jump to last post 1-29 of 29 discussions (236 posts)

The Electoral College

  1. peoplepower73 profile image88
    peoplepower73posted 3 weeks ago

    People are protesting President Elect Trump? Because Hillary won the popular vote by .3% Trump = 47.4%, Hillary = 47.7%, but she lost the electoral college. That means more people voted for Hillary's platform than for Trump's. The electoral college must go. It is outdated and was for a younger America, not the America of today.

    Do you know who your electors that are supposed to vote for us on December 19th?  I certainly don't.  I live in California where we have 55 electors.  I don't know a single one of them by name. How are the electors selected?  If I don't know who my electors are and yet they represent me, how is that democracy?  I certainly had nothing to do with selecting them, but yet they represent me.

    Somebody, please tell me how this works

    1. PhoenixV profile image78
      PhoenixVposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

      I'm all for it. When all those people spread out in every county in every state believe their vote will count regardless of whether their state is red or blue, hold on to your hat.

    2. ahorseback profile image47
      ahorsebackposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

      As best as I can articulate ;
      New York city , LA.,  Chicago,   Baltimore ,  and a small handful of highly populated and ideologically group of cities on the left or right could or  would elect the president in popular voting , in every single election !
      Or , is so motivated , a certain popular uprising of say younger voters alone , or a popular faction of a certain combination of voters could do so , say new immigrants , youth and liberals ,   every single time ! Each of these --outnumbering ---the majority of popular voting Americans by lack of electoral  college divide   -COULD elect  a president  consistently !
      Read the reasoning for the electoral college from the founding fathers , KEEPING IN MIND , we were NOT  designed as a  "democratic " voting nation ,but a republic of states with voter  choice .

      Nothing needs to change in the electoral college .

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image87
        Kathryn L Hillposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

        +1

    3. Don W profile image84
      Don Wposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

      The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC)

      "If a state passes the NPVIC, it vows to assign its electors to whichever candidate wins the national popular vote—but only once enough states have joined the NPVIC to guarantee that candidate 270 electoral votes.

      Ten states and D.C. have already joined the compact, adding up to a combined 165 electoral votes—or 61.1 percent of the votes necessary for the compact to take effect. If a few more states join, their combined electoral votes will reach 270, and the compact will take legal force. The winner of the popular vote will instantly be awarded the necessary electoral votes to become president under the Constitution. States that refused to join the compact can do nothing to stop it."(1)

      States where NPVIC has been enacted into law, plus DC:

      California
      District of Columbia
      Hawaii
      Illinois
      Maryland
      Massachusetts
      New Jersey
      New York
      Rhode Island
      Vermont
      Washington(2)

      (1)http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/ … dment.html

      (2)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_ … te_Compact

      1. RJ Schwartz profile image92
        RJ Schwartzposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

        And you really think it's a good idea to have the fate of the nation determined by a list of Liberal States, huh?

        Your example is PRECISELY why we have the EC

      2. Dennis AuBuchon profile image81
        Dennis AuBuchonposted 13 days ago in reply to this

        Don W

        I have not heard of this NPVic.  Where did you get the information

        1. Don W profile image84
          Don Wposted 13 days ago in reply to this

          Sources right there in the links.

          More information can be found at the National Conference of State Legislatures site
          http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections- … -vote.aspx

          The word really needs to spread on this. It look like a viable solution.

          1. Dennis AuBuchon profile image81
            Dennis AuBuchonposted 13 days ago in reply to this

            thanks

    4. GA Anderson profile image86
      GA Andersonposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

      I would be glad to help promisem, but first I need to know what you know. I mean, no need to offer a pasta recipe if you don't know how to boil water.

      For instance; When you checked out the basics of the workings and purpose of the electoral college, what about that purpose and design do you think has been outgrown and dated? Hopefully it's not the truth that we are a Republic of states. That isn't it is it?

      That might come off as a bit snarkier then intended, but in many electoral conversations, that does seem to be a frequent sentiment from folks that want to do away with it.

      As for the part about your electors, that information is available to you if it is important, but in your state they are required to vote with the popular vote. So you don't have to worry about backroom shenanigans. (unless you believe those rumors about Democrat vote swapping)

      GA

    5. wba108@yahoo.com profile image84
      wba108@yahoo.composted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

      That Hillary won the popular vote, I think is irrelevant because both candidates strategized to win the electoral vote. If the popular vote won elections, candidates would craft their strategy to accommodate that.
      As to the electoral college being outdated, I don’t see why. The EC was created for several reasons:

      1) To prevent mob rule and enhance the rule of law, (To prevent a 51% majority from denying the rights of the other 49%). The founders saw the dangers of direct democracy like what happened in the French revolution where a Despot manipulated the passions and prejudices of the people with murderous results.   

      2) To strengthen the states. The founders wanted to ensure that the concerns of smaller states weren’t trampled by majorities in more populated states. This had the added benefit of unity because it forced presidential candidates to win a broader constituency and not just to appeal to larger states or urban areas.

      3) It provides checks and balances. The purpose of the EC was crafted much like the other elements of our government to provide checks and balances. This is why we have two houses of Congress, the lower house representing the people in direct proportion to their population and the Senate which apportions state representation regardless of population. This was created to enhance the power of individual states as a check on the power of larger states and federal power

      To sum it up, the EC was designed as a check on majority rule, to enhance the power of individual states, to promote unity by making political parties appeal to large and diverse areas of the country and not just urban population centers.

      1. PhoenixV profile image78
        PhoenixVposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

        Pretty clear.

    6. PhoenixV profile image78
      PhoenixVposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

      https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/15079056_1332874363398140_3624190004579702589_n.jpg?oh=b63de76d7fca4afb8c02d087d3c3edd4&oe=58871E15

    7. rhamson profile image76
      rhamsonposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

      "Democracy... while it lasts is more bloody than either aristocracy or monarchy. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide." John Adams

      "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51 percent of the people may take away the rights of the other 49." Thomas Jefferson

      Some of the framers of the Constitution did not have much respect for democracy. That is why it is set up as a Constitutional Republic where representation is divided equally among the populace.

      "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." Winston Churchill

      It seems as though the thought about it is international and modern as well.

      1. peoplepower73 profile image88
        peoplepower73posted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

        Rhamson:  Then why do we try to impose our democracy on other countries, if we know it is going to be a failure?  We even try to democratize theocracies like Islam.

        1. rhamson profile image76
          rhamsonposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

          I don't know either as that is what I have questioned for years. The other thing is that you have cultural limitations as to what other countries will accept. I don't know any country with the maturity or educated electorate to make a pure democracy work. Look at the ignorance you hear from the "man on the street" interviews that expose how uninformed and educated our populace is about current events, civics knowledge and political issues. Most don't even know who the vice-president is. Our system was set up to cover all those areas in its current form. What the founders did not provide was a way to intervene when money overrode the good of the country for greedy gains. I should say there is a way but we don't teach it in the schools and the public is too apathetic to chase it.

          1. Castlepaloma profile image23
            Castlepalomaposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

            The 30 or 40 years the system is broken , we all know, we the vast majority keep getting less the rich get more. Why carry on with hit on the head lessons. Do something, don't waste away your lives.

            A. Lock up bankers Federal reserved bring credit debt back to zero and fire all Federal Government. A few will get killed, yet better than being burnt out servant and slaves.

            B. Wait for world war and another civil war so they can take your money from your bank account for debts owning to support the wars.

            C.Move to the southern Hemisphere to avoid 90% of population and war,.avoid 95% pollution.

            1. rhamson profile image76
              rhamsonposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

              Yes the system is broken. Any system can be worked around given enough time as the greedy find ways and exploit it's weakness' as a part of doing business. How anybody thinks Trump will change this is beyond me. He was a temper tantrum of the electorate and will go the way so many others have in the past. The rules need some updating but it has to be Constitutional. You cannot just take someones wealth and property because you feel like it. Wars come and go but the public debt is separate from the private debt. That is the law. The southern hemisphere is no bowl of cherries as well. With the mini dictators and some governments in bed with drug cartels it is a no brainer. Besides running away from a problem does not make it go away. I like living in this country and I have lived abroad to make that distinction. There are still more freedoms and opportunity here. No I do not think wealth is what drives this feeling. We just need to address a few problems to fine tune this countries woes.

              1. Castlepaloma profile image23
                Castlepalomaposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

                My dreams have never been wrong and what they are telling me is i must leave because of the accelerating destruction that is about to come. Then it is a matter of confirming it all from the writing on the wall. The numerology dose not lie to me either, not much hope I envision for North America. All the illegitimate Corporatism are against my product of eco substainable tiny houses .  Where other Countries are screaming for our healthy and affordable product for the vast majority's of people.

                1. rhamson profile image76
                  rhamsonposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

                  Then you must answer your calling or business future. However you cannot require a change of conscience of the American consumer. There are graveyards of failed and bankrupt business who could not do that. Good luck to you and your endeavor.

                2. Kathryn L Hill profile image87
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

                  Haven't you moved to Bolivia YET?

                3. ahorseback profile image47
                  ahorsebackposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

                  Will you please,  please, please  tell us the story of chicken little again ...............Oh please .

                  1. Castlepaloma profile image23
                    Castlepalomaposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

                    It is the old Paul Reverse story I am telling. Yet has spread to worldwide harm and threatening all earthlings.

                    The chicken little story is constantly and Religious told by Zionist violences and delustion in media and entertainment. The concept is to have to Americans chicken heads cut off . In order to inject the propaganda machine to have most us killed by first people basic cost of living. About 75% of Americans live by pay cheque to pay cheque on jobs they dislike.

                    The Zionist foxes who guard the CORPERATION hen houses will cut off the hens food supply. Then the hens will attack each other cutting off each other heads again. Much like they have in done with the Muslim hens where Christians hens invade or bombs their heads off of them.
                    Imagine a billion Muslims hens in a fight with a billion Christians hens, a marriage made for hell. We are only over crowded livestock to Zionist master foxes of the hen houses.

    8. Rock_nj profile image91
      Rock_njposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

      I am not a big fan of the electoral college, because everyone's vote should matter, no matter where they live.  Statewide races are run by popular vote, with no preference given to less populated areas, as the electoral college does on a national level.  State elections don't tend to ignore parts of a states. 

      People say that without the electoral college, less populated areas would be ignored by Presidential candidates.  They could do that at their own peril.  Besides, plenty of states and areas are totally ignored now, due to the electoral college, since it is the swing states that candidates concentrate on.

      It appears now that the final votes are being counted, Hillary is ahead by more than 2 million votes, which is about a 1.5% lead in the popular vote (source:  http://uselectionatlas.org/)

      1. Castlepaloma profile image23
        Castlepalomaposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

        Would not surprise me Hillary got 2 million more votes,, it seem more than 70% of the people in the country are disappointed in Trump already with protests to continue of civil unrest never seen at this scale before.

        There 18 million invalid votes they could swing either way too. There enough evidence since 1968 where a black man who ran for President and got 9 million votes out of Pennsylvania to tell you it is a selection not an election out of total fraud.

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image87
          Kathryn L Hillposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

          Donald is on a Positive path. You don't understand that path. He does. Hopefully he will get the economy percolating again with less regulation on business, keeping overtaxation at bay, letting the people do what they do best: LIVE.

          1. Castlepaloma profile image23
            Castlepalomaposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

            You understand Trump well , yet can not explain in detail to me or to most of the country why all the race, gender, and Religious torment greater than ever, plus greater horrors to come.

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image87
              Kathryn L Hillposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

              You really are telling political fairy tales as you once admitted.

              1. Castlepaloma profile image23
                Castlepalomaposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

                Politics and religion are fairytales I can relate to them in fantasy form to bring them parachuting back to earth. Most people cannot handle the truth well because most are led by fear.

  2. Au fait profile image92
    Au faitposted 3 weeks ago

    Read my article on How the Electoral College Works which includes how electors are selected.

    1. Au fait profile image92
      Au faitposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

      Should have included this above, sorry. 
      http://hubpages.com/politics/How-Does-t … oral-Votes

  3. Castlepaloma profile image23
    Castlepalomaposted 3 weeks ago

    Even though the US almost totally dominated by franchise of Corporatism.

    Then corporatism lobbyist dominated the two party system.

    You would think for at least one thing the American people can have a say toward. These Americans pay more taxes than for their food and rent . Why can't they have one simple single thing to say by a vote for or about the corrupted illegitimate Government , they have to worship everyday beyond God. Most Americans have no say to even in what other countries they are destroying.

  4. peoplepower73 profile image88
    peoplepower73posted 3 weeks ago

    Au fait:  Those videos are excellent.  Do you mind if I share your Hub Page  on Facebook?

    1. Au fait profile image92
      Au faitposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

      Please do share it with as many people who need to understand this process better.  Hope it also helped with your question on the selection of electors.  Unfortunately it would take several electors refusing to vote as expected to change this election.  But I agree that this institution needs to go.  Thanks, Mike.

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

        If it goes, so does the tiny protection the minority, small population, states currently have.  The large metropolitan areas will control all elective functions, leaving the huge minority without any voice at all.

        Just a thought.

        1. Au fait profile image92
          Au faitposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

          I think it's more important that every voter's vote counts equally than it is to worry that every state be equal.  Since population is what matters, every  state is never going to be equal in every way.  Citizens/voters are what this should be about and by making decisions based on the popular vote we make sure everyone's vote counts equally.

          If you watch the last video in my article on the Electoral College you will see that votes in different states have different values regardless of the state's size/population.

          1. Victoria Lynn profile image88
            Victoria Lynnposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

            Agreed. I don't understand the "reasoning" that bigger states will have more power. Each individual has the same vote, no matter what state they are in. With the electoral college, so many individual votes are lost when the state wins enough to win the electoral votes. That makes no sense. We go by popular vote in local and state elections. We should in national elections. The electoral college had a purpose when it was started centuries ago. It has no place now.

  5. Kathryn L Hill profile image87
    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 weeks ago

    We live in a republic of states. If every state was the same size we would not need the electoral college. If you want to get rid of the electoral college you would have to make every state the exact same size.
      Which is impossible, so….

    1. Credence2 profile image86
      Credence2posted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

      I don't get your reasoning why do states have to be the same size? The states and their government are placed there by the electorate. These elections decisions should be based on population. So, a state like Wyoming cannot have the political influence of California and rightfully so. What does your Federalist Papers have to say about that?

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image87
        Kathryn L Hillposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

        same size / same population amount

    2. ptosis profile image79
      ptosisposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

      Straw man argument invalid, Chewbacca lives on Endor
      There are many ways to vote, not just simple majority.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image87
        Kathryn L Hillposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

        We live in a republic of states. If every state was the same size we would not need the electoral college. If you want to get rid of the electoral college you would have to make every state the exact same size.
          Which is impossible, so….

        I forgot to say: with the same amount of people

        1. Castlepaloma profile image23
          Castlepalomaposted 13 days ago in reply to this

          They tell me the college electoral votes is in Constitution.

          Time to change because women and others races could not vote making up the majority of Americans and white Christians are still predominately stealing the President title.

          Also each person in Wyoming gets 3 times the voting count than someone in California. Making it also dominated by Nick, hillbillies , rednecks and farmers, where many have no idea what going on in the world.

          1. rhamson profile image76
            rhamsonposted 13 days ago in reply to this

            Those who come late to the realizations of quirks in the application of the Constitution with regards to outcomes have to live with the consequences. You cannot invalidate someone by their personal inconsistencies unless it is in the Constitution. That is why the results of the election is legal and binding. Unless we take mature and orderly steps to change the Constitution to make it meet our modern needs nothing will get done to change any of this.

            Term limits, publicly funded campaigns and lobby reform should be tops on our list to enact. We will need an Article 5 Constitutional Convention to change the way the politicians have perverted the law.

            1. Castlepaloma profile image23
              Castlepalomaposted 13 days ago in reply to this

              Since 1913 America is a fully functional franchises of Corporation and the lawyers get their way with the Constitution that way favor them. And screw the Constitution the way they want.
              America is a dictatorship the way USSR was from my experience in being in both places.
              Democracy is a lie especially when it comes to war.

  6. Au fait profile image92
    Au faitposted 3 weeks ago

    The Electoral College has benefitted Republicans recently, not only in this election but in the first G.W. election.  While that may seem good to Republicans, it could one of these days do just the opposite.  Electors are not required by law in most of the states to vote according to their state's popular vote and in some elections over history have not done so.  Next time may not serve Republicans so well. Keep that in mind.

    I recommend you watch the last video (it's very short) in the article I wrote about this issue and see if you still feel the same way.

    Personally, I prefer depending on the popular vote entirely.  That way everyone's vote is equal regardless of where they live or what party they identify with.  I think most members of our electorate, even if they don't agree with me, are capable of voting intelligently and do not need the Electoral College to look over their shoulder and possibly negate their wishes for some reason. 

    The real purpose of the EC was to be a safeguard against an uneducated uninformed electorate putting someone in the Oval Office that is totally unequipped to serve.  It still has the power to ignore the popular vote and though not likely, could legally vote someone in who wasn't even on the ballot.

    1. The Old Guard profile image82
      The Old Guardposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

      Then, you need to get rid of the Constitution. That's the reason the Electoral College in place.
      A simple history lesson explains why the founders did not want the popular vote to decide the Presidential elections.
      You  should have learned this in high school.
      There's specific reasons the popular vote is not the deciding factor in the Presidential elections.

  7. ahorseback profile image47
    ahorsebackposted 3 weeks ago

    Kathryn, I admit I'm not the most articulate , But my arguments cannot be broken , my political insight is  unblemished ,   my ................oh enough of that , isn't this fun ?

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image87
      Kathryn L Hillposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

      totally. I have been hearing that the protestors are being bussed in.  ?? not surprising.

      1. Credence2 profile image86
        Credence2posted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

        No law against protesting as long as it is peaceful and not disorderly. I encourage it. Keep Trump under surveillance long before he takes office.

        1. ahorseback profile image47
          ahorsebackposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

          If "protests " were all this was that would be normal . -But the LA riots years ago and the thug incited violence and property damage today ; SHOULD be dealt with like  always -tear gas them until they  go home to mommies basement apartment and look for  dinner to arrive !

          1. Credence2 profile image86
            Credence2posted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

            The protests will be lawful and normal, but intense, long, frequent and always in the press. Trump will not find an uncritical place to rest his pompadour.

            1. ahorseback profile image47
              ahorsebackposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

              Lawful ?    Lawful is not pulling OLD white Trump voters out of cars  in Chicago and kicking the living shyte out  of them !  Burning cars , buildings and  tearing down the cities , But I understand your impression  and understanding of lawful ........Not !

              1. Credence2 profile image86
                Credence2posted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

                But, your idea of lawful is that they not occur at all. We just all shut up and Trump be Trump. Let us see if he will lay things out according to his Mein Kamph?

          2. Kathryn L Hill profile image87
            Kathryn L Hillposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

            and then their mommies should kick them out.  What would they DO???!!!!
            well, this lack of work is a problem today and exactly what Trump would like to help fix!!!!
            My, MY!
            Liberals/ Progressiives and all your (un) helpful utopian unworkable ideas/ideals,
            YOU ARE FIRED!!!

            sad do I not care about the triteness of saying that?  I guess not yikes!

            1. Sychophantastic profile image83
              Sychophantasticposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

              More of you need to read The Daily Stormer, then you'd be a convert like me. It prints facts, not ridiculous conjecture. I'm sure Kathryn and Ahorseback and colorfulone all read it. It truly has changed my opinion. We need to look out for ourselves and our nation first. This nation was built on certain ideals by certain people and they need to be respected and taken care of first. We're the children of the sun. Hail, Trump!

              1. Credence2 profile image86
                Credence2posted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

                How could I fail to not take in the timely wisdom of the Daily Stormer? Look at the clever people already in the know for their timely wisdom who reads it. I am sure it will help me develop the RIGHT attitude.

                Appreciate the tip,

                Hail Trump!!

                1. Sychophantastic profile image83
                  Sychophantasticposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

                  You'll be a lot happier if you just read it and think about what it has to say. Trump is President now. We need him to succeed. The Daily Stormer provides the information we need to understand what's going on. And, of course, it's just not the Daily Stormer, it's Breitbart too. This is where respectable people are getting their information now.

              2. PhoenixV profile image78
                PhoenixVposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this



                Maybe " War on the horizon" are where folks are reading.

              3. Kathryn L Hill profile image87
                Kathryn L Hillposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

                No, I have not read it or heard of it. I was fortunate enough to have a Professor named Rick Williams, from Cornell University, who taught Social Science 131 and 132. I received a D the first 131 course. I studied harder, I wrote more, sometimes all night to hand in papers, and gradually understood.  By the third semester of taking his classes I received a B. Then I took Philosophy at both the undergraduate and graduate level where I studied Plato's Republic and many other philosophers, old and new.
                    I am still gaining understanding by conferring with The Federalist Papers which are hard to read at first, but you just have to get over your ADHD. Putting them in simpler/modern phrasing is helpful.

                Recommended reading: The Mass Media and Modern Democracy, edited by Harry M Clor
                and Banfeild's Unheavenly City Revisited.

                While this TMI blurp makes me sound super intellectual, my degree was in Art.  Why am I talking so much about myself? Because I want the country to remain free. If I can understand how to keep us free, any one can!

  8. jacharless profile image82
    jacharlessposted 3 weeks ago

    You know, this whole EC thing is more comical than anything. Even now a petition is out in an attempt to sway the EC into a faithless vote to get Hillary Clinton into the office. The sad thing, the last substantial faithless vote was in 1783, and only because the president-elect died two weeks after the elections were held, forcing a faithless vote.

    I'll wager 99.9% of naturally-born citizens of the United States have never actually read Article I or II of the Constitution, nor understand why the Electoral System was created; and why the popular vote cannot override the electoral vote. Today, it is more relevant than ever before why the founding members created and wrote the EC into the Constitution.

    For those unaware, the short version:
    The Electoral College was created to enable a fair process of elections, where no one party or representative from any state would have "winner take all" ability. This was to avoid rigging during elections in favor of one candidate over another, and to allow smaller states to have an equal say and share of electoral power against larger populated states that could otherwise force a "popular majority" vote based on sheer numbers alone.

    The popular vote is counted and displayed to show exact votes for the candidate and to compare those votes to each states electors - like delegates in primary races- for complete transparency. The popular vote does not, nor has it ever been used to, choose a president, vice president, senator, congressmen or Supreme Court Justice. The Delegates or Electors are chosen in each state by primary results and equally divided, based on each states rules and rules under the Articles. This results in a fair system and avoids a party-monopoly.

    In today's political world, to get around the popular vote issue, candidates now use Super PACs and various lobbyists to gain more electoral delegates or bolster the popular vote in one candidates direction. In other words: bribes & favors.

    In short, asking now for a faithless vote or imposing a popular vote victory is a direct violation of the Constitution. To dissolve the EC would be to dissolve the two fundamental Articles of the entire document, rendering the entire document -and all its contents- null and void. Such a result would put the United States of America into a state of complete and total chaotic anarchy, versus altruistic anarchy.

    And, in opinion, given the nature of the recent violent protest and widespread violence across the country for the last several decades, do not believe the citizen majority is ready nor able to live in a peaceful, self-governed society. It is precisely these two Articles that the 13 British colonies based their decision to secede from the monarchical dictatorship of George III (aka rigged popular vote majority) in order to form -play close attention:a more perfect union, establish justice (multi-branch governance) and insure domestic tranquility (aka non chaotic anarchy)...

    1. Credence2 profile image86
      Credence2posted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

      Interesting, popular vote, based solely on numbers alone. What other basis should it be built on?

      While, I generally support the electoral college for the reasons that you provide, I cannot abide the idea that the decision of the college continues to take precedence over the popular vote. Once in a blue moon, I can excuse it. It  just seem that in 2000 and this time when this happens, GOP benefits. I don't want the principle of one man, one vote overridden in deference to the EC. This may have been a good idea that has outlived its usefulness. I don't see why populations in smaller states deserve such an advantage. Let them attract population from other states and become larger if they want more of a say.

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

        It has happened 4 times in 200 years.  Is that too great, really something needs addressed?

        Jacharless is correct: on part of the reasoning is to give smaller states at least some voice in the election, the same way they have an equal vote in the Senate.  EXACTLY the same way, for an elector is appointed for each representative and each senator. 

        This was actually news to me, as I had never looked into it.  But after reflection I have to agree that it is a good system for a republic of states, for the United States of America.  Much of our constitution is constructed around preventing tyranny of a majority and protecting the minority.  Something I do feel we need, perhaps more now than even in the beginning as our society and culture polarizes into subgroups.

        1. Credence2 profile image86
          Credence2posted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

          Yourpoint is well taken, Wilderness.

          As I said in a recent post, this has happened twice in 16 years, is the trend accelerating. I don't to see this sort of outcome happen too frequently.

          I understand the priciple of the state being represented as entity in itself regardless of their relative population. But, I am the state, and its interests cannot deviate from that of myself the majority of its citizens. The can be no House of Lords and House of Commons in America. Thus the explanation for the early 20th century amendment requiring direct election of senators.

          I understand the danger of tyranny of the majority and appreciate the constitutional provisions to prevent its occurrence.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

            It's a good question, whether it is accelerating.  And it may be - although there has always been some city vs rural in our elections it seems like it is getting larger as a larger and larger percentage of people move to cities.  And that is what the difference was in this election - if you look at state election maps it is very, very clear that rural America voted one way, metropolitan America the other.  Whether the state went red or blue, we see that.

            So at what point does it stop being tyranny and being reasonable?  70% city?  80?  90?  When is it unreasonable to give rural America a say in what happens, if that say is contrary to what cities want?

            1. Credence2 profile image86
              Credence2posted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

              Well, since the country has made the transition in the early 20th century from a rural to an urban society, it was just a matter of time when this day would come. The trend is the trend. It is true that rural America is red. The concept of a rural life and lifestyle may be on the way out, just as we have seen with other demographic changes over the last century. This is just one of many. Rural America still has a say, and have the right to cast a ballot like any city dweller, but majority has to win and I don't see a reason to defer an advantage to less populated entities regardless of their geographic spread.

              Small states, population wise, are given an advantage in the Senate relative to its more populated neighbors. I did not make a fuss about the EC taking precedent over the popular vote, as it was an aberration, not worth upsetting the apple cart over. But, the differences in the political parties and viewpoints between the country mouse and city mouse are far more contentious and partisan today. Add to the danger of what was once an aberration becoming routine, things are going to have to change

              I hear what your saying Wilderness, I just don't know if we can fairly accomodate your suggestion within a democratic system

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

                "The concept of a rural life and lifestyle may be on the way out,"

                Perhaps.  And perhaps not - if Trump is going to revitalize our production abilities and jobs it won't be in the middle Manhattan or LA.  It will be in the more rural areas of the country.

                "Rural America still has a say, and have the right to cast a ballot like any city dweller, but majority has to win"

                Sure they do - it's just that if it continues to change they know that their vote will exactly as much meaning as an ice crystal in the Antarctic.  Zero.

                "Small states, population wise, are given an advantage in the Senate relative to its more populated neighbors."

                They are indeed.  And they are given the exact same advantage in the EC.  Exact, as it is formed with the same exact numbers.

                I don't really know how to solve this either.  I just know that disenfranchising half the country is not the answer.  That [requiring vast tracts of people to change their culture and lifestyle to match something completely foreign to them, and in a radically different environment, isn't going to go over well.

                1. peoplepower73 profile image88
                  peoplepower73posted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

                  Widerness:

                  "Perhaps.  And perhaps not - if Trump is going to revitalize our production abilities and jobs it won't be in the middle Manhattan or LA.  It will be in the more rural areas of the country."

                  When are you and many others going to accept the facts that presidents don't create jobs, other than FDR and those were make work projects to get us out of the depression.  Those people in rural areas that don't have jobs have been passed over by technology and globalization.  They need to be retrained into skills that are now in demand. Ninety five percent of the population is employed.

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

                    Don't be silly - 95% is NOT employed.  Not even 70% is employed.  Not even 50%.  Not even 95% of employable people.

                    While you are happy depending on other countries for our basic needs (cars, steel, refrigerators, computers, etc.) not everyone is and definitely want actual production of our products back into the country.  And those plants will not be built in Manhattan.  If we cannot accept that we are dooming ourselves into a continual slide downward until the living standards of the entire world are approximately equal.

              2. GA Anderson profile image86
                GA Andersonposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

                Wait, wait. I gotta jump in.

                "The concept of a rural life and lifestyle may be on the way out ... "

                Think about that a minute. Doesn't that amount to feeling non-urban folks are just minions?

                My first thought is that's not you, but, I remember other times when you have teetered on the edge. Do  you really believe the perspective behind what you said? "Sure, you get to vote, but it won't matter!"

                Can't you see that perspective is exactly the perspective the Constitution was designed to protect against. Or at least mitigate as much as possible. Your statement appears to be in line with the concept of The Hunger Games movies - the "districts," (states), are just there to support the "Capitol."

                I do not believe small states are given an advantage in the Senate. Why would you believe equal representation is an advantage?

                ps. Take a few nights and read Asimov's Foundation Trilogy". I bet you will find worrying similarities to the perspective you advocate.

                GA

                1. PrettyPanther profile image85
                  PrettyPantherposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

                  I don't remember which thread it was you replied to my statement about the EC, so I'll join the discussion here. I have, for a long time, been struggling with the EC. I understand all of the arguments in its favor.

                  Wyoming's half million people get two votes and California's almost 40 million people get two votes in the Senate. This is giving equal representation by state regardless of population. This makes sense, as it is a Senator's explicit charge to represent the residents of his or her state. The President, on the other hand, is charged with representing the entire country, so why are we voting by state? It makes no sense in this modern age for a president to lose after receiving the popular vote. He represents all of us, so giving some voters a little more say because of where they reside makes no sense to me.

                  1. ahorseback profile image47
                    ahorsebackposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

                    Lay-mans terms.
                    I wish liberals would read a history book once in a while ,       The federal governments entire purpose is defined in and by the constitution ,  It's purpose ?       If there were only four states that divided  this great country , each of those four states would need equal protection ,  federally  ,      That is the SOLE  constitutional purpose of   the U.S. government and it's ultimate obligations .

                    Americans  should  ALL know by now that America is NOT a democracy , it's a republic of  its individual states ,  Its federal government is originally oriented to the EQUAL protection and representation OF these STATES,    Not the masses of  SOME  of it's people but  all of them.

                  2. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

                    Like you, I have struggled with the EC.  Over the years, I've slowly come to support it for the most part.  The reasoning is two fold:

                    1)  As ahorseback says, we ARE a republic and while I might (and do) speak is if it were one country it is what it is and we need to recognize that.

                    2) But more importantly is the reality of politics in this country.  I disagree that a Senator's primary task is to represent the state: I find that the primary duty is to govern the country, with their state's desires coming in second place.  A strong second place, but second it is.

                    But our pathetic political system doesn't work that way - both the representatives and senators are there for their own purposes.  Not for their state and not for the country; for their own purposes and this includes, in a big way, satisfying their voters.  The majority of Pork goes to states with long term representation - to the states with the most political power.  Those states re-elect the senator (or representative) that got them the new museum or park.  That got them the new mass transit or Amtrak stop.  That another state with less "pull" suffers as a result and goes without actual needs because a powerful one wanted that museum but didn't want to pay for it is forgotten and set aside.

                    I remember when the 55MPH limit went in nationwide.  It was installed for the express purposes of saving lives and fuel and was a reasonable compromise for those areas with high traffic patterns and short trips.  For the states with wide open roads, low traffic density and hours long trips it was a nightmare, but if they didn't follow along they lost their federal grants for road repair/construction.  This is the result when the needs of the few are set aside in favor of the desires of the many. 

                    And at the top of the chain is the President and the EC elections.  Now if that President governed according to the needs of the nation it would be great.  But he/she doesn't; they govern according to the requirements of the political party that put them in office and that goes right back to ignoring the small (population) states.  So the tiny advantage of the EC helps, IMO, to "correct" that situation and although I don't like the lack of the popular vote I do find it necessary.

                  3. GA Anderson profile image86
                    GA Andersonposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

                    I have been coming to the opinion that there is a common thought behind the opposing answers to the EC question. Those that view our nation as a republic of states, and those that view our nation as a nation of citizens. Even folks that say they can see the reasoning for the EC, but still think the popular vote should be the final answer, defend their position with the definition of democracy - majority rules. One man - one vote.

                    I disagree with that perspective. the logic and reasoning are wrong, as it applies to our nation. We were founded as a Republic. The founders rationally feared pure democracy. Not because they wanted to deny citizens a choice, but because they understood pure democracy to be no different than mob rule. Demagoguery was as alive then as it is now.

                    I think I can see the reasoning behind your Senate/House justifications, (I don't agree with it), but that doesn't change the fact that you are still arguing for something that was purposefully excluded from the framework of our government.

                    Consider why, originally, the House was the only national office elected by direct popular-vote. It was the House of the people - the legislative body where people spoke directly. Even with manipulation, one state's Representatives could not sway the entire House. Even the Senate was selected/elected by state legislators - not the people directly. The Presidency and the Senate were to be directed by the "sense" of the people, not their direct vote. Again, pure democracy was distrusted and purposely avoided.

                    I think that is an accurate picture of the reasons the EC procedure was established. Whether you agree with those reasons is separate from the truth of them.

                    So...

                    When the "what has changed or become outdated" question is asked, typical answers mention the population growth, mass information technology, and such always-changing parameters. I don't see that any of those alter the need and purpose of the Electoral College. Without the EC, large population centers will continue to gain power at the expense of lower population areas. And we increase our risk for the dangers our government was designed to avoid.

                    Consider how often you hear the cry for a level playing field for all.  Do you see  a possibility of large population areas having the power Credence2 thinks is only right - rural and less populated areas should just shut-up and sit down. We get to vote but it won't matter.

                    Consider the logic and reasoning for the EC to our core emotional belief that we are a democracy, everything should be decided by one man - one vote.

                    No, not everything, and not in every instance.

                    GA

                2. Credence2 profile image86
                  Credence2posted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

                  Nice to have you back in town, GA

                  Buggy whips were on the way out too, at one time. Not by deliberate design, but circumstances just change.

                  I never said a disparaging word about our rural neighbors, I just don't want their votes to be given greater weight than mine, assuming that I am a city dweller. I am actually exo-urban.

                  On the contrary,  I am not on the edge but right dead center on the focal point of this debate. I am certainly not the only one asking questions about this.

                  This is clearly different from disenfranchisement I have accused the GOP of practicing against those they believe won't for them. Everybody has the right to vote, but the will of the greater number must prevail or the principle of popular sovereigty deevolves into something else. We have the Bill of Rights to protect the rights of minorities and dissenters. The 30 percent black population in Mississippi get to vote, but does it matter, the state is still a crimson red? But, I abide with it as popular sovereigty prevails. Why should  I make any exception for my rural neighbors?

                  People don't just herd to cities just to become DemBots, but for jobs and economic survival. There are many aspects of conservatism that drive city dwellers to vote GOP. While more city dwellers vote Dem, the libs hardly have a lock on the urban vote.

                  The city mouse does not necessarily have to be diametrically opposed to the country mouse. Never followed the "hunger Games" and I am not well familiar with the works of Issac Asimov, as Arthur C Clarke has been my SCI FÎ favorite.

                  You said:

                  "I do not believe small states are given an advantage in the Senate. Why would you believe equal representation is an advantage?"


                  To answer that,  I refer to the 'Panther's comment on the matter as well written and the best answer

                  "Wyoming's half million people get two votes and California's almost 40 million people get two votes in the Senate. This is giving equal representation by state regardless of population. This makes sense, as it is a Senator's explicit charge to represent the residents of his or her state. The President, on the other hand, is charged with representing the entire country, so why are we voting by state? It makes no sense in this modern age for a president to lose after receiving the popular vote. He represents all of us, so giving some voters a little more say because of where they reside makes no sense to me."

                  1. GA Anderson profile image86
                    GA Andersonposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

                    Well, I think my answer to Prettypanther would serve well here. I hope you saw it.

                    But... The buggy whips analogy? Geez. To your mind we no longer need the same protections the Electoral College, (EC), was designed to protect against? Do you think we even needed the EC then? 

                    Also, I think you were wrong about the Senate. A Senator's primary job is not to represent the citizens of his state. His job is to represent his state. That's why there are only two. The house is the voice of the people. The Senate is the voice of the states. I can hear the charge of semantics now, but I don't think so. It is pretty well documented. It is also the reason I don't think your, (or Prettypanther's), "Senate" as a rationalization applies to the discussion.

                    I might even be feeling cantankerous enough to argue that our President is not "charged" to represent all citizens. His job is to lead, and represent the values of, our nation. One possible example you might be familiar with is FDR's 1938 fight to get the Neutrality Act repealed. In 1938 he knew that the fall of Europe had to be avoided for our own safety. Britain, (and other countries), would undoubtedly fall without at least our military materials support. FDR recognized this, but the overwhelming "popular sentiment," (vote?), was firm Isolationist. It took FDR a year to wheel and deal that Act out of the books. History says he was right, and the "popular" vote was wrong. Catastrophically wrong, (as in mob-rule wrong), if it had prevailed. And history shows his job was to lead and represent the values of our nation, not the current popular sentiment, (vote?).

                    ps. I remember Clarke was your reading. This isn't the first time I have urged Asimov on you.

                    GA

        2. Credence2 profile image86
          Credence2posted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

          Yes, in regard to Jacharless' point. People are now wondering if their votes count, or will it be overruled by an entity that says that a 'college' can consistently nullify the outcome? Is the correlation between city voting left and rural voting right that much etched in stone to the point that the rural voter is shut out? As we saw with industrialized Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, there are other non-rural concerns that could drive voters to ally with the rural vote if only temporarily in the pursuit of their own interests.

          Look at Texas, Arizona for example, both have major population centers and yet the conservatives dominate the states. It is done with alliances and coalitions, even GOP voters may be attracted to other platform values not related to the interests of rural dwellers.

      2. jacharless profile image82
        jacharlessposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

        Really? Let's compare Alaska to Rhode Island. If land size equals population, how would the later attract more people and where would they put them?

        Fact is, California, Texas and Florida are home to the vast majority of America's population (112 of 320 million). Hence, in every election, according to the one-person one-vote concept, their candidate would win every single time, rendering the other 47 states irrelevant. Again, it explains precisely why the EC was instituted.

        Going further, by population density, the little town of Guttenberg, New Jersey has more people per square mile than Manhattan, New York (ranked #6). According to the one-vote logic, this tiny town would dominate every election, until another takes it place.

        Back in the day, Virginia was the most populous state, compared to Delaware or Maryland - even New York at the time. The founders knew this approach would be catastrophic and always in favor of the larger states. To insure a domination vote would not happen, they formed a state-by-state delegate system. It is actually quite brilliant and applauded by many countries as one of the greatest political architecture achievements in history.

        http://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13275559_f1024.jpg

        1. peoplepower73 profile image88
          peoplepower73posted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

          Jacharless and others: Please read this hub posted by fellow hubber Au fait. Be sure to watch the two videos.  The second one explains  why the EC can be abolished without any adverse effects.

          http://hubpages.com/politics/How-Does-t … oral-Votes

        2. Credence2 profile image86
          Credence2posted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

          Thanks, Jacharless for your reply.

          Among America's most populate states, Texas, California, Florida and New York, I don't see any trend that indicate that it's residents are all going to vote in lockstep. Calif and New York are consistently liberal, Texas consistently conservative and FLORIDA is always a toss up. You assume that all the voters of these states would vote the same way and that is a stretch.

          Please explain further how the analogy of population density supports your position?

          No one should be disenfranchised and I have no problem with the founder's concept of protecting the participation and inclusion of less populated states whether that is Alaska, Vermont or Wyoming, but to what extent? The people select a President not a conglomeration of states' legislative appointees.We changed to direct election of Senators to make it clear that the will of the people needs to be adhered to in principle, and not left in the hands of an appointed bourgeoisie, whose interests may not reflect that of the masses.

          1. jacharless profile image82
            jacharlessposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

            Absolutely correct. The people do if fact choose their president. In layman's terms they are called delegates. Each state chooses their delegates, at the primary level, and  allocated x-number of delegate votes. Those delegates are grouped together, in what is commonly known as the Electoral College. This insures the peoples choice is clear and non-domination vote maintained.

            And, again, said delegate votes are compared to the popular vote, for transparency sake and to show how the allocation of delegates was divided.

            Regarding population density analogy, it was merely added to visualize the effect of solely a popular vote scenario, in which a small area of high density could dominate the vote against a larger area -an inverse to larger states dominating smaller ones. In either case, there would be a unfair advantage in favor of one candidate over another.

            1. Credence2 profile image86
              Credence2posted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

              Ok, but the delegates are appointed, by state legislatures/governor? While they generally are required to vote unanimously for the candidate that wins the popular vote in the state, I have heard they do not have to do so. But the fact that we have had these recent differences between the EC and the popular vote indicates that the people's choice is not always clear and respected. I can understand how such a college could relieve contention over the outcome of the vote in earlier times. Today, with electronics and instantaneous availability of information and results, why should the will of the people be expressed through these middlemen? As long as the popular vote take precedence and the EC supports and confirms that, no problem.

              More people living in an area means that that area has a natural advantage assuming that all the residents really would vote in favor or against, in lockstep regarding a candidate. That is not always etched in stone. In COLORADO, my origin point, rural residents of the Eastern Plains complained about being outvoted by the more liberal residents of the Denver/Boulder area. So what do we do about that? Is it really unfair, they are all citizens with the right to vote for their perspective interests, there are just fewer voters supporting the agenda of the rural areas, is that to be unexpected?

              That was a nice graphic, thank you for allowing to more easily visualize your points.

              1. ahorseback profile image47
                ahorsebackposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

                So if the people living in a major metropolis  were fairly divided ideologically that would be fine  BUT that  isn't so , new York for instance is primarily democrat . In fact sixty eight percent of NYC  citizens are democrats  , given that and say Chicago  at 65- % democrat  ,  LA. at 45 % democrat  to 30 % republican in voters , How then would it be fair that high density cities would elect a president  in every single election  , In the major cities in America  , democrats far out weigh  republicans , How fair would the popular vote be in a republic .
                Get used to the electoral college
                It's  Going to  be here for awhile !

                One more attempt -to not give Trumps presidency validity ?  Come on guys , don't be sore losers .

                1. Credence2 profile image86
                  Credence2posted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

                  Yes, so, people have a choice for whom they support. Nobody is making any group vote all democratic or Republican, so the GOP needs to get more creative and reach out to this constituency for votes. it is not impossible. People vote for whom and what they want and the one position or candidate with the greater number wins. You can get that out of any civics book.

                  After the last difference between the verdict of the popular vote and the EC, this issue is front and center and will be on the receiving end of ever greater agitation. Protests destroyed Lyndon Johnson's administration and was the ultimate source of Nixon's resignation. So, the voice of protest will be far from ineffective in keeping the new President Elect from getting out of line.

              2. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

                A slate of electors is provided by each party.  Although the legal appointments may vary, in practice it is the winning party that has "appointed" electors.

                Two states assign electoral votes based on the percentage of votes per candidate.  All others are winner-take-all.

                Electors have pledged to cast their electoral vote according to the vote of the people and state law.  Some states (24, I hear) legally require their electors to vote according to their pledge, with penalties of up to $1,000 if they do not, or even assign criminal penalties ((New Mexico).  Several states deem that an elector that violates their pledge has resigned and another is chosen. 

                I have seen claims that "faithless" electors (that violate their pledge) can get away with it because electoral votes are secret: this is untrue as each elector signs their ballot, which is then given to the state where it is copied and copies sent to the Senate President, the state's Secretary of State and a few other places.

                The result is that the popular vote wins...in a given state.  In the Republic of states, those "states votes" are then apportioned the same way representatives and senators are, with one vote for each member of the House and one for each member of the Senate.

                http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections- … llege.aspx

                1. Credence2 profile image86
                  Credence2posted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

                  Thanks for the link, for all you math and statisticians out there, how is it possible for a greater number or more populated individual states to tally a majority for a single candidate, with the national total reflecting that tally, yet the EC can award the candidate with the lesser amount of votes the prize?

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

                    50 D 5R,  10EC D
                    50 D 5R,  10EC D
                    65 D 5 R, 12 EC D
                                     32 EC D

                    40 R 5 D  9EC R
                    40 R  5 D  9EC R
                    40 R  5 D  9 EC R
                    30 R  5 D  [i]6 EC R[/u]
                                        33 EC R

                    Total popular votes: 185 D, 165 R.  33 R EC votes takes it, and popular vote loses.  Gross example, but it could work that way.

    2. The Old Guard profile image82
      The Old Guardposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

      If you're American, your history class in high  school gave you the reasons for the Electoral College being the choice of picking the President vs. a popular vote.
      If you want to get rid of the Electoral College, you might as well get rid of the Constitution.
      Both are an intricate part of the checks and balances we have in the U.S.

  9. PhoenixV profile image78
    PhoenixVposted 3 weeks ago

    I think the ec is a better deal for dems. I think red states are more solid. In a pop vote all the money and efforts go to ny and la. Reps on the offense, dems defend. They can rag out them cities with their political garbage to my hearts desire. Reps win in that scenario. Twisi

    But ima uneducated white guy that never went to electrical college so..
    .

    1. PrettyPanther profile image85
      PrettyPantherposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

      No, it's "undereducated." GA might be within reading distance. big_smile

      1. PhoenixV profile image78
        PhoenixVposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

        I cant spell either ?lol  Under-educated sp*

      2. PhoenixV profile image78
        PhoenixVposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

        Speakin of GA. You ever see him argue with Promisem?  Its like an enigma wrapped up in a chinese finger trap. Im scratchin my head wondering whose side are they on? But yea the EC gotta go.

        1. PrettyPanther profile image85
          PrettyPantherposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

          Yes, and if you throw credence in the mix it gets really gnarly.

          1. PhoenixV profile image78
            PhoenixVposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

            Just between you and me, please dont tell Mr Promisem I referred to him as a chinese finger puzzle, okay? I apologize .But yea I vote we end the popular vote. No Wait.  I vote we Brexit the next EC exit.

            1. PrettyPanther profile image85
              PrettyPantherposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

              big_smile

    2. Credence2 profile image86
      Credence2posted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

      Phoenix, I don't know if the EC benefits Dems, as twice in modern political history the GOP has benefitted from the EC overruling the popular vote.

      1. PhoenixV profile image78
        PhoenixVposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

        In a system like this there is going to be anomalies and anomalies really don't care what looks fair.  It would be unusual if they did look fair. That's just the nature of an anomaly. If you look back at recent history at the margin that Democrats have won the Electoral College you will see, what I say to be true.

        There seems to be assumption that nobody votes Republican in these larger cities. More people voted Republican in these larger cities than the combination of entire red States. Yet they received no electoral votes. In a popular vote all Republicans would have to do is win a margin of error amount of popular votes in these larger cities for a win.

        1. PhoenixV profile image78
          PhoenixVposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

          In 2008 Obama won EC by over 100% margin and popular by est over 15% margin. Which one was the cakewalk?

          1. Credence2 profile image86
            Credence2posted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

            But at least the popular vote and the determination from the electoral college supported the same candiate for victory. I am primarily concerned when it doesn't.

            1. PhoenixV profile image78
              PhoenixVposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

              Which results would have been easier to change by republicans?

              1. Credence2 profile image86
                Credence2posted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

                I don't think that either Party could change the result within either system, popular vote or EC. My point is that the popular vote should rule supreme and that when it hasn't it has benefitted the GOP, even though it did not happen by design.

                I hear your saying that the EC is a advantage to the Dems, but if this contest was won on popular vote only, we would of had a President Gore and a President-elect Clinton. Can you ever point to a time even in the last century where the GOP wins the popular vote yet the Dems win the election because of the Electoral College?

                1. PhoenixV profile image78
                  PhoenixVposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

                   
                  I just look at things from an analytical point of view the best I can. I doubt the geniueness of your political adversaries intent regardless of the merit of any argument. I just believe if I was democrat Id hang on to EC with both hands because Republicans are squeaking by in EC against large margins by dems. If you think itsa circus now with EC it only gets much worse in a pop. Imo. I sincerely believe a pop vote would not get the results you believe.

                  1. PhoenixV profile image78
                    PhoenixVposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

                    I think it a presumption to believe the popular votes for gore and clinton would hold true if we were not in an EC system. Change the system and the tactics change too.

                2. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

                  "Can you ever point to a time even in the last century where the GOP wins the popular vote yet the Dems win the election because of the Electoral College?"

                  100% went to the R's.  Think that sounds really significant - that all 2 times it went to them?

                  1. Credence2 profile image86
                    Credence2posted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

                    Statistically, if one time it went to the Dems and the other time in favor of the GOP, I might dismiss it.

                    Yes, the fact that it only has happened twice is not conclusive, but it did occur twice within election cycles over the last 16 years when it had not occurred for a century before is something of note. How often will this continue? I don't know that I would be happy having this happen again, as the angst of 2000 is something we have to contend with every  other four years, it is most divisive.

  10. Castlepaloma profile image23
    Castlepalomaposted 3 weeks ago

    UPDATE ANNOUNCEMENT

    Good news, nearly half Americans did not vote for this illegitimate body of franchise Corporation Government.  The soul purpose of a real Government is to protect. Not to use, build up nukes and threatened the world with nukes. Then have Trump say we got nukes, why not use them.

    Then US Corp/Government is the largest contributors to destruction of the natural environment. The other half delusion themselves to believe the Government dose more good than evil, then choose between the lesser of two evils. I choose no evil at all.

    How could Government do evil and harm?, they are a fictional entity. For those who antilize the outcome of the election to death, they are either mastur-debators or experiencing their own personal hell on earth. From the half, that rather hide from these facts and continue watching the last 40 years of America crumble. They too chicken sh_t to face me with this true reality's that America greatest pass time is lying. Mostly about America being the greatest country on earth.

  11. ahorseback profile image47
    ahorsebackposted 3 weeks ago

    I think that a lot of people are just now finally realizing the full  authority  of the electoral  directives , the REASONS for them , What many , many people don't get is the construct and  reasoning of states-- to --federal  authorities  to begin with .  Why we needed the assemblage of both powers ,  To protect the individual state beneath  the federal government ,  state protection  from the feds  as well .

    In basic meaning , from the beginning of the colonies becoming states one like  Rhode Island  needed to be represented as much as the mighty New York state at the federal level , IN THE REPUBLIC of America , created the need for this  electoral college !   

    We don't  get to change that , because we can't personally grasp political loss ,   we don't get to call now for totally  popular federal elections  ,   if we did  , we might as well have a king and a queen  for all of the good that a popular presidency would  provide us in  national elections of  ALL of the 50 state's  and indirectly , their peoples will .

  12. ahorseback profile image47
    ahorsebackposted 3 weeks ago

    To try to explain the electoral college , in fact the electoral process , in fact the entire political process of this republic, to democrats like these is both a futile attempt to educate those who won't accept it and a false flag of such  receivership in education itself.  Peoplepower and his many minions  already know the system , they already understand the process , they already know the details in the puzzle box .

    This new left in America  knows our system  very well because they are ,  if nothing else , intellectuals ,    what they lack and what they telegraph perfectly is no respect FOR this  incredibly  designed  and vastly effective election process and system itself .    They have grown up in and learned within houses of entitlements ,   institutions of tantrum  instilled teachings ,    thought process' of organized chaos .

    Leftist ideologies  in themselves are directionless , the one think process they almost universally and totally lack is looking  "down the road ". except towards and within the minds of young and youth of our education system , probably the only battleground where they actually engage effectively . The uneducated .  The problem there is they have to settle on that part of the youth and uneducated that never progress' beyond a certain level of socio-political maturity . Hence the brainy  ones here .

    The new left in America and in this election lost ! Simple right ? ......  But no , not today ,.....what  they have done now is start down this road of  micro-analysis  of the greatest "peoples" election system in the world .    Problem is  for new- liberals the "check engine light" keeps blinking and they covered it up with duct tape and it began blinking when they  allowed their leadership to have rigged the entire  primary election process for Hilary over all others  ,THEN   they collectively jumped into the sack with the media  ,then and now  they are standing back  and watching their  imploding system and can't fathom the one thing that could have happened , why ?     Here 's a clue , as you stand scratching your heads and kicking the tires wondering why   pseudo-intellectualism  still isn't intellectualism .

    You should have used the one thing that they collectively deny even exists in the world today .

    Common sense .

    1. peoplepower73 profile image88
      peoplepower73posted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

      ahorseback:  In Trump's words "WRONG"

      1. ahorseback profile image47
        ahorsebackposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

        See what I mean everyone !  Its so obvious as to make  a child laugh.

        1. peoplepower73 profile image88
          peoplepower73posted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

          ahorseback:  You took the bait hook, line, and sinker.  It's O.K. for Trump to walk up behind Hillary in the last debate use those word while she was trying to answer questions from the audience.  But when I use it, you imply that I'm some kind of a child. Doesn't that make Trump some kind of child as well?

          Why did Trump get elected based on the electoral college vote?  For over 30 years, the republican propaganda machine which includes Fox News, the republican congress, and now fake news sites, and twitter have been using character assassination to demean democratic administrations, and liberal causes. They have been doing this so that they can build a monolithic government where they rule everything.  I must admit, this last election, they have succeeded, with them having complete control of the house and the senate. There is no longer representation by the people and a balance of power. And with the appointment of Trump's Supreme Court Justice, they will have control of the highest court in the land for many years to come. 

          They have character assassinated, everybody from LBJ, Kennedy, Carter, and Obama. They have put out the constant drumbeat of misinformation and the people bought it.  They successfully passed Citizens United which gives voice to corporations and big moneyed interests, to the point where the people are not represented but where congress is beholden to them for funding their reelections.  They have caused those who are brainwashed to vote against their own best interest, because they need their votes to stay in power.

          The electoral college is based on a majority.  If the candidate gets more than half of the electoral  votes in a given state, the candidate gets all the remaining electoral votes in that state.  In the 1700's the fastest way to move information was to write it on a piece of paper and give it to a man on a horse.  Each elector took their vote to D.C. where they could get the most current information and then cast their vote based on the latest information.  Today information travels at the speed of light.

          In order to balance large states with small states, the EC, adjusts the smaller states to  get the same equivalent votes as large states.  Therefore in today's political climate, the candidates concentrate more on the the small states, because they only have to win a majority of the votes.  It is easier to do that in a state that has less EC votes than one that has more. With today's technology, it is much easier to parse and massage the data and that is precisely why Trump won the electoral college.  His people knew that to be the case.  While Hillary's people also knew that, they didn't use it to their advantage.

          New York has the largest population followed by California.  After that, the population by states drops of rapidly.  Therefore, the popular vote is better suited as representation of the people than the electoral college. Don't be surprised in the next election, if the same thing happens.  This is a prediction from a pseudo intellectual liberal, who knows nothing, but does do the research and analysis, instead of name calling and insulting those that don't agree with them, ahorseback.

          We will all bow down to the Trump empire of loyalist and family who don't know squat about running a country.  Thank you electoral college, right wing congress, Fox News and right wing propaganda, and all the people who believe Trump's campaign B.S.  Good luck to you, for him making good on those promises.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

            "Why did Trump get elected based on the electoral college vote?"

            Well, it wasn't because of fox news, a Republican Congress, fake news sites or twitter.  It was because tens of millions of people find that being ruled by an elite political aristocracy without ethics, integrity, honesty or laws is not their kettle of fish.

            "New York has the largest population followed by California.  After that, the population by states drops of rapidly.  Therefore, the popular vote is better suited as representation of the people than the electoral college. Don't be surprised in the next election, if the same thing happens.  This is a prediction from a pseudo intellectual liberal, who knows nothing, but does do the research and analysis,"

            You might get with this pseudo intellectual and do some research for yourself.  From 2010 Census Bureau figures, state populations:
            First place goes to California, not New York, with   37,253,95
            Next is Texas, not California, at 25,145,561
            Third place, not first as you claim, comes New York: 19,378,102
            Instead of falling off rapidly, Florida slides in barely behind NY with 18,801,310
            Three more states have roughly 2/3 of Florida.
            http://www.ipl.org/div/stateknow/popchart.html

            1. peoplepower73 profile image88
              peoplepower73posted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

              Wilderness:  Who do you think gave them that kettle of fish? So you think that a man who has proven that he has no ethics, integrity, or honesty ( in your words) and has zero experience in government and world affairs is going to get them out of their kettle of fish?  He is surrounding himself with loyalist that think like he does. That is very dangerous for a leader of a country.  Because they can fall into the trap of group think. It was the neocons and group think, that caused us to invade Iraq.  There is no balance of power in group think.  Everybody is afraid to disagree with the king...Trump.

              From 39 million to 11 million, the population drops off rapidly in just 7 states. I have to admit my source was not current.  But it still is a rapid delta in just seven states.

              Please watch this video and then get back to me.

              https://youtu.be/7wC42HgLA4k

          2. ahorseback profile image47
            ahorsebackposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

            Peoplepower ,  I don't know where to begin  , you make it all so easy to just say  "Tough Cookies "  ,  there is nothing wrong with the E.C. or the election process as it is and you would have excepted that graciously had Hilary won .
            That is simply how sore losers  react.

            Liberals , at least the ones still  in shock today and obviously you still are ,     deserve every ounce of shock and awe that they are receiving from this election outcome .  COLLECTIVELY you  jumped into bed with the Hilary campaign for one , an obviously and totally -morally corrupted candidate  with a long ,  long history of mafia like leadership  and corruption  , THEN you slid right into the comfort blanket among  the entire mainstream media  as they spiked  your ideological cool-aid  with 100 proof bias , slant and a  venomous hatred of the right !

            At the same time as that is all happening ,  as  the Trump train is" picking up steam " from an element of anger  that has been building for decades in the center  ,   you totally ignored the  TRUE platform of change that EVEN  the GOP was betting against , Then  you threw all the race cards , the sexist cards , the misogynist cards , the homo-phobia cards , then added the Islama-phobia , gender-phobia   etc. ,   Finally at the end of the election you fully realized  -   YOUR candidate never even had a news conference for  a year and a half !

            It's no wonder you lost . You did it the old fashioned way ,  You earned it P..P.  see you in four years !

            1. peoplepower73 profile image88
              peoplepower73posted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

              ahorseback:  This is the fifth time that the EC has allowed 2nd place winners to become president.  Two were in modern history 16 years apart. The next one will even be closer because everybody is on to how it works and how they can exploit it.  All they have to do is concentrate on the smaller states, get more than 50 percent of the EC votes in those small states and it is winner take all.

  13. Castlepaloma profile image23
    Castlepalomaposted 3 weeks ago

    Either elected a Government by the majority of it's people or don't call it a democracy under the  laws of the American Constitution. White Christian males is not what Americans is all about anymore.

                                     Or

    Tell the real truth!!@America is under the Laws of the UNITED STATES CORPERATION. Your under Corporatism , not country. Your name ID is in Capitals letters that not your real name but  you volunteered your life, your job, your home under Corporatism system. Your debt for life and your children too are under a privately owned Corporation bank, your not under a real country. Your employment justice system an military are the two largest Corporation in the world and their ideas of safety, rules, not your true freedom at all.

    Why vote? your Corporatism Government already has pre design  your Government for you. Just follow instructions every day, pay your bills and Corporatism will select your jobs. Your so called free choice are those colour of jelly beans you really like. Almost everything is a Franchises of Corporations and confederation of shopping mall , except it.  Or keep fighting the faceless dictatorship ghost forever. Or my choice is to step outside the box of economy salvery.

    1. The Old Guard profile image82
      The Old Guardposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

      The U.S.A. was never a democracy, it's a republic.
      The Constitution explains the process of electing a President. There are specific reasons for the Electoral College vs. a popular vote for choosing the President.
      If the Electoral College is over turned, then the Constitution is worthless.
      The Electoral College is an integral part of the checks and balances within the U.S.

      1. Castlepaloma profile image23
        Castlepalomaposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

        Then call it - USA Republic of Corporations

        Don't lie or lead America in to believing democracy leads this country. Hillary could have a million public votes and couple hundred self elected representative of Corporations would have total control it anyways. If you took 10,000 Christians Americans and took 10,000 Muslims and had them vote for War. The vast majority would vote no on both sides. Now America is based on a war economy because exporting manufacturer and the US dollar is finished. Nothing else to prop up the integrity of Americans now.

        I have only faith in the majority of American people say, never greedy Corporatism..Trump dose not need to file his taxes or get lobbyist to pull his string, he is under the wings of Rothschild and Rockefeller with all the money in the world. They can rip out the heart of America and replace it with a synthetic one and brand like the USSR Communist did with the same Zionist tax.

        The majority of the people throughout human history are the only ones who truly have changed the world for the betterment of man. Never the greed of the few with total access to those electoral cheat booths.

        1. The Old Guard profile image82
          The Old Guardposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

          The only one lying is the government.
          Country was always a republic, it's only the government that has lied and said it was a democracy.
          If it was a republic of corporations, hillary killary would be in office.
          Trump was against the corporations buying off the politicians.
          It's a republic of states, that give their permission to D.C. to rule. It's NOT supposed to be that D.C. tells the states what to do.
          Thus, you have the Electoral College to make sure states have a say in what goes on in D.C.
          That's why the popular vote does NOT decide who wins the Presidential race.

          1. Sychophantastic profile image83
            Sychophantasticposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

            Amen! This is all explained on The Daily Stormer (www.dailystormer.com) and on Breitbart. Read them and learn.

            The children of the sun shall prevail.

            "...and to the Republic, for which it stands, one nation, under God..."

          2. Castlepaloma profile image23
            Castlepalomaposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

            If anyone could ever sort through all of Trumps corrupted history and all his BS, in which is worst than lying. Because BS lying dose not even care that they are lying.

            If Trump's few billions can hold up bankers and Corporatism 100s of trillions. If Trump can stand up against a full house of US Zionist Congressman in which much of his family and businesses belong to.. If Trump can totally change a whole a new leaf , that all gose back to his KKK grandfather.

            Then Trump's real owners of country take him to the back too and show him a film of Kennedy being shot, then ask Trump is their any questions? If Trump can hold up to all that pressure and ruthless guns, then Trump really is Thor or supernatural in real life.

            I think the people will still shoot him if he rapes and murders the Lady statue of Liberty with his bare tiny hands.

            1. The Old Guard profile image82
              The Old Guardposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

              You're one sick dude!
              Hopefully, you stay in Canada.
              You ask a question, then you come up with this stuff.
              You want to rant, not understand.. Typical of the forum responses.
              The Electoral College has a purpose and it has succeeded in it's form to stop a despot from being put into the White House.
              All the world should be thankful for that.
              Trump's been a businessman for years. He's not about to shoot himself in the foot. If he was so objectionable, he would not have succeeded in business. He didn't make his billions off the government dole.
              Give the guy a chance to do something before condemning him.
              There are numerous people who've actually done stuff that's terrible - hillary killary, obama, bush, bill "the sex addict" clinton.  Get irate at them.
              Let Trump get started and then decide.

              1. Credence2 profile image86
                Credence2posted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

                Frankly, I am glad that he is here and weighs in. We are gonna all call your latest autocratic dictator to account. Were gonna have protests and demonstrations that will make the sixties look like a funeral parlor, in comparison. It is gonna be a great time to be alive, have to look at the bright side...

              2. Castlepaloma profile image23
                Castlepalomaposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

                The real owners own all politicians and major media and their minds, yes it is deeply sick for the people. Only about 80% majority of the consciousness of the people can be the true Savior of Americans, never the hierarchy of the few.  The only way I can imagine is by war by civil and World war. When and by then, the Americans will get too sick of the abuse.

                My records show no harm and honesty to a fault (working on that one) IF this is a sick individual, then I wish to stay sick by moving to Bolivia because US will drag Canada down with them.

                1. Misfit Chick profile image94
                  Misfit Chickposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

                  The illusion that 'the people' know what is going on is seriously distorted. Even those who do kind of know 'what's going on' - don't, really. The scary thing is that the people who DO know what is going on have their own special agenda designed to benefit THEM (whatever that is).

                  Until Americans start realizing how profitable these deep divisions are (in a few different ways); and that ALL of us are subject to various forms of manipulation to ensure a continuing divide - there will be no semblance of unity, here. Too many of us have been driven 'right' or 'left' with not nearly enough of us marching down the middle.

                  The chasm that exists through both America & The World is a lot more simple than most people realize. Christians & ex-Christians Prove God Exists by Debunking Salvation: Science & Spirituality Reveal the Real Jesus. Look it up. There is no apocalypse for people to base a vote on that next time. No more voting on fake hype, fake news or fake fear. Pay attention.

                  http://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13290021.jpg

                  1. The Old Guard profile image82
                    The Old Guardposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

                    There's a reason for the Electoral College and it did what it was supposed to do.
                    You don't like it, well, this is what allows you to post the way you do.
                    Appreciate it for what it is instead of whining about the freedoms you have.

              3. Castlepaloma profile image23
                Castlepalomaposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

                I almost allowed Trump humiliation personally to turn my unique artists into union artists. Like the other artists that must promote sex and violences or they don't make the top grossing movies of all time or pro wrestlers for megalomaniacs. At least Trump did not fire me where Bush did fire me completely from the US for refusing him of a war sculpture.

                1. Kathryn L Hill profile image87
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

                  +1

                  (He said he is moving to Bolivia. So, thats good.)

                  1. Castlepaloma profile image23
                    Castlepalomaposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

                    Like Bush you voted for Trump, you now must live with the huge cluster Mr F. mess coming.  In 4 years if your alive, let's compare notes on who made the sickest or worst choice. I prodictated  in the pass a selection both Republican would be selected.  Most likely they will attempt to steal this internet of our free speech. Snowden knows that story.

                    From personally dealing with both of them, and the inescapable trapped US is in,  I already know I am the winner. My predictions have never lie to me, and they speak from the heart and the universe. Trump will BS,  lie and harm you more ways than you can imagine. Shame on me if allow twice, lucky no pass regrets. If you allow this regret in your future, you did not learn a thing from the Bush experience X ten.

                    1. The Old Guard profile image82
                      The Old Guardposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

                      Actually, obama is the worst president for information.
                      He's denied a record number of freedom of Information requests for the last 2 years and is on track to break another record this year.
                      obama is the one talking about shutting down "fake' news site, as he leads the American Government in the biggest lies I can remember in watching politics for 40 years.
                      Trump dressed down the mass media, as he should have, for being so biased during the election. Wikileaks did what journalists in America used to do.
                      And who's demonstrating in the streets saying they don't want to abide by the laws of the U.S.? Is it the Alt-right or is it the snowflakes that make up the demoncrap party?
                      If you'd pay attention to the lies, it's coming from the demoncraps, not from Trump.
                      But, that doesn't fit your agenda - so, sorry to confuse you with the facts.
                      Cheers

                  2. The Old Guard profile image82
                    The Old Guardposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

                    He's in Canada,
                    Nothing to do but pay attention to the neighbors. smile
                    But, thank God for the Electoral College!! LOL
                    Cheers

    2. PhoenixV profile image78
      PhoenixVposted 3 weeks ago

      Also liberals have to remember that popular votes were intended for voters that are actually alive and also not intended for bus loads of serial voters.

    3. Kathryn L Hill profile image87
      Kathryn L Hillposted 3 weeks ago

      The purpose of the electoral college was to prevent mob rule which changes according to the whims of the biggest majority. Senators should not be elected by popular vote either which is why we have such problems with career politicians, (who become corrupt over time) who are voted in by the dumb, rather than the wise. In the past, (before the 17th amendment,) U.S. Senators were elected by representatives.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeen … nstitution

      1. Credence2 profile image86
        Credence2posted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

        Who gets to decide who is dumb and who is wise?

      2. Don W profile image84
        Don Wposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

        We have the words of people who were in the room. In the Records of the Federal Convention, James Madison, who was in favor of a popular vote, recorded:

        "There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to the fewest objections."

        So the EC system was the one most likely to be agreed by the South. It was politics.

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image87
          Kathryn L Hillposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

          what was the actual problem do you suppose?

          1. Don W profile image84
            Don Wposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

            The lack of influence the South would have with a popular vote system due to the fact that so many of the population were slaves, so could not vote. That's what Madison means when he says:

            "The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes."

        2. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

          In other words, we are a republic of states and the constitution reflects that fact.  Each state wants the same "voice" as any other.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image87
            Kathryn L Hillposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

            No, I think it goes deeper than that, as brought forth by the first democrats in the south.

                     "From 1854, when the Republican Party was founded, Democrats labeled its adherents "black" Republicans to identify them as proponents of black equality. During the 1860 elections Southern Democrats used the term derisively to press their belief that Abraham Lincoln's victory would incite slave rebellions in the South and lead to widespread miscegenation. The image the term conveyed became more hated in the South during Reconstruction as Radical Republicans forced legislation repugnant to Southerners and installed Northern Republicans or Unionists in the governments of the former Confederate states.
            Source: "Historical Times Encyclopedia of the Civil War"

            Radical Republicans

                    The Republican party in 1861 was a coalition of disparate elements. Formed only 7 years earlier, it contained men who had been Whigs, Anti-Slavery Democrats, Free-Soilers, Know-Nothings, and Abolitionists. By the outbreak of the war, these fragments had coalesced into 3 basic factions: conservatives, moderates, and radicals. President Abraham Lincoln's task was to mold these factions into a government that could win the war without destroying the South politically and economically.
                    The most aggressive and, eventually, most influential of the three was the Radical Republican faction. All Republicans were against slavery, but this group was the most "radical", in its opposition to the "peculiar institution." While conservatives favored gradual emancipation combined with colonization of Freedmen, and while moderates favored emancipation but with reservations, Radicals favored immediate eradication of an institution they viewed as iniquitous, and saw the war as a crusade for 'Abolition.' "
            FROM  http://www.civilwarhome.com/republicans.html

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

              It does; several big names of the day commented that the common man must not be able to control who runs the country.  Elitism, in other words.

              But the primary objective was protection of the minority - the constitution is full of it.  The makeup of the Senate, and there IS a Senate.  The first amendment.  The 4th, 7th and 8th amendments.  Heck, most of the bill of rights.

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image87
                Kathryn L Hillposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

                what is Don's point?

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

                  As I caught it, it was that the EC was created to protect the rights and lifestyle of the smaller states in the South.  While it did accomplish that (to some extent, anyway) I'm not sure that there was enough anti-slavery sentiment at that point in our history to assign that as a cause.

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image87
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

                    In The Federalist # 10 James Madison deals with the topic of the "violence of factions" and their propensity toward "dangerous vice …"

      3. The Old Guard profile image82
        The Old Guardposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

        Not too many people know that, Kathryn.
        Good on ya for knowing about the history of America.
        So refreshing when someone actually looks at the past for facts!
        Good job on presenting why things are the way they are!!
        Have a happy turkey day!

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image87
          Kathryn L Hillposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

          happy turkey day to you too!

          worth repeating:
           
          <The purpose of the electoral college was to prevent mob rule which changes according to the whims of the biggest majority. Senators should not be elected by popular vote either which is why we have such problems with career politicians, (who become corrupt over time) who are voted in by the dumb, rather than the wise. In the past, (before the 17th amendment,) U.S. Senators were elected by representatives.>

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeen … nstitution

    4. PhoenixV profile image78
      PhoenixVposted 3 weeks ago

      Well, Hillary seemed pretty clueless and incompetent as Secretary of State eg Benghazi, how to operate a smartphone without compromising National Security etc etc,  so it should really come as no surprise she didnt know how the Electoral College works.

    5. Kathryn L Hill profile image87
      Kathryn L Hillposted 3 weeks ago

      Excerpt of Paper #10 revised for modern understanding by KLH:

      * How can we secure the public good and private rights against the danger of a tyrannical faction?

      1. By preventing the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time?
      No.

      2.  By rendering the majority, (which have coexistent passion / interest,) unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression by
      1. Their number ? 
      2. Their local situation?
      Yes.

      Reasoning:
      *If the impulse and opportunity coincide, we know that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate controls. Moral and religious motives are not found to be such on the injustice and violence of individuals, and lose their efficacy in proportion to the number of people combined together, that is, in proportion as their efficacy becomes needful. (think protesters)
           A pure democracy, ("a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person,") cannot prevent the mischiefs of faction because a common passion / interest (purpose) will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole. This communication and concert (power) of the whole result(s) from the form of government (democracy) itself and there is nothing to check the willingness of the whole to sacrifice a weaker party or "obnoxious" individual. lol
           "Such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention and are incompatible with personal security or the rights of property. They are as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." READ ~> "Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions."

      A republic, ("a government in which the scheme of representation takes place,") however, promises the cure for which we are seeking:

      Republic:
      1.) The delegation of the government to a small number of citizens elected by the rest. The effect of #1. is to refine and enlarge public viewpoints, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be the LEAST likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations.
      READ ~> "Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose."

      2.) The greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended. The effect of #2. may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people. The question resulting is, whether small or extensive republics are more favorable to the election of proper guardians of the public weal. It is clearly decided in favor of an extended republic.*

    6. Kathryn L Hill profile image87
      Kathryn L Hillposted 3 weeks ago

      The electoral college is a body of chosen representatives and we just have to trust the system.

    7. ahorseback profile image47
      ahorsebackposted 2 weeks ago

      One , The electoral college is the hero of the left when it works only  for them ? I don't care how many million votes get counted , your hero lost !
      Two , Trumps "racism" , is just a fallacy  of the left that is proven if you can read anything outside of the liberal junk mail media  bias   .?
      Three , Trump is the quintessential outsider that your liberal party only dreams of in those like Sanders , He will change Washington to equal only that which is dreamt of by democrat   leadership help ,  or not !

      Are you still THAT sore about Hilary's loss , guess what  , she lost ?

      1. peoplepower73 profile image88
        peoplepower73posted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

        ahorseback:  I don't have to read, all anybody  has to do is watch the videos of his campaigns starting with the primaries and going up until now.  They have been recorded for all the world to see and hear.  It is not a fallacy it is fact. 

        You are like the parent who is partial to your child even though everybody else knows your child is a bad seed, you say little Johnny is a good boy.  You and everybody who believes him are in denial.  So you buy everything the man says.  He puts down Romney in the worst way showing him choking and then saying if I told him to drop to his knees, he would.  Now Trump is considering him for a position. This was just today.

        What credibility does a person have who implies he has so much control over his opponent he would drop to his knees and  give him oral sex?  Don't tell me that isn't what he was implying.  Now Romney comes crawling back to Trump.  How can anybody trust anything that either side says anymore.  Trump has created a new normal where what is true is only for that moment in time.  Tomorrow that same situation might be false.  Trump calls it Truthful Hyperbole, Trump's words not mine.

        I accept that Hillary lost.  I'm more concerned about what Trump's character and values and belief system are.  He becomes enraged if anybody insults him, even in a satirical way.  He will come after you, Freedom of Speech be dammed.  He already went after the play Hamilton and the show Saturday Night Live.  He will continue to tweet insulting things about them until something else distracts him.

        1. ahorseback profile image47
          ahorsebackposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

          Petulance , that's all I can say to ALL  Trump protesting , Where were they when Hilary was  stuffing  600 million  dollars of State Dept. money  in somebodies pockets ?    I am still amazed that you and so  many worry more about the 'possibility ' of Trumps future   problems and totally ignored a perfect ' record 'of Hilary's  abuses .   Yet you still try to paint Trump as evil .

      2. Credence2 profile image86
        Credence2posted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

        Well, you know, the principle of one man-one vote works for me, too. The damnable right wing community would be screaming against the Electoral College now had Clinton won. Now, we go into this sappy stuff from them about how it needs to be protected.

        Clinton won by almost 1.5 million popular votes, just how much a disparity between the popular vote tally between the winner and loser, yet the award goes to those that support the candidate having fewer  votes, are we prepared to accomodate? That is why 'His Accidency's administration  and mandate to govern is tainted with doubt and non support. Gore only won the popular vote by about 500,000 votes. Both times in the modern age, this disparity have benefitted the GOP.

        Continuing to give the candidate receiving the lesser of the vote tally the victory on ever more frequent occasions is not acceptable, unless tyranny is ok by you as long as it eminates from the right?

    8. Kathleen Cochran profile image85
      Kathleen Cochranposted 2 weeks ago

      California has signed the contract for the National Popular Vote Movement.  Your electors will be voting for Clinton.  Nine other states have also passed this contract in both houses of their government.

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

        Had Cali gone republican, do you think the libs would still have asked their electors to set aside their ethics and their pledges and vote for Clinton?  Do you know if the state voided the law on faithless electors, or would ignoring their pledge and changing those votes have been illegal?

        1. Credence2 profile image86
          Credence2posted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

          I think the electoral college is becoming inherently unfair. The difference between the popular vote between Clinton and Trump are a considerably percentage higher then it was in 2000 between Gore and Clinton. How much more extreme must it get before something needs to be done?

          But in spite of all this, we have to follow the rules regardless where they lead and avoid upsetting the apple cart that is our current system. However, I will be first to stand in line for needed reforms to take place between now and before the next election cycle.

    9. ahorseback profile image47
      ahorsebackposted 2 weeks ago

      Democrats would do very well to eliminate the corruption from their own DNC  , their primary  was all but totally corrupt and admittedly so ,their choice of a winner was THE most corrupt individual ever to run for president ,    it seems foolish to try reinventing a working national system  when you can't even run your own house without total and obvious corruption !    I suggest you   ask Sen. Sanders !

      1. Credence2 profile image86
        Credence2posted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

        Are you cognizant? The whole theme here has that it has not been working.

        1. ahorseback profile image47
          ahorsebackposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

          No , You mean the whole liberal theme ?

          1. peoplepower73 profile image88
            peoplepower73posted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

            ahorseback:  The difference between Trump and Hillary is that Trump's lies, denials, sex, finances, scams and fraud have all  been documented for the world to see as pure unadulterated fact.  Hillary on the other hand has  been accused of everything from murder to jeopardizing our national security. However, the key word here is accused. The only thing she is guilty of is a careless handling of her email. If all the other accusations are true, then why isn't there any proof?  Oh I know she has the DOJ on her side.  That's why the head of the FBI threw her under the bus with the wikileak information, so  Trump could use it against Hillary.

            Jason Chaffetz, the Head of the Oversight committee that started the Hillary investigations, said that if Hillary were elected, he has enough material to keep her in investigation mode for another four years.  They want her to wear the badge of guilty until proven innocent which they never will allow, even thought she has been cleared of all charges on Benghazi and the email.  Chaffets, says that is not enough, the people deserve more.

            If you would have done real fact checking about Hillary instead of being brainwashed by right wing propaganda and fake news sites, you would realize this was all a conspiracy by the GOP to keep her out of the White House.  They had too much to lose, if she got in.  Instead what they have now is a monolithic congress that is all one sided where everybody uses Group Thinking, which is very dangerous for the country.  In addition, they will also control the Supreme Court. 


            You have great expectations from a man who lies and then denies that he lied almost every time he opens his mouth.  This is done for all the world to see as facts, not opinion, and not fallacy.  His association with the Alt-Right and their association with the  KKK and neo NAZI movement is frightening to say the least.  He now has real conflicts of interest with his global investments and the presidency.

        2. Misfit Chick profile image94
          Misfit Chickposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

          Allow me to set the record straight AGAIN in here:

          First, Bernie - who jumped onto the Dem ticket since he knew he couldn't win under his own 'Independent' party (pretty much in the same way that Trump hijacked the GOP) are NOT going to have as easy of a time winning the next election as they think they will; because it is largely THEIR fault as much as any other white male that this 'White Nationalist' crap was allowed to revamp. I'm guessing most millenials are clueless about Christian militants. Well now they get to learn all about them!!

          ‘Let’s go, Democrats. I’ll kill you all.’ This is where we’re at. Have you ever thrown a pop can away instead of recycling it in front of a liberal? LoL! Don't underestimate them.

          For 8 yrs, GOP made it clear that they do not respect the vote; by trying to convince everyone that Gov is bad bcuz of us EVIL ‘elitists’ (your NORMAL American neighbors) - WHILE painting themselves as ‘the abused’. They refused to work across partisan divides on budgets, immigration laws, jobs programs, climate change, tax reform, energy, etc - AND had a majority, yet Obamacare exists. Citizens became angry with a stalled country; while GOP continued to blame Obama & those who voted for him.

          Nasty women were calling Trump racist & misogynistic BEFORE the election for divisive-hype reasons. Trump needs to say & do something ELSE to unite us beyond using the SAME lame, hateful rhetoric that somehow got him there.

          Also, most men are misogynistic toward Hillary for DECADES. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrcQeFl76cg Most women (except white Christians) were able to separate her from Bill’s scandals; and could see that the ones she DID participate in weren’t NEARLY as incriminating as any other male politician before her.

          Hillary worked in a male-dominated culture WHILE 'being a lady' – and failed miserably against Trump, a good ‘ol locker room pal with a hot-head, fear-mongering, cocaine-mentality and practically NO experience in politics. Plus, he obviously knows how to use his big businesses to rip people off & evade taxes.

          Misogyny is also why many Bernie voters rejected Hillary. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEoWSaM61NI Its not just GOP men. This is what really sickens us women. We expect this attitude from the disoriented right-wing.

          How do I know that I'm right about all this? Because other 'groups' beyond white men had EVERY REASON to be JUST as ANGRY as anyone else about anything; and yet, we somehow managed to find it in our hearts to vote fairly between both Trump & Hillary.

          The chasm is a lot simpler than most people realize: Christians & ex-Christians Prove God Exists by Debunking Salvation. http://hub.me/akagx There IS NO APOCALYPSE for anyone to base a vote on that next time. No more voting on fake fear.

          http://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13287261.png

          1. Credence2 profile image86
            Credence2posted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

            Misogyny is also why many Bernie voters rejected Hillary. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEoWSaM61NI Its not just GOP men. This is what really sickens us women. We expect this attitude from the disoriented right-wing.

            How do I know that I'm right about all this? Because other 'groups' beyond white men had EVERY REASON to be JUST as ANGRY as anyone else about anything; and yet, we somehow managed to find it in our hearts to vote fairly between both Trump & Hillary.
            -----------------------------------------------------
            I beg to differ that misogyny was the reason why HC did not win. I voted for Hillary as by far as the lesser of two undesirable candidates. I was keen on Sanders because he represented the direction I believed the party needed to go which he substantiated through his word, his record and his current actions. This has nothing to do with the fact he was male. HC ignored Sanders' supporters for the most part and reluctantly threw them a bone while instead cowtowing to moderate Republicans who could never be serious allies for progressive principles. By having someone like Paine as her running mate,she decided to go' wall street' instead of main street. Many of us has wished that she would have picked an integrity keeper and firebrand for the working class like Liz Warren. Such a move would have been a significant compromise for the Sandernistas, perhaps enough to had made a difference at the polls in this last election. She made the mistake of taking things for granted and being presumptuous assuming that rather than have Trump as President, Sandernistas would line up behind her. But most simply did not vote at all. She failed to read the 'tea leaves' which were clear and quite obvious for most of us.

            Racism is a factor that explains Trump's success with whites and white men in particular. How else can you explain someone so outlandish having the level of success that he has had? Otherwise, would not the greivances that Trump claimed that he would correct in society appeal over a broader cross section of the demographic?

    10. ahorseback profile image47
      ahorsebackposted 2 weeks ago

      The above charts a beautiful one but look at the reflection of it from eight years ago  !  Did anyone whine when Obama won with 90% of eligible black voters  voting for him , did you see riots , crying in the streets ?     Racism doesn't play into Trumps victory , get over it !    Everyone [ different ethnicities ]voted for him and the system worked as it should have .

      Stop whining !
      http://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13287781.png

      This was the only alternative , Blame only  yourselves .

      1. Castlepaloma profile image23
        Castlepalomaposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

        I don't except these elections to be fair when the powers to be, rigged everything electronical in peoples lives of services. Mainly Americans are programed on how to think and even in school on What to think. Very few are free thinkers.

        1. ahorseback profile image47
          ahorsebackposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

          That's where you are always wrong Castle , The last free thinkers in the world are Americans , right and left , One , that is exactly why everyone is dying to get into America .  And Two ,  that is why those who self exile can never get over their sloppy exodus and suffer life long patriotic hangovers , Three , everyone who DOES  get in trys to manipulate it to their own agenda .

          Isn't America great ?

          1. Castlepaloma profile image23
            Castlepalomaposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

            I have been to the old USSR and US has taken that progressively beyond in Corperation Communist and war economy rule world wide. You have been Program since a child that America is the Greatest country in the world while US Government keeps stealing your freedoms away. You would only know horse if you have had traveled the all the Continent like I have throughout 54 years.

            1. peoplepower73 profile image88
              peoplepower73posted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

              ahorseback and all you other Trump believers out there:  This morning news read:"Trump will not pursue Clinton investigation."  She was made to look like the devil incarnate with "lock her up and "put her in front of a firing squad."  He ruined her political career, so that he could be President.  He also planted the seed in the minds of many Trump believers that will never change their minds about this women.  She will always be crooked Hillary

              Why did he change his mind, because he is guilty of all the global conflict of interests that he claimed the Clinton's are and he doesn't want to be investigated.  It would show the world what a hypocrite and con man this guy really is.

              Now I'm going to play the conservative republican mind game.  It is called "What if."  What if he reneges on all of his promises?  He has already softened his position on Obama Care and the Wall.  What if he doesn't make good on many other pledges?  How are you going to feel?  What if he can't bomb  the sh*t out of ISIS?
              http://reut.rs/2fl68hQ via @Reuters

              1. Castlepaloma profile image23
                Castlepalomaposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

                Trump death threats don't scare Snowden. Snowden says he is just a President, and he says nothing since elected.

                Trump got his eye on the lady Status of Liberty since she is not 10 like his wife, he says she more of 4 or 5. I would rate a gargoyle at a 5 Liberty has far more characters and meaning for Americans than Trump will ever have along with his Zionist Congress too, who he can't rip apart neither.

                ISIS is one sure thing because US is ISIS along with false flag and fake jews. US must blame and point to someone else for the collapses of America.Trump a least admits to a bubble ready to burst and America will go bankrupt and he God oh mighty will make a deal and save the day. Not the run on the banks or the war that America can not afford, just that day as the phony press will be with him this time.

                Oh, forgot Mexican won't pay for the wall because both will be broke when Trump ruins America.

              2. ahorseback profile image47
                ahorsebackposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

                Peoplepower , First , Trump isn't to blame for crooked Hilary ,  Keep in mind if she isn't charged now - before O mans done , Obama cannot pardon her after  his term ! Quite frankly if you can't see how she ruined her own career  , you are very naïve ! 

                "What if "? Trump won't make it through four years if he doesn't drain the swamp !
                Still the sore loser huh ?

                1. peoplepower73 profile image88
                  peoplepower73posted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

                  ahorseback: Still blaming the wrong people? Trump branded Hillary with that name.  He brands all of the people who don't agree with his delusional world.  So now he says "leave Hillary alone."  Then you think  as soon as  Obama is gone, he is going to prosecute her?  Isn't that misleading the public, by lying? 

                  He is not draining the swap, he is filling it with "business as usual water."   You can't accept that he used Hilary and all the other people he demeaned as tools to gain what he wanted.  Why does he want Mitt Romney back?  It is all political theater for him, but he does not suffer the consequences of what he creates or even take responsibility for it.

                  Sorry to disappoint you, but he is not bringing jobs back, because labor is cheaper off shore and corporations will not allow their bottom line to be affected by higher wages in this country.  Most manufacturing and  assembly line jobs in this country have been taken over by automation and  robots.  That's why Detroit is out of work.

                  And you call me naive.  Take off your rose colored glasses and see the world for what it is, globalization and an ever changing and ever improving technology that gives corporations and big moneyed interest a bigger bottom line.  I'm not a sore loser, I see Trump for what he really is and that concerns me. Trump's behavior and character have been recorded for all the world to see. Trump's character is toxic and the rest of the world and half of this country know it.  The other half of this country is naive, just like you are, and believes everything he said in his campaigns will come to fruition.

                  1. ahorseback profile image47
                    ahorsebackposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

                    Peoplepower ,  It IS SO sad to experience people of your age as naïve as you are ,  I gave up long ago trying to figure out where the  socio- political maturity development level   of the left failed , perhaps it was your soft government service and entitlement paychecks , perhaps simply your P.C. driven Obama love affair ,    either way , the last eight years of socialism's failure to get a jump start in America has left you and those like you direly in need of  aroma therapy ,  cute   huggie  bears , warm milk and safe spaces to lick your collective wounds . 

                    Guess what , Its Trumps turn and the rights turn too !   Sit back , get yourself a emotion   therapy latté  and watch what happens when  anything BUT a  neighborhood social reformer runs the country !

                    1. peoplepower73 profile image88
                      peoplepower73posted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

                      ahorseback:  Yes it is sad, but not for the reasons you stated.  It is sad that the people who believe in Trump's promises and pledges are angry right now because he is not going to lock up Hillary. It blows my mind to think people actually put stock in what he says.  It is sad that they have been conned by a master con man and they don't even realize it. Even the Evangelicals betrayed their values and beliefs systems to put faith in this man.

                      http://a.msn.com/01/en-us/AAkDgNV?ocid=st

                    2. Victoria Lynn profile image88
                      Victoria Lynnposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

                      Our rights will all be threatened under Trump. This nationalistic attitude is dangerous. The people who say Hail Trump is too close to Heil Hitler for my tastes. White nationalists are on the rise. That's ultra un-American.

    11. Kathleen Cochran profile image85
      Kathleen Cochranposted 2 weeks ago

      California signed a contract as did nine other states.

    12. Kathleen Cochran profile image85
      Kathleen Cochranposted 2 weeks ago

      We actually have the EC because our founding fathers had the foresight to try to protect us from an unqualified populist candidate.  This time, it didn't work.

      1. ahorseback profile image47
        ahorsebackposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

        And as you know , I'm sure , that's not  the only reason for the E C,    Or is that one reason  the most useful reason because it fits your defeatist agenda ?

    13. ahorseback profile image47
      ahorsebackposted 2 weeks ago

      So many  will never understand the ideology of cities and crowds  , larger  cities would elect the president every time . High population areas alone , democratic to a tee ,  would elect democratic presidents EVERY time . The E.C. was designed to protect STATES equally within the nation  . Not the peoples popular vote .   I wonder when  will Americans ever read a book again , read a few ,    become enlightened , become knowledgeable  to  this election process .
      In a popular  election only ;
      -New York city
      -Chicago
      -San Francisco
      -Dallas
      -New Orleans ,
      Would determine the outcome of elections  -EVERY time . That's okay with liberals I'm sure !

    14. 60
      harrisjennyposted 2 weeks ago

      This is a very hard problem, we need to think more about it. is there any chance for us? ideology is wrong for all, but what we can do?

      1. ahorseback profile image47
        ahorsebackposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

        I'm sure that many feel incredible disappointment in this loss ,   first , that's perfectly normal  .Second and more important is when one makes the exception  of investing emotionally in a political  election ,  ? That ,   as I'm very sure a lot of young people have,      is neither healthy nor  normal.     
        There is however  No systematic failure to correct ! I's an election ,  unfortunately it divided families , friends ,  fathers from daughters , etc...... We move on , we learn from it , we study , we evolve and as we evolve some of us  even change .   The new liberal today , believe it or not , becomes even the possibility of the conservative of tomorrow.

    15. The Old Guard profile image82
      The Old Guardposted 2 weeks ago

      Your premise is wrong - we are not a democracy we are a republic, here in the good ol' U.S.A.
      Propaganda leads you to believe that we are a democracy. Understand first and foremost that we are NOT a democracy. We do not decide things by popular vote. Contrary to the propaganda that's pushed on us daily by the U.S. Government.
      Democracy - control of an organization or group by the majority of its members.
      We are and have always been a 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.
      The founders were wise men. They did not believe that the majority should decide the choice of President, but the majority of States should decide who was President.
      This was one of the checks and balances that the founders used to limit the power of the Federal Government.
      They knew, even back in the 1700's, that the large, populated areas could force the majority of states to adhere to beliefs and laws that were unwanted in the majority of States.
      For example - let's look at the 13 colonies.
      Most of the North had the large cities and the southern states had smaller populations.
      So, if the popular vote was used for deciding the Presidential Election, 4 states from the north could sway the Presidential election to someone that the other 9 states didn't want. The founders thought this was unfair.
      Hence, each state was given a certain number of "Electoral Representatives", and this balanced the power between the  highly populated states and those states with a lower population.
      The founders felt the the individual states needed a fair representation in the Presidential Election, not just based on the total population of the states. The Electoral College was their solution to the problem as they saw it.
      Here are the priorities of rights as seen by the founders.
      1) Individual rights were paramount. The state nor the federal government could infringe on those rights.
      2) States rights - the Federal Government could not infringe on the rule of law within states.
      3) The Federal Government was allowed to rule because of the states and the individuals that made up that particular state.
      When that Federal Government overstepped it's limitations, the states could succeed from the Union. Yes, this was felt to be true, and this was one of the reasons for the Civil War. (Most of the Confederate States had no voice in electing Lincoln into office - he was never on the ballot)
      This is why Lincoln didn't just conquer the Confederacy, he destroyed the southern states - burning down factories, tearing up the rail system and burning cities to the ground.
      He wanted to make sure that the southern states never had enough power to break away from the Union again. He was the first American terrorist.
      From that point forward, the power of the states has been limited, and the Federal Governments power has over reached it's mandate.
      The Electoral College is the last "Rule of law" that allows states to have some say in who is put into the White House. This is the reason for the Electoral College and why the popular vote is not used in the Presidential Election.
      We've been conned by our government into thinking that it's the Federal Government that's the ultimate ruler of the country.
      This is propaganda - it's supposed to be the individual, followed by the states giving their consent to those in D.C. 
      Those in D.C. are always given permission - they're not "leaders". They're supposed to do what the states and the individuals within the states want them to do.
      So, if we get rid of the Electoral College, we might as well get rid of the Constitution - it's no longer a valid document. All sections of the Constitution will have been infringed.



      http://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13289591_f1024.jpg

    16. ranjit190 profile image60
      ranjit190posted 2 weeks ago

      This is really very nice blog and so informative. Thanks a lot for sharing this article.

    17. 61
      divanshuposted 13 days ago

      I think it's right.

     
    working