WTF ?!?!? A court ruling just changed how we pick our president
Aug 22, 2019 05:33:22 #
crazylibertarian
Loc: Florida by way of New York & Rhode Island
PeterS wrote:
We aren't a democracy remember. Only democracies follow majority rule...
Wow! Something of intelligence and accuracy & not laden with hate from PeterS. Will wonders never cease?
Aug 22, 2019 06:14:45 #
EmilyD wrote:
We are a Republic, Pete. Always have been...always will be.
Republic: A state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.
Republic: A state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.
Then you have no problem with electors having the power to vote for whomever they want. After all, if this was a winner take all there would be no need for Electors as there is no constitutional requirement for them to vote for the majority winner if they don't think the winner is the best person qualified. This is the system you cons embrace over what you perceive to be a democracy so I can't see that any of you would object to the ruling by this court.
You all are constitutionalists and are Republicans who hate democracies. So live with it...
Aug 22, 2019 06:24:52 #
crazylibertarian wrote:
Wow! Something of intelligence and accuracy & not laden with hate from PeterS. Will wonders never cease?
Actually, it was a completely stupid comment. A representative republic is simply the form of democracy that we employ. In most cases, ours is majority rule. In the case of the electoral college that is the exception. I am simply playing on you conservatives ability towards willful ignorance--especially where it agrees with the way you think.
Aug 22, 2019 06:41:11 #
woodguru wrote:
That was the purpose of the electoral college, to act as a foil to bad choices. But you apparently believe that a state's electoral should all go to the popular vote and disregard the population that didn't vote for them? Let the electoral be split according to popular vote, the GOP is dead because they are controlling states with minority GOP voters. Democracy is about majority rule, not minority.
Except there are fifty elections, not one! That can’t be Changed by bypassing the Electoral College and calling us a democracy...........we’re not and we’re never founded as one.
Aug 22, 2019 06:55:03 #
rebob14 wrote:
Except there are fifty elections, not one! That can’t be Changed by bypassing the Electoral College and calling us a democracy...........we’re not and we’re never founded as one.
A representative Republic is THE form of Democracy that we practice. That said, based on our constitution there is nothing to require an elector to vote for a candidate they feel is unfit--even if that is the person the majority of the state voted for.
The court hasn't changed how we pick our president. I simply don't think you conservatives understand how we elect our president or why the founders set it up as they did which is why you cons think the court is somehow trying to steal something from you and that a representative republic isn't a democracy!!!
Aug 22, 2019 08:39:03 #
woodguru wrote:
That was the purpose of the electoral college, to act as a foil to bad choices. But you apparently believe that a state's electoral should all go to the popular vote and disregard the population that didn't vote for them? Let the electoral be split according to popular vote, the GOP is dead because they are controlling states with minority GOP voters. Democracy is about majority rule, not minority.
In today’s standards with the brain dead libs it would be considered mob rule!
Aug 22, 2019 10:14:53 #
1ProudAmerican wrote:
No it hasn't;its always been that way.The presidential electoriates have never been required officially to cast their ballots as the popular voted has mandated.The appeals court simply has made it official that they don't have to,negating certain enforcement procedures they do in order to ensure that they vote the way the popular vote wants them to.
That is not nesscesarily an asset as oppose to being a liabilitious for Trump,It depends on how the electoriate feels about that specific candidate.Judging how the average person felt of trump, in 2016 ,especially taking into account that he lost the popular vote, I would ascertain that the electoriate in certain states would have decided against him-but-was forced to vote as the popular vote mandated due to those aforemention enforcement processes they have to in-sure
that the electoriates vote as they are expected to vote.
The greater concern is that this will negate the whole Democratic process, therefore is it not constituional.This thwarts the will of the people.The popular vote prevailing is in it self - A DEMOCRACY
Aug 22, 2019 10:37:32 #
Aug 22, 2019 10:47:43 #
slatten49
Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas
EmilyD wrote:
We are a Republic, Pete. Always have been...always will be.
Republic: A state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.
Republic: A state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.
Well...not quite, Emily.
http://volokh.com/2013/10/28/democracy-republic-mutually-exclusive-terms/
Aug 22, 2019 11:26:20 #
woodguru wrote:
That was the purpose of the electoral college, to act as a foil to bad choices. But you apparently believe that a state's electoral should all go to the popular vote and disregard the population that didn't vote for them? Let the electoral be split according to popular vote, the GOP is dead because they are controlling states with minority GOP voters. Democracy is about majority rule, not minority.
woodguru... I have been looking to have an Amendment that has each Presidential/Vice-Presidential Electorate having to cast their vote as the Plurality/Majority winner their District...
Aug 22, 2019 11:29:04 #
nwtk2007
Loc: Texas
1ProudAmerican wrote:
I thought the members of the electoral college were already free to vote differently from the winner of the popular vote.
Aug 22, 2019 11:59:06 #
PeterS wrote:
Then you have no problem with electors having the ... (show quote)
Name a democracy in power today.
Aug 22, 2019 12:00:09 #
1ProudAmerican wrote:
By doing this, Trump has now pretty much made "individual voting" a fluke. So much for "one person, one vote." sad.
Aug 22, 2019 12:04:53 #
dongreen76 wrote:
No it hasn't;its always been that way.The presiden... (show quote)
I'm hearing Google swayed the election the hag's way by as little as 3 million votes and as much as 10 million. Betcha someone pisses in Google's cornflakes this time around...and I bet there's a lot less cheating in Democrat strongholds because someone will be waiting to prosecute them for it.
I'm hearing JW is successfully suing to have voter roles cleaned up.
Voter ID is on the way. Illegals voting will be stopped. Last election set the stage for this one.
Aug 22, 2019 12:11:58 #
slatten49
Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas
nwtk2007 wrote:
I thought the members of the electoral college were already free to vote differently from the winner of the popular vote.
I believe they always have been. But, as a result, the party/state has always had the prerogative to cancel their vote.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.