The people said............ (Page 5): When one is elected at least about half of the v**ers are against them. Coupled with them is the media. These groups are vociferous with their...

Dwight Logan

lpnmajor wrote:

I've been hearing that statement a lot lately, you know, Democrats are trying to undo the people's 2016 choice, trying to undermine the people's chosen Government etc., but is any of that true? For those who chose the ruling administration, the answer is an emphatic yes, for those that did not, the answer is an emphatic no.

Let's not count those Americans who made NO choice in 2016 for a moment, and only discuss those who did choose. Based solely on the v**e count, not the E*******l College count, slightly more than half did NOT choose this administration. Be that as it may, since our system for electing a President is not based on the popular v**e, those Americans that did not v**e for the "winner" are expected to respect the winning choice and pull together for the good of the country and assumes that they are now onboard with the winning agenda.

I think everyone can agree with that statement - but here is where it falls apart; The person who is selected by the E*******l College becomes the President of the United States...........................not President of the Republican/Democratic States, not President of the Republican/Democratic party. To assume that the people's wishes, as represented by the elected members of the "other" party, are irrelevant and may be dismissed, immediately draws battle lines. To keep using the premise that ALL the people are now onboard with the winning agenda, is just plain stupid, completely divorced from reality.

For myself, I'm tired of hearing politicians and talking heads making statements " the people said, the people chose " and similar stuff, because it isn't remotely true. A President or ruling party,will NEVER garner the support of all Americans, by dismissing more than half of them as irrelevant. The REAL numbers of American v**ers, show that only 1/5 actually v**ed for the current administration, and no efforts whatsoever has been made to win over the other 4/5. In fact, the only efforts seen, have been to impose the wishes of those 1/5 on the whole country.

When making a statement for all the people, make sure that all the people have signed on.

I've been hearing that statement a lot lately, you... (show quote)

When one is elected at least about half of the v**ers are against them. Coupled with them is the media. These groups are vociferous with their anti-American vindeta.

debeda

Dwight Logan wrote:

When one is elected at least about half of the v**ers are against them. Coupled with them is the media. These groups are vociferous with their anti-American vindeta.

Tsion1953

Allbent wrote:

IF the dems are for the people then why is it that... (show quote)

Look at the ratio of millionaires in Congress. Then see how many of them were millionaires when they began in Congress. Enough said.

debeda

Tsion1953 wrote:

Look at the ratio of millionaires in Congress. Then see how many of them were millionaires when they began in Congress. Enough said.

Short, to the point and RIGHT ON

no propaganda please Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun

debeda wrote:

Short, to the point and RIGHT ON

PaulPisces Loc: San Francisco

padremike wrote:

Of course he was but his argument is fallacious. Eliminate the huge population centers and progressives lose every time. Eliminate the E!ectoral College and Progressives win every time. The map of counties I presented shows why there is a constitutional necessary balance called the E*******l College.

There's a strong argument to be made that the E*******l College is disadvantageous to states with smaller populations and therefor fewer e*******l v**es. Those running for e******n tend to give less attention to the views of the smaller states. On the other side the v**es of individual people living in very populous states carries far less weight than the individual v**es in the less populous states, and many see this as unfair.

debeda

PaulPisces wrote:

There's a strong argument to be made that the E*******l College is disadvantageous to states with smaller populations and therefor fewer e*******l v**es. Those running for e******n tend to give less attention to the views of the smaller states. On the other side the v**es of individual people living in very populous states carries far less weight than the individual v**es in the less populous states, and many see this as unfair.

Agreed. But, seeing as we are a Republic, should we make it each state gets one v**e? That would be heavily weighted against democrats...
And, because we are a Republic, v**es made in one state should not affect the v**es of another, which you have with popular v**e. So I guess the e*******l college is the best.

PaulPisces Loc: San Francisco

debeda wrote:

Agreed. But, seeing as we are a Republic, should we make it each state gets one v**e? That would be heavily weighted against democrats...
And, because we are a Republic, v**es made in one state should not affect the v**es of another, which you have with popular v**e. So I guess the e*******l college is the best.

Here is an interesting article that explores the issue. Edward Foley, in this article from January 2019, maintains that it is not the E*******l College structure itself that is inconsistent with our founders' intent, but the various ways the states apportion their e*******l v**es. The article is a bit long and sometimes meandering, but well worth the read.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/01/12/e*******l-college-reform-conservatives-223965

debeda

PaulPisces wrote:

Here is an interesting article that explores the issue. Edward Foley, in this article from January 2019, maintains that it is not the E*******l College structure itself that is inconsistent with our founders' intent, but the various ways the states apportion their e*******l v**es. The article is a bit long and sometimes meandering, but well worth the read.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/01/12/e*******l-college-reform-conservatives-223965

That's a good piece, and I'll read it again, there are some good ideas in there. Maybe the problem is even apportioning e*******l v**es. California, for instance, has a huge population and so gets more e*******l v**es. As does New York. My own state of Illinois is perhaps a good example. Only 3 counties v**ed blue - but all of the state's e*******l v**es went blue because those two counties contained Chicago, Springfield and a northern suburb of Chicago that is very populous. So the rest of the state was disenfranchised. Perhaps splitting the e*****rs is the best way, although preventing gerrymandering would be quite tricky, if even possible. Again, I'll read it a second time in case I missed anything, now I've gotta go cook