have clashed like this.
Quote:
And the last one I can think of as I get ready for work is that the ministries are assigned by party. So if the country say votes in a progressive government the minister controlling, for example, foreign affairs might be relatively right wing. And that minister isn't really replaceable at the pleasure of the prime minister since that may force an election.
This isn't a bad thing in my opinion. It encourages more bipartisan cooperation.
We are a nation that represents 50 states, not people. If you don't like it, you should move to some European country that fits your utopia.
Oh gee whiz. I don't like the electoral college, so now I have to move! Whatever happened to the idea that if you don't like something in your country, you are allowed to work within the system to change it?
Years ago, I remember there used to be this bumper sticker people had that said "America, love it or leave it". I stopped taking it seriously the first time some "fat cat" came by with one pasted on the back of his expensive foreign car.
In any event, Kevdawgg, what you can't seem to get through your noggin is that states aren't living breathing creatures. Only living breathing humans get to vote in elections. States, counties, cities, and townships are artificial creations. What does not live cannot vote.
In essence, what the EC does is give more of a vote to less populated states. That is why it was possible for George W. Bush to win the presidency with fewer popular votes than Al Gore. It was why Hillary Clinton "lost" the election despite having almost 3 million more popular votes than Donald Trump.
BTW, its not just a question of New York and California deciding the election. A popular vote winner would need votes from plenty of other states. What it really is a question of why a country that claims to be "government for the people and by the people" repeatedly allows the winner of an election to have fewer popular votes than his/her opponent.
Its really a question of not being able to get a super majority to change a system that benefits conservative republicans unduly. I wonder if any person who has posted here opposing ending the EC is not a conservative republican?
Oh gee whiz. I don't like the electoral college, so now I have to move! Whatever happened to the idea that if you don't like something in your country, you are allowed to work within the system to change it?
Years ago, I remember there used to be this bumper sticker people had that said "America, love it or leave it". I stopped taking it seriously the first time some "fat cat" came by with one pasted on the back of his expensive foreign car.
In any event, Kevdawgg, what you can't seem to get through your noggin is that states aren't living breathing creatures. Only living breathing humans get to vote in elections. States, counties, cities, and townships are artificial creations. What does not live cannot vote.
In essence, what the EC does is give more of a vote to less populated states. That is why it was possible for George W. Bush to win the presidency with fewer popular votes than Al Gore. It was why Hillary Clinton "lost" the election despite having almost 3 million more popular votes than Donald Trump.
BTW, its not just a question of New York and California deciding the election. A popular vote winner would need votes from plenty of other states. What it really is a question of why a country that claims to be "government for the people and by the people" repeatedly allows the winner of an election to have fewer popular votes than his/her opponent.
Its really a question of not being able to get a super majority to change a system that benefits conservative republicans unduly. I wonder if any person who has posted here opposing ending the EC is not a conservative republican?
Frankly, Kevdawg's belief in love it or leave it is actually the antithesis of what this country was founded on. It's a very anti-American belief.
No, I don't like it. And just because somebody doesn't like the way we certain things in America, doesn't mean they have to leave the country. I don't see that concept in the Constitution either. What I do see in our history is freedom of thought and expression.
It's interesting that you admit and admire that this nation's government does not represent its people.
Our country is the United States of America. If you wish to eliminate the political role of the states, then I suggest you are going to need a new constitutional convention. You will not get what you want with a single constitutional amendment, and you certainly won't get it without a constitutional amendment.
I was reminded today of something Barack Obama said just before the 2008 election -- something to the effect that "we are just three days away from a fundamental transformation of the United States."
His attempt to transform it in one direction, against the strong opposition of a significant share of the American people, has led to a reaction which is taking the country in a totally different direction. I understand that Obama doesn't like this and presumably neither do you. But we have a political system that does not allow 51% to run roughshod over 49%. We have checks and balances to prevent this, with the composition of the Senate, with the Electoral College, and with the federal system in general. The Constitution gives certain powers to the national government, and all other powers are reserved to the states.
Electing a president by the popular vote would be just one more step toward an all-powerful executive branch. Is that really what you want?
Our country is the United States of America. If you wish to eliminate the political role of the states, then I suggest you are going to need a new constitutional convention. You will not get what you want with a single constitutional amendment, and you certainly won't get it without a constitutional amendment.
I was reminded today of something Barack Obama said just before the 2008 election -- something to the effect that "we are just three days away from a fundamental transformation of the United States."
His attempt to transform it in one direction, against the strong opposition of a significant share of the American people, has led to a reaction which is taking the country in a totally different direction. I understand that Obama doesn't like this and presumably neither do you. But we have a political system that does not allow 51% to run roughshod over 49%. We have checks and balances to prevent this, with the composition of the Senate, with the Electoral College, and with the federal system in general. The Constitution gives certain powers to the national government, and all other powers are reserved to the states.
Electing a president by the popular vote would be just one more step toward an all-powerful executive branch. Is that really what you want?
I see no reason why an popularly elected president would mean that his powers are extended beyond what they are now. You're just grasping.
A democratically elected (populist vote) presidency is anathema to American law.
In a democracy, direct or indirect, the majority assume power over the minority (losers).
In a republican form, the people have Creator endowed rights that cannot be trespassed by the majority. Only by consent of the governed, can the majority exercise any power beyond securing rights.
Under the current socialist democratic system (imposed by consent), the underlying republican form law is still on the books. . . for now.
If you do not know HOW and WHEN you gave consent, I suggest politely asking your public servants to explain it.
For example, pursuant to the Declaration, all men (and the term includes women under English grammar) have CREATOR ENDOWED RIGHTS to life, liberty, etc. YET, all citizens have mandatory civic duties that abrogate those endowed rights.
For example, militia duty - the obligation to train, fight, and die, on command - abrogates life and liberty. . . and has been part of the law since 1777.
Can't have it both ways.
Either government was instituted to secure endowed rights of all men
OR
government can abrogate them by declaring all born within the U.S.A. are subject citizens with mandatory civic duties.
Can they explain that to you?
Or perhaps you might visit your local county courthouse law library and look it up yourself.
I suggest reading Article IV of the Articles of Confederation (1777) and pay attention to the difference between "free inhabitants" and "free citizens."
There are other distinctions in the USCON, with respect to "people" versus "citizens."
(FYI: people have rights and powers; citizens have privileges and immunities in lieu of endowed rights)
In state constitutions and statutes, there are similar distinctions.
Pennsylvania Constitution,
Article 1, Section 1. Inherent Rights of Mankind
All men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation, and of pursuing their own happiness.
Despite specifically declaring that people have endowed rights to life and liberty, we find:
Pennsylvania General Assembly
Title 51, Part II, Chapter 3
The Militia
§ 301. Formation.
(a) Pennsylvania militia.--The militia of this Commonwealth shall consist of:
(1) all able-bodied citizens of the United States and all other able-bodied persons who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, residing within this Commonwealth, who are at least 17 years six months of age and, except as hereinafter provided, not more than 55 years of age. . .
“The great draft riot in New York City in July 1863 involved Irish immigrants who had been signed up as citizens to swell the vote of the city's Democratic political machine, not realizing it made them liable for the draft.â€
...
All CITIZENS are liable for militia duty - a VOLUNTARY surrender of one’s right to life and liberty.
Were you informed of that in "government approved" indoctrination -ahem- school?
And if you could withdraw consent, restore endowed rights, cease owing any obligation to pay taxes (which are limited to government privileges), or perform civic duties (i.e. militia, jury, etc), or obey socialist rules only applicable to those who consent, would it matter who was president and how he was elected?
I see no reason why an popularly elected president would mean that his powers are extended beyond what they are now. You're just grasping.
The 17th Amendment took power from the states and the Congress. Before, the state legislature could replace a US senator if he voted contrary to the best interests of the state. After, senators began to pay close attention to their state only in the last two years of their terms. The rest of the time is spent schmoozing with out-of-state donors.
How do you think a president elected by running up huge margins in the half-dozen large states will keep and expand power? By ignoring Congress even more than recent presidents have. (See: using the IRS to attack political opponents) And by using the bureaucracy for his own purposes, expanding its regulatory reach far beyond the limited authority a long-ago Congress gave it. (See: Clean Water Act and the now-on-hold Waters of the USA regulations) And by spending far more money on electioneering than any individual congressman or political party.
The Framers gave this subject a great deal of thought, and they came up with a system that may not be perfect but which is better than any alternative that has been proposed.
The Framers of the constitution only decided that the number of electors would equal to number of congressmen plus the number of senators. They made no specification beyond that point.
For a full 19 presidential elections there was no popular vote at all in South Carolina. The electors were simply appointed by the state delegation In 1832 and 1836 the electors voted for a South Carolina Senator who had no votes in any other state.
The Framers of the constitution expected a popular vote would be held by a tiny fraction of free white males. Even free white males without money or property were not allowed to vote, as the assumption was that they would simply sell their vote.
Electoral college voters were expected to vote their conscience, and not be driven by "mob" rule. Given the procedure, it was expected that a large percentage of elections would end up as "contingent elections" in the House of Representatives. Not just the two that went there (1800 & 1824).
Last edited by PacoMartin; 09-13-2017 at 09:50 PM..
hillary was talking about this yesterday on the blame circuit, how we need to do away with the electoral college. I never knew she was that damn unintelligent and uneducated.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Do Not Read This !
