• 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!

What do Democrats and Republicans both like?

Again, what I did was to cite Founding Father Alexander Hamilton and the reason he gave to the people of the USA in order to get them to support the US Constitution. And that CHIEF reason for the existence of the EC was completely ignored in 2016.

OK, use that super valid logic to start a campaign to amend the constitution. Of course, the many smaller states will prevent any chance of eliminating the EC by refusing to ratify any such amendment.
 
OK, use that super valid logic to start a campaign to amend the constitution. Of course, the many smaller states will prevent any chance of eliminating the EC by refusing to ratify any such amendment.

Why would anyone give up an selfish and unfair advantage that helps them in the larger interest of treating all voters and their votes equally?

And al this simply deflects from the true purpose of the EC as explained by Hamilton and which was blatantly ignored in 2016 by the very electors that were entrusted to protect us from a foreign adversary installing a creature of their own in the highest office.
 
Did you even bother to read the explanation from Hamilton as to the purpose of the EC?

We all know how the president is chosen. That is not in dispute.

We are living more than 200 years later than Hamilton, and the problem is that the PotUS is elected in a undemocratic fashion.

Now read carefully the definition of democracy, and maybe you will understand how-and-why the present electoral method (Electoral College) is unacceptable.

Two hundred years ago there was a rush to amalgamate the states because the New Country was afraid of being reconquered by England. It needed desperately a government to prevent that from happening, despite the fact that the "colonies" had defeated England. They were not yet a "nation".

For more than two-hundred years, we have never wanted to change the electoral device for the presidency despite the fact that five presidents have been wrongly elected by the Electoral College. (This last one being a seriously disturbed individual.)

That is a serious error in any democracy. (And please no bullshat about being a "republic not a democracy", because both are one in the same.)
 
Last edited:
We are living more than 200 years later than Hamilton, and the problem is that the PotUS is elected in a undemocratic fashion.

Now read carefully the definition of democracy, and maybe you will understand how-and-why the present electoral method (Electoral College) is unacceptable.

Two hundred years ago there was a rush to amalgamate the states because the New Country was afraid of being reconquered by England. It needed desperately a government to prevent that from happening, despite the fact that the "colonies" had defeated England. They were not yet a "nation".

For more than two-hundred years, we have never wanted to change the electoral device for the presidency despite the fact that five presidents have been wrongly elected by the Electoral College. (This last one being a seriously disturbed individual.)

That is a serious error in any democracy. (And please no bullshat about being a "republic not a democracy", because both are one in the same.)

I would suggest we are on the same page here and support the same thing. My point about Hamilton was NOT to defend the EC system but to show that the system as explained by Hamilton did NOT function as it was suppose to function.

I support what you support - the popular election of the president.
 
I get the same BS all the time from ignoramuses who have never taken a course in Civics. Very wrong and now very boring!

One voter (duly registered), one vote. That's all. The accumulation of votes determines the plurality winner of any election - whether town, city, state or national. Proportional representation determines the exact number of elected officials of an city/state/national election. There is no need whatsoever for futher manipulation of the vote.

It's time we, the sheeple, became a True Democracy. Once that happens, the US becomes also a True Republic. Compare the linked words, and maybe understand why you should top misformulating them - because the dictionary shows that they are identical.

For the present it is neither a republic or a democracy as regards the vote for PotUS.

Furthermore from here: The Electoral College (United States)

Excerpt:

You are ridiculously uniformed. It might help you if you actually read the Constitution.

The office of the President of the United States is unique among all offices in that it is the ONLY office elected nationally. For someone so pompous as yourself, it would seem appropriate that you do something to support your pomposity.

For you edification:

Constitution for the United States - We the People
 
My post did not mention any "girl" and had nothing to do with any "girl".

The "girl" is Hillary.

You are so good at imagining conspiracy connections and cannot make that connection?

Wow!
 
The "girl" is Hillary.

You are so good at imagining conspiracy connections and cannot make that connection?

Wow!

Who has nothing to do with the argument about the electoral college NOT following the mandate laid down by Hamilton for them.
 
Who has nothing to do with the argument about the electoral college NOT following the mandate laid down by Hamilton for them.

She is the one that lost and so hurt your feeling so badly.

I'm sorry that you feel wounded. However, she lost the contest which was run fairly and the rules did not change from the start to the finish.

The rules laid down by Hamilton were followed. Which of them do you feel were not followed?
 
You are ridiculously uniformed. It might help you if you actually read the Constitution.

The office of the President of the United States is unique among all offices in that it is the ONLY office elected nationally. For someone so pompous as yourself, it would seem appropriate that you do something to support your pomposity.

For you edification:

Constitution for the United States - We the People

The office of the PotUS is not unique. It is one three instances of government - the Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial.

It is THE ONE with a malformation that was necessary to get the southern states to join. They knew full well that the larger populations migrating into the US from Europe were staying in the north. They knew full well that the northern states were anti-slavery. Which is why they insisted on the Electoral College:

From here: The National Archives - The Electoral College

Excerpt:
Presidential Election Laws
Provisions of the Constitution
United States Code
2016 Presidential Election Pamphlet

THE CONSTITUTION
Article II

Section 1. The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

The Congress may determine the Time of choosing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

The above in red is a mistake that was introduced in order to mollify the southern states who were very keen to keep slavery, which was vital to their economies. They knew very well that the northern states would take down slavery at the first possible instance. So, they insisted on this addition to Constitution as copied above.

It will surprise you to know that the American constitution is not the Bible. It can and does incorporate some mistakes, aside from being overall a job well-done by the first democratic state on this planet. The right to elect a PotUS is regarded in the Constitution as uniquely that of the states. There is no need to change that.

What needs changing is the Electoral College that must report to Washington the result of the electoral-plebiscite for the presidency that is purely the result of a popular-vote. And nothing but the popular-vote. That criteria does not exist today, and it is THE UNIQUE ELECTORAL CRITERIA not found in any other election in the US be they town, city, state or national.

The manner of electing a PotUS is unique. No other country of any consequence, and particularly in Europe, has adopted an Electoral College to decide the president of the nation. Other countries with electoral college systems include Burundi, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Madagascar, Myanmar, Pakistan, Trinidad and Tobago and Vanuatu.

Wow! What a collection of advanced nations ... !
 
Last edited:
She is the one that lost and so hurt your feeling so badly.

I'm sorry that you feel wounded. However, she lost the contest which was run fairly and the rules did not change from the start to the finish.

The rules laid down by Hamilton were followed. Which of them do you feel were not followed?

That is beyond inane. Why would my feelings be hurt as I have no feelings for Clinton. Thats just ridiculous on your part and your own obsession with Clinton seems to be overloading your statements.

I have supplied the quote from Hamilton and there was not one state electors meeting where there is any evidence or report that they followed what Hamilton told the nation was the CHIEF protection of the EC - to protect us against the creature of a foreign adversary placing one of their choice in the highest office.
 
HISTORIC ANOMALY

She is the one that lost and so hurt your feeling so badly.

I'm sorry that you feel wounded. However, she lost the contest which was run fairly and the rules did not change from the start to the finish.

The rules laid down by Hamilton were followed. Which of them do you feel were not followed?

How many times must I repeat the SAME DAMN MESSAGE?

The Electoral College is a manipulation of the popular-vote and therefore unacceptable in any Real Democracy. And, as manipulations go, it is not alone. Gerrymandering should also be outlawed, and it is almost as old as the Electoral College. Both are misfits in any Real Democracy.

It does not matter whether a voting manipulation favors the Right or the Left. What matters is that it contrives the popular vote to obtain a desired outcome. Which at a time in our history was probably important economically. But certainly no longer is the case today.

The Electoral College is an historic anomaly*! The only remaining question is "how to fix the mistake?"

*Oddity, peculiarity, abnormality, irregularity, inconsistency, incongruity, deviation, aberration, quirk, freak, exception, departure, divergence, variation.
 
Last edited:
The office of the President of the United States is unique among all offices in that it is the ONLY office elected nationally. For someone so pompous as yourself, it would seem appropriate that you do something to support your pomposity.

Dear me, dear me - please forgive my pompous ass.

What makes you think that above is any exception to the rule?

The popular-vote is the foundation stone of any democracy on earth.

Duhhhhhh ......
 
Who has nothing to do with the argument about the electoral college NOT following the mandate laid down by Hamilton for them.

Except that your girl has been whining and shrieking about her loss even before it happened.

Not too surprising, though. Every Democrat under Obama and including Obama was lamenting their fantasy that Trump would challenge the legitimacy of the election.

They all said that any challenge would be a threat to the Republic and everyone had to just accept the results of the election.

Seems they don't recognize challenging the results as a threat anymore...

Do these hypocrites not see their own hypocrisy? Do they think the rest of us don't see it?
 
The office of the PotUS is not unique. It is one three instances of government - the Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial.

It is THE ONE with a malformation that was necessary to get the southern states to join. They knew full well that the larger populations migrating into the US from Europe were staying in the north. They knew full well that the northern states were anti-slavery. Which is why they insisted on the Electoral College:

From here: The National Archives - The Electoral College

Excerpt:


The above in red is a mistake that was introduced in order to mollify the southern states who were very keen to keep slavery, which was vital to their economies. They knew very well that the northern states would take down slavery at the first possible instance. So, they insisted on this addition to Constitution as copied above.

It will surprise you to know that the American constitution is not the Bible. It can and does incorporate some mistakes, aside from being overall a job well-done by the first democratic state on this planet. The right to elect a PotUS is regarded in the Constitution as uniquely that of the states. There is no need to change that.

What needs changing is the Electoral College that must report to Washington the result of the electoral-plebiscite for the presidency that is purely the result of a popular-vote. And nothing but the popular-vote. That criteria does not exist today, and it is THE UNIQUE ELECTORAL CRITERIA not found in any other election in the US be they town, city, state or national.

The manner of electing a PotUS is unique. No other country of any consequence, and particularly in Europe, has adopted an Electoral College to decide the president of the nation. Other countries with electoral college systems include Burundi, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Madagascar, Myanmar, Pakistan, Trinidad and Tobago and Vanuatu.

Wow! What a collection of advanced nations ... !

You used many words to say nothing of any value whatever.

In the United States, there is one office holder that is elected to represent the country. One. No others: That is the President of the United States.

The President is the leader of all of the States. That is the key and fundamental point that you seem to be missing.

His title: THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

Why is this so difficult to grasp? I seriously don't know what the issue is here.

EACH STATE votes to determine its preference for the national leader. The Electoral College is the system by which the preferences of the various states is reconciled to produce a new leader of all of the STATES.

What other country has this system? You would really need to go to an organization like the EU. How do they select their leader?

Is the system used by the EU a better model of pure Democracy in your mind?
 
That is beyond inane. Why would my feelings be hurt as I have no feelings for Clinton. Thats just ridiculous on your part and your own obsession with Clinton seems to be overloading your statements.

I have supplied the quote from Hamilton and there was not one state electors meeting where there is any evidence or report that they followed what Hamilton told the nation was the CHIEF protection of the EC - to protect us against the creature of a foreign adversary placing one of their choice in the highest office.

And also no evidence that there was a "creature of a foreign adversary placing one of their choice in the highest office".

So, Hamilton's system seems to be working for that obscure purpose. It also is working to accomplish the purpose that it was actually designed to accomplish: To select a President based on the preferences of the various states.
 
And also no evidence that there was a "creature of a foreign adversary placing one of their choice in the highest office".

I would encourage you to catch up on the last 18 months of national news so that you can avoid making such inane claims in the future. There is a large and ongoing investigation at the highest levels right now to determine if indeed Russia did just what you claim never happened. So spare me the trip up the denial river.

So, Hamilton's system seems to be working for that obscure purpose. It also is working to accomplish the purpose that it was actually designed to accomplish: To select a President based on the preferences of the various states.

The sad reality is that there is not a single report of not a single meeting - not in one state - was this issue even discussed but the electors of that state as Hamilton explained their duty to be. Not one.

Again - the words of Founding Father Alexander Hamlton explaining to the American people why they should all a tiny group of elites to pick a president for them and the advantage of it as he wrote in Federalist 68:

The Avalon Project : Federalist No 68

Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention.
Somebody like yourself blindly concluding that no such thing happened is one thing since you have no constitutional responsibility to exercise - but the actual electors failing miserable to even even considering it despite massive national concern is a travesty and a blatant refusal to do ones constitutional duty. And that is why the EC failed to uphold the promise of Hamilton to the nations as he outlined its very purpose in Federalist 68.
 
Last edited:
HISTORIC ANOMALY



How many times must I repeat the SAME DAMN MESSAGE?

The Electoral College is a manipulation of the popular-vote and therefore unacceptable in any Real Democracy. And, as manipulations go, it is not alone. Gerrymandering should also be outlawed, and it is almost as old as the Electoral College. Both are misfits in any Real Democracy.

It does not matter whether a voting manipulation favors the Right or the Left. What matters is that it contrives the popular vote to obtain a desired outcome. Which at a time in our history was probably important economically. But certainly no longer is the case today.

The Electoral College is an historic anomaly*! The only remaining question is "how to fix the mistake?"

*Oddity, peculiarity, abnormality, irregularity, inconsistency, incongruity, deviation, aberration, quirk, freak, exception, departure, divergence, variation.

There is ONE office in this Republic that is elected to represent all of the STATES. The title of the elected office holder is the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

Electing the person to occupy this office using a method that does not incorporate and honor the preferences of the various states is perverting the intention of the Framers.

Regarding the method used to define Congressional Districts, what method do you propose that will be free of human interference?
 
There is ONE office in this Republic that is elected to represent all of the STATES. The title of the elected office holder is the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.?

A State has no power to vote. No state casts any votes. They are done by human beings, ELECTORS selected by the candidates for the political parties.
 
Dear me, dear me - please forgive my pompous ass.

What makes you think that above is any exception to the rule?

The popular-vote is the foundation stone of any democracy on earth.

Duhhhhhh ......

And the popular vote occurs in each state.

What is about this that is escaping your grasp?

The title of the office holder in question is the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
 
That is weird since I distinctly remember your body Trump whining and bitching and crying and complaining about the system being rigged against him and that would be the reason for his expected loss.



https://www.nbcnews.com/video/trump-says-its-a-rigged-election-788276291564


So you DO know how to post a link! Thank you!

In your link, Trump says that if the election process in Pennsylvania were to be conducted honestly with no rigging, he would win Pennsylvania. Guess what.

In your link, Obama says that Trump needs to stop complaining and figure out a way to get votes. Guess what.

Trump said continuously that if the primaries and the election were to be held with no rigging, he would win. Guess what.

I do love the preaching, pontificating voice over that propagandizes the story into oblivion.

This is why I ask for links: Examining the source(s) of your bias is interesting.
 
So you DO know how to post a link! Thank you!

In your link, Trump says that if the election process in Pennsylvania were to be conducted honestly with no rigging, he would win Pennsylvania. Guess what.

In your link, Obama says that Trump needs to stop complaining and figure out a way to get votes. Guess what.

Trump said continuously that if the primaries and the election were to be held with no rigging, he would win. Guess what.

I do love the preaching, pontificating voice over that propagandizes the story into oblivion.

This is why I ask for links: Examining the source(s) of your bias is interesting.

Not one thing you said in that post provided any verifiable evidence supporting your claim about Clinton.
 
I would encourage you to catch up on the last 18 months of national news so that you can avoid making such inane claims in the future. There is a large and ongoing investigation at the highest levels right now to determine if indeed Russia did just what you claim never happened. So spare me the trip up the denial river.



The sad reality is that there is not a single report of not a single meeting - not in one state - was this issue even discussed but the electors of that state as Hamilton explained their duty to be. Not one.

Again - the words of Founding Father Alexander Hamlton explaining to the American people why they should all a tiny group of elites to pick a president for them and the advantage of it as he wrote in Federalist 68:

The Avalon Project : Federalist No 68


Somebody like yourself blindly concluding that no such thing happened is one thing since you have no constitutional responsibility to exercise - but the actual electors failing miserable to even even considering it despite massive national concern is a travesty and a blatant refusal to do ones constitutional duty. And that is why the EC failed to uphold the promise of Hamilton to the nations as he outlined its very purpose in Federalist 68.

Again you offer your delusion as proof to support your delusion.
 
A State has no power to vote. No state casts any votes. They are done by human beings, ELECTORS selected by the candidates for the political parties.

You seriously fail to comprehend this, don't you.

You argue in favor of the wisdom of the Electoral College and then claim it doesn't exist and do what it does.

Are you seriously not capable of understanding the contradictions you present?
 
Back
Top Bottom