Time for a new system

[Spare_change]

... which, of course, gives the more populous states undue sway in matters of national interest. The political interests of the urban citizens would be nursed at the expense of the less populous areas. The first presidential candidate who came out and said that, due to the difference in cost of living, all residents of cities of 400,000 or more would be given a $5,000 rebate (to be funded by an increased tax on rural citizens), would be elected for life.

It is nonsensical to think that a "national" election is appropriate .... we are not a single country. We are an amalgam of 50 states.

You could say the same about a president that was going to tax urban populations because they use more of the resources and give that to urban populations but has never happened with the EC in place. That is because your example is nonsensical.

The political interests of each individual should be even ion a presidential race. Stating that we are 50 individual states is meaningless - the president is the leader of the executive branch for all of them and elected democratically. It makes no sense to continue to hold onto an electoral college that no longer serves a purpose. It does not remove the weight from urban arias - places like Seattle STILL FORCE eastern Washington to support democrats when they are largely republican. At this point - other than to neuter a new president like Trump because he does not have the popular vote - it only serves to disincentivize people from voting because of geographical location. I know many people in CA that simply do not vote because they are going to be counted for the democrats no matter what they do. I am sure that is the way of things throughout the nation. It also does not allow republicans to effectively campaign in places like CA because it would be pointless.

How do you think that politics has become so divisive? Everyone simply listens to their own echo chambers and never hears the other side. The EC is a part of that reality as well.

Sorry --- I think you skipped too many days in 7th grade civics.

The "president is the leader of the executive branch" --- you were doing really good thru here. ".. for all of them and elected democratically". Must have been one of those days you skipped ... the president manages the executive branch of the federal government, but has no direct control over the states. The states are separate and distinct entities. We are called the United STATES for a reason. We do not have a national name. England is England, Germany is Germany, but we are a coalition of individual and distinct states voluntarily joining together on issues of our collective self interest, while trying to retain individual control of those issues not of concern to others. The federal government tries constantly to usurp those individual issues, but the fight goes on. I strongly suggest a tutorial on states' rights and responsibilities.

For someone trying to insult me about not understanding civics you seem to misunderstand the government entirely. We have a federal system that assigns certain powers to the federal government and the states (or the people) retain the rest. That does not mean that the federal government (including the executive branch) does not exert direct control over the states - it does indeed do so. It just does so within the defined roles that the constitution has outlined. That is why the SCOTUS has the full power to overturn a state supreme court ruling, the feds have final say in the enforcement of immigration law or states are utterly barred from producing money - they have been granted that power by the constitution. That is also why the supremacy clause exists - to clearly define that the federal government has final say in matters that the constitution has granted them.

Now, you will not get an argument from me if you want to propose that the feds have gone beyond that and we are now operating outside what the constitution intended as they are exercising powers well beyond the ones outlined but the intent was never what you are describing. What you are describing is actually a confederacy and we outed that form of government because it failed. The federal government requires powers or there is no reason to have it at all.

The president is NOT elected democratically. We are representative republic, not a democracy. Each of the 50 states sends a board of electors to select a president. When you vote, you are RECOMMENDING to your state which one you think would be the right candidate. Your vote carries no legal weight, other than the fact that most individual states have legislated that the electors must vote in accordance with the wishes of the voters in that state. In effect, there are 51 separate elections, which culminates in recommendations to state leadership who to select for president.

And here again it seems that you are the one that missed civics. We ARE a republic and our representatives are ELECTED democratically. Just because you elect representatives democratically does not mean that we are not a republic - one term is being used to describe how the government is structured and the other in how our elections are structured.

It is correct that it does not have to be so - the constitution does not require a democratic election for the president (though it does require it for congress) however every single state has established a democratic election process.

Why do i think politics has become so divisive? The answer is two-fold ... first, people are more concerned with voting their self interest, rather than the good for all, and second, people are becoming increasingly ignorance and distant from the concerns of society.

Self interest does not have is much to do with it as you think IMHO. It it did people would bother to understand the policy positions and what they mean. Politics is much more effected by what 10 second clip is on the news or what sex scandal came out. Essentially it has become a team sport where the only thing of interest is winning and discussion has ceased. Now it is just 2 echo chambers telling themselves that they are always correct.

Oh wait --- I'll add a third one. People are losing the sense of what they stand to lose. They think it's always been here, and it will always be here, and if they don't get involved, the "government" will take care of it. Most people don't appreciate their freedoms, and they don't appreciate what it took to get them and to maintain them.

I can agree with that. We have become massively successful and that has made people rather jaded. They do not seem to think that we can lose what we have when the electorate ignores actual issues and lets the political class run roughshod over the system.

Oh, by the way ... your example that a president "was going to tax urban populations because they use more of the resources" --- you're absolutely right. Only problem is that he would never get elected. Too many voters too worried about their self interests.

Nor would he get elected in your example which is why I pointed that out. The idea that the EC going away would cause what you said is silly on its face. The opposite does not happen with it in place.

Sorry, pal ---- you lost this argument in the first paragraph. It is not a " We have a federal system that assigns certain powers to the federal government and the states (or the people) retain the rest." Our federal government serves at the behest of the states.

Now, as for the other nonsense ... it is exactly that ... nonsense. You have been duped - duped by those interested in concentrating power and authority in the federal government in order to better control the populace. If you seriously don't believe that people vote for what is in their best interest, if you are that deluded, that misled, that unrealistic, there's nothing more that I can say.

So, I won't.

Wow - I had no idea how little you actually understand about our government. You really should take a look at this:
The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription

You might need to actually read the constitution before demanding that you understand what is in it. The fact that the federal government has powers assigned to it is not in question - that is a hard fact. The supremacy clause is not in question - it is a hard fact. The separation of powers between not only the three branches but also the federal government and the states is not in question - that is the very basis of our government. The tenth amendment outlines this quite well when it comes to federal and state powers - I damn near quoted it in my last post. That you don't think such a reality exists is not my problem - it is clearly yours.

And so you can blatantly ignore the constitution itself:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
That would be delegated to the federal government.

... just exactly what do you suppose the use of the word "delegated" reveals concerning the relationship of the federal government to the states? The federal government is defined by the powers granted to it by the States. All other powers are "reserved" by the states. Who do you think is making that decision?

 

[SwimExpert]

That is why the SCOTUS has the full power to overturn a state supreme court ruling

Not quite. If the case deals entirely with state law questions, then SCOTUS has no jurisdiction to hear an appeal. A case can only be appealed from state courts to federal courts if the appeal is raising a question of federal law (i.e., a constitutional question).

 

[jc456]

Okay, simple fact, the last Republican presidential candidate to win an election not as the incumbent was way back in 1988. Yeah, go figure.

However that's not the main reason I want proportional representation. I've been talking about it for a while.

Proportional Representation is real democracy. It's the will of the people.

What happened on Tuesday was not the will of the people. Most people seems to hate Hillary AND Trump and voted for one or the other because they didn't want the other to get in. That's a pretty shitty system. It's clearly the people who control everything pushing you into a decision you don't want.

PR allows you to vote for whoever you want and if that party reaches the threshold (like in Germany it's 5%) then they get a member of parliament.

The Presidential vote should get rid of the electoral college, it's so outdated it's ridiculous. Have a "whoever gets the most votes wins" and a run off election, so people can vote whoever they like in round one, and then the top two get to go in a run off (or potentially any candidate who gets more than 33% goes into the next round).

This is the only way for people to have a say.

People wanted change with Trump, there is no change. In 8 years time it'll be back to the same old, same old.

You'll need a constitutional amendment.

Best of luck.

Yes, I know. But first it needs support of the people. Get enough people behind it, and the amendment isn't so hard.

Problem is, the voters seems to be more interested in the entertainment side of the election process. They couldn't give a rat's ass about whether they have democracy or not, as long as they can complain about it when it doesn't suit them.

you know, I'm more interested in taking money out of it. Let's say no one gets charged to advertise. None, why do we need money in order to vote someone into office. go there bubba. go there, I'll be right with ya.

We have news agency who can promote all the candidates. As for getting around they have an expense budget paid for by tax payers only. Come on man let's take owing people something cause they bought in, out of politics.

 

[FA_Q2]

That is why the SCOTUS has the full power to overturn a state supreme court ruling

Not quite. If the case deals entirely with state law questions, then SCOTUS has no jurisdiction to hear an appeal. A case can only be appealed from state courts to federal courts if the appeal is raising a question of federal law (i.e., a constitutional question).

Which is why I have been talking about powers that were granted to the federal government.

 

[FA_Q2]

You could say the same about a president that was going to tax urban populations because they use more of the resources and give that to urban populations but has never happened with the EC in place. That is because your example is nonsensical.

The political interests of each individual should be even ion a presidential race. Stating that we are 50 individual states is meaningless - the president is the leader of the executive branch for all of them and elected democratically. It makes no sense to continue to hold onto an electoral college that no longer serves a purpose. It does not remove the weight from urban arias - places like Seattle STILL FORCE eastern Washington to support democrats when they are largely republican. At this point - other than to neuter a new president like Trump because he does not have the popular vote - it only serves to disincentivize people from voting because of geographical location. I know many people in CA that simply do not vote because they are going to be counted for the democrats no matter what they do. I am sure that is the way of things throughout the nation. It also does not allow republicans to effectively campaign in places like CA because it would be pointless.

How do you think that politics has become so divisive? Everyone simply listens to their own echo chambers and never hears the other side. The EC is a part of that reality as well.

Sorry --- I think you skipped too many days in 7th grade civics.

The "president is the leader of the executive branch" --- you were doing really good thru here. ".. for all of them and elected democratically". Must have been one of those days you skipped ... the president manages the executive branch of the federal government, but has no direct control over the states. The states are separate and distinct entities. We are called the United STATES for a reason. We do not have a national name. England is England, Germany is Germany, but we are a coalition of individual and distinct states voluntarily joining together on issues of our collective self interest, while trying to retain individual control of those issues not of concern to others. The federal government tries constantly to usurp those individual issues, but the fight goes on. I strongly suggest a tutorial on states' rights and responsibilities.

For someone trying to insult me about not understanding civics you seem to misunderstand the government entirely. We have a federal system that assigns certain powers to the federal government and the states (or the people) retain the rest. That does not mean that the federal government (including the executive branch) does not exert direct control over the states - it does indeed do so. It just does so within the defined roles that the constitution has outlined. That is why the SCOTUS has the full power to overturn a state supreme court ruling, the feds have final say in the enforcement of immigration law or states are utterly barred from producing money - they have been granted that power by the constitution. That is also why the supremacy clause exists - to clearly define that the federal government has final say in matters that the constitution has granted them.

Now, you will not get an argument from me if you want to propose that the feds have gone beyond that and we are now operating outside what the constitution intended as they are exercising powers well beyond the ones outlined but the intent was never what you are describing. What you are describing is actually a confederacy and we outed that form of government because it failed. The federal government requires powers or there is no reason to have it at all.

The president is NOT elected democratically. We are representative republic, not a democracy. Each of the 50 states sends a board of electors to select a president. When you vote, you are RECOMMENDING to your state which one you think would be the right candidate. Your vote carries no legal weight, other than the fact that most individual states have legislated that the electors must vote in accordance with the wishes of the voters in that state. In effect, there are 51 separate elections, which culminates in recommendations to state leadership who to select for president.

And here again it seems that you are the one that missed civics. We ARE a republic and our representatives are ELECTED democratically. Just because you elect representatives democratically does not mean that we are not a republic - one term is being used to describe how the government is structured and the other in how our elections are structured.

It is correct that it does not have to be so - the constitution does not require a democratic election for the president (though it does require it for congress) however every single state has established a democratic election process.

Why do i think politics has become so divisive? The answer is two-fold ... first, people are more concerned with voting their self interest, rather than the good for all, and second, people are becoming increasingly ignorance and distant from the concerns of society.

Self interest does not have is much to do with it as you think IMHO. It it did people would bother to understand the policy positions and what they mean. Politics is much more effected by what 10 second clip is on the news or what sex scandal came out. Essentially it has become a team sport where the only thing of interest is winning and discussion has ceased. Now it is just 2 echo chambers telling themselves that they are always correct.

Oh wait --- I'll add a third one. People are losing the sense of what they stand to lose. They think it's always been here, and it will always be here, and if they don't get involved, the "government" will take care of it. Most people don't appreciate their freedoms, and they don't appreciate what it took to get them and to maintain them.

I can agree with that. We have become massively successful and that has made people rather jaded. They do not seem to think that we can lose what we have when the electorate ignores actual issues and lets the political class run roughshod over the system.

Oh, by the way ... your example that a president "was going to tax urban populations because they use more of the resources" --- you're absolutely right. Only problem is that he would never get elected. Too many voters too worried about their self interests.

Nor would he get elected in your example which is why I pointed that out. The idea that the EC going away would cause what you said is silly on its face. The opposite does not happen with it in place.

Sorry, pal ---- you lost this argument in the first paragraph. It is not a " We have a federal system that assigns certain powers to the federal government and the states (or the people) retain the rest." Our federal government serves at the behest of the states.

Now, as for the other nonsense ... it is exactly that ... nonsense. You have been duped - duped by those interested in concentrating power and authority in the federal government in order to better control the populace. If you seriously don't believe that people vote for what is in their best interest, if you are that deluded, that misled, that unrealistic, there's nothing more that I can say.

So, I won't.

Wow - I had no idea how little you actually understand about our government. You really should take a look at this:
The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription

You might need to actually read the constitution before demanding that you understand what is in it. The fact that the federal government has powers assigned to it is not in question - that is a hard fact. The supremacy clause is not in question - it is a hard fact. The separation of powers between not only the three branches but also the federal government and the states is not in question - that is the very basis of our government. The tenth amendment outlines this quite well when it comes to federal and state powers - I damn near quoted it in my last post. That you don't think such a reality exists is not my problem - it is clearly yours.

And so you can blatantly ignore the constitution itself:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
That would be delegated to the federal government.

... just exactly what do you suppose the use of the word "delegated" reveals concerning the relationship of the federal government to the states? The federal government is defined by the powers granted to it by the States. All other powers are "reserved" by the states. Who do you think is making that decision?

The constitution is where those powers are outlined.

 

[LuckyDuck]

Ending the Electoral College would basically nullify America's rural votes. Large metropolitan communities would consistently win over and over and the rural populations would have no real voice.

1 - Horseshit.

2 - You are making the argument of slavers to protect slavery and disenfranchisement. Period. That's the only application that argument ever had. That is the purpose of the Electoral College. The EC was created as nothing more than an application of the 3/5s rule to elections. If not for slavery, the Electoral College would have never existed.

Bullshit.

 

[SwimExpert]

Ending the Electoral College would basically nullify America's rural votes. Large metropolitan communities would consistently win over and over and the rural populations would have no real voice.

1 - Horseshit.

2 - You are making the argument of slavers to protect slavery and disenfranchisement. Period. That's the only application that argument ever had. That is the purpose of the Electoral College. The EC was created as nothing more than an application of the 3/5s rule to elections. If not for slavery, the Electoral College would have never existed.

Bullshit.

Become educated before ye make a fool of thyself.

 

[Spare_change]

Sorry --- I think you skipped too many days in 7th grade civics.

The "president is the leader of the executive branch" --- you were doing really good thru here. ".. for all of them and elected democratically". Must have been one of those days you skipped ... the president manages the executive branch of the federal government, but has no direct control over the states. The states are separate and distinct entities. We are called the United STATES for a reason. We do not have a national name. England is England, Germany is Germany, but we are a coalition of individual and distinct states voluntarily joining together on issues of our collective self interest, while trying to retain individual control of those issues not of concern to others. The federal government tries constantly to usurp those individual issues, but the fight goes on. I strongly suggest a tutorial on states' rights and responsibilities.

For someone trying to insult me about not understanding civics you seem to misunderstand the government entirely. We have a federal system that assigns certain powers to the federal government and the states (or the people) retain the rest. That does not mean that the federal government (including the executive branch) does not exert direct control over the states - it does indeed do so. It just does so within the defined roles that the constitution has outlined. That is why the SCOTUS has the full power to overturn a state supreme court ruling, the feds have final say in the enforcement of immigration law or states are utterly barred from producing money - they have been granted that power by the constitution. That is also why the supremacy clause exists - to clearly define that the federal government has final say in matters that the constitution has granted them.

Now, you will not get an argument from me if you want to propose that the feds have gone beyond that and we are now operating outside what the constitution intended as they are exercising powers well beyond the ones outlined but the intent was never what you are describing. What you are describing is actually a confederacy and we outed that form of government because it failed. The federal government requires powers or there is no reason to have it at all.

The president is NOT elected democratically. We are representative republic, not a democracy. Each of the 50 states sends a board of electors to select a president. When you vote, you are RECOMMENDING to your state which one you think would be the right candidate. Your vote carries no legal weight, other than the fact that most individual states have legislated that the electors must vote in accordance with the wishes of the voters in that state. In effect, there are 51 separate elections, which culminates in recommendations to state leadership who to select for president.

And here again it seems that you are the one that missed civics. We ARE a republic and our representatives are ELECTED democratically. Just because you elect representatives democratically does not mean that we are not a republic - one term is being used to describe how the government is structured and the other in how our elections are structured.

It is correct that it does not have to be so - the constitution does not require a democratic election for the president (though it does require it for congress) however every single state has established a democratic election process.

Why do i think politics has become so divisive? The answer is two-fold ... first, people are more concerned with voting their self interest, rather than the good for all, and second, people are becoming increasingly ignorance and distant from the concerns of society.

Self interest does not have is much to do with it as you think IMHO. It it did people would bother to understand the policy positions and what they mean. Politics is much more effected by what 10 second clip is on the news or what sex scandal came out. Essentially it has become a team sport where the only thing of interest is winning and discussion has ceased. Now it is just 2 echo chambers telling themselves that they are always correct.

Oh wait --- I'll add a third one. People are losing the sense of what they stand to lose. They think it's always been here, and it will always be here, and if they don't get involved, the "government" will take care of it. Most people don't appreciate their freedoms, and they don't appreciate what it took to get them and to maintain them.

I can agree with that. We have become massively successful and that has made people rather jaded. They do not seem to think that we can lose what we have when the electorate ignores actual issues and lets the political class run roughshod over the system.

Oh, by the way ... your example that a president "was going to tax urban populations because they use more of the resources" --- you're absolutely right. Only problem is that he would never get elected. Too many voters too worried about their self interests.

Nor would he get elected in your example which is why I pointed that out. The idea that the EC going away would cause what you said is silly on its face. The opposite does not happen with it in place.

Sorry, pal ---- you lost this argument in the first paragraph. It is not a " We have a federal system that assigns certain powers to the federal government and the states (or the people) retain the rest." Our federal government serves at the behest of the states.

Now, as for the other nonsense ... it is exactly that ... nonsense. You have been duped - duped by those interested in concentrating power and authority in the federal government in order to better control the populace. If you seriously don't believe that people vote for what is in their best interest, if you are that deluded, that misled, that unrealistic, there's nothing more that I can say.

So, I won't.

Wow - I had no idea how little you actually understand about our government. You really should take a look at this:
The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription

You might need to actually read the constitution before demanding that you understand what is in it. The fact that the federal government has powers assigned to it is not in question - that is a hard fact. The supremacy clause is not in question - it is a hard fact. The separation of powers between not only the three branches but also the federal government and the states is not in question - that is the very basis of our government. The tenth amendment outlines this quite well when it comes to federal and state powers - I damn near quoted it in my last post. That you don't think such a reality exists is not my problem - it is clearly yours.

And so you can blatantly ignore the constitution itself:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
That would be delegated to the federal government.

... just exactly what do you suppose the use of the word "delegated" reveals concerning the relationship of the federal government to the states? The federal government is defined by the powers granted to it by the States. All other powers are "reserved" by the states. Who do you think is making that decision?

The constitution is where those powers are outlined.

... agreed to by the states. It was state representatives that created it.

 

[Spare_change]

Ending the Electoral College would basically nullify America's rural votes. Large metropolitan communities would consistently win over and over and the rural populations would have no real voice.

1 - Horseshit.

2 - You are making the argument of slavers to protect slavery and disenfranchisement. Period. That's the only application that argument ever had. That is the purpose of the Electoral College. The EC was created as nothing more than an application of the 3/5s rule to elections. If not for slavery, the Electoral College would have never existed.

Bullshit.

Become educated before ye make a fool of thyself.

Unicorns, rainbows, pink clouds of cotton candy ...

 

[frigidweirdo]

Okay, simple fact, the last Republican presidential candidate to win an election not as the incumbent was way back in 1988. Yeah, go figure.

However that's not the main reason I want proportional representation. I've been talking about it for a while.

Proportional Representation is real democracy. It's the will of the people.

What happened on Tuesday was not the will of the people. Most people seems to hate Hillary AND Trump and voted for one or the other because they didn't want the other to get in. That's a pretty shitty system. It's clearly the people who control everything pushing you into a decision you don't want.

PR allows you to vote for whoever you want and if that party reaches the threshold (like in Germany it's 5%) then they get a member of parliament.

The Presidential vote should get rid of the electoral college, it's so outdated it's ridiculous. Have a "whoever gets the most votes wins" and a run off election, so people can vote whoever they like in round one, and then the top two get to go in a run off (or potentially any candidate who gets more than 33% goes into the next round).

This is the only way for people to have a say.

People wanted change with Trump, there is no change. In 8 years time it'll be back to the same old, same old.

You'll need a constitutional amendment.

Best of luck.

Yes, I know. But first it needs support of the people. Get enough people behind it, and the amendment isn't so hard.

Problem is, the voters seems to be more interested in the entertainment side of the election process. They couldn't give a rat's ass about whether they have democracy or not, as long as they can complain about it when it doesn't suit them.

you know, I'm more interested in taking money out of it. Let's say no one gets charged to advertise. None, why do we need money in order to vote someone into office. go there bubba. go there, I'll be right with ya.

We have news agency who can promote all the candidates. As for getting around they have an expense budget paid for by tax payers only. Come on man let's take owing people something cause they bought in, out of politics.

But like people have said, new agencies can dictate their own terms. Yes, taking money out of the system, forcing all TV networks to put spots for all the candidates would be good. However you're still going to get winners who can harness the media. There's no sure fire way of doing this, other than taking the president out of the popularity contest.

Switzerland has done that. They have an executive made up of many people. Seeing how the executive in the US is no longer a one person job, it would make sense to change that.

Have 15 different people responsible for their part of the executive, have the elected in rotation like the US senate, and you might get somewhere.

 

[FA_Q2]

For someone trying to insult me about not understanding civics you seem to misunderstand the government entirely. We have a federal system that assigns certain powers to the federal government and the states (or the people) retain the rest. That does not mean that the federal government (including the executive branch) does not exert direct control over the states - it does indeed do so. It just does so within the defined roles that the constitution has outlined. That is why the SCOTUS has the full power to overturn a state supreme court ruling, the feds have final say in the enforcement of immigration law or states are utterly barred from producing money - they have been granted that power by the constitution. That is also why the supremacy clause exists - to clearly define that the federal government has final say in matters that the constitution has granted them.

Now, you will not get an argument from me if you want to propose that the feds have gone beyond that and we are now operating outside what the constitution intended as they are exercising powers well beyond the ones outlined but the intent was never what you are describing. What you are describing is actually a confederacy and we outed that form of government because it failed. The federal government requires powers or there is no reason to have it at all.
And here again it seems that you are the one that missed civics. We ARE a republic and our representatives are ELECTED democratically. Just because you elect representatives democratically does not mean that we are not a republic - one term is being used to describe how the government is structured and the other in how our elections are structured.

It is correct that it does not have to be so - the constitution does not require a democratic election for the president (though it does require it for congress) however every single state has established a democratic election process.
Self interest does not have is much to do with it as you think IMHO. It it did people would bother to understand the policy positions and what they mean. Politics is much more effected by what 10 second clip is on the news or what sex scandal came out. Essentially it has become a team sport where the only thing of interest is winning and discussion has ceased. Now it is just 2 echo chambers telling themselves that they are always correct.
I can agree with that. We have become massively successful and that has made people rather jaded. They do not seem to think that we can lose what we have when the electorate ignores actual issues and lets the political class run roughshod over the system.
Nor would he get elected in your example which is why I pointed that out. The idea that the EC going away would cause what you said is silly on its face. The opposite does not happen with it in place.

Sorry, pal ---- you lost this argument in the first paragraph. It is not a " We have a federal system that assigns certain powers to the federal government and the states (or the people) retain the rest." Our federal government serves at the behest of the states.

Now, as for the other nonsense ... it is exactly that ... nonsense. You have been duped - duped by those interested in concentrating power and authority in the federal government in order to better control the populace. If you seriously don't believe that people vote for what is in their best interest, if you are that deluded, that misled, that unrealistic, there's nothing more that I can say.

So, I won't.

Wow - I had no idea how little you actually understand about our government. You really should take a look at this:
The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription

You might need to actually read the constitution before demanding that you understand what is in it. The fact that the federal government has powers assigned to it is not in question - that is a hard fact. The supremacy clause is not in question - it is a hard fact. The separation of powers between not only the three branches but also the federal government and the states is not in question - that is the very basis of our government. The tenth amendment outlines this quite well when it comes to federal and state powers - I damn near quoted it in my last post. That you don't think such a reality exists is not my problem - it is clearly yours.

And so you can blatantly ignore the constitution itself:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
That would be delegated to the federal government.

... just exactly what do you suppose the use of the word "delegated" reveals concerning the relationship of the federal government to the states? The federal government is defined by the powers granted to it by the States. All other powers are "reserved" by the states. Who do you think is making that decision?

The constitution is where those powers are outlined.

... agreed to by the states. It was state representatives that created it.

That does not change the fact that the federal government exercises powers defined in the COTUS over the states.