The Electoral College is ripe for reform

Likely, but that's not a new observation.

 

Who cares if it is new observation or old observation.

Fact is simple and clear – after 2028 presidential election , the current Republican party is dead when it comes to Presidential election.

 

There IS NO NATIONAL VOTE to weigh it against. Your vote in your state has NOTHING to do with the votes of anyone in any other state. Other state voting has nothing to do with YOUR vote in YOUR state. So when you claim your vote wasn't counted that only applies to whether you state refused to count your vote in your state. Anything else is a red herring.

There IS NOT NATIONAL VOTE how many times does it have to be repeated. And tallying up the 51 unique and separate elections that do occur and claiming that represents what the results of a NATIONAL popular vote would be us utter folly, electoral and statistical folly. It might make some curious trivia to some but it is nothing more. Were there a NATIONAL vote, we all voted in the same vote the results could be ENTIRELY different as campaigning would be different and voting patterns would be different. The closer the election the more that applies.

And totally moot, the STATES elect the PRESIDENT and VP..................that is the CONSTITUTION go read it.

What they did was to TEMPER the 'excess tendency' (the tendency to cater to factions) of majority rule, and they achieved (tempered) this by establishing:

1. A Bicameral legislature
2. A senate of two senators per state, regardless of size
3. A house of representatives apportioned by consensus
4. An electoral college where electors are proportioned by size in a way that boosts the strength of smaller states, but not so much so that the minority will win the election.

Given the extreme to which demographics have shifted, THAT is why the EC is ripe for reform, and I support the NPVIC, so that one vote equals another vote, regardless of party affiliation or location.[/QUOTE]

Who did the representatives at the Constitutional Convention represent? Was it the States? Who is the Senate supposed to represent the States or the People? Why are the Senators apportioned per State and not by Population? And what demographic shift are you claiming requires we totally change our government and pretty much get rid of States and why not just do that and put the Federal government in charge with federal districts reporting to the federal government. Is that what you ultimately want?

 

I thought I was being cute, get over it.

 

Clearly you have a confusion on what constitutes a 'direct democracy'.

True direct democracy involves a system where citizens directly participate in decision-making processes without intermediaries like the House of Representatives or state assemblies. Merely having a direct vote for the presidency doesn't qualify as a direct democracy. In a direct democracy, every proposed law or regulation is subject to a direct vote by the populace, eliminating the need for representative bodies like the House of Representatives.

While states hold popular votes for governors, they still operate within a framework of representative democracy, as evidenced by the existence of state assemblies and representatives. However, the absence of direct votes on state laws doesn't negate this fact.

It's important to note that there are no proposals to abolish the House of Representatives. The NPVIC does not do this, and does not make America a 'direct democracy'. in order to do that, we would have to abolish the House of Representatives.

Western developed countries with presidents elected by majority vote typically operate under representative democracies, not direct democracies. The Electoral College in the United States, for example, is an additional layer in the electoral process and doesn't define direct democracy.

In sum, direct democracy entails direct citizen participation in decision-making, while representative democracy involves elected officials representing the people's interests. That's what ultimately defines 'direct democracy' not the popular vote for the president.

 

Not at al.

As I have stated several times.

Well, DUH!

Not really; with the exception of recalls, initiatives, and referenda the people's roll ends when they cast their ballots.

But it does violate the voting freedom of the people by tying it to votes from voters outside their state.

Since nowhere in the founding documents do the founders ever label our govenment as "democracy" your point is moot.

. Which was never the issue. The concept of a "representative democracy " is intellectual maturation. Once we elect a senator or representative our involvement is done.

 

Collectively, there is. It's called 'the popular vote'.

Nothing you can say alters the one plain and simple fact:

There can be no fairer system than 'one person, one vote'.

THe EC gives some votes more weight than others. It used be that leveling out votes accross the 13 states was achievable, but now we have 50 states are 20 times the size of the smaller states, the original design no longer achieves it's objective, so the EC's purpose is moot.

I'm not talking about a 'national vote'. I'm talking about the popular vote for president.

Nothing you can say alters the one plain and simple fact:

There can be no fairer system than 'one person, one vote'.

The framers NEVER intended on minority rule. It was supposed to be that it would rarely happen.

Which was the case. In the 19th century it happened once.

In the 20th century, it did not happen.

In the 21st century, in the first 2 decades, it happened twice.

When it happens rarely, as in the 19th century, by design, it's not an issue, the system is working as it was intended.

But, when it happens twice in 2 decades, something has evolved in America such that it's now an issue, the system is no longer working as it was intended, hence the thread, The EC is ripe for reform.

And yes, it IS ripe for reform, because it is NOT working as it was intended.

Minority rule was NEVER framer intent.

Nowhere in the Fed papers does it argue for 'minority rule'.

 

I'm sorry to inform you that America is, indeed, a representative democracy, as are all of the individual states.

'Democracy' is a term of art, not a legal declaration.

AMerica is one of the 50 or so western developed nations called liberal democracies. This is a descriptive term, not a term for a legal document.

"Constitutional Republic' and 'Representative democracy" are not mutually exclusive terms.

Even Madison's contemporaries objected to his parochial use of the term, ergo, it actually has a broader meaning than how he used it, nor is he the final word on it's meaning.

Given the above facts, Your point is not accurate, not only that, you've expressed nothing to negate my point.

 

There is NO collective vote, there are no collective campaigning or voting there are 51 totally unique and separate elections each with its own voting patterns. There is NO national vote.

Nothing you can say alters the one plain and simple fact:

And you have that in your STATE. The Constitution does not grant you a direct vote for the President and VP the STATE gets those.

And levels out and compromises the interest of the States and the People by the marvelous way the founding fathers structured it and it ain't gonna change.

There were 51 separate and unique ones again you are engaged in electoral and statistical folly.

And in the election in which you voted you got that. Nothing you can say alters that fact.

They never intended for you to vote for the President and VP those offices are chosen by the States.

It doesn't matter that it happens, it is mere historical trivia.

When did a President ever lose with a majority of the votes that matter?

 

nope.

Jabberwockey.

source?

Nonsense.

And who prevailed?

Facts? What Facts? All you've provided is vapid blather.[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]

 

insults are never cute. You know that.

 

When responding to insults, to the humor challenged, they might not be. But frankly, I don't give a damn.

When someone insults me, I respond in kind, maybe with some snark, but, so?

 

I'm not interested in lowering myself to your level. Snark away if it fills some sort of need for you.

 

If you examine the broader field of political science you will see the 'founders' ****ed up.

They were wealthy land owners and slave owners, many of whom believed no one other than land holders should vote. Others saw a possible new revolution resulting from giving the poor the vote.

They did not trust the low life who's lives the they ruled, which was common in the day, and so did not trust them with the vote.

In 1776 race and class were everything.

 

And yet none of this made it into the Constitution other than the slip up for women. If they were wealthy landowners just looking out for themselves, why did they form a democratic republic with fervent purpose to make the common citizen rulers of the government, forming almost everything in the Constitution around that premise, and outlaw anything resembling a nobility class? If you are including Washington, arguably the richest of them all, why, much to the surprise of King George (no, the other George....) didn't he just become king as he could have easily done? Or just run for president a dozen times? Nothing in the results supports your assertions. Faint musings of a few individuals mean nothing.

 

Quite a waste of time to ask a total stranger "why".

I suspect, based on a history of history, that George who never had wooden teeth nor cut down a cherry tree knew that if he tried to make himself king, Jefferson would have stabbed him to death.

Or maybe, Franklin threatened to have him beheaded. Any theory is as reliable as 'official' US history.

Also, no one ever shouted "the British are coming." As it was there was no such thing as an "American" at the time as everyone was a British Subject so if anything he would have warned "the army is coming".

 

That's about the most honest assessment I've come across. They may be in trouble at the state level in areas where they were strong once.

But you can't be the "law and order" party when led by a convicted rapist and fraud, championing the pardoning of terrorists.

The antics of Mr. "there is nothing too low" have vastly altered the political landscape. The right has no core, no center but is being driven by marginal forces of less than a third of the population who are more interested in getting even than the future of the country.

But...he's about to default and lose his New York properties so he won't be a rich ******* anymore, just an *******