Why can't liberals comprehend this is the United States of America??

[Wyatt earp]

We are a nation of 50 states bigger than Europe


Is Spain the same as Italy ?

Is Great Britain the same as Germany?


Hence the name United States of America

Not the United State of California



What's next does the liberals want to get rid of the Senate that's supposed to protect each state evenly?



The United States of America (USA), commonly referred to as the United States (U.S.) or America, is a federal republic composed of 50 states, afederal district, five major self-governing territories, and various possessions.[fn 1]Forty-eight of the fifty states and the federal district are contiguous and located in North America betweenCanada and Mexico.

If it's 50 states, then give each state 1 vote. If it's a country of Americans, then give every person a vote that is the same.

But no, this is the USA. The country that goes around the world telling countries like China, Russia, Venezuela etc that they should be DEMOCRATIC, and can't figure out that there's no democracy to be seen in the presidential election.

Not a history buff are you?
Back in the 1800s the entire world was full of dictators and the like America gave hope to the world.. We changed the world good or bad.. Never forget that..


They came to us we didn't go to them

 

[EverCurious]

And I'd reitterate this paragraph from my post #146 which directly addresses the letter in question (which Care4All's piece omits - on purpose no doubt - not blaming Care4all, but the editor)

The part of the arrangement which casts the eventual appointment on the H. of Rs. voting by States, was, as you presume, an accomodation to the anxiety of the smaller States for their sovereign equality, and to the jealousy of the larger States towards the cumulative functions of the Senate. The Agency of the H. of Reps. was thought safer also than that of the Senate, on account of the greater number of its members. It might indeed happen that the event would turn on one or two States having one or two Reps. only; but even in that case, the Representations of most of the States being numerous, the House would present greater obstacles to corruption, than the Senate with its paucity of Members. It may be observed also, that altho’ for a certain period the evil of State votes given by one or two individuals would be extended by the introduction of new States, it would be rapidly diminished by growing populations within extensive territories. At the present period, the evil is at its maximum. Another Census will leave none the States existing or in embryo, in the numerical rank of R. Island & Delaware: Nor is it impossible that the progressive assimilation of local Institutions, laws, & manners, may overcome the prejudices of those particular States agst. an incorporation with their neighbours.

----
My interpretation of the paragraph above is that Rhode Island and Delaware would have no votes (second emphasis), and therefore (the first emphasis) was put in to protect smaller state sovereignty. (I will presently research the populations of DE and RI in 1802(ish) and verify)

Continues
----

But with all possible abatements, the present rule of voting for President by the House of Reps. is so great a departure from the republican principle of numerical, equality, and even from the federal rule which qualifies the numerical by a State equality, and is so pregnant also with a mischievous tendency in practice, that an amendment of the Constitution on that point is justly called for by all its considerate & best friends.

I agree entirely with you in thinking that the election of Presidential Electors by districts, is an amendment very proper to be brought forward at the same time with that relating to the eventual choice of President by the H. of Reps. The district mode was mostly, if not exclusively in view when the Constitution was framed & adopted; and was exchanged for the general ticket & the Legislative election, as the only expedient for baffling the policy of the particular States which had set the example. A constitutional establishment of that mode will doubtless aid in reconciling the smaller States to the other change which they will regard as a concession on their part. And it may not be without a value in another important respect. The States when voting for President by general tickets or by their Legislatures, are a string of beeds: When they make their elections by districts, some of these differing in sentiment from others, and sympathizing with that of districts in other States, they are so knit together as to break the force of those Geographical & other noxious parties which might render the repulsive too strong for the cohesive tendencies within the political System.

It may be worthy of consideration whether in requiring elections by districts, a discretion might not be conveniently left with the States to allot two members to a single district. It would manifestly be an important proviso, that no new arrangement of districts should be made within a certain period previous to an ensuing election of President.

-----

In the first emphasis we see a /clear/ indication that State equality is desired and especially when taken with paragraph 1 very clearly noting the smaller states anxiety regarding their sovereignty - I do so wish he had gone into further detail of the "mischievous tendency" he considered it might imply, however the second emphasis section here makes it very clear that the founding fathers decided against it adopting the general ticket and Legislative election. He also notes, seemingly as a form of negotiation, that they should seek to trade the "district electors" idea for "the baffling policy of the particular States which had set the policy" - not at all that it was the intentions of the founding fathers to either support nor refute "winner take all" -- which is where it fails to support the argument that this document supports that theory.

All this seems to support is that popular vote was absolutely /not/ the founding fathers intentions, but rather that each state have /equal/ power - so NYCarbineer you are very wrong.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Conservatives want a system where the loser wins elections simply because they know they'll always be the losers.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The winner take all aspect of the EC is what makes it the most undemocratic.

 

[Wyatt earp]

We are a nation of 50 states bigger than Europe


Is Spain the same as Italy ?

Is Great Britain the same as Germany?


Hence the name United States of America

Not the United State of California



What's next does the liberals want to get rid of the Senate that's supposed to protect each state evenly?



The United States of America (USA), commonly referred to as the United States (U.S.) or America, is a federal republic composed of 50 states, afederal district, five major self-governing territories, and various possessions.[fn 1]Forty-eight of the fifty states and the federal district are contiguous and located in North America betweenCanada and Mexico.

If it's 50 states, then give each state 1 vote. If it's a country of Americans, then give every person a vote that is the same.

But no, this is the USA. The country that goes around the world telling countries like China, Russia, Venezuela etc that they should be DEMOCRATIC, and can't figure out that there's no democracy to be seen in the presidential election.

1 vote per state gives Trump a landslide victory. One vote per person gives Trump a small victory, the EC gives Trump a victory. What exactly is your issue?

Hillary lost, why cant you deal with that?

Trump lost the popular vote, dumbass. Where have you been?

Damn you're stubborn must be a tarus like me or a paid poster with no heart.

 

[Redfish]

We are a nation of 50 states bigger than Europe


Is Spain the same as Italy ?

Is Great Britain the same as Germany?


Hence the name United States of America

Not the United State of California



What's next does the liberals want to get rid of the Senate that's supposed to protect each state evenly?



The United States of America (USA), commonly referred to as the United States (U.S.) or America, is a federal republic composed of 50 states, afederal district, five major self-governing territories, and various possessions.[fn 1]Forty-eight of the fifty states and the federal district are contiguous and located in North America betweenCanada and Mexico.

There is no rational argument for making all states equal in power.

they are in the senate. 2 senators per state. sounds equal to me.

I said a 'rational argument'.

facts are not "rational" ? since when?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Conservatives want a system where the loser wins elections simply because they know they'll always be the losers.

You really want that supreme Court.


Nope you lose for the next 50 years.
You are not going to write the laws by feelings

It will be judged by the constitution which you hate so much

 

[frigidweirdo]

We are a nation of 50 states bigger than Europe


Is Spain the same as Italy ?

Is Great Britain the same as Germany?


Hence the name United States of America

Not the United State of California



What's next does the liberals want to get rid of the Senate that's supposed to protect each state evenly?



The United States of America (USA), commonly referred to as the United States (U.S.) or America, is a federal republic composed of 50 states, afederal district, five major self-governing territories, and various possessions.[fn 1]Forty-eight of the fifty states and the federal district are contiguous and located in North America betweenCanada and Mexico.

If it's 50 states, then give each state 1 vote. If it's a country of Americans, then give every person a vote that is the same.

But no, this is the USA. The country that goes around the world telling countries like China, Russia, Venezuela etc that they should be DEMOCRATIC, and can't figure out that there's no democracy to be seen in the presidential election.

Not a history buff are you?
Back in the 1800s the entire world was full of dictators and the like America gave hope to the world.. We changed the world good or bad.. Never forget that..


They came to us we didn't go to them

But also a lot of people lived right on the poverty line. A bad summer and people died. Genocide was also rife.

 

[Care4all]

i;m advocating each State change the rules back to where they represent our founder's intent.

1) OK, assuming that means you're dropping the stupid shit that your vote didn't count when you voted according to the rules of your State then we're good on that point

2) I asked you how you know that was their intent since we are following their rules and everything I've read just says they wanted the States to decide how to allocate their electors

I read it when searching HISTORY of presidential race electors, and Hamilton and Madison among a few others who created the system and why they created it, verses letting actual house and Senate members voting.

Still no links? Of course, that's what happens when you make your shit up. The founding fathers left it up to the States how to allocate their electors. You're still zero for everything. Link, wench. Where did the FFs say States were supposed to allocate proportionately. Your claim, back it up

here ya go with just one link....it's a long read, much more at the link...I doubt you'll read it all or even try to understand it...

The Electoral College - Origin and History

The Electoral College

Excerpt from an original document located at Jackson County, MO Election Board

by William C. Kimberling, Deputy Director FEC National Clearinghouse on Election Administration

In order to appreciate the reasons for the Electoral College, it is essential to understand its historical context and the problem that the Founding Fathers were trying to solve. They faced the difficult question of how to elect a president in a nation that:

• was composed of thirteen large and small States jealous of their own rights and powers and suspicious of any central national government
  
• contained only 4,000,000 people spread up and down a thousand miles of Atlantic seaboard barely connected by transportation or communication (so that national campaigns were impractical even if they had been thought desirable)
  
• believed, under the influence of such British political thinkers as Henry St. John Bolingbroke, that political parties were mischievous if not downright evil, and
  
• felt that gentlemen should not campaign for public office (The saying was "The office should seek the man, the man should not seek the office.").

How, then, to choose a president without political parties, without national campaigns, and without upsetting the carefully designed balance between the presidency and the Congress on one hand and between the States and the federal government on the other?


Origins of the Electoral College
The Constitutional Convention considered several possible methods of selecting a president.

One idea was to have the Congress choose the president. This idea was rejected, however, because some felt that making such a choice would be too divisive an issue and leave too many hard feelings in the Congress. Others felt that such a procedure would invite unseemly political bargaining, corruption, and perhaps even interference from foreign powers. Still others felt that such an arrangement would upset the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches of the federal government.

A second idea was to have the State legislatures select the president. This idea, too, was rejected out of fears that a president so beholden to the State legislatures might permit them to erode federal authority and thus undermine the whole idea of a federation.

A third idea was to have the president elected by a direct popular vote. Direct election was rejected not because the Framers of the Constitution doubted public intelligence but rather because they feared that without sufficient information about candidates from outside their State, people would naturally vote for a "favorite son" from their own State or region. At worst, no president would emerge with a popular majority sufficient to govern the whole country. At best, the choice of president would always be decided by the largest, most populous States with little regard for the smaller ones.

Finally, a so-called "Committee of Eleven" in the Constitutional Convention proposed an indirect election of the president through a College of Electors.

The function of the College of Electors in choosing the president can be likened to that in the Roman Catholic Church of the College of Cardinals selecting the Pope. The original idea was for the most knowledgeable and informed individuals from each State to select the president based solely on merit and without regard to State of origin or political party.

The structure of the Electoral College can be traced to the Centurial Assembly system of the Roman Republic. Under that system, the adult male citizens of Rome were divided, according to their wealth, into groups of 100 (called Centuries). Each group of 100 was entitled to cast only one vote either in favor or against proposals submitted to them by the Roman Senate. In the Electoral College system, the States serve as the Centurial groups (though they are not, of course, based on wealth), and the number of votes per State is determined by the size of each State's Congressional delegation. Still, the two systems are similar in design and share many of the same advantages and disadvantages.

The similarities between the Electoral College and classical institutions are not accidental. Many of the Founding Fathers were well schooled in ancient history and its lessons.


The First Design
In the first design of the Electoral College (described in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution):

• Each State was allocated a number of Electors equal to the number of its U.S. Senators (always 2) plus the number of its U.S. Representative (which may change each decade according to the size of each State's population as determined in the decennial census). This arrangement built upon an earlier compromise in the design of the Congress itself and thus satisfied both large and small States.
  
• The manner of choosing the Electors was left to the individual State legislatures, thereby pacifying States suspicious of a central national government.
  
• Members of Congress and employees of the federal government were specifically prohibited from serving as an Elector in order to maintain the balance between the legislative and executive branches of the federal government.
  
• Each State's Electors were required to meet in their respective States rather than all together in one great meeting. This arrangement, it was thought, would prevent bribery, corruption, secret dealing, and foreign influence.
  
• In order to prevent Electors from voting only for a "favorite son" of their own State, each Elector was required to cast two votes for president, at least one of which had to be for someone outside their home State. The idea, presumably, was that the winner would likely be everyone's second favorite choice.

• The electoral votes were to be sealed and transmitted from each of the States to the President of the Senate who would then open them before both houses of the Congress and read the results.
  
• The person with the most electoral votes, provided that it was an absolute majority (at least one over half of the total), became president. Whoever obtained the next greatest number of electoral votes became vice president - an office which they seem to have invented for the occasion since it had not been mentioned previously in the Constitutional Convention.
  
• In the event that no one obtained an absolute majority in the Electoral College or in the event of a tie vote, the U.S. House of Representatives, as the chamber closest to the people, would choose the president from among the top five contenders. They would do this (as a further concession to the small States) by allowing each State to cast only one vote with an absolute majority of the States being required to elect a president. The vice presidency would go to whatever remaining contender had the greatest number of electoral votes. If that, too, was tied, the U.S. Senate would break the tie by deciding between the two.

In all, this was quite an elaborate design. But it was also a very clever one when you consider that the whole operation was supposed to work without political parties and without national campaigns

while maintaining the balances and satisfying the fears in play at the time. Indeed, it is probably because the Electoral College was originally designed to operate in an environment so totally different from our own that many people think it is anachronistic and fail to appreciate the new purposes it now serves. But of that, more later.


The Second Design
The first design of the Electoral College lasted through only four presidential elections. For in the meantime, political parties had emerged in the United States. The very people who had been condemning parties publicly had nevertheless been building them privately. And too, the idea of political parties had gained respectability through the persuasive writings of such political philosophers as Edmund Burke and James Madison.

One of the accidental results of the development of political parties was that in the presidential election of 1800, the Electors of the Democratic-Republican Party gave Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr (both of that party) an equal number of electoral votes. The tie was resolved by the House of Representatives in Jefferson's favor - but only after 36 tries and some serious political dealings which were considered unseemly at the time. Since this sort of bargaining over the presidency was the very thing the Electoral College was supposed to prevent, the Congress and the States hastily adopted the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution by September of 1804.

To prevent tie votes in the Electoral College which were made probable, if not inevitable, by the rise of political parties (and no doubt to facilitate the election of a president and vice president of the same party), the 12th Amendment requires that each Elector cast one vote for president and a separate vote for vice president rather than casting two votes for president with the runner-up being made vice president. The Amendment also stipulates that if no one receives an absolute majority of electoral votes for president, then the U.S. House of Representatives will select the president from among the top three contenders with each State casting only one vote and an absolute majority being required to elect. By the same token, if no one receives an absolute majority for vice president, then the U.S. Senate will select the vice president from among the top two contenders for that office. All other features of the Electoral College remained the same including the requirements that, in order to prevent Electors from voting only for "favorite sons", either the presidential or vice presidential candidate has to be from a State other than that of the Electors.

You're just assuming I'm as intellectually lazy as you are. I read a bunch of those on the history of the electoral college and all of them said the founders wanted it to be up to the States how to allocate their electors. Your claim they wanted to dictate to the States how to do it then they forgot to say that was unsupported. That's why I asked you for a link. I always do research before asking for a link. Ironic since you make claims without researching them.

Here's how you source a link. You provide the quote for the part you're claiming that the founding fathers wanted States to allocate their electors proportionally and somehow forgot to put that in the rules. Then you provide the link to support that. You're welcome.

I don't read here's a link, read it all and figure out what I am arguing for yourself on principle. So I will pass. Provide the quote and back it up with the link, lazy ass.

Edit: I pulled up the link and already read that one before you posted it. It doesn't support your claim. You insult me and post a long link with no quote that doesn't support your claim. That article says nothing about the founders wanting proportional allocation. I know that because I already read it. You are so full of shit it's hilarious ...

They wanted electors to cast their vote for the congressional district they represented. And no, the founders said it left it up to the states on who they picked for their electors for the DISTRICT....

You seem to think electors were picked after the people chose a president with a statewide popular vote in a winner take all....

THIS WAS NOT HOW it was done for our first 4 Presidencies.....slates of electors by party was not our founders intent, but the opposite of their intent

 

[frigidweirdo]

Conservatives want a system where the loser wins elections simply because they know they'll always be the losers.

You really want that supreme Court.


Nope you lose for the next 50 years.
You are not going to write the laws by feelings

It will be judged by the constitution which you hate so much

Oh come on, we all know that many Justices have their bias and don't rule on the Constitution, but rule on their partisanship. It's another bullshit nonsense that goes one in US politics.

 

[Redfish]

We are a nation of 50 states bigger than Europe


Is Spain the same as Italy ?

Is Great Britain the same as Germany?


Hence the name United States of America

Not the United State of California



What's next does the liberals want to get rid of the Senate that's supposed to protect each state evenly?



The United States of America (USA), commonly referred to as the United States (U.S.) or America, is a federal republic composed of 50 states, afederal district, five major self-governing territories, and various possessions.[fn 1]Forty-eight of the fifty states and the federal district are contiguous and located in North America betweenCanada and Mexico.

If it's 50 states, then give each state 1 vote. If it's a country of Americans, then give every person a vote that is the same.

But no, this is the USA. The country that goes around the world telling countries like China, Russia, Venezuela etc that they should be DEMOCRATIC, and can't figure out that there's no democracy to be seen in the presidential election.

1 vote per state gives Trump a landslide victory. One vote per person gives Trump a small victory, the EC gives Trump a victory. What exactly is your issue?

Hillary lost, why cant you deal with that?

Trump lost the popular vote, dumbass. Where have you been?

Nope, the latest counts show him winning the PV as well as the EC. But it doesn't really matter, Hillary lost, she is a two time loser, a terrible candidate, a criminal, a liar, a corrupt dishonest person, most corrupt person ever to run for president. and the people voted to send her back to her mansion in NY for the rest of her miserable life. Deal with that reality and STFU bitching about the EC. If you stupid dems ran a decent candidate you would have won.

 

[EverCurious]

hmm So RI and DE were the /lowest/ population states ... https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/1800_Apportionment.pdf

My presumption then would be that they are the ones that are "complaining" - however, it seems it is likely to be based on the numbers of reps assigned per persons (in this case it was every 33,000... Still trying to find actual population counts, but this notes how many representatives each state has at the time. I do note Delaware only has 1, when everything I read says they should have 2 at minimum -- AKA this letter here is RE the later addition that all states are given a minimum of /two/ votes - thoughts?

 

[Redfish]

1) OK, assuming that means you're dropping the stupid shit that your vote didn't count when you voted according to the rules of your State then we're good on that point

2) I asked you how you know that was their intent since we are following their rules and everything I've read just says they wanted the States to decide how to allocate their electors

I read it when searching HISTORY of presidential race electors, and Hamilton and Madison among a few others who created the system and why they created it, verses letting actual house and Senate members voting.

Still no links? Of course, that's what happens when you make your shit up. The founding fathers left it up to the States how to allocate their electors. You're still zero for everything. Link, wench. Where did the FFs say States were supposed to allocate proportionately. Your claim, back it up

here ya go with just one link....it's a long read, much more at the link...I doubt you'll read it all or even try to understand it...

The Electoral College - Origin and History

The Electoral College

Excerpt from an original document located at Jackson County, MO Election Board

by William C. Kimberling, Deputy Director FEC National Clearinghouse on Election Administration

In order to appreciate the reasons for the Electoral College, it is essential to understand its historical context and the problem that the Founding Fathers were trying to solve. They faced the difficult question of how to elect a president in a nation that:

• was composed of thirteen large and small States jealous of their own rights and powers and suspicious of any central national government
  
• contained only 4,000,000 people spread up and down a thousand miles of Atlantic seaboard barely connected by transportation or communication (so that national campaigns were impractical even if they had been thought desirable)
  
• believed, under the influence of such British political thinkers as Henry St. John Bolingbroke, that political parties were mischievous if not downright evil, and
  
• felt that gentlemen should not campaign for public office (The saying was "The office should seek the man, the man should not seek the office.").

How, then, to choose a president without political parties, without national campaigns, and without upsetting the carefully designed balance between the presidency and the Congress on one hand and between the States and the federal government on the other?


Origins of the Electoral College
The Constitutional Convention considered several possible methods of selecting a president.

One idea was to have the Congress choose the president. This idea was rejected, however, because some felt that making such a choice would be too divisive an issue and leave too many hard feelings in the Congress. Others felt that such a procedure would invite unseemly political bargaining, corruption, and perhaps even interference from foreign powers. Still others felt that such an arrangement would upset the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches of the federal government.

A second idea was to have the State legislatures select the president. This idea, too, was rejected out of fears that a president so beholden to the State legislatures might permit them to erode federal authority and thus undermine the whole idea of a federation.

A third idea was to have the president elected by a direct popular vote. Direct election was rejected not because the Framers of the Constitution doubted public intelligence but rather because they feared that without sufficient information about candidates from outside their State, people would naturally vote for a "favorite son" from their own State or region. At worst, no president would emerge with a popular majority sufficient to govern the whole country. At best, the choice of president would always be decided by the largest, most populous States with little regard for the smaller ones.

Finally, a so-called "Committee of Eleven" in the Constitutional Convention proposed an indirect election of the president through a College of Electors.

The function of the College of Electors in choosing the president can be likened to that in the Roman Catholic Church of the College of Cardinals selecting the Pope. The original idea was for the most knowledgeable and informed individuals from each State to select the president based solely on merit and without regard to State of origin or political party.

The structure of the Electoral College can be traced to the Centurial Assembly system of the Roman Republic. Under that system, the adult male citizens of Rome were divided, according to their wealth, into groups of 100 (called Centuries). Each group of 100 was entitled to cast only one vote either in favor or against proposals submitted to them by the Roman Senate. In the Electoral College system, the States serve as the Centurial groups (though they are not, of course, based on wealth), and the number of votes per State is determined by the size of each State's Congressional delegation. Still, the two systems are similar in design and share many of the same advantages and disadvantages.

The similarities between the Electoral College and classical institutions are not accidental. Many of the Founding Fathers were well schooled in ancient history and its lessons.


The First Design
In the first design of the Electoral College (described in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution):

• Each State was allocated a number of Electors equal to the number of its U.S. Senators (always 2) plus the number of its U.S. Representative (which may change each decade according to the size of each State's population as determined in the decennial census). This arrangement built upon an earlier compromise in the design of the Congress itself and thus satisfied both large and small States.
  
• The manner of choosing the Electors was left to the individual State legislatures, thereby pacifying States suspicious of a central national government.
  
• Members of Congress and employees of the federal government were specifically prohibited from serving as an Elector in order to maintain the balance between the legislative and executive branches of the federal government.
  
• Each State's Electors were required to meet in their respective States rather than all together in one great meeting. This arrangement, it was thought, would prevent bribery, corruption, secret dealing, and foreign influence.
  
• In order to prevent Electors from voting only for a "favorite son" of their own State, each Elector was required to cast two votes for president, at least one of which had to be for someone outside their home State. The idea, presumably, was that the winner would likely be everyone's second favorite choice.

• The electoral votes were to be sealed and transmitted from each of the States to the President of the Senate who would then open them before both houses of the Congress and read the results.
  
• The person with the most electoral votes, provided that it was an absolute majority (at least one over half of the total), became president. Whoever obtained the next greatest number of electoral votes became vice president - an office which they seem to have invented for the occasion since it had not been mentioned previously in the Constitutional Convention.
  
• In the event that no one obtained an absolute majority in the Electoral College or in the event of a tie vote, the U.S. House of Representatives, as the chamber closest to the people, would choose the president from among the top five contenders. They would do this (as a further concession to the small States) by allowing each State to cast only one vote with an absolute majority of the States being required to elect a president. The vice presidency would go to whatever remaining contender had the greatest number of electoral votes. If that, too, was tied, the U.S. Senate would break the tie by deciding between the two.

In all, this was quite an elaborate design. But it was also a very clever one when you consider that the whole operation was supposed to work without political parties and without national campaigns

while maintaining the balances and satisfying the fears in play at the time. Indeed, it is probably because the Electoral College was originally designed to operate in an environment so totally different from our own that many people think it is anachronistic and fail to appreciate the new purposes it now serves. But of that, more later.


The Second Design
The first design of the Electoral College lasted through only four presidential elections. For in the meantime, political parties had emerged in the United States. The very people who had been condemning parties publicly had nevertheless been building them privately. And too, the idea of political parties had gained respectability through the persuasive writings of such political philosophers as Edmund Burke and James Madison.

One of the accidental results of the development of political parties was that in the presidential election of 1800, the Electors of the Democratic-Republican Party gave Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr (both of that party) an equal number of electoral votes. The tie was resolved by the House of Representatives in Jefferson's favor - but only after 36 tries and some serious political dealings which were considered unseemly at the time. Since this sort of bargaining over the presidency was the very thing the Electoral College was supposed to prevent, the Congress and the States hastily adopted the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution by September of 1804.

To prevent tie votes in the Electoral College which were made probable, if not inevitable, by the rise of political parties (and no doubt to facilitate the election of a president and vice president of the same party), the 12th Amendment requires that each Elector cast one vote for president and a separate vote for vice president rather than casting two votes for president with the runner-up being made vice president. The Amendment also stipulates that if no one receives an absolute majority of electoral votes for president, then the U.S. House of Representatives will select the president from among the top three contenders with each State casting only one vote and an absolute majority being required to elect. By the same token, if no one receives an absolute majority for vice president, then the U.S. Senate will select the vice president from among the top two contenders for that office. All other features of the Electoral College remained the same including the requirements that, in order to prevent Electors from voting only for "favorite sons", either the presidential or vice presidential candidate has to be from a State other than that of the Electors.

You're just assuming I'm as intellectually lazy as you are. I read a bunch of those on the history of the electoral college and all of them said the founders wanted it to be up to the States how to allocate their electors. Your claim they wanted to dictate to the States how to do it then they forgot to say that was unsupported. That's why I asked you for a link. I always do research before asking for a link. Ironic since you make claims without researching them.

Here's how you source a link. You provide the quote for the part you're claiming that the founding fathers wanted States to allocate their electors proportionally and somehow forgot to put that in the rules. Then you provide the link to support that. You're welcome.

I don't read here's a link, read it all and figure out what I am arguing for yourself on principle. So I will pass. Provide the quote and back it up with the link, lazy ass.

Edit: I pulled up the link and already read that one before you posted it. It doesn't support your claim. You insult me and post a long link with no quote that doesn't support your claim. That article says nothing about the founders wanting proportional allocation. I know that because I already read it. You are so full of shit it's hilarious ...

They wanted electors to cast their vote for the congressional district they represented. And no, the founders said it left it up to the states on who they picked for their electors for the DISTRICT....

You seem to think electors were picked after the people chose a president with a statewide popular vote in a winner take all....

THIS WAS NOT HOW it was done for our first 4 Presidencies.....slates of electors by party was not our founders intent, but the opposite of their intent

then get a constitutional amendment passed and ratified by 38 states. Without that, nothing is going to change. Deal with that reality.

 

[NYcarbineer]

We are a nation of 50 states bigger than Europe


Is Spain the same as Italy ?

Is Great Britain the same as Germany?


Hence the name United States of America

Not the United State of California



What's next does the liberals want to get rid of the Senate that's supposed to protect each state evenly?



The United States of America (USA), commonly referred to as the United States (U.S.) or America, is a federal republic composed of 50 states, afederal district, five major self-governing territories, and various possessions.[fn 1]Forty-eight of the fifty states and the federal district are contiguous and located in North America betweenCanada and Mexico.

There is no rational argument for making all states equal in power.

they are in the senate. 2 senators per state. sounds equal to me.

I said a 'rational argument'.

facts are not "rational" ? since when?

You are losing it.

Make the rational argument that every state should have 2 Senators.

 

[NYcarbineer]

We are a nation of 50 states bigger than Europe


Is Spain the same as Italy ?

Is Great Britain the same as Germany?


Hence the name United States of America

Not the United State of California



What's next does the liberals want to get rid of the Senate that's supposed to protect each state evenly?



The United States of America (USA), commonly referred to as the United States (U.S.) or America, is a federal republic composed of 50 states, afederal district, five major self-governing territories, and various possessions.[fn 1]Forty-eight of the fifty states and the federal district are contiguous and located in North America betweenCanada and Mexico.

If it's 50 states, then give each state 1 vote. If it's a country of Americans, then give every person a vote that is the same.

But no, this is the USA. The country that goes around the world telling countries like China, Russia, Venezuela etc that they should be DEMOCRATIC, and can't figure out that there's no democracy to be seen in the presidential election.

1 vote per state gives Trump a landslide victory. One vote per person gives Trump a small victory, the EC gives Trump a victory. What exactly is your issue?

Hillary lost, why cant you deal with that?

Trump lost the popular vote, dumbass. Where have you been?

Nope, the latest counts show him winning the PV as well as the EC. But it doesn't really matter, Hillary lost, she is a two time loser, a terrible candidate, a criminal, a liar, a corrupt dishonest person, most corrupt person ever to run for president. and the people voted to send her back to her mansion in NY for the rest of her miserable life. Deal with that reality and STFU bitching about the EC. If you stupid dems ran a decent candidate you would have won.

No the latest count does not show that.

 

[Redfish]

Conservatives want a system where the loser wins elections simply because they know they'll always be the losers.

You really want that supreme Court.


Nope you lose for the next 50 years.
You are not going to write the laws by feelings

It will be judged by the constitution which you hate so much

Oh come on, we all know that many Justices have their bias and don't rule on the Constitution, but rule on their partisanship. It's another bullshit nonsense that goes one in US politics.

yes, we do, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Ginsburg. Rule by feeeeeeeeeeeeeeelings rather than the constitution.

 

[Wyatt earp]

We are a nation of 50 states bigger than Europe


Is Spain the same as Italy ?

Is Great Britain the same as Germany?


Hence the name United States of America

Not the United State of California



What's next does the liberals want to get rid of the Senate that's supposed to protect each state evenly?



The United States of America (USA), commonly referred to as the United States (U.S.) or America, is a federal republic composed of 50 states, afederal district, five major self-governing territories, and various possessions.[fn 1]Forty-eight of the fifty states and the federal district are contiguous and located in North America betweenCanada and Mexico.

If it's 50 states, then give each state 1 vote. If it's a country of Americans, then give every person a vote that is the same.

But no, this is the USA. The country that goes around the world telling countries like China, Russia, Venezuela etc that they should be DEMOCRATIC, and can't figure out that there's no democracy to be seen in the presidential election.

Not a history buff are you?
Back in the 1800s the entire world was full of dictators and the like America gave hope to the world.. We changed the world good or bad.. Never forget that..


They came to us we didn't go to them

But also a lot of people lived right on the poverty line. A bad summer and people died. Genocide was also rife.

So people don't now? You can't do anything with dictators and the like you can never move forward your screwed or get killed..

That's why I love America if you bust your ass you can win like Trump

Or sit on your ass and lose.

This is the greatest country in the world because we have the EC..

 

[frigidweirdo]

We are a nation of 50 states bigger than Europe


Is Spain the same as Italy ?

Is Great Britain the same as Germany?


Hence the name United States of America

Not the United State of California



What's next does the liberals want to get rid of the Senate that's supposed to protect each state evenly?



The United States of America (USA), commonly referred to as the United States (U.S.) or America, is a federal republic composed of 50 states, afederal district, five major self-governing territories, and various possessions.[fn 1]Forty-eight of the fifty states and the federal district are contiguous and located in North America betweenCanada and Mexico.

If it's 50 states, then give each state 1 vote. If it's a country of Americans, then give every person a vote that is the same.

But no, this is the USA. The country that goes around the world telling countries like China, Russia, Venezuela etc that they should be DEMOCRATIC, and can't figure out that there's no democracy to be seen in the presidential election.

Not a history buff are you?
Back in the 1800s the entire world was full of dictators and the like America gave hope to the world.. We changed the world good or bad.. Never forget that..


They came to us we didn't go to them

But also a lot of people lived right on the poverty line. A bad summer and people died. Genocide was also rife.

So people don't now? You can't do anything with dictators and the like you can never move forward your screwed or get killed..

That's why I love America if you bust your ass you can win like Trump

Or sit on your ass and lose.

This is the greatest country in the world because we have the EC..

Er.... what? It's the greatest country because, hey, you might not win the popular vote, but you can still sit your ass in the White House, whereas in other countries, damn, you actually have to win the popular vote? That sucks hey?

 

[kaz]

1) OK, assuming that means you're dropping the stupid shit that your vote didn't count when you voted according to the rules of your State then we're good on that point

2) I asked you how you know that was their intent since we are following their rules and everything I've read just says they wanted the States to decide how to allocate their electors

I read it when searching HISTORY of presidential race electors, and Hamilton and Madison among a few others who created the system and why they created it, verses letting actual house and Senate members voting.

Still no links? Of course, that's what happens when you make your shit up. The founding fathers left it up to the States how to allocate their electors. You're still zero for everything. Link, wench. Where did the FFs say States were supposed to allocate proportionately. Your claim, back it up

here ya go with just one link....it's a long read, much more at the link...I doubt you'll read it all or even try to understand it...

The Electoral College - Origin and History

The Electoral College

Excerpt from an original document located at Jackson County, MO Election Board

by William C. Kimberling, Deputy Director FEC National Clearinghouse on Election Administration

In order to appreciate the reasons for the Electoral College, it is essential to understand its historical context and the problem that the Founding Fathers were trying to solve. They faced the difficult question of how to elect a president in a nation that:

• was composed of thirteen large and small States jealous of their own rights and powers and suspicious of any central national government
  
• contained only 4,000,000 people spread up and down a thousand miles of Atlantic seaboard barely connected by transportation or communication (so that national campaigns were impractical even if they had been thought desirable)
  
• believed, under the influence of such British political thinkers as Henry St. John Bolingbroke, that political parties were mischievous if not downright evil, and
  
• felt that gentlemen should not campaign for public office (The saying was "The office should seek the man, the man should not seek the office.").

How, then, to choose a president without political parties, without national campaigns, and without upsetting the carefully designed balance between the presidency and the Congress on one hand and between the States and the federal government on the other?


Origins of the Electoral College
The Constitutional Convention considered several possible methods of selecting a president.

One idea was to have the Congress choose the president. This idea was rejected, however, because some felt that making such a choice would be too divisive an issue and leave too many hard feelings in the Congress. Others felt that such a procedure would invite unseemly political bargaining, corruption, and perhaps even interference from foreign powers. Still others felt that such an arrangement would upset the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches of the federal government.

A second idea was to have the State legislatures select the president. This idea, too, was rejected out of fears that a president so beholden to the State legislatures might permit them to erode federal authority and thus undermine the whole idea of a federation.

A third idea was to have the president elected by a direct popular vote. Direct election was rejected not because the Framers of the Constitution doubted public intelligence but rather because they feared that without sufficient information about candidates from outside their State, people would naturally vote for a "favorite son" from their own State or region. At worst, no president would emerge with a popular majority sufficient to govern the whole country. At best, the choice of president would always be decided by the largest, most populous States with little regard for the smaller ones.

Finally, a so-called "Committee of Eleven" in the Constitutional Convention proposed an indirect election of the president through a College of Electors.

The function of the College of Electors in choosing the president can be likened to that in the Roman Catholic Church of the College of Cardinals selecting the Pope. The original idea was for the most knowledgeable and informed individuals from each State to select the president based solely on merit and without regard to State of origin or political party.

The structure of the Electoral College can be traced to the Centurial Assembly system of the Roman Republic. Under that system, the adult male citizens of Rome were divided, according to their wealth, into groups of 100 (called Centuries). Each group of 100 was entitled to cast only one vote either in favor or against proposals submitted to them by the Roman Senate. In the Electoral College system, the States serve as the Centurial groups (though they are not, of course, based on wealth), and the number of votes per State is determined by the size of each State's Congressional delegation. Still, the two systems are similar in design and share many of the same advantages and disadvantages.

The similarities between the Electoral College and classical institutions are not accidental. Many of the Founding Fathers were well schooled in ancient history and its lessons.


The First Design
In the first design of the Electoral College (described in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution):

• Each State was allocated a number of Electors equal to the number of its U.S. Senators (always 2) plus the number of its U.S. Representative (which may change each decade according to the size of each State's population as determined in the decennial census). This arrangement built upon an earlier compromise in the design of the Congress itself and thus satisfied both large and small States.
  
• The manner of choosing the Electors was left to the individual State legislatures, thereby pacifying States suspicious of a central national government.
  
• Members of Congress and employees of the federal government were specifically prohibited from serving as an Elector in order to maintain the balance between the legislative and executive branches of the federal government.
  
• Each State's Electors were required to meet in their respective States rather than all together in one great meeting. This arrangement, it was thought, would prevent bribery, corruption, secret dealing, and foreign influence.
  
• In order to prevent Electors from voting only for a "favorite son" of their own State, each Elector was required to cast two votes for president, at least one of which had to be for someone outside their home State. The idea, presumably, was that the winner would likely be everyone's second favorite choice.

• The electoral votes were to be sealed and transmitted from each of the States to the President of the Senate who would then open them before both houses of the Congress and read the results.
  
• The person with the most electoral votes, provided that it was an absolute majority (at least one over half of the total), became president. Whoever obtained the next greatest number of electoral votes became vice president - an office which they seem to have invented for the occasion since it had not been mentioned previously in the Constitutional Convention.
  
• In the event that no one obtained an absolute majority in the Electoral College or in the event of a tie vote, the U.S. House of Representatives, as the chamber closest to the people, would choose the president from among the top five contenders. They would do this (as a further concession to the small States) by allowing each State to cast only one vote with an absolute majority of the States being required to elect a president. The vice presidency would go to whatever remaining contender had the greatest number of electoral votes. If that, too, was tied, the U.S. Senate would break the tie by deciding between the two.

In all, this was quite an elaborate design. But it was also a very clever one when you consider that the whole operation was supposed to work without political parties and without national campaigns

while maintaining the balances and satisfying the fears in play at the time. Indeed, it is probably because the Electoral College was originally designed to operate in an environment so totally different from our own that many people think it is anachronistic and fail to appreciate the new purposes it now serves. But of that, more later.


The Second Design
The first design of the Electoral College lasted through only four presidential elections. For in the meantime, political parties had emerged in the United States. The very people who had been condemning parties publicly had nevertheless been building them privately. And too, the idea of political parties had gained respectability through the persuasive writings of such political philosophers as Edmund Burke and James Madison.

One of the accidental results of the development of political parties was that in the presidential election of 1800, the Electors of the Democratic-Republican Party gave Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr (both of that party) an equal number of electoral votes. The tie was resolved by the House of Representatives in Jefferson's favor - but only after 36 tries and some serious political dealings which were considered unseemly at the time. Since this sort of bargaining over the presidency was the very thing the Electoral College was supposed to prevent, the Congress and the States hastily adopted the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution by September of 1804.

To prevent tie votes in the Electoral College which were made probable, if not inevitable, by the rise of political parties (and no doubt to facilitate the election of a president and vice president of the same party), the 12th Amendment requires that each Elector cast one vote for president and a separate vote for vice president rather than casting two votes for president with the runner-up being made vice president. The Amendment also stipulates that if no one receives an absolute majority of electoral votes for president, then the U.S. House of Representatives will select the president from among the top three contenders with each State casting only one vote and an absolute majority being required to elect. By the same token, if no one receives an absolute majority for vice president, then the U.S. Senate will select the vice president from among the top two contenders for that office. All other features of the Electoral College remained the same including the requirements that, in order to prevent Electors from voting only for "favorite sons", either the presidential or vice presidential candidate has to be from a State other than that of the Electors.

You're just assuming I'm as intellectually lazy as you are. I read a bunch of those on the history of the electoral college and all of them said the founders wanted it to be up to the States how to allocate their electors. Your claim they wanted to dictate to the States how to do it then they forgot to say that was unsupported. That's why I asked you for a link. I always do research before asking for a link. Ironic since you make claims without researching them.

Here's how you source a link. You provide the quote for the part you're claiming that the founding fathers wanted States to allocate their electors proportionally and somehow forgot to put that in the rules. Then you provide the link to support that. You're welcome.

I don't read here's a link, read it all and figure out what I am arguing for yourself on principle. So I will pass. Provide the quote and back it up with the link, lazy ass.

Edit: I pulled up the link and already read that one before you posted it. It doesn't support your claim. You insult me and post a long link with no quote that doesn't support your claim. That article says nothing about the founders wanting proportional allocation. I know that because I already read it. You are so full of shit it's hilarious ...

They wanted electors to cast their vote for the congressional district they represented. And no, the founders said it left it up to the states on who they picked for their electors for the DISTRICT....

They said it's up to the States. Again, this is nowhere in your link. PROVIDE A SOURCE FOR THE CRAP YOU ARE MAKING UP

You seem to think electors were picked after the people chose a president with a statewide popular vote in a winner take all....

THEN WHY DO I KEEP SAYING IT'S UP TO THE STATES? Fuck you, you are a waste of time. You can't back up anything you are making up and now you are lying about my position and misquoting me. Stick it where the sun don't shine, stupid bitch. Cut the crap. Repeat my positions accurately. I never said this, ever. I said every time they left it up to the States

THIS WAS NOT HOW it was done for our first 4 Presidencies.....slates of electors by party was not our founders intent, but the opposite of their intent

Then why didn't they say that? Why did they say it's up to the States? Also, the fifth election when they refined the rules, the founding fathers were very much involved. It was only ~1800 when they changed the rules

Yes, they did have reservations about political parties. When you're losing, you change your position. But they did nothing about it. They left it up to the States. A position you can't refute.

Your turn to make up more crap you can't back up with quotes or links other than to say here's a link, read it and figure out what you are saying for myself

 

[Redfish]

We are a nation of 50 states bigger than Europe


Is Spain the same as Italy ?

Is Great Britain the same as Germany?


Hence the name United States of America

Not the United State of California



What's next does the liberals want to get rid of the Senate that's supposed to protect each state evenly?



The United States of America (USA), commonly referred to as the United States (U.S.) or America, is a federal republic composed of 50 states, afederal district, five major self-governing territories, and various possessions.[fn 1]Forty-eight of the fifty states and the federal district are contiguous and located in North America betweenCanada and Mexico.

If it's 50 states, then give each state 1 vote. If it's a country of Americans, then give every person a vote that is the same.

But no, this is the USA. The country that goes around the world telling countries like China, Russia, Venezuela etc that they should be DEMOCRATIC, and can't figure out that there's no democracy to be seen in the presidential election.

1 vote per state gives Trump a landslide victory. One vote per person gives Trump a small victory, the EC gives Trump a victory. What exactly is your issue?

Hillary lost, why cant you deal with that?

Trump lost the popular vote, dumbass. Where have you been?

Nope, the latest counts show him winning the PV as well as the EC. But it doesn't really matter, Hillary lost, she is a two time loser, a terrible candidate, a criminal, a liar, a corrupt dishonest person, most corrupt person ever to run for president. and the people voted to send her back to her mansion in NY for the rest of her miserable life. Deal with that reality and STFU bitching about the EC. If you stupid dems ran a decent candidate you would have won.

No the latest count does not show that.

when the illegals and dead people are removed from the counts, he does. In Cal, they give drivers licenses to illegals, all you need to register to vote is a drivers license and a statement that you are here legally. No checks, no verifications. We will probably never know how many illegals voted, how many people voted multiple times, or how many voted in the name of dead people.


But it really doesn't matter, we use the EC to chose our presidents. if you don't like that pass a constitutional amendment and get ratified by 38 states. Until then, STFU.