Nah the movement is for states to apportion all their votes to whoever wins the national popular vote. once the movement has 50% of the electoral college any dissenters are effectively frozen out (but the votes from those dissenting states are still counted).
--
?
l
ent. But we don't need to change the Constitution to bring us more in line with the popular vote. The problem was created when states started to thr ow all their votes to whoever won the state. There is a movement for state s to apportion their votes according to the popular vote across the country , not just in their state. Then the Electoral vote will more closely appro ximate the popular vote. There will still be a quite small possibility tha t an elected President would not have the most popular votes and there is s till a strong possibility an Electoral College winner will have not receive d 50% of the vote, but it will be much better than what we have now.
Krw describing anybody else as "not very bright" is decidedly comical. Krw doesn't seem to be able to think at all, in term of enteraining a new idea.
Rick's suggestion would improve the electoral college, but looking at every other constituion put into effect since the US constitution, it does seem as if the Electoral College was one of those bad ideas that nobody wants to copy.
There are better ways of electing presidents, and a fairly strong argument for a non-executive - figurehead - president, with actual power vested in t he prime minister of a governing cabinet, with the executive ministers draw n from the legislators, and and directly and immediately responsible to the lower house, so that they can be voted out as soon as they screw up (as in starting a trade war).
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
So you can't explain what you think is bad about the 17th amendment? Thought so.
Rick C.
l
ment. But we don't need to change the Constitution to bring us more in lin e with the popular vote. The problem was created when states started to th row all their votes to whoever won the state. There is a movement for stat es to apportion their votes according to the popular vote across the countr y, not just in their state. Then the Electoral vote will more closely appr oximate the popular vote. There will still be a quite small possibility th at an elected President would not have the most popular votes and there is still a strong possibility an Electoral College winner will have not receiv ed 50% of the vote, but it will be much better than what we have now.
al
Yes, you are right. I was reading about this last night and you can expect a Constitutional challenge to this "pact" and it might just be sustained. However, if enough states sign to carry 270 electoral votes, it is unlikel y Congress wouldn't pass a law to allow this.
Rick C.
Prediction: Arthur Jones is going to win Illinois 3rd congressional district in a landslide because while Ted Cruz would prefer to vote for a Democrat than a member of the American Nazi Party the bulk of the modern American Republican party doesn't feel the same way.
Correction: he is running as Republican who self-identifies as a Nazi, not as an American Nazi Party third-party candidate.
I know he wasn't corrupt in the usual sense. My contempt for him is confined solely to his outrageous sexual antics when he was a married man. Seems to be a Democrat thing. Hillary's a man-hating rug-muncher and Billy boy's a rapo.
-- This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.
Do you think the only way to get young women to play sexytime with wealthy, powerful men is to _order_ them to, against their will?
Oh, honey.
wealthy, powerful men is to _order_ them to, against their will? "
Well it wasn't at the time but it is now. Especially with that Clinton money coming.
Could be but it will certainly be despite all best efforts of America to the contrary not because of us.
Americans on average suffer from the political conundrum of believing
90% of the world belongs in concentration camps (or at least in some kind of socioeconomic state that doesn't allow them to make much of a stink about anything) while simultaneously not wanting to be in that position themselves.
With "friends" like these who needs enemies
It's all in who gets the drop on whom.
Amazing how many people do not really understand that because they have never been in a "situation".
You mean most people live lives that aren't likely to put them in those types of situations. Most people have no interest in finding out how ugly life can be. Others find that to be the fascinating part of life.
Rick C.
Nobody on this NG has ever seen "how ugly it can be" I'd pretty much say that is one thing for certain
I am somewhere in between.
Here's something more mundane forya : it is possible that this month I will go to jail for refusing to sign a piece of paper.
How does that grabya ?
Sounds dumb
I think you talked about that before, but I forget. Which piece of paper is this?
Rick C.
The easier life gets, the softer and dumber the people get.
Ditto.
Because the states have no say in the federal government, yet they're responsible for much of the bullshit coming from Washington. There is a reason for the bicameral legislature. If you'd studied even a little history you wouldn't have to ask.
It was in the pool incident recounted by one of JFK's interns.
Oh boy, you really have to pay more attention to things Democrats do.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.