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.
Now suppose Hillary had won the EC but lost the popular vote in 2016. Would those same 2/3 of people polled still say "Oh yes the EC is terrible and we must abolish it!" I HIGHLY DOUBT IT.
Presidential popularity does not depend on election vote totals; it depends on performance in office. Twice in the 20th century a president has lost the popular vote and won the electoral vote, GWB and Trump. GWB had a phenomenal amount of support after 9/11, and squandered it with a meaningless war in Iraq and economic policies that nearly wrecked the entire western capitalist system. Trump is just a malicious child abusing his toys. He has managed to make GWB look not so bad, which was quite a trick. It's a cold streak. We have had two dud minority presidents, and people are blaming the Electoral College, when they really should be blaming two mentally defective presidents.
It has always been the case that the people do not elect the president, the states do. Should the EC be deadlocked, the states elect the president, one vote per state. The actual presidential election occurs on January 6, when the EC votes are tabulated.
If you want democracy, look to the House of Representatives. Members serve at the will of the voters and have to stand for election every two years.
Presidential popularity does not depend on election vote totals; it depends on performance in office. Twice in the 20th century a president has lost the popular vote and won the electoral vote, GWB and Trump. GWB had a phenomenal amount of support after 9/11, and squandered it with a meaningless war in Iraq and economic policies that nearly wrecked the entire western capitalist system. Trump is just a malicious child abusing his toys. He has managed to make GWB look not so bad, which was quite a trick. It's a cold streak. We have had two dud minority presidents, and people are blaming the Electoral College, when they really should be blaming two mentally defective presidents.
It has always been the case that the people do not elect the president, the states do. Should the EC be deadlocked, the states elect the president, one vote per state. The actual presidential election occurs on January 6, when the EC votes are tabulated.
If you want democracy, look to the House of Representatives. Members serve at the will of the voters and have to stand for election every two years.
At least after 4 more years you’ll get another president. I’m the mean time just reeelaaaaxxx!!
Location: New Albany, Indiana (Greater Louisville)
11,974 posts, read 25,462,489 times
Reputation: 12187
If the US had another civil war it would be less like the 1860 kind and more like partition in India / Pakistan / Bangladesh. It would be less about trying to control the other half and more about defining the borders between the new nations and population swaps between them. At this point both sides are in more of a good riddance mood rather than wanting to dominate the other side.
There are many 'civil' wars within the US. It's not necessary to define such by traditional historical standards... you know, fighting and shooting.
It's true to say we are 'better', we are sharper ... when some conflict is part of the equation. Passivity is part and parcel to the demise of a thinking, growing, developing republic.
To form a more perfect Union isn't done in front of the TV adopting host opinions of CNN or FOX.
I heard on NPR or PBS that since the protests began this year 93% had been peaceful.
I read an FBI report, or a report based on FBI reports, that the BLM part of the protests was peaceful at about that rate, but that outside elements interfered, causing violence.
If the US had another civil war it would be less like the 1860 kind and more like partition in India / Pakistan / Bangladesh. It would be less about trying to control the other half and more about defining the borders between the new nations and population swaps between them. At this point both sides are in more of a good riddance mood rather than wanting to dominate the other side.
Dream on. Dixie isn't going to become a "new nation". Partitioning the US like India/Pakistan/Bangladesh actually is what the 1860's civil war was about. There is no "less like" it, if you're talking about "partitioning". "Partitioning" = secession.
With 125 replies here it seems as though this thread has reached the point where it becomes difficult for members to read every post in order to "only respond if you have a new argument or viewpoint to add, not just to reiterate previous points or to say that you agree or disagree." (Quoted from Great Debates forum rules.) Additionally, everything to be said in this debate appears to have already been said.
This thread has run its course and it's time to put it to rest. Thank you to all who participated.
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.
