• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Fair voting, election guidelines and separation of powers

One need not be a professor of Constitutional Law. One needs only a sense of "basic fairness and equity".

And you have shown, as others who believe in the sanctity of the Electoral College, that you have none.

I like the Electoral College. I certainly do not want to see it changed. As for "basic fairness and equity," I would think one should know the Constitution and, if unhappy with it, one needs to use Article V of the Constitution to try to change it.

Do I take it your candidate lost in 2000 and/or 2016? Apparently Bush & Trump understood the Electoral College and Gore and Clinton did not. If we did not have the Electoral College, my guess is Bush and Trump would have run a different race than what they did.

Have I yet shown you that I do not need a civics lesson?
 
No, but we do vote both Chambers of Congress, and they most certainly vote on "issues" ...

Correct. It is a representative republic. If you want true democracy, you would want to directly vote on the issues.
 
The constitution does not say anything about male-female equality either. Therefore, for you, there is none.

Nor does it call for a socialist or a communist state. The Constitution is very clear on what type of government we should have and that is a republic.

I do not think that was in the initial spirit of those who conceived it originally.!

It most certainly was. I even offered you Madison's quotes on the subject. Would you like more quotes?


One Amendment can annul another - but, yes, any amendment must be passed by a popular vote of the nation. Thank God, then, that the 12th Amendment's destitution need not be voted in the Electoral College itself ... !

I am fine with the 12th Amendment.
 
Nor does it call for a socialist or a communist state. The Constitution is very clear on what type of government we should have and that is a republic.

That was never the alternative proposition. Electoral Fairness was, however.

Moving right along ...
 
12th Amendment did not create the Electoral College. Why do you willfully continue to be wrong about that? Speaking of poor civics learning. Jees.

Never said or even intimated that proposition.

Learn how to read English ...
 
A MACHINATION OF DEMOCRACY

*sigh* I wish these people would understand America was never meant to be a direct democracy. America is a Constitutional Republic! Therefore, the Electoral College stays put. This is because I don't want sh!tholes like New York, LA, Chicago, etc. dictating the agenda of the country. The EC is the fairest, most equitable way to elect the POTUS


And I wish that blowhards like you, ignorant of the history of the nation, would understand the nature of the word "democracy". And why its refusal as the founding element of a nation is equivalent to denying its existence.

And so I will repeat its multiple definitions (as understood by level-headed people):
*
A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.
*
The belief in freedom and equality between people, or a system of government based on this belief, in which power is either held by elected representatives or directly by the people themselves
*
Democracy (Greek: δημοκρατία, dēmokratía literally "rule of the people"), in modern usage, is a system of government in which the citizens exercise power directly or elect representatives from among themselves to form a governing body, such as a parliament. Democracy is sometimes referred to as "rule of the majority". Democracy is a system of processing conflicts in which outcomes depend on what participants do, but no single force controls what occurs and its outcomes.

Nope, the word democracy is not written in the Constitution. And so what? The fact that the above definitions are not specifically mentioned in the Constitution has no bearing whatsoever. Neither is the word "fairness" mentioned in the Constitution, but "fairness" is inherent to the belief of any real-democracy.

No, boyz-'n-girlz, as constituted today, you are NOT LIVING IN A REAL DEMOCRACY WHERE THE VOTING PROCESS FOR THE POTUS IS MADE UNFAIR AND INQUITABLE BY THE MACHINATION OF A SO-CALLED "ELECTORAL COLLEGE".

The Constitution is NO BIBLE!

All of which does not mean we do not live in a "democracy". But when my vote or your vote to elect Hillary Clinton wins the popular-vote and then is warped in a so-called "Electoral College" to elect anyone else*, that is no Real Democracy.

It is a Warped Democracy that must be corrected!

Duhhhhhhhhhh ...

*And when that "someone else" proves to be such a pitiful dork, the outcome is calamitous to the nation.
 
Never said or even intimated that proposition.

Learn how to read English ...

The bottom of your post #19. One amendment can annul another, then you prattle on your nonsense about the 12 Amendment and the Electoral College.

For this time and again when you get this fact wrong: the Electoral College was always in the Constitution. It was not created by the 12 Amendment and you keep ducking that point by pointing out my ability to read. Better you should understand all that you write.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
That was never the alternative proposition. Electoral Fairness was, however.

Moving right along ...

What? I thought you believed that the Electoral College was unfair. It isn't, of course.
 
A MACHINATION OF DEMOCRACY




And I wish that blowhards like you, ignorant of the history of the nation, would understand the nature of the word "democracy". And why its refusal as the founding element of a nation is equivalent to denying its existence.

And so I will repeat its multiple definitions (as understood by level-headed people):
*
*
*

Nope, the word democracy is not written in the Constitution. And so what? The fact that the above definitions are not specifically mentioned in the Constitution has no bearing whatsoever. Neither is the word "fairness" mentioned in the Constitution, but "fairness" is inherent to the belief of any real-democracy.

No, boyz-'n-girlz, as constituted today, you are NOT LIVING IN A REAL DEMOCRACY WHERE THE VOTING PROCESS FOR THE POTUS IS MADE UNFAIR AND INQUITABLE BY THE MACHINATION OF A SO-CALLED "ELECTORAL COLLEGE".

The Constitution is NO BIBLE!

All of which does not mean we do not live in a "democracy". But when my vote or your vote to elect Hillary Clinton wins the popular-vote and then is warped in a so-called "Electoral College" to elect anyone else*, that is no Real Democracy.

It is a Warped Democracy that must be corrected!

Duhhhhhhhhhh ...

*And when that "someone else" proves to be such a pitiful dork, the outcome is calamitous to the nation.
So you would rather have Liberal crapholes like New York, Chicago, Boston, LA, etc. dictate the election of the POTUS as well as the agenda for the country and to hell with the heartland?
 
DISHWATER DETERGENT

So you would rather have Liberal crapholes like New York, Chicago, Boston, LA, etc. dictate the election of the POTUS as well as the agenda for the country and to hell with the heartland?

For as long as you keep thinking in terms of "geography", you can no longer reflect in terms of "democracy". The two words are incompatible in a political voting context.

Look, our political system rests precariously upon three pillars - the Executive, the Legislative and the Judiciary. Already and since the dawn of our so-called "democracy" our entire legislative process as well as underlying system of laws has rested upon their independence. And that independence weakens considerably when a manipulative process enters the electoral selection process.

That manipulation has entered ours* - and it is called unlimited BigMoney (that comes from a specific minority class of individuals).

When the Electoral College vote in Idaho counts 3-times more (in terms of popular voters) than the EC-vote in California, then NO! It is a blatant manipulation of the democratic vote (small "d", dammit!)

Moreover, the Replicants "own" both Chambers of Congress (plus have a majority in the SC). What the hell more do you want?!?

A Replicant King as well as PotUS - we'll you've got one of those already in place ... !

NB: We can only hope that the Supreme Court allows fair and impartial consideration of gerrymandering - and then outlaws it. That's the first step towards a decent democracy that the country will have taken in more two centuries!
That is, since the advent of the 12th Amendment; which was an electoral boondoggle for the southern states that ultimately led to a Civil War. (Gerrymandering of voting districts simply amplifies the unfairness.)

*It is a sad, sad day when one must recognize that the commercialization of the electoral process has deeply affected outcomes that can be determined by the money spent. Which prompts our candidates to show their electors how they all "wash whiter than white" as if they were political dishwasher-detergent!
 
Last edited:
DISHWATER DETERGENT



For as long as you keep thinking in terms of "geography", you can no longer reflect in terms of "democracy". The two words are incompatible in a political voting context.

Look, our political system rests precariously upon three pillars - the Executive, the Legislative and the Judiciary. Already and since the dawn of our so-called "democracy" our entire legislative process as well as underlying system of laws has rested upon their independence. And that independence weakens considerably when a manipulative process enters the electoral selection process.

That manipulation has entered ours* - and it is called unlimited BigMoney (that comes from a specific minority class of individuals).

When the Electoral College vote in Idaho counts 3-times more (in terms of popular voters) than the EC-vote in California, then NO! It is a blatant manipulation of the democratic vote (small "d", dammit!)

Moreover, the Replicants "own" both Chambers of Congress (plus have a majority in the SC). What the hell more do you want?!?

A Replicant King as well as PotUS - we'll you've got one of those already in place ... !

NB: We can only hope that the Supreme Court allows fair and impartial consideration of gerrymandering - and then outlaws it. That's the first step towards a decent democracy that the country will have taken in more two centuries!
That is, since the advent of the 12th Amendment; which was an electoral boondoggle for the southern states that ultimately led to a Civil War. (Gerrymandering of voting districts simply amplifies the unfairness.)

*It is a sad, sad day when one must recognize that the commercialization of the electoral process has deeply affected outcomes that can be determined by the money spent. Which prompts our candidates to show their electors how they all "wash whiter than white" as if they were political dishwasher-detergent!

Electoral College predates the 12th Amendment. Stubborn ignorance is no substitute for what you are smoking.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Electoral College predates the 12th Amendment. Stubborn ignorance is no substitute for what you are smoking.

The founders of the Nation were not saints. They had no bible.

The Electoral College was implemented in the 12th Amendment. Yes, it was already in the Constitution in 1787 but the voting process designated therein proved unworkable. So it was reconfigured and passed (in the 12th Amendment) simply to appease the southern states who knew full well that most of the immigrants were settling in the northern states giving them more political heft in Congress.

So, they tried to even the governance setup by influencing unfairly the presidential voting process by means of the Electoral College.

The Electoral College was wrong then, and it is still very, very wrong - because it corrupts the popular-vote. Which is the ONLY VOTE that matters in a genuine democracy ...
 
And now begins the hunting of the snark. ;)

But in all fairness, we must do something about gerrymandering.

He's just laying the groundwork to cry about the EC...again.
 
The founders of the Nation were not saints. They had no bible.

The Electoral College was implemented in the 12th Amendment. Yes, it was already in the Constitution in 1787 but the voting process designated therein proved unworkable. So it was reconfigured and passed (in the 12th Amendment) simply to appease the southern states who knew full well that most of the immigrants were settling in the northern states giving them more political heft in Congress.

So, they tried to even the governance setup by influencing unfairly the presidential voting process by means of the Electoral College.

The Electoral College was wrong then, and it is still very, very wrong - because it corrupts the popular-vote. Which is the ONLY VOTE that matters in a genuine democracy ...

You are making a little progress by acknowledging that the Electoral College but the only thing changed was separating ballots for President and Vice-President, so that the 2nd most EV no longer became VP.

The allocation of EV is largely unchanged (3/5 compromise was removed) from the original. Your clinging to the 12th Amendment is baffling since it really has nothing to do with the core of your incorrect point.

Contact your representatives yet to get them to push for your desired amendment? Thought not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
In my lifetime, I have been known to be wrong about many things, but not in this case.



Please do not be insulting.



The Electoral College elects the President and we do not vote on issues directly; therefore, as a country, we are not a true democracy, which is what I said. I don't think James Madison disagrees with me.

"Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.

"The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended."


The Federalist #10

Do you know the difference between direct democracy and democracy? or the difference between the American republic and republics?

"The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended."

These distinctions are not only historic but important. The framers argued against a purely direct democracy not just democracy. And the framers created an Americanized republic to not be compared or confused with non-Americanized republics. If you know the differences Federalist number ten reads differently than how the far right wants you to read it. Not to be coy, the far right wants to take away voting rights and create a authoritarian dictatorship in its place. They commonly attack democracy and pusg propaganda that claims that there is no democracy in America. They are the ones asserting that we are a republic and not a democracy.
 
You are making a little progress by acknowledging that the Electoral College but the only thing changed was separating ballots for President and Vice-President, so that the 2nd most EV no longer became VP.

The allocation of EV is largely unchanged (3/5 compromise was removed) from the original. Your clinging to the 12th Amendment is baffling since it really has nothing to do with the core of your incorrect point.

Bollocks!

Where one to take a map of the US in terms of how much the EC vote warps the value of the popular vote that map would look like this (from WashPo, 2016 - Election maps are telling you big lies about small things):
us-vs-cartogram-600.jpg


The distortion is meaningful, and it is brought about by the question TODAY before the Supreme Court. That is, gerrymandering helps configure a state to vote along party-lines, because it reorganizes the voting districts that parties "amalgamate" in favor of their own particular electoral objectives.

Wakey, wakey! It's been going on for 200 years, and nobody has noticed ... ?
 
Last edited:
Bollocks!

Where one to take a map of the US in terms of how much the EC vote warps the value of the popular vote that map would look like this (from WashPo, 2016 - Election maps are telling you big lies about small things):
us-vs-cartogram-600.jpg


The distortion is meaningful, and it is brought about by the question TODAY before the Supreme Court. That is, gerrymandering helps configure a state to vote along party-lines, because it reorganizes the voting districts that parties "amalgamate" in favor of their own particular electoral objectives.

Wakey, wakey! It's been going on for 200 years, and nobody has noticed ... ?

228 years and people are absolutely good with it. Did your representative laugh at you when you called? Oh no, you just complain to no one who will take up your trivial cause. Keep paying your taxes, foreign money spends the best and doesn’t cost the rest of us anything. Pity they can’t raise taxes on expats—sort of like rental car taxes—let the non-locals pay!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
228 years and people are absolutely good with it. Did your representative laugh at you when you called? O Pity they can’t raise taxes on expats—sort of like rental car taxes—let the non-locals pay!

And now your talking for the whole of the US.

Go see a head-doctor. You've got a reality problem ... !

Pity they can’t raise taxes on expats—sort of like rental car taxes—let the non-locals pay!

Obama did raise taxes on expats living permanently abroad.

Go read about FATCA! Americans living abroad are the only people on earth required to pay double taxation - once in the country in which they live and work, and then back in the US if total remuneration is above $100K ...
 
And now your talking for the whole of the US.

Go see a head-doctor. You've got a reality problem ... !



Obama did raise taxes on expats living permanently abroad.

Go read about FATCA! Americans living abroad are the only people on earth required to pay double taxation - once in the country in which they live and work, and then back in the US if total remuneration is above $100K ...

Just read the history books, we have never been close to getting rid of the EC, so perhaps the first appointment for you is long overdue.

Since we are the only country to tax expats, then it is OK for the US to have an EC. Cool, huh?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
The Constitution is about equal rights for all. It was never about equal results or fairness, as defined by the left. The best analogy for the intent of the Constitution is sports. In any given sport, all players, from all teams, play by the same rules. There are not two or more sets of rules, one for each team or each player.

With everyone playing by the same rules, we engage an open competition, where there will be a winners and losers. There is no hard feelings, because every dog has their day. At the end of the game, they all shake hands and go home to their families. It is not personal, after the game.

The Constitution was not designed be analogous to a rigged sport like professional wrestling, where the winners and loser are picked by management, to maximize revenue generation; political donations. This is the leftist view of the Constitution; rigged sports. President Trump brought real sport, into the rigged game of fake sport, and fake sport became upset, since the champion was not appointed by management; swamp.

The middle class and men, in general, love sports, because it is about one set of rules, for all players, leading to open and fair competition; ideal. As fans we may not always like the result of the game, but we stick to our home teams and keep going to the game. We don't expect the rules to change to make our bad team the winner by default. We expect team management to recruit better players and coaches to achieve a better result, with the rules staying the same. This is how the right tends to view the Constitution.

Picture what would happen if we applied liberal fairness rules to sports. This is the current state of the country in a nutshell. First, we end open competition for team positions using one set of criteria. Instead we make teams pick players to reflect demographics, with so many whites, blacks, elderly, handicap, gays and lesbians, etc. The we make special rules to anyone who can't keep up in fair competition. it is not sports anymore, since one is not allowed to be their best. Instead of marvel at the best we would penalize it. Trump used the rules of the election sport; Electoral College, and won. He did not have any special rule for himl; good play that any good sportsman can admire. A bad sport will not see it that way.

Much of the left media is nerd and may have been stuff int a locker, wedged to swirled, by a jock. They may have learned to hate sports, and therefore never learned about fair competition and the intent of the Constitution. We sort of now have the revenge of the nerds, who have even infiltrated sports, as way to underline the model for the Constitution.
 
A MACHINATION OF DEMOCRACY




And I wish that blowhards like you, ignorant of the history of the nation, would understand the nature of the word "democracy". And why its refusal as the founding element of a nation is equivalent to denying its existence.

And so I will repeat its multiple definitions (as understood by level-headed people):
*
*
*

Nope, the word democracy is not written in the Constitution. And so what? The fact that the above definitions are not specifically mentioned in the Constitution has no bearing whatsoever. Neither is the word "fairness" mentioned in the Constitution, but "fairness" is inherent to the belief of any real-democracy.

No, boyz-'n-girlz, as constituted today, you are NOT LIVING IN A REAL DEMOCRACY WHERE THE VOTING PROCESS FOR THE POTUS IS MADE UNFAIR AND INQUITABLE BY THE MACHINATION OF A SO-CALLED "ELECTORAL COLLEGE".

The Constitution is NO BIBLE!

All of which does not mean we do not live in a "democracy". But when my vote or your vote to elect Hillary Clinton wins the popular-vote and then is warped in a so-called "Electoral College" to elect anyone else*, that is no Real Democracy.

It is a Warped Democracy that must be corrected!

Duhhhhhhhhhh ...

*And when that "someone else" proves to be such a pitiful dork, the outcome is calamitous to the nation.


Your right, the word "democracy" is not written into the Constitution, there is a reason for that, we are not a democracy. However, the word Republic is written into the Constitution, Article 4 sec. 4.

The gentlemen who put together the Constitution of the United States were very well versed in history, they saw what true democracy does to a country and they wanted no part of it. Go back and study the great democracies of the past and see what befell them, most of them died a violent death.

There is a reason for the POTUS being elected via the electoral system. There is a reason for each Representative being elected by direct vote and there was a reason for the Senators being appointed by the States instead of popular vote (but the 17th amendment did away with that). Yes, there is a purpose to this and so far it has worked well for the United States.

The electoral process for the President and Vice President is spelled out in Article 2, sec. 1 of the Constitution, it was amended by the 12th amendment to include one line dealing with, if the House fails to appoint a President, I suggest you read this.

In short, our government is not a democracy, we do have some democratic tendencies but that doesn't make us a democracy.

The way the Founding Fathers envisioned this country is a far cry from what it is today. Their idea of a Federal government was only to handle foreign affairs and disputes between the States, is was the role of the States to take care of domestic issues.
 
Last edited:
What we should have learned in a Civics Class:
*All democracies have three fundamental characteristics: The independence of the Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial powers. These three "independent" bodies are the only guaranties of real freedom of a nation from "usurpation" of political power.
*All such democracies employ the popular-vote to designate their representative to the Executive and Legislative positions, with the exception of the Judiciary (that is nominated by the Executive, but approved by the Legislature).
*All political offices (local, state and national) in a truly democratic nation will be obtained by means of the popular-vote and only the popular-voting process.
*The voting regulations will describe and conduct fair voting-procedures at regular intervals in order to assure the collective consent by means of a popular-vote of the nation's constituents of voting age.
*By "fair voting procedures" is meant:
**No voter with a proper identity card, of a stipulated age, and proving their residence will be forbidden to vote.
**No voting district will be "gerrymandered" to concentrate the vote favoring any political party
**Voting hours and procedures will be fair and honest to accommodate the largest number possible of all voters.

What you seem to have missed from Civics class:

Congress is separated into two houses. The House was designed as the direct proportional representation of the of the citizenry withing the federal Government and he Senate was designed for direct representation of the individual states in the federal government, with TWO senators meant to allow for political splits within a state to be represented in the Senate. In the original for the State governments were meant to appoint Senators.

The Electoral college was designed to incorporate both the representation of the citizens and the representation of the states, which is why it seems lopsided in low population states. It is by design.

Any argument against the Electoral college is, by default, an argument against the Senate. Both create lopsided representation for low population states. But again, that is as designed.
 
To many people in this country have know idea as to why our Constitution was written the way it is, nor do they have clue as to the hoops the founding father had to go through to design such a Constitution. Just the debate on how to elect the President took them almost a month. I suggest that some of you take the time to read the Federalist Papers. Thomas Wolfe was the first to suggest a direct popular vote for the President during the Constitutional Convention, it was shot down by most of those in attendance, for very good reasons.

In this country, even the minority have a voice, in a democracy the voices of the minority are usually squelched.
 
And how would you end gerrymandering? We can try to get as non partisan as possible but we know that's impossible think about how the judiciary is supposed to be non partisan. And as long as groups vote the same way it's easy to know exactly what the effect will be when you draw a map.

I could write a program that would split up a state into evenly populated districts without concern for anything other than making the districts the same size (population-wise). You just take the population of the state, divide it by the size of the district and you end up with teh number of districts you want. Then start in one corner of the state and start assigning people to the district until it's full and then start a new one (most likely using a sweeping pattern of assignment). This is the kind of project that a 2nd year CS student could do as a lab for her .NET class.
 
To many people in this country have know idea as to why our Constitution was written the way it is, nor do they have clue as to the hoops the founding father had to go through to design such a Constitution. Just the debate on how to elect the President took them almost a month. I suggest that some of you take the time to read the Federalist Papers. Thomas Wolfe was the first to suggest a direct popular vote for the President during the Constitutional Convention, it was shot down by most of those in attendance, for very good reasons.

In this country, even the minority have a voice, in a democracy the voices of the minority are usually squelched.

If you want 100% and I want 0% and we compromise at 50%, then all you have to do it bring up the issue again and ask for a compromise. Then you want 100% and since we are at 50%, you will settle for 75%. The original 0% is long forgotten. Don't be surprised when people want to do away with the Great Compromise.
 
Back
Top Bottom