Fit2BTied Loc: Texas

I hear what you're saying. But Mitch doesn't work for Trump. Mitch works for Mitch or during the first 2 years of Trumps Presidency a lot more would've gotten done.

Sew_What

I don't think this is going to impeachment, seriously, Adam Schiffy is going to find something unlawful and there are other law suits pending in his home state. Impeachment is much like trying to change the constitution, it would be very strange if impeachment proceedings were to move forward.

maximus Loc: Chattanooga, Tennessee

Did the Russians force the states to destroy their ballots that cried fraud? Fraud on the democratic side is the only way she won the popular vote. I've read many cases of it that have just have not been investigated ( by democrats, as democrats were the most blamed of the two parties). The popular vote would not be fair to the smaller states, whether they elect democrat or republican.

markc Loc: Tennessee

Why are smaller states more important than larger states? And I am guessing you meant states with less population as opposed to states with more population. Who selects how many electoral votes a state gets to contribute to the electoral college? Do you know?
“The Electoral College is also part of compromises made at the convention to satisfy the small states. Under the system of the Electoral College, each state had the same number of electoral votes as they have a representative in Congress. Thus no state could have less than 3. The result of this system is that in this election the state of Wyoming cast about 210,000 votes, and thus each elector represented 70,000 votes, while in California approximately 9,700,000 votes were cast for 54 votes, thus representing 179,000 votes per electorate. This creates an unfair advantage to voters in the small states whose votes count more than those people living in medium and large states.”


https://www.historycentral.com/elections/Electoralcollgewhy.html

Also a very important analysis from the above link...”The founders also believed that the Electoral College had the advantage of being a group that met only once and thus could not be manipulated over time by foreign governments or others(and voted their conscience and not their bank account).” Times change, just sayin.

From Wiki
Article Five of the United States Constitution describes the process whereby the Constitution, the nation's frame of government, may be altered. Under Article V, the process to alter the Constitution consists of proposing an amendment or amendments, and subsequent ratification

maximus Loc: Chattanooga, Tennessee

The real issue is why are republican states more important that democratic states, when the democratic states did not see their woman take the race and simply put, can't get over it.
The flip side with the popular vote is the biggest, (meaning the most populous) states would choose the president forever more. With two of the most populous states being California and New York, states like my own, Tennessee, Vermont, Delaware, Maine, and others would never see their choice elected unless they voted as those two biggies did.
But forget about that and dwell on this...for 16 out of the last 26 years, you have enjoyed a democratic president WITH the electoral collage. So, a democrat was president for 66% of the time for the last 26 years "WITH THE ELECTORAL COLLAGE". Why the big fuss? Is that not fair? Remember, those who seek to change things only for the short run usually find that the "new rules" come 'round to bite them in the butt.
So a popular vote would mean a democratic president...heck!, the whole government for many, many years to come.
But people get tired of EVERYTHING! States would start pooling together to attempt to get the other guy elected.Eventually, they would succeed. THEN, there would be a republican president for many, many years. You know you wouldn't like that. Best to leave things alone that have worked for a long time.

Seth

markc Loc: Tennessee

What the F’ you talking bout Willis? “red and blue” states is why we have a problem communicating today. V

maximus Loc: Chattanooga, Tennessee

Let me rephrase that...The real question is NOT why should small states be more important than big states, because we never heard about any of this about doing away with the electoral collage until Hillary lost. The REAL question is...how can liberals be assured to have a democrat in the White House? For two hundred thirty years, the electoral collage has elected the president.
This explains it best;(not sure who wrote this)
If you look at article 2 of the U S Constitution you can see that the states are supposed to choose electors to represent their state at the electoral college for the purpose of choosing (electing) a president for the union. This means that the states elect the president not the people. It also says in article 2 that the method for selecting electors is left to each individual state. This means that it isn't necessary for the states or for the union to hold a presidential election where people vote. The president represents the union and is elected by the states, People are represented in the legislative branch of government. The president is not supposed to represent the people. In fact if there were to be a conflict of interest between the union and the people it is the presidents job to represent the union, the welfare of the union, the defense of the nation and the fiscal health of the nation. The state governments are democracies. The federal government is a republic. A republic doesn't require one man one vote but can elect the chief of state by other than a popular vote. The electors meet at their respective state capitols and the majority rules. Who ever wins the vote is how the state votes for the president. That is winner takes all. The president and vice president are our only offices filled by this method. Everyone who represents people is elected by a direct vote of those people. That is why we have a type of republic for the federal government. If you dispute that we are a republic repeat the pledge of allegiance.
Myself, I always wondered how we can be a democracy AND a republic....well this is how that is so.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

So you think that 4 liberal progs representing 100 square miles on the east coast and 100 square miles on the west coast should take the responsibility of leading a campaign for disenfranchising 63 million voters with the most unconscionable act of voter suppression in American history. I have no friggin clue what compels you to think that progressive hack, Schiff, has any evidence whatsoever of president Trump committing an unlawful act. He's the spit flying jerk who claimed he had indisputable evidence of Trump/Russia collusion. The fact that Mueller found no such thing should tell you something about Shifty.

Impeachment, for your information, is in fact a specific political process established in our constitution, it is not at all "like trying to change the constitution".

What a miserable excuse for an American citizen you are.

Sew_What

What part of my first sentence didn't you understand....

"I don't think this is going to impeachment, seriously,..."

I assume the rest of the garbage that you wrote was for someone else.

whitnebrat Loc: In the wilds of Oregon

Not quite true. In Federalist Papers #68, Hamilton wrote the following:
"It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture.
It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations."
This says to me that the people elected to the Electoral College should be the best and brightest from their areas, not the most partisan. We have to remember that at the time of the Constitution, most people had never been further than fifty miles from where they were born, and their knowledge of politics and government was minimal. This was an attempt by the founders to get away from the populist roar and try to elect the most capable person to run the country.
Thus, the state does not elect the Electoral College, the people do.

True only in the way that the states control how the electors are selected. This means that some states have a "winner take all" version of selection, while others are allotted proportionally by district.

Not true. As indicated above, the people do vote for the electors, but it is supposed to be a non-partisan issue. There is no choice as to whether a presidential election can be held (there isn't) or whether the people are entitled to vote for their electors (they are).

Not exactly. The president does represent the union, but is indirectly elected by the people of the various states. Their job is to "faithfully administer the laws of the United States" as is stated in the oath of office. They're effectively the CEO of the United States of America LLC. There can be no conflict of interest in the laws as passed by Congress and administered by the president.

Kinda sorta. Some states have proportional allocation … some have winner take all.
States are actually independent entities that are sovereign within their own borders. The federal government (as in a federation) is an umbrella entity which is governed by a Constitution that all the states have agreed to abide by. The states fashioned their governments largely after the federal one, but that doesn't mean that they actually have to do that. The Civil War was partially fought over this very principle that they could secede from the Union.
It used to be that the states appointed the Senate to represent the state at the federal level (somewhat like ambassadors with voting rights), and the House of Representatives actually was the voice of the people. This was changed by the Seventeenth Amendment, which allowed the popular election of Senators after a huge corruption scandal in the southern states.

It is indeed both and in this you are quite correct.
My apologies for being so long winded.

maximus Loc: Chattanooga, Tennessee

Perhaps you misunderstood my response. I believe that I noted that I didn't know who wrote it.
I don't remember saying anything about how the electors got the job. Since the article said that everybody gets elected by popular vote, making that a democracy, EXCEPT for the president, who is elected by the electoral collage, making by this process a republic
If the electors are elected by the people due to a democratic vote, then the electors still "represent" the people that elected them, making it a republic vote.
The question was, in the beginning, should the president be elected by the popular vote. THAT would make the country wholly a democracy, or mob rule.
Without the electoral collage, the smaller states have NO voice at all in who gets the presidency
That was my point.
You were very nice though and I thank you. I hope I have returned the kindness to you.
Have s great day!

whitnebrat Loc: In the wilds of Oregon

You were indeed!!! It is greatly appreciated. Until the next encounter ...