>>MOD WARNING<< Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dead

You continue not to understand. The electoral college is anti-democratic and does not fulfill its original purpose (i.e. for informed and educated men to temper the unwise choice of the general electorate). And democracy "as see it" absolutely does exist. Many countries employ some version of the popular vote which will result in the candidate who receives the most votes winning. Whether it is two prong, or alternative choice, the electoral college is the anomaly, not the popular vote. I am not an expert on how other countries choose their presidents so perhaps there are other anti-democratic mechanisms in other countries. I don't care. And, I know you don't care that I don't care, so spare me the "your opinion doesn't matter" nonsense.

The undeniable FACT is that choosing via the popular vote would ensure a rural conservative's vote from Montana would be just as valuable to a candidate as a city dweller's liberal vote. The fact that there may be more city dwellers than rural residents is completely irrelevant.

 

I fully understand your version of democracy does not exist in the western world, for a number of perfectly valid reasons.
I also fully understand you do not at all understand why your version of democracy is not found in the western world.

For a number of perfectly valid reasons.

Cite one Western Democracy that popularly elects its head of government.

Cite one country that popularly elects a governmental official based on a non-majority plurality.

True. Most Western Democracies do not consult the electorate in any manner when choosing a head of government.
-We- do. Thus, the anomaly.

Ok. So?
The undeniable fact is that you do not have a right to vote for President.

 

The U.S. is NOT a democracy, it's a Representative Republic.

 

The electoral college is there to prevent one party from attracting a majority vote of poor people in need of government assistance to one or two states (NY & California). Then use the rest of the country as a piggy bank to keep those folks happy with handouts and voting in perpetuity for that party. That's not a democracy.

 

Why does the educated left have to be told this over and over and over again??

 

Because this is what they want: The electoral college is there to prevent one party from attracting a majority vote of poor people in need of government assistance to one or two states (NY & California). Then use the rest of the country as a piggy bank to keep those folks happy with handouts and voting in perpetuity for that party. That's not a democracy.

 

I'd offer that most people don't understand the constitution these days. Civics class isn't what it used to be. Our kids didn't need to know half of what I was required to know. I had to pass a constitution test (both state and federal,) to get out of the 8th grade, and HS. I don't think that's a thing anymore.

 

It doesnt help that Pelosi and Schumer for example spoon fed them this nonsense.

 

Yeah yeah - all democrats bad and always wrong. all republicans good and always right.

Partisans are so predictable.

 

That is not the purpose of the electoral college. Never has been. BTW, the states who receive more money FROM the government than pay TO the government are (mostly) the red states. States like NY and California pay far more into the fed government than they receive back.

 

The United States is a Democratic Republic. For president, though, we use an anti-democratic mechanism.

 

Its a Constitutional Republic.... We are not mob rule and never will be.

 

Just like every other western democracy.
For the same perfectly legitimate reasons.

 

I go back to the days when Latin was taught in a high school in a town of 2,500 people. I never heard of that one, though it surely makes sense to have civics and government taught to encourage more active citizen partici.....oh, wait. Then it means the Democrat power brokers can't manipulate. Scratch that voting stuff.....

 

Thanks, and can your checks get here faster, please?

 

The Electoral College may have been a good idea when they passed it where it took a week or more to reach the electorate but in todays world of instant communication it makes absolutely no sense. In effect a handful of state legislators pick those who elect our president and vice president, unknown to the voting public. Our election is a gross waste of taxpayer money since they elect no one. It is the most corrupt system we could ever have come up with.

 

...Which you would defend to your death had your candidate won despite a popular vote against.

 

I see. "Mob rule" = the majority of people choosing their elected representative.

The irony is that original purpose of the electoral college was to have knowledgeable and informed men temper the choice of the "mob" but these days only a few electors ("faithless") actually fulfill that purpose, and in some states they are, by law, not allowed to fulfill that purpose. It is an anachronistic relic from a time when enlightened, educated people didn't trust the common man. The fact that such a system could allow a fake business "tycoon" with no morals and little intellect slip through proves the system doesn't fulfill its function and should be abolished.

 

Semantics that mean the same thing.

 

Sounds like it's not worth participating then, i support your decision to skip the process and save the waste of taxpayer money. I'm going to vote anyway if that's ok.

 

Fallacy: non seq

 

No Democracy = mob rule....

You lost get over it.

 

Another term for the "mob" is "citizens" who are exercising their right to vote.

No one who is capable of reading believes I lost the debate here. I am providing facts, and a bunch of people who like minority rule are trying to justify a completely unjustifiable system.

 

No that populace would be every citizen not just the voting type.

Try again.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...6-voting-precinct-maps.html#3.15/37.22/-82.85

Minority??

 

People who don't vote have voluntarily relinquished their voice in government. As such, the only relevant people are those who vote.

I have no idea what the NYT article is as I am not interested in creating an account.