Electoral College

[raykeller]

Our Founders in their infinite wisdom created the Electoral College to
ensure the STATES were fairly represented. Why should one or two densely
populated areas speak for the whole of the nation?
The following list of statistics has been making the rounds on the
Internet and it should finally put an end to the argument as to why the
Electoral College makes sense.

Share this with as many whiners as you can:


a.. There are 3,141 counties in the United States.
b.. Trump won 3,084 of them.
c.. Clinton won 57.
d.. There are 62 counties in New York State.
e.. Trump won 46 of them.
f.. Clinton won 16.
g.. Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 1.5 million votes.
h.. In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan,
Richmond & Queens) Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than
Trump. (Clinton only won 4 of these counties; Trump won Richmond)
i.. Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton
winning the popular vote of the entire country.
These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles.
j.. The United States is comprised of 3,797,000 square miles.
k.. When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square
miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of
those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a
national election.
l.. Large, densely-populated Democratic cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, etc)
don’t and shouldn’t speak for the rest of our country!

[edhun...@gmail.com]

When they start counting prairie dogs as 3/5 of a man, you'll have a point. Until then, you don't.

One person, one vote. The rest is nothing but self-serving sophistry that stems from the same principle that gave us disproportionate representation in the Senate:

"Every idea of proportion and every rule of fair representation conspire to condemn a principle, which gives to Rhode Island an equal weight in the scale of power with Massachusetts, or Connecticut, or New York; and to Delaware an equal voice in the national deliberations with Pennsylvania, or Virginia, or North Carolina. Its operation contradicts the fundamental maxim of republican government, which requires that the sense of the majority should prevail." -- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #22.

--
Ed Huntress

[Mr. B1ack]

On Wed, 7 Dec 2016 21:49:08 -0700, "raykeller"
<whiney_will_have_his_nose_in_my_ass_in_3_2_1@leftards_are_loosers.com>
wrote:

The EC is one of those "States -vs- Fed" things.

Basically it's intended to make each STATE, as a whole,
vote for president. Whether the candidate wins by one
vote or 95% of the votes in that state is irrelevant. The
idea, so far as I can tell, is to produce a sense of "unity".
Maryland - as a state - votes for 'X', New York - as a
state - votes for 'Y'.

This IS the "United STATES" after all, not the "Federal
Republic of North America".

Each state gets two senators whether it's large or small.
If amending the constitution each state - as a unit - has
to vote on it. Population IS considered in the EC, as the
raw number of EC votes, but the State votes as a unit
on the president.

The States -vs- Fed thing has worked out pretty well for
us. People of like geography - likely to have similar wants
and needs and history - can customize THEIR state a
fair bit to suit how THEY think things ought to be. If the
Fed tried to impose uniform micromanagement from up
on high we'd have constant civil wars.

[dca...@krl.org]

On Wednesday, December 7, 2016 at 11:59:35 PM UTC-5, edhun...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> When they start counting prairie dogs as 3/5 of a man, you'll have a point. Until then, you don't.
>
> One person, one vote. The rest is nothing but self-serving sophistry that stems from the same principle that gave us disproportionate representation in the Senate:
>
> "Every idea of proportion and every rule of fair representation conspire to condemn a principle, which gives to Rhode Island an equal weight in the scale of power with Massachusetts, or Connecticut, or New York; and to Delaware an equal voice in the national deliberations with Pennsylvania, or Virginia, or North Carolina. Its operation contradicts the fundamental maxim of republican government, which requires that the sense of the majority should prevail." -- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #22.
>
> --
> Ed Huntress

He has an excellent point. My suggestion is that the United States become a little less united and let California secede and form a new country. And that New York, Northern New Jersey, and North East PA, Connecticut and Eastern Mass. form another country.

Dan

[Terry Coombs]

Yer just another disgruntled snowflake , Ed . Trump won , so get over it .
I just can't understand the position that a small handful of heavily
populated (with snowflakes ...) areas should control the presidential
election . And without the EC , that's exactly what would happen .
--
Snag

[edhun...@gmail.com]

So you want to turn the United States into a cluster of weak little Balkanized states. Once people would realize the implications of that, I doubt if it would be very popular. (BTW, I lived in NE PA. You mean SE PA. The northeastern part of the state is very conservative.)

As Alexander Hamilton implied, it boils down to whether you want a government by people who are created equal and who have equal democratic authority -- a constitutional republic, systematized as representative democracy -- or a government weighted towards equivalencies of regional interests. What we have is a compromise between the two: states with very low populations get a disproportionate voice in the Senate and, to a lesser degree, in the electoral college.

The idea behind that is based on a pre-Civil War concept of state sovereignty. After the war the federalism balance was shifted by the change in opinion that we have rights as Americans, rather than as Virginians or Pennsylvanians. So Hamilton was prescient in his opinion that we were a nation, and that the accidents of borders, many of which were actually set by pre-revolutionary royal charters, is not a sound basis of federalism for a country that aspires to be a republic.

--
Ed Huntress

[edhun...@gmail.com]

Don't be an insulting cracker, Terry. My position, which I share with Hamilton and many others, is one I've held for nearly 50 years, even before Trump was a philandering con artist. It has nothing to do with Trump except that this election brings up the issue again, and dredges up the pontificating pundits who select bits of history for the sole purpose of defending their favored candidate.

The way the electoral college functions is an artifact of the time when people in your state killed other Americans in an attempt to defend slavery.

As for the "handful of heavily populated [insulting slur] areas," that's a population of people. This nation is one of a "government instituted among men, deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed." It's not one of arbitrary areas in which one man's consent in Wyoming is worth four times as much as one man's consent in Texas. That's what the electoral college does.

Hamilton was right. It's anti-republican.

--
Ed Huntress

[rangerssuck]

On Wednesday, December 7, 2016 at 11:48:58 PM UTC-5, raykeller wrote:

Great. Let us know when they change "one person, one vote" to "one square mile, one vote."

[dca...@krl.org]

On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 9:44:40 AM UTC-5, edhun...@gmail.com wrote:

> So you want to turn the United States into a cluster of weak little Balkanized states. Once people would realize the implications of that, I doubt if it would be very popular. (BTW, I lived in NE PA. You mean SE PA. The northeastern part of the state is very conservative.)
>
>

> Ed Huntress

No, that is not what I want. I want a country which is not controlled by either the high population or low population states. And if that is not possible then dividing the country into areas which have the same interests.

And that would not be a cluster of weak states. California has a GNP more than many European country. Texas by itself falls into the same category. And so does New York. Get real.

Dan

[edhun...@gmail.com]

Oh, I'm plenty real, Dan. Russia, China, and other strong countries would love to see what you're proposing, but I doubt if any Americans would like to see the consequence.

It's not just military. It's also financial. You'd be handing over some *huge* benefits of financial strength to countries that would love to see us curl up and die.

As it is, "states" don't really control much of anything. You're talking about *people* within those states, and sets of common interests and attitudes tend to ignore state borders. You're talking about cultural groups and classes of people, which have generally gotten along pretty well in the past.

--
Ed Huntress

[Larry Jaques]

On Thu, 8 Dec 2016 08:37:36 -0600, "Terry Coombs" <snag...@msn.com>
wrote:

+1

--
We cannot but pity the boy who has never fired a gun; he is
no more humane, while his education has been sadly neglected.
--Henry David Thoreau

[Catherine L. Cranche]

On 12/7/2016 8:49 PM, raykeller wrote:
> Our Founders in their infinite wisdom created the Electoral College to
> ensure the STATES were fairly represented. Why should one or two densely
> populated areas speak for the whole of the nation?
> The following list of statistics has been making the rounds on the
> Internet and it should finally put an end to the argument as to why the
> Electoral College makes sense.
>
> Share this with as many whiners as you can:
>
>
> a.. There are 3,141 counties in the United States.
> b.. Trump won 3,084 of them.

Been through this horseshit already. Counties don't vote. Geography
doesn't vote.

[Rudy Canoza]

The electoral college was designed to give greater electoral weight to
slave states, to get them to agree with the rest of the Constitution.
That's what it was for. The "small vs big" state explanation is false
and a red herring. It was about slavery.

[Terry Coombs]

Hitlery lost , snowflake . Get over it .
--
Snag

[Rudy Canoza]

That's completely wrong - utterly wrong. How many times am I going to
be forced to show this? Here:

The total population of the biggest 10 cities in the country is 26
million, and the total for the 35 biggest is 43 million. On average,
about 60% of those populations are eligible to vote, and about 50%
actually register. Of those who register, between half and 60% - that
is, 25% to 30% of the total population - actually vote. Let's go with
the higher estimate, 30%, of how many vote. 30% of 26 million is 7.8
million, and 30% of 43 million is 12.9 million. You got that? About 13
million people in the 35 biggest cities in America - spread across many
states, of course - actually voted in the last election. There were 136
million votes cast in the election, so the *maximum* votes cast in the
35 biggest cities wasn't even 10% of the total vote. Why would you think
that's going to "control the election"? It clearly doesn't.

If there were a popular vote determination of the president, "New York"
and "Los Angeles" and "Chicago" would not have any kind of decisive
power to determine the outcome. Their individual voters would have no
more power than any other voters.

The question the supporters of the electoral college ask can easily be
turned against them. Why should the voters of a very small number of
swing states control the presidential election for everyone else?
That's what we have now. A clear majority of people wanted one
candidate, and a very tiny number of voters in half a dozen middling
sized states determined that we get someone else. How can that be right?

Let's reverse it. Let's suppose Clinton had won exactly 270 electoral
votes, and in every state she won she didn't even get a majority of the
vote; let's say she got on average 47%, Trump got 42%, and the
third-party candidates among them got 11%. Now in the states that Trump
won, let's say he got commanding majorities - 55%-60%. That would mean
Trump would have a popular vote majority in the tens of millions, but he
wouldn't win the presidency. You and your fellow deplorables would be
rioting in that case, and you fucking well know it.

[Catherine L. Cranche]

I didn't vote for Clinton, ham hock, and you're an idiot for thinking I
might have done just because I say the electoral college is a bad and
anti-republican idea.

[Just Wondering]

We could agree with you, but then we'd all be wrong.

[Mr. B1ack]

On Thu, 8 Dec 2016 12:02:01 -0800, Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con>
wrote:

Good point ... it WAS one of the perks used to
induce states to sign the constitution. Not banning
slavery was another, although it was ideologically
incongruent with the whole Land Of The Free / All
Men Are Equal theme. Guess they figured getting
a union established was of higher priority and all
these little details would be ironed out later.

Thing is, I don't see the EC being *much* of a perk.
The number of votes is fairly proportional to the
states population. Slave or not, a state gets 'X'
EVs per million inhabitants. Maryland is still "small"
and Georgia is still "big".

This is why I think the abovementioned "unity"
psychology played the greater role. Each STATE
votes for a candidate so it's "The State Of New
Jersy votes for ..." yet the power of each state is
still population-indexed, thus quasl-democratic.

There's also that "safety" aspect - a last-ditch
way to dump a *seriously* dangerous electee
(Trump is annoying but not "seriously dangerous").
However I think electors used to be a less-random
group, mostly the upper-middle to wealthy class,
and the EC could block any 'commie' that threatned
to "spread" their hard-earned wealth. In short the
EC could help keep the powerful powerful.

It's a weird system. Probably SHOULD be dropped.
It'll take a bona-fide constitutional amendment to
do it however since the EC is an integral part OF
the constitution.

On the plus side, the EC saved us from AlGore
and HRC ... this would be sort of a commie
country run by enemies and exploiters abroad
with either of those as prez.

Our "left" uses a dishonorable electioneering
strategy - "free money" promises, ie "bribes".
It makes it VERY hard to beat because apparently
LOTS of people think they deserve "free money"
and can't fathom how stealing from The Rich/Biz
can hurt anything. The EC somewhat dilutes the
power of the "free money" strategy (and DID in
this last election).

[Terry Coombs]

Sniff sniff , I'm so hurt ... but the EC does just what it's supposed to ,
it gives balance between heavily populated areas and thinly populated rural
areas . IMO - while I don't always agree with the results - it needs to be
left as it is .
--
Snag

[John B.]

On the other hand the Electoral Collage was established by the
Constitution, Article 2, I believe. Which would seem to indicate that
the Founding Fathers deemed it an important part of their new
government.

There is also Article 5 of the constitution that serves to describe a
method of changing the Constitution.

Strange that such an unfair system has been the law of the land for
the entire life of the U.S.
--
cheers,

John B.

[max headroom]

In news:lbj2A.205046$oF2.1...@fx37.iad, Catherine L. Cranche <we.be....@jeanerette.la> typed:

It's an excellent idea and very republican. This ain't a democrcy, after all.

[edhun...@gmail.com]

As Rudy said, it was politically expedient to get the small states to let go of the Articles of Confederation and to sign on to the Constitition.

>
> There is also Article 5 of the constitution that serves to describe a
> method of changing the Constitution.
>
> Strange that such an unfair system has been the law of the land for
> the entire life of the U.S.

Not strange at all. Once the small states got a leg up, they aren't letting go.

If you're in Wyoming and your vote for president is worth four times a Texan's vote, why would you give it up>?

--
Ed Huntress


> --
> cheers,
>
> John B.

[BigPol]

Just more insane ravings of a California Doper.
>


--
All of us have to stand up and control bama'sbig Government

[BigPol]

Same California Doper disagreeing with itself using another Nym.

[BigPol]

More horse manure being tossed through the haze by the same California
Doper using yet another Nym.

[BigPol]

Jonathon Ball did! Which means you and the rest of the sock puppets did
also.,

[whit3rd]

I'm sorry for your hurt. The EC does a variant on what the framers of the
Constitution intended. Like slavery, it is a part of the original intent that
we can dispense with. We should.

Unless you are a knee-jerk conservative with NO care for consequences, the
"it needs to be left as is" rhetoric is nonsense. The needs of we, the people,
are real. That need "to be left as it is" is a fiction.

[rbowman]

On 12/08/2016 01:02 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> The electoral college was designed to give greater electoral weight to
> slave states, to get them to agree with the rest of the Constitution.
> That's what it was for. The "small vs big" state explanation is false
> and a red herring. It was about slavery.

One good thing came out of slavery then -- Clinton lost.

[Mr. B1ack]

As I said somewhere, the EC is "complicated" ... there are
numerous reasons for its existence, some obsolete, others
not so.

However it IS one of those cases where "geography votes",
just like each state gets two senators no matter how large
or small they may be. It's part of the general compromise
made in the 1700s, that there'd be a "United STATES", not
a unitary "Federal Republic of North America".

I think one of the prime ideas was that the EC would mean
each individual STATE votes for president. Such consolidation
tends to create a sense of "unity" (something badly needed
in the late 1700s). NEW YORK votes for 'X', MARYLAND
votes for 'Y'. States COUNT !

However the EC *is* semi-'democratized' too since population
figures into the equation.

So it's a weird compromise created to smooth over several
possible issues - albeit a somewhat kludgy fix.

Wouldn't hurt my feelings to see the EC go away ... nor to
see it persist. WOULD take a constitutiional amendment
to disappear it though ......

[Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas]

"Catherine L. Cranche" <we.be....@jeanerette.la> wrote in
news:lbj2A.205046$oF2.1...@fx37.iad:

So you are smarter than the founders?

Not fucking likely.

--
"...And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to
the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a
century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time,
with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."--
Thomas Jefferson, Nov. 13, 1787

[Terry Coombs]

whit3rd wrote:
> On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 3:57:01 PM UTC-8, Terry Coombs wrote:
>> Catherine L. Cranche wrote:
>
>>> I didn't vote for Clinton, ham hock, and you're an idiot for
>>> thinking I might have done just because I say the electoral college
>>> is a bad and anti-republican idea.
>>
>> Sniff sniff , I'm so hurt ... but the EC does just what it's
>> supposed to , it gives balance between heavily populated areas and
>> thinly populated rural areas . IMO - while I don't always agree with
>> the results - it needs to be left as it is .
>
> I'm sorry for your hurt.

So , do I get a coloring book ?
--
Snag

[dca...@krl.org]

On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 10:36:09 PM UTC-5, whit3rd wrote:

>

> Unless you are a knee-jerk conservative with NO care for consequences, the
> "it needs to be left as is" rhetoric is nonsense. The needs of we, the people,
> are real. That need "to be left as it is" is a fiction.

Not knee jerk, but which would you prefer. The small states seceding or having something that prevents the large states from ignoring the small states desires and needs.

Dan

[RD Sandman]

"Catherine L. Cranche" <we.be....@jeanerette.la> wrote in

news:ZYi2A.91030$kD2....@fx15.iad:

However there are 51 states and DC, all of whom provide electoral votes
through the college. 20 of them went to Hillary, 31 went to Trump. All
the state results were based on the popular vote in that state. Our
elections are an interesting hybrid.

--

RD Sandman

Airspeed, altitude and brains....two of the three are always
required to complete a mission.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[RD Sandman]

"max headroom" <maximus...@gmx.com> wrote in
news:o2ctug$77m$1...@dont-email.me:

Actually, it is a representative one.

[RD Sandman]

Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con> wrote in
news:Y_i2A.91031$kD2....@fx15.iad:

Isn't everything.....according to some.

[max headroom]

In news:XnsA6D964817...@216.166.97.131, RD Sandman <rdsa...@comcast.net> typed:

Actually, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of
Government..." If it was good enough for the creators, it's good enough for me.

[RD Sandman]

"max headroom" <maximus...@gmx.com> wrote in

news:o2eqea$lsh$1...@dont-email.me:

See where it says "republican form"? Have you looked at the definitions
of a republic and a representative democracy lately?

Republic

1. A political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of
citizens who can elect people to represent them

2. A form of government whose head of state is not a monarch. (I assume
that they are not addressing the butterfly.)

Democracy

1. The doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group can
make decisions binding on the whole group (pure or direct democracy and
the one many in here think of when the term "democracy" is used.)

2. The political orientation of those who favor government by the people
(pure or direct democracy) or by their elected representatives
(representative democracy)

3. A political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of
citizens who can elect people to represent them. (representative
democracy)

Compare the first definition of republic to either the second or third
definition of democracy.

It really makes little difference what you call them, they work the same.
I have no problem with the term Republic, do you have a problem with the
US being referred to as a representative form of democracy? ;)

[edhun...@gmail.com]

"A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place..."

[That's what Madison meant, and what RD has confirmed...]

"... opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. 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." -- James Madison, Federalist #10


"The introduction of this new principle of REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY has rendered useless almost everything written before on the structure of government; and, in a great measure, relieves our regret, if the political writings of Aristotle, or of any other ancient, have been lost, or are unfaithfully rendered or explained to us." -- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816

What both Madison and Jefferson meant by "republic" is a representative democracy, as they make clear above and in other writings. This is what is often called a "Madisonian republic" to distinguish it from a Roman republic, in which representation is by class or military stature.

RD is right. There is no difference in structure, and Madison's views on minority rights protected by a constitution are an important part of his "republic," although there is nothing inherent in "representative democracy" that mitigates against such a constitution.

--
Ed Huntress

[max headroom]

In news:XnsA6D9732AD...@216.166.97.131, RD Sandman <rdsa...@comcast.net> typed:

Change "can" to "do" and I'd agree.

> 2. A form of government whose head of state is not a monarch. (I

> assume that they are not addressing the butterfly.)...

That would include the USSR, North Korea, and Cuba. (I'm not sure if it would exclude Canada.)

> Democracy

> 1. The doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group can
> make decisions binding on the whole group (pure or direct democracy
> and the one many in here think of when the term "democracy" is used.)

> 2. The political orientation of those who favor government by the
> people (pure or direct democracy) or by their elected representatives
> (representative democracy)

> 3. A political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of
> citizens who can elect people to represent them. (representative
> democracy)

> Compare the first definition of republic to either the second or third
> definition of democracy.

Compare those to my trusty Funk & Wagnalls--

"Republic; A state in which the sovereignity resides in the people and the administration is lodged
in officers elected by and representing the people.

"Democracy; 1. Government directly by the people collectively. 2. A government so conducted; a state
so governed; the mass of the people."

So I'll stand with my comment regarding the Electoral College, "It's an excellent idea and very

republican. This ain't a democrcy, after all."

> It really makes little difference what you call them, they work the
> same. I have no problem with the term Republic, do you have a problem
> with the US being referred to as a representative form of democracy?
> ;)

I have a problem with those who indignantly whine, "Isn't this still a democracy?"

[Dechucka]

"Terry Coombs" <snag...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:o2crtq$1s2$1...@dont-email.me...

Why is that a god thing?

[edhun...@gmail.com]

Democracy and republic are not mutually exclusive. As Jefferson said, we have a representative democracy -- the "new idea" that wasn't really so new, but we extended the idea a bit from that of the English parliament as it evolved by 1688.

A republic -- the kind we have -- as Madison said, "A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place..."

The entire structure, as explained by Madison, Hamilton and Jay in the Federalist Papers, is based on representative democracy by the whole body of the people (or what passed for the "whole body" at the time).

A republic -- "res publica," or "the peoples' thing," is an aspiration, not a structure. Madison's definition is the one we have, and the one passed at the Constitutional Convention and by the states.

There are several possible structures. Madison focused on the historical ones in which the people had a voice in electing their leaders. But he was much more specific than that, and he added a couple of twists, including distribution and balance of powers and a constitution that guaranteed certain individual rights.

Don't get hung on the differences between "republic" and "representative democracy." There is no inherent or definitional difference. Either one can include or exclude some things that are not in the other, but ours does not.

--
Ed Huntress

[Dechucka]

"Dechucka" <Dech...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3-2dnaVXJLx6htbF...@westnet.com.au...

or good

[rbowman]

On 12/09/2016 09:51 AM, RD Sandman wrote:
> However there are 51 states and DC, all of whom provide electoral votes
> through the college.

Is that Obama geography?

[Martin Eastburn]

Electoral College was defined to under power the western expansion
states. The Fathers of the country saw the North East would loose power
over the new states moving across the country. The Electoral College
preserved some balance and power in the original 13 colonies. (South
was already there!!!) and the great fear came in on the west coast
that over populates the north east and the east coast.

Martin

[RD Sandman]

"max headroom" <maximus...@gmx.com> wrote in

news:o2f56v$2l3$1...@dont-email.me:

It is a dictionary definition, not mine.

>> 2. A form of government whose head of state is not a monarch. (I
>> assume that they are not addressing the butterfly.)...
>
> That would include the USSR, North Korea, and Cuba. (I'm not sure if
> it would exclude Canada.)

Yes, if they also fit definition 1. I don't believe that they do. ;)

>> Democracy
>
>> 1. The doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group can
>> make decisions binding on the whole group (pure or direct democracy
>> and the one many in here think of when the term "democracy" is used.)
>
>> 2. The political orientation of those who favor government by the
>> people (pure or direct democracy) or by their elected representatives
>> (representative democracy)
>
>> 3. A political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of
>> citizens who can elect people to represent them. (representative
>> democracy)
>
>> Compare the first definition of republic to either the second or
>> third definition of democracy.
>
> Compare those to my trusty Funk & Wagnalls--
>
> "Republic; A state in which the sovereignity resides in the people and
> the administration is lodged in officers elected by and representing
> the people.

Basically, the same definition as I gave. Representatvies for the people
and not a monarch.

> "Democracy; 1. Government directly by the people collectively. 2. A
> government so conducted; a state so governed; the mass of the people."
>
> So I'll stand with my comment regarding the Electoral College, "It's
> an excellent idea and very republican. This ain't a democrcy, after
> all."

I don't have a problem with that. Our country is both a republic and a
democracy. We resolve things through representatives we voted into
office to legislate for us and to represent us as a government.

>> It really makes little difference what you call them, they work the
>> same. I have no problem with the term Republic, do you have a problem
>> with the US being referred to as a representative form of democracy?
>> ;)
>
> I have a problem with those who indignantly whine, "Isn't this still a
> democracy?"

I don't do it indignantly but we truly are a democracy (a representative
one) in the form of a republic.

[RD Sandman]

"Dechucka" <Dech...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:3-2dnaVXJLx6htbF...@westnet.com.au:

Our constitution was based on control of things by the states not simply
the majority the citizens. It wasn't until the 17A in 1913 that there
was direct election of senators by the citizenry. Prior to that, senators
were put in place by the state.

Do you think that all things in government should be controlled by the
population of a state or a city rather than the country?

[RD Sandman]

rbowman <bow...@montana.com> wrote in news:eb17fqFjgu6U2
@mid.individual.net:

That should have read 51 "states" *including* DC. Nice catch.

[max headroom]

In news:XnsA6DA5D0B9...@216.166.97.131, RD Sandman <rdsa...@comcast.net> typed:

> "max headroom" <maximus...@gmx.com> wrote in
> news:o2f56v$2l3$1...@dont-email.me:

>> In news:XnsA6D9732AD...@216.166.97.131, RD Sandman
>> <rdsa...@comcast.net> typed:

>>> "max headroom" <maximus...@gmx.com> wrote in
>>> news:o2eqea$lsh$1...@dont-email.me:

>>>> In news:XnsA6D964817...@216.166.97.131, RD Sandman
>>>> <rdsa...@comcast.net> typed:

>>>>> "max headroom" <maximus...@gmx.com> wrote in
>>>>> news:o2ctug$77m$1...@dont-email.me:

>>>>>> In news:lbj2A.205046$oF2.1...@fx37.iad, Catherine L. Cranche
>>>>>> <we.be....@jeanerette.la> typed:

>>>>>>> I didn't vote for Clinton, ham hock, and you're an idiot for
>>>>>>> thinking I might have done just because I say the electoral
>>>>>>> college is a bad and anti-republican idea.

>>>>>> It's an excellent idea and very republican. This ain't a

>>>>>> democracy, after all.

>>>>> Actually, it is a representative one.

>>>> Actually, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this
>>>> Union a Republican Form of Government..." If it was good enough for
>>>> the creators, it's good enough for me.

>>> See where it says "republican form"? Have you looked at the
>>> definitions of a republic and a representative democracy lately?

>>> Republic

>>> 1. A political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of
>>> citizens who can elect people to represent them

>> Change "can" to "do" and I'd agree.

> It is a dictionary definition, not mine.

>>> 2. A form of government whose head of state is not a monarch. (I
>>> assume that they are not addressing the butterfly.)...

>> That would include the USSR, North Korea, and Cuba. (I'm not sure if
>> it would exclude Canada.)

> Yes, if they also fit definition 1. I don't believe that they do. ;)

But that's not the way dictionary definitions work. When there are two or more, it's a either/or
deal, i.e., "pick one or more." There have been many nations ruled by their militaries that fit
definition #2 but not #1.

>>> Democracy

>>> 1. The doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group
>>> can make decisions binding on the whole group (pure or direct
>>> democracy and the one many in here think of when the term
>>> "democracy" is used.)

>>> 2. The political orientation of those who favor government by the
>>> people (pure or direct democracy) or by their elected
>>> representatives (representative democracy)

>>> 3. A political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of
>>> citizens who can elect people to represent them. (representative
>>> democracy)

>>> Compare the first definition of republic to either the second or
>>> third definition of democracy.

>> Compare those to my trusty Funk & Wagnalls--

>> "Republic; A state in which the sovereignity resides in the people
>> and the administration is lodged in officers elected by and
>> representing the people.

> Basically, the same definition as I gave. Representatvies for the
> people and not a monarch.

>> "Democracy; 1. Government directly by the people collectively. 2. A
>> government so conducted; a state so governed; the mass of the
>> people."

>> So I'll stand with my comment regarding the Electoral College, "It's

>> an excellent idea and very republican. This ain't a democracy, after

>> all."

> I don't have a problem with that. Our country is both a republic and
> a democracy. We resolve things through representatives we voted into
> office to legislate for us and to represent us as a government.

IOW, a republic. Can anyone name an undemocratic republic that fulfills the definition?

>>> It really makes little difference what you call them, they work the
>>> same. I have no problem with the term Republic, do you have a
>>> problem with the US being referred to as a representative form of
>>> democracy? ;)

>> I have a problem with those who indignantly whine, "Isn't this still
>> a democracy?"

> I don't do it indignantly ...

I didn't mean to imply you do. I don't think I've ever seen you on TV as a member of the
Professional Victims Guild whining to a reporter.

> ...but we truly are a democracy (a representative one) in the form of a republic.

Let me edit that for you--

we truly are [a democracy (a representative one) in the form of] a republic.

Everything within the brackets is superfluous, as it is already in the meaning of "republic." Why
use ten words when one is perfect?

[rbowman]

On 12/10/2016 09:15 AM, RD Sandman wrote:
> Do you think that all things in government should be controlled by the
> population of a state or a city rather than the country?
>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity

"Subsidiarity is a principle of social organization that originated in
the Roman Catholic Church. In its most basic formulation, it holds that
social and political issues should be dealt with at the most immediate
(or local) level that is consistent with their resolution."

Substitute 'most things' for 'all things' and the answer is yes. Right
after 'the united States' became 'the United States' the federal
government has been overreaching itself. Political decisions should be
made at the lowest possible level by the people directly influenced by
the decision.

[Dechucka]

"RD Sandman" <rdsa...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA6DA5E26C...@216.166.97.131...

Of course even today there is nothing to make the Electors in the Electoral
College vote the way the people in their State wanted in the majority of
States

>
> Do you think that all things in government should be controlled by the
> population of a state or a city rather than the country?

That's what you currently have in your POTUS election

[Wayne]

On 12/10/2016 1:34 PM, Winston_Smith wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Dec 2016 07:21:27 +1100, "Dechucka" wrote:
>> "RD Sandman" wrote

>
>>> Do you think that all things in government should be controlled by the
>>> population of a state or a city rather than the country?
>>
>> That's what you currently have in your POTUS election
>

> The electoral college is essentially a mirror image of Congress - a
> mix of all states equal and all citizens equal.
>
> If you want to dump the college, let's dump the Senate too. Elect the
> House by one nationwide popular vote.
>
> No more chance for the "out" party to block, or at least moderate, the
> actions of the just elected "in" party of the one and only legislative
> body. Don't like it? Next election change parties. The next election
> change parties. Elect the entire House and President at the same time;
> get rid of any sort of flywheel effect. Whatever the low-information
> sheeple want at the moment.
>
> Instability squared.
>
> Sucks if yours is the "out" party. Sucks since the rules will be
> changed and your party will never ever be elected again.
>
The popular vote whiners are a bunch of sore loser pussies.

Both parties knew that the winner is determined by electoral votes, and
they campaigned that way.

The whiners make the wrong assumption that Hillary would have won a
popular vote campaign. That is NOT a given.

Both candidates would have campaigned differently, and Trump would have
had a good chance of winning a popular vote.

[Dechucka]

"Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:o2hts7$bvt$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 12/10/2016 1:34 PM, Winston_Smith wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 Dec 2016 07:21:27 +1100, "Dechucka" wrote:
>>> "RD Sandman" wrote
>>
>>>> Do you think that all things in government should be controlled by the
>>>> population of a state or a city rather than the country?
>>>
>>> That's what you currently have in your POTUS election
>>
>> The electoral college is essentially a mirror image of Congress - a
>> mix of all states equal and all citizens equal.
>>
>> If you want to dump the college, let's dump the Senate too. Elect the
>> House by one nationwide popular vote.
>>
>> No more chance for the "out" party to block, or at least moderate, the
>> actions of the just elected "in" party of the one and only legislative
>> body. Don't like it? Next election change parties. The next election
>> change parties. Elect the entire House and President at the same time;
>> get rid of any sort of flywheel effect. Whatever the low-information
>> sheeple want at the moment.
>>
>> Instability squared.
>>
>> Sucks if yours is the "out" party. Sucks since the rules will be
>> changed and your party will never ever be elected again.
>>
> The popular vote whiners are a bunch of sore loser pussies.
>
> Both parties knew that the winner is determined by electoral votes, and
> they campaigned that way.

Dud system

[PaxPerPoten]

On 12/10/2016 10:16 AM, RD Sandman wrote:
> rbowman <bow...@montana.com> wrote in news:eb17fqFjgu6U2
> @mid.individual.net:
>
>> On 12/09/2016 09:51 AM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>> However there are 51 states and DC, all of whom provide electoral votes
>>> through the college.
>>
>> Is that Obama geography?
>>
>
> That should have read 51 "states" *including* DC. Nice catch.

Surely you are not calling that cluster fuck in DC, a state?
>


--
It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard
the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all
ages who mean to govern well, but *They mean to govern*. They promise to
be good masters, *but they mean to be masters*. Daniel Webster

[max headroom]

In news:jvudndkQfspB4NHF...@westnet.com.au, Dechucka <Dech...@hotmail.com> typed:

> "Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:o2hts7$bvt$1...@dont-email.me...

>> The popular vote whiners are a bunch of sore loser pussies.

>> Both parties knew that the winner is determined by electoral votes,
>> and they campaigned that way.

> Dud system

No, having your nation's leader selected by one party of your legislature is a dud system.

[Wayne]

Nope. The president of the states is chosen by the states. That's much
better than telling the small states to fuck off during an election.

[Dechucka]

"Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net> wrote in message

news:o2ie42$sre$1...@dont-email.me...

That's where we are different. I believe that people are more important then
a State and that the people not the States should choose

[edhun...@gmail.com]

The by-state argument is a red herring. First, the state borders are and always have been arbitrary, in terms of interests. Interests are regional, class-based, economic, or cultural. The fact that Virginia was divided into two parts, suddenly doubling its total representation in the Senate, or that Massachusetts did the same thing in 1820, among similar examples, is proof that there is nothing intrinsic about statehood that produces a logical federalist entity. Some states' borders are based on pre-revolutionary royal charters; others on slave-state compromises. As a way of determining voting rights, it's nuts.

So a voter in New Mexico has the equivalent of 2 votes for every one in neighboring Arizona; a voter in Vermont has nearly 2 votes for every one in New Hampshire or Maine. It makes no sense.

Wayne's basic point about protecting the authority and rights of people in non-metro states is a valid one, which our FFs attempted to accommodate in several ways. The initial by-state federalism, though, was a collection of accidents augmented by the history of confederation being adopted for a system of federalism. It made more sense in the early days of the republic, and, if we abandoned it, we'd need to do something about protecting those interests.

As it is, it just produces elections in which four or five swing states dictate to everyone else who our president will be. The fact that they're swing states, in the first place, tells us that it isn't some intrinsic "small-state interest" that's at issue, because those swing states are divided as hell to begin with. That's why they're swing states.

--
Ed Huntress

[Just Wondering]

In other words, you believe in mob rule.

[dca...@krl.org]

On Saturday, December 10, 2016 at 11:32:03 PM UTC-5, edhun...@gmail.com wrote:




> As it is, it just produces elections in which four or five swing states dictate to everyone else who our president will be. The fact that they're swing states, in the first place, tells us that it isn't some intrinsic "small-state interest" that's at issue, because those swing states are divided as hell to begin with. That's why they're swing states.
>
> --
> Ed Huntress

Sounds good but it is bunk. California is not a swing state. And what you are saying is that its electoral votes do not really count. That is a really stupid argument.

Dan

[edhun...@gmail.com]

No, that's not the way it works, Dan. Without getting into the political science of elections, suffice to say that the coalitions that form our two parties evolve to correspond to substantial majorities of voters in as many states (or for as many electoral votes) as possible. California hasn't voted Republican in a presidential election since 1988. Obama won over Romney 60% - 37%. He won over McCain 54% - 44%.


Texas, with the second-highest number of electors, hasn't voted Democratic since 1976. Romney beat Obama 57% - 41%. In US presidential politics, those are huge margins. Most states are predictable, accounting for trends that will swing them from one side to the other as demographics change over time.

In a normal election, it comes down to a few states that have electorates that are divided along the lines of those two coalitions. So they're the only ones that really are in play. 2016 was a really weird election in several ways, but the pattern of swing states held. Those were the states that determined who our president would be. The rest, with an occasional surprise, are a lock. California is balanced by other states that are a Republican lock, and so on across the board.

So US elections in normal times (and even in 2016, for the most part) are a battle for the swing states. They determine who our president will be. California, Texas, New York or Oklahoma had nothing to do with it. They were a wash.

--
Ed Huntress

[dca...@krl.org]

On Sunday, December 11, 2016 at 9:23:01 AM UTC-5, edhun...@gmail.com wrote:



> So US elections in normal times (and even in 2016, for the most part) are a battle for the swing states. They determine who our president will be. California, Texas, New York or Oklahoma had nothing to do with it. They were a wash.
>
> --
> Ed Huntress

So you are saying that California has nothing to do with the election.

"California, Texas, New York or Oklahoma had nothing to do with it."

Dan

[Wayne]

And yet the "progressive" liberal view is that the majority is always
wrong, because they will mistreat the minority.

[edhun...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, December 11, 2016 at 11:03:29 AM UTC-5, dca...@krl.org wrote:
> On Sunday, December 11, 2016 at 9:23:01 AM UTC-5, edhun...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > So US elections in normal times (and even in 2016, for the most part) are a battle for the swing states. They determine who our president will be. California, Texas, New York or Oklahoma had nothing to do with it. They were a wash.
> >
> > --
> > Ed Huntress
>
> So you are saying that California has nothing to do with the election.

Not as long as they're a slam-dunk for Democrats and they balance the states that are slam-dunks for Republicans. And that, indeed, is the fact today.

The only thing that would make California relevant would be to cut it off and push it into the Pacific Ocean.

>
> "California, Texas, New York or Oklahoma had nothing to do with it."

Right. Now you're using your head.

--
Ed Huntress

>
> Dan

[RD Sandman]

"max headroom" <maximus...@gmx.com> wrote in

news:o2hcal$e37$1...@dont-email.me:

While true, definition 1 is the primary. You could have a monarchy and
still have it fit if you didn't also look at definition 2. A monoarchy
would (or could) represent the people through a representative type of
government. Look at its definition:

An autocracy governed by a monarch who usually inherits the authority.
The layer between him (or her) could be a representative style of
government like out simply without the actual head of government being
elected but place by birth or inheritance. Look at England for an
example.

That would be true. ;)

>> ...but we truly are a democracy (a representative one) in the form of
>> a republic.
>
> Let me edit that for you--
>
> we truly are [a democracy (a representative one) in the form of] a
> republic.
>
> Everything within the brackets is superfluous, as it is already in the
> meaning of "republic." Why use ten words when one is perfect?

Not in everyone's mind. Too many in here like to argue that we are NOT a
democracy.

[RD Sandman]

rbowman <bow...@montana.com> wrote in news:eb312bF294dU1
@mid.individual.net:

IOW, you believe in a pure or direct democracy not a representative one?

[RD Sandman]

"Dechucka" <Dech...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:vbWdnVThjolQ_tHF...@westnet.com.au:

That may well depend on state law. There is nothing in federal law that
forces compliance with the will of the people in a presidential election.
In most states, electors are chosen by how they would be expected to vote
and have historically. Republican electors on the Republican slate of
electors, Democratic one on the Democratic slate of electors. Which
slate actually votes is determined by the popular vote in the state.

>> Do you think that all things in government should be controlled by
>> the population of a state or a city rather than the country?
>
> That's what you currently have in your POTUS election

Then that does not fit the definition of "all things" does it.

[RD Sandman]

Wayne <mygarb...@verizon.net> wrote in news:o2hts7$bvt$1@dont-
email.me:

> On 12/10/2016 1:34 PM, Winston_Smith wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 Dec 2016 07:21:27 +1100, "Dechucka" wrote:
>>> "RD Sandman" wrote
>>
>>>> Do you think that all things in government should be controlled by
the
>>>> population of a state or a city rather than the country?
>>>
>>> That's what you currently have in your POTUS election
>>
>> The electoral college is essentially a mirror image of Congress - a
>> mix of all states equal and all citizens equal.
>>
>> If you want to dump the college, let's dump the Senate too. Elect the
>> House by one nationwide popular vote.
>>
>> No more chance for the "out" party to block, or at least moderate, the
>> actions of the just elected "in" party of the one and only legislative
>> body. Don't like it? Next election change parties. The next election
>> change parties. Elect the entire House and President at the same time;
>> get rid of any sort of flywheel effect. Whatever the low-information
>> sheeple want at the moment.
>>
>> Instability squared.
>>
>> Sucks if yours is the "out" party. Sucks since the rules will be
>> changed and your party will never ever be elected again.
>>
> The popular vote whiners are a bunch of sore loser pussies.

Bingo!!

> Both parties knew that the winner is determined by electoral votes, and
> they campaigned that way.

Bingo!!

> The whiners make the wrong assumption that Hillary would have won a
> popular vote campaign. That is NOT a given.
>
> Both candidates would have campaigned differently, and Trump would have
> had a good chance of winning a popular vote.

Damn, you seem to be on a roll. ;)

[RD Sandman]

"Dechucka" <Dech...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:jvudndkQfspB4NHF...@westnet.com.au:

Then be glad you live in OZ......we are.

[RD Sandman]

"Dechucka" <Dech...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:mLudnY1tDYTJUdHF...@westnet.com.au:

However, decisions at the highest level affect both how the states
interact and how the people interact. Your idea leaves one or the other
without a voice.

[RD Sandman]

Wayne <mygarb...@verizon.net> wrote in
news:o2jvh4$s7u$1...@dont-email.me:

That, BTW, is one of the reasons for the Bill of Rights. It is to
protect the minority from the rule and whim of the majority.

[RD Sandman]

PaxPerPoten <P...@USA.org> wrote in news:o2i10b$j32$1...@dont-email.me:

> On 12/10/2016 10:16 AM, RD Sandman wrote:
>> rbowman <bow...@montana.com> wrote in news:eb17fqFjgu6U2
>> @mid.individual.net:
>>
>>> On 12/09/2016 09:51 AM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>> However there are 51 states and DC, all of whom provide electoral
>>>> votes through the college.
>>>
>>> Is that Obama geography?
>>>
>>
>> That should have read 51 "states" *including* DC. Nice catch.
>
> Surely you are not calling that cluster fuck in DC, a state?
>>
>
>

No, but it does have votes in the same manner as the states do. I hope you
understand why there is a District there rather than a state.

[rbowman]

On 12/11/2016 09:52 AM, RD Sandman wrote:
> rbowman <bow...@montana.com> wrote in news:eb312bF294dU1
> @mid.individual.net:
>
>> On 12/10/2016 09:15 AM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>> Do you think that all things in government should be controlled by the
>>> population of a state or a city rather than the country?
>>>
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity
>>
>> "Subsidiarity is a principle of social organization that originated in
>> the Roman Catholic Church. In its most basic formulation, it holds that
>> social and political issues should be dealt with at the most immediate
>> (or local) level that is consistent with their resolution."
>>
>> Substitute 'most things' for 'all things' and the answer is yes. Right
>> after 'the united States' became 'the United States' the federal
>> government has been overreaching itself. Political decisions should be
>> made at the lowest possible level by the people directly influenced by
>> the decision.
>>
>
> IOW, you believe in a pure or direct democracy not a representative one?
>

Do you see any thing in what I said that suggests what political system
might be used to implement subsidiarity?

[RD Sandman]

rbowman <bow...@montana.com> wrote in news:eb5hjjFkjn5U1
@mid.individual.net:

Nope, but look at the attributes. I don't know where it comes from but
the indicator counts are one off. I wrote the question, "IOW, you
believe in a pure or direct democracy not a representative one?", yet it
appears on the attributes that you wrote it. See above where your name
is posted? It shows two >s same as the cite. My name shows three >>>s on
stuff I did not write. Interesting.......

[max headroom]

In news:XnsA6DB6422E...@216.166.97.131, RD Sandman <rdsa...@comcast.net> typed:

> "max headroom" <maximus...@gmx.com> wrote in
> news:o2hcal$e37$1...@dont-email.me:

>> In news:XnsA6DA5D0B9...@216.166.97.131, RD Sandman
>> <rdsa...@comcast.net> typed:

>>> ...but we truly are a democracy (a representative one) in the form
>>> of a republic.

>> Let me edit that for you--

>> we truly are [a democracy (a representative one) in the form of] a
>> republic.

>> Everything within the brackets is superfluous, as it is already in
>> the meaning of "republic." Why use ten words when one is perfect?

> Not in everyone's mind....

So what? They're wrong. There's a reason our Founders specified a republican form of government.

> ... Too many in here like to argue that we are NOT a democracy.

"Republic" is precise, "democracy" isn't. Why use a word that needs modifiers to approach the
precision of the correct word?

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

Too many people were taught that we *are* a democracy to let the
statement stand unchallenged.

Example- the "end the electoral college" idiots.

The problem accelerated with the passage of the 17th Amendment and
grows steadily worse.

[max headroom]

In news:trar4clfqbde3f34a...@4ax.com, Klaus Schadenfreude
<klausscha...@null.net> typed:

> On Sun, 11 Dec 2016 10:01:24 -0800, "max headroom"
> <maximus...@gmx.com> wrote:

>> "Republic" is precise, "democracy" isn't. Why use a word that needs
>> modifiers to approach the precision of the correct word?

> Too many people were taught that we *are* a democracy to let the
> statement stand unchallenged.

Exactly.

[Dechucka]

"Just Wondering" <fmh...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:jw73A.76770$AI2....@fx04.iad...

If by that you mean that our representatives in Parliament are elected by a
majority YES. Of course that doesn't happen in our Senate but I have yet to
come up with a better system.

[Dechucka]

"Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net> wrote in message

news:o2jvh4$s7u$1...@dont-email.me...

Well they are wrong

[Dechucka]

"RD Sandman" <rdsa...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:XnsA6DB665CF...@216.166.97.131...

That is part of your checks and balances, we rely on the High Court

[edhun...@gmail.com]

"Republic" is one of the vaguest terms in politics, and it was vague even when the Founders used it.

"These will be pure and elementary REPUBLICS, the sum of all which, taken together, composes the State, and will make of the whole a true democracy as to the business of the wards, which is that of nearest and daily concern." -- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Samuel Kerchival. Washington ed. vii, 35. Ford ed., x, 45. (M. 1816)

"They knew no medium between a democracy (the only pure REPUBLIC, but impracticable beyond the limits of a town) and an abandonment of themselves to an aristocracy, or a tyranny independent of the people." -- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Isaac H. Tiffany. Washington ed. vii, 32. (M. 1816)

"REPUB'LIC, n. [L. respublica; res and publica; public affairs.]
1. A commonwealth; a state in which the exercise of the sovereign power is lodged in representatives elected by the people. In modern usage, it differs from a democracy or democratic state, in which the people exercise the powers of sovereignty in person. Yet the democracies of Greece are often called republics." -- Webster's English Dictionary, 1828

"If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote." [So much for minorities, eh?] -- James Madison, Federalist #10

"A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place..." [ibid.]

"What, then, are the distinctive characters of the republican form? Were an answer to this question to be sought, not by recurring to principles, but in the application of the term by political writers, to the constitution of different States, no satisfactory one would ever be found. Holland, in which no particle of the supreme authority is derived from the people, has passed almost universally under the denomination of a republic. The same title has been bestowed on Venice, where absolute power over the great body of the people is exercised, in the most absolute manner, by a small body of hereditary nobles. Poland, which is a mixture of aristocracy and of monarchy in their worst forms, has been dignified with the same appellation. The government of England, which has one republican branch only, combined with an hereditary aristocracy and monarchy, has, with equal impropriety, been frequently placed on the list of republics." -- James Madison, Federalist #39.

Madison said these are not real republics. As he indicates, most people did not agree with him. Thus, the form he proposed (you can read Federalist #10 and #39 to see for yourself; add in Hamilton's #51 to the above quotes to get a complete picture of what the common understanding was at the time of the founding) is sometimes called a "Madisonian republic," acknowledging the limits to "republic" that he proposed.

But for centuries before, and centuries after, it has been common to stick to the broad meaning of "republic," which is a government "for the people," at least, or "by the people," to conform more closely with Madison's example.

Don't think you'll find complete agreement about what constitutes a "republic" by our Founders, or anyone else. "Res publica" can be, and has been, interpreted in many ways.

"Representative democracy," as Madison alludes and as Jefferson says explicitly, is a much more coherent term. And it's accurate.

--
Ed Huntress

[Dechucka]

"RD Sandman" <rdsa...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:XnsA6DB66165...@216.166.97.131...

We have the Senate to look after the States. As I stated before this mean
all votes aren't equal in electing them but I am yet to come up with a
better system that is practical

[RD Sandman]

"max headroom" <maximus...@gmx.com> wrote in

news:o2k9ik$2f8$1...@dont-email.me:

I'm used to it. Over the years I have used both "Republic' and
"representative democracy" to describe how the US operates. Both are
correct. I am pushing 80, I doubt you will see much change in me for the
time I have left. ;)

[RD Sandman]

"Dechucka" <Dech...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:usmdnfPo168gLtDF...@westnet.com.au:

We have one of those also.....it is called the Supreme Court. In our
system, each branch, legislative, judicial and executive tend to maintain
balance in each other.

[RD Sandman]

"Dechucka" <Dech...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:se2dnQBQCoXNKdDF...@westnet.com.au:

We have three branches that look after the states. Executive,
Legislative and Judicial.

As I stated before this
> mean all votes aren't equal in electing them but I am yet to come up
> with a better system that is practical

And ours works for us and has for over 200 years. Have a nice day.

[Ignoramus23868]

There is nothing wrong with electrical college. It is a system that is
as good as any other, and majority votes would also produce
disagreeable results just as often.

Because elections are competitive, with candidates vying for various
slices of the electorate, many electoral college votes are close and
unpredictable. Same would be if popular vote is the electing method.

i

[Ignoramus23868]

On 2016-12-12, Ignoramus23868 <ignoram...@NOSPAM.23868.invalid> wrote:
> There is nothing wrong with electrical college. It is a system that is

^^^^^^^^^^ electoral

[Larry Jaques]

On Mon, 12 Dec 2016 17:18:57 -0600, Ignoramus23868
<ignoram...@NOSPAM.23868.invalid> wrote:

>On 2016-12-12, Ignoramus23868 <ignoram...@NOSPAM.23868.invalid> wrote:
>> There is nothing wrong with electrical college. It is a system that is
> ^^^^^^^^^^ electoral

Into the fermented potato juice again, eh, Ig? <g>

>> as good as any other, and majority votes would also produce
>> disagreeable results just as often.
>>
>> Because elections are competitive, with candidates vying for various
>> slices of the electorate, many electoral college votes are close and
>> unpredictable. Same would be if popular vote is the electing method.

If we could defund politics, we might get better people trying for the
jobs. Maybe even more like Trump, who would actually -care- about the
country.

--
Happiness lies in the joy of achievement and the thrill of creative effort.
-- Franklin D. Roosevelt

[Catherine L. Cranche]

On 12/8/2016 4:24 PM, max headroom wrote:
> In news:lbj2A.205046$oF2.1...@fx37.iad, Catherine L. Cranche <we.be....@jeanerette.la> typed:
>

>> On 12/8/2016 12:09 PM, Terry Coombs wrote:
>
>>> Catherine L. Cranche wrote:
>
>>>> On 12/7/2016 8:49 PM, raykeller wrote:
>
>>>>> Our Founders in their infinite wisdom created the Electoral College
>>>>> to ensure the STATES were fairly represented. Why should one or two
>>>>> densely populated areas speak for the whole of the nation?
>
>>>>> The following list of statistics has been making the rounds on
>>>>> the Internet and it should finally put an end to the argument as
>>>>> to why the Electoral College makes sense.
>
>>>>> Share this with as many whiners as you can:
>
>>>>> a.. There are 3,141 counties in the United States.
>>>>> b.. Trump won 3,084 of them.
>
>>>> Been through this horseshit already. Counties don't vote.
>>>> Geography doesn't vote.
>
>>> Hitlery lost , snowflake . Get over it .
>
>> I didn't vote for Clinton, ham hock, and you're an idiot for thinking
>> I might have done just because I say the electoral college is a bad
>> and anti-republican idea.
>

> It's an excellent idea and very republican.

It's not excellent and it's not very republican.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 12/8/2016 4:47 PM, edhun...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 7:18:46 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> On Thu, 8 Dec 2016 07:35:23 -0800 (PST), edhun...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 9:37:39 AM UTC-5, Terry Coombs wrote:
>>>> edhun...@gmail.com wrote:

>>>>> On Wednesday, December 7, 2016 at 11:48:58 PM UTC-5, raykeller wrote:
>>>>>> Our Founders in their infinite wisdom created the Electoral College
>>>>>> to ensure the STATES were fairly represented. Why should one or two
>>>>>> densely populated areas speak for the whole of the nation?
>>>>>> The following list of statistics has been making the rounds on the
>>>>>> Internet and it should finally put an end to the argument as to why
>>>>>> the Electoral College makes sense.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Share this with as many whiners as you can:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> a.. There are 3,141 counties in the United States.
>>>>>> b.. Trump won 3,084 of them.

>>>>>> c.. Clinton won 57.
>>>>>> d.. There are 62 counties in New York State.
>>>>>> e.. Trump won 46 of them.
>>>>>> f.. Clinton won 16.
>>>>>> g.. Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 1.5 million votes.
>>>>>> h.. In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn,
>>>>>> Manhattan, Richmond & Queens) Clinton received well over 2 million
>>>>>> more votes than Trump. (Clinton only won 4 of these counties; Trump
>>>>>> won Richmond) i.. Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than
>>>>>> accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country.
>>>>>> These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles.
>>>>>> j.. The United States is comprised of 3,797,000 square miles.
>>>>>> k.. When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million
>>>>>> square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest
>>>>>> that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should
>>>>>> dictate the outcome of a national election.
>>>>>> l.. Large, densely-populated Democratic cities (NYC, Chicago,
>>>>>> LA, etc) don't and shouldn't speak for the rest of our country!
>>>>>
>>>>> When they start counting prairie dogs as 3/5 of a man, you'll have a
>>>>> point. Until then, you don't.
>>>>>
>>>>> One person, one vote. The rest is nothing but self-serving sophistry
>>>>> that stems from the same principle that gave us disproportionate
>>>>> representation in the Senate:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Every idea of proportion and every rule of fair representation
>>>>> conspire to condemn a principle, which gives to Rhode Island an equal
>>>>> weight in the scale of power with Massachusetts, or Connecticut, or
>>>>> New York; and to Delaware an equal voice in the national
>>>>> deliberations with Pennsylvania, or Virginia, or North Carolina. Its
>>>>> operation contradicts the fundamental maxim of republican government,
>>>>> which requires that the sense of the majority should prevail." --
>>>>> Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #22.
>>>>
>>>> Yer just another disgruntled snowflake , Ed . Trump won , so get over it .
>>>> I just can't understand the position that a small handful of heavily
>>>> populated (with snowflakes ...) areas should control the presidential
>>>> election . And without the EC , that's exactly what would happen .
>>>> --
>>>> Snag
>>>
>>> Don't be an insulting cracker, Terry. My position, which I share with Hamilton and many others, is one I've held for nearly 50 years, even before Trump was a philandering con artist. It has nothing to do with Trump except that this election brings up the issue again, and dredges up the pontificating pundits who select bits of history for the sole purpose of defending their favored candidate.
>>>
>>> The way the electoral college functions is an artifact of the time when people in your state killed other Americans in an attempt to defend slavery.
>>>
>>> As for the "handful of heavily populated [insulting slur] areas," that's a population of people. This nation is one of a "government instituted among men, deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed." It's not one of arbitrary areas in which one man's consent in Wyoming is worth four times as much as one man's consent in Texas. That's what the electoral college does.
>>>
>>> Hamilton was right. It's anti-republican.
>>
>> On the other hand the Electoral Collage was established by the
>> Constitution, Article 2, I believe. Which would seem to indicate that
>> the Founding Fathers deemed it an important part of their new
>> government.
>
> As Rudy said, it was politically expedient to get the small states to let go of the Articles of Confederation and to sign on to the Constitition.

Not so much the small states - the slave states. And it's not just the
electoral college that placated. First there had to be the three-fifths
rule to increase their congressional representation. Without that, the
electoral college would not have been much inducement.

>>
>> There is also Article 5 of the constitution that serves to describe a
>> method of changing the Constitution.
>>
>> Strange that such an unfair system has been the law of the land for
>> the entire life of the U.S.
>
> Not strange at all. Once the small states got a leg up, they aren't letting go.

It's not especially "unfair." It's peculiar.

>
> If you're in Wyoming and your vote for president is worth four times a Texan's vote, why would you give it up>?
>

[Rudy Canoza]

On 12/8/2016 6:05 PM, BigPol wrote:
> On 12/8/2016 2:02 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 12/7/2016 10:43 PM, Mr. B1ack wrote:
>>> On Wed, 7 Dec 2016 21:49:08 -0700, "raykeller"
>>> <whiney_will_have_his_nose_in_my_ass_in_3_2_1@leftards_are_loosers.com>

>>> The EC is one of those "States -vs- Fed" things.
>>>
>>> Basically it's intended to make each STATE, as a whole,
>>> vote for president. Whether the candidate wins by one
>>> vote or 95% of the votes in that state is irrelevant. The
>>> idea, so far as I can tell, is to produce a sense of "unity".
>>> Maryland - as a state - votes for 'X', New York - as a
>>> state - votes for 'Y'.
>>>
>>> This IS the "United STATES" after all, not the "Federal
>>> Republic of North America".
>>
>> The electoral college was designed to give greater electoral weight to
>> slave states, to get them to agree with the rest of the Constitution.
>> That's what it was for. The "small vs big" state explanation is false
>> and a red herring. It was about slavery.
>
> Just more insane ravings of a California Doper.

No, that's wrong.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 12/8/2016 3:56 PM, Terry Coombs wrote:
> Catherine L. Cranche wrote:
>> On 12/8/2016 12:09 PM, Terry Coombs wrote:
>>> Catherine L. Cranche wrote:

>>>> On 12/7/2016 8:49 PM, raykeller wrote:
>>>>> Our Founders in their infinite wisdom created the Electoral College
>>>>> to ensure the STATES were fairly represented. Why should one or two
>>>>> densely populated areas speak for the whole of the nation?
>>>>> The following list of statistics has been making the rounds on
>>>>> the Internet and it should finally put an end to the argument as
>>>>> to why the Electoral College makes sense.
>>>>>
>>>>> Share this with as many whiners as you can:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> a.. There are 3,141 counties in the United States.
>>>>> b.. Trump won 3,084 of them.
>>>>

>>>> Been through this horseshit already. Counties don't vote. Geography
>>>> doesn't vote.
>>>
>>> Hitlery lost , snowflake . Get over it .
>>
>> I didn't vote for Clinton, ham hock, and you're an idiot for thinking
>> I might have done just because I say the electoral college is a bad
>> and anti-republican idea.
>

> Sniff sniff , I'm so hurt ... but the EC does just what it's supposed to ,
> it gives balance between heavily populated areas and thinly populated rural
> areas

No, that's not its purpose at all, and it doesn't do it.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 12/8/2016 8:28 PM, rbowman wrote:

> On 12/08/2016 01:02 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> The electoral college was designed to give greater electoral weight to
>> slave states, to get them to agree with the rest of the Constitution.
>> That's what it was for. The "small vs big" state explanation is false
>> and a red herring. It was about slavery.
>

> One good thing came out of slavery then -- Clinton lost.

I'm happy Clinton lost, but I'm not happy Trump won. If the election
had gone the other way, I'd be saying the same thing with the names
reversed. Trump most likely will be a bad president. Clinton assuredly
would have been.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 12/9/2016 4:23 AM, Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas wrote:
> "Catherine L. Cranche" <we.be....@jeanerette.la> wrote in
> news:lbj2A.205046$oF2.1...@fx37.iad:

>
>> On 12/8/2016 12:09 PM, Terry Coombs wrote:
>>> Catherine L. Cranche wrote:
>>>> On 12/7/2016 8:49 PM, raykeller wrote:
>>>>> Our Founders in their infinite wisdom created the Electoral College
>>>>> to ensure the STATES were fairly represented. Why should one or two
>>>>> densely populated areas speak for the whole of the nation?
>>>>> The following list of statistics has been making the rounds on the
>>>>> Internet and it should finally put an end to the argument as to why
>>>>> the Electoral College makes sense.
>>>>>
>>>>> Share this with as many whiners as you can:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> a.. There are 3,141 counties in the United States.
>>>>> b.. Trump won 3,084 of them.
>>>>
>>>> Been through this horseshit already. Counties don't vote. Geography
>>>> doesn't vote.
>>>
>>> Hitlery lost , snowflake . Get over it .
>>
>> I didn't vote for Clinton, ham hock, and you're an idiot for thinking I
>> might have done just because I say the electoral college is a bad and
>> anti-republican idea.
>>
>>
>

> So you are smarter than the founders?

I am smart enough not to support the founding document of the country
explicitly recognizing and accepting slavery.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 12/9/2016 5:42 AM, dca...@krl.org wrote:
> On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 10:36:09 PM UTC-5, whit3rd wrote:
>
>>
>
>> Unless you are a knee-jerk conservative with NO care for consequences, the
>> "it needs to be left as is" rhetoric is nonsense. The needs of we, the people,
>> are real. That need "to be left as it is" is a fiction.
>
> Not knee jerk, but which would you prefer. The small states seceding or having something that prevents the large states from ignoring the small states desires and needs.

States don't have needs. Thinking that states are monolithic entities
that have a welfare to be considered is wrong.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 12/9/2016 8:54 AM, RD Sandman wrote:
> Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con> wrote in
> news:Y_i2A.91031$kD2....@fx15.iad:

>
>> On 12/7/2016 10:43 PM, Mr. B1ack wrote:
>>> On Wed, 7 Dec 2016 21:49:08 -0700, "raykeller"
>>> <whiney_will_have_his_nose_in_my_ass_in_3_2_1@leftards_are_loosers.com

>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Our Founders in their infinite wisdom created the Electoral College
>>>> to ensure the STATES were fairly represented. Why should one or two
>>>> densely populated areas speak for the whole of the nation?
>>>> The following list of statistics has been making the rounds on the
>>>> Internet and it should finally put an end to the argument as to why
>>>> the Electoral College makes sense.
>>>>
>>>> Share this with as many whiners as you can:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> a.. There are 3,141 counties in the United States.
>>>> b.. Trump won 3,084 of them.

>> The electoral college was designed to give greater electoral weight to
>> slave states, to get them to agree with the rest of the Constitution.
>> That's what it was for. The "small vs big" state explanation is false
>> and a red herring. It was about slavery.
>>
>>
>

> Isn't everything.....according to some.

In the case of the electoral college, it's true.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 12/9/2016 12:44 PM, max headroom wrote:
> In news:XnsA6D9732AD...@216.166.97.131, RD Sandman <rdsa...@comcast.net> typed:

>
>> "max headroom" <maximus...@gmx.com> wrote in

>> news:o2eqea$lsh$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>>> In news:XnsA6D964817...@216.166.97.131, RD Sandman

>>> <rdsa...@comcast.net> typed:
>
>>>> "max headroom" <maximus...@gmx.com> wrote in

>>>> news:o2ctug$77m$1...@dont-email.me:

>
>>>>> In news:lbj2A.205046$oF2.1...@fx37.iad, Catherine L. Cranche
>>>>> <we.be....@jeanerette.la> typed:
>

>>>>>> On 12/8/2016 12:09 PM, Terry Coombs wrote:
>
>>>>>>> Catherine L. Cranche wrote:
>

>>>>>>>> On 12/7/2016 8:49 PM, raykeller wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>> Our Founders in their infinite wisdom created the Electoral
>>>>>>>>> College to ensure the STATES were fairly represented. Why
>>>>>>>>> should one or two densely populated areas speak for the whole
>>>>>>>>> of the nation?
>
>>>>>>>>> The following list of statistics has been making the rounds
>>>>>>>>> on the Internet and it should finally put an end to the
>>>>>>>>> argument as to why the Electoral College makes sense.
>
>>>>>>>>> Share this with as many whiners as you can:
>
>>>>>>>>> a.. There are 3,141 counties in the United States.
>>>>>>>>> b.. Trump won 3,084 of them.
>

>>>>>>>> Been through this horseshit already. Counties don't vote.
>>>>>>>> Geography doesn't vote.
>
>>>>>>> Hitlery lost , snowflake . Get over it .
>
>>>>>> I didn't vote for Clinton, ham hock, and you're an idiot for
>>>>>> thinking I might have done just because I say the electoral
>>>>>> college is a bad and anti-republican idea.
>

>>>>> It's an excellent idea and very republican. This ain't a democrcy,
>>>>> after all.
>
>>>> Actually, it is a representative one.
>
>>> Actually, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this
>>> Union a Republican Form of Government..." If it was good enough for
>>> the creators, it's good enough for me.
>
>> See where it says "republican form"? Have you looked at the
>> definitions of a republic and a representative democracy lately?
>
>> Republic
>
>> 1. A political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of
>> citizens who can elect people to represent them
>
> Change "can" to "do" and I'd agree.
>
>> 2. A form of government whose head of state is not a monarch. (I
>> assume that they are not addressing the butterfly.)...
>
> That would include the USSR, North Korea, and Cuba. (I'm not sure if it would exclude Canada.)

The USSR and North Korea both explicitly contain the word republic in
their names. The fact that they aren't particularly democratic, and
that in the case of North Korea aren't very republican, is ironic.

Canada is a /de facto/ republic.

>> Democracy
>
>> 1. The doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group can
>> make decisions binding on the whole group (pure or direct democracy
>> and the one many in here think of when the term "democracy" is used.)
>
>> 2. The political orientation of those who favor government by the
>> people (pure or direct democracy) or by their elected representatives
>> (representative democracy)
>
>> 3. A political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of
>> citizens who can elect people to represent them. (representative
>> democracy)
>
>> Compare the first definition of republic to either the second or third
>> definition of democracy.
>
> Compare those to my trusty Funk & Wagnalls--
>
> "Republic; A state in which the sovereignity resides in the people and the administration is lodged
> in officers elected by and representing the people.
>
> "Democracy; 1. Government directly by the people collectively. 2. A government so conducted; a state
> so governed; the mass of the people."
>
> So I'll stand with my comment regarding the Electoral College, "It's an excellent idea and very
> republican. This ain't a democrcy, after all."

It's neither an excellent idea nor very republican. It is a diminution
of republicanism.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 12/10/2016 8:15 AM, RD Sandman wrote:
> "Dechucka" <Dech...@hotmail.com> wrote in

> news:3-2dnaVXJLx6htbF...@westnet.com.au:
>
>>
>> "Terry Coombs" <snag...@msn.com> wrote in message
>> news:o2crtq$1s2$1...@dont-email.me...

>>> Catherine L. Cranche wrote:
>>>> On 12/8/2016 12:09 PM, Terry Coombs wrote:
>>>>> Catherine L. Cranche wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/7/2016 8:49 PM, raykeller wrote:
>>>>>>> Our Founders in their infinite wisdom created the Electoral
>>>>>>> College to ensure the STATES were fairly represented. Why should
>>>>>>> one or two densely populated areas speak for the whole of the
>>>>>>> nation?
>>>>>>> The following list of statistics has been making the rounds on
>>>>>>> the Internet and it should finally put an end to the argument as
>>>>>>> to why the Electoral College makes sense.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Share this with as many whiners as you can:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> a.. There are 3,141 counties in the United States.
>>>>>>> b.. Trump won 3,084 of them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Been through this horseshit already. Counties don't vote.
>>>>>> Geography doesn't vote.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hitlery lost , snowflake . Get over it .
>>>>
>>>> I didn't vote for Clinton, ham hock, and you're an idiot for
>>>> thinking I might have done just because I say the electoral college
>>>> is a bad and anti-republican idea.
>>>

>>> Sniff sniff , I'm so hurt ... but the EC does just what it's
>>> supposed to
>>> , it gives balance between heavily populated areas and thinly

>>> populated rural areas .
>>
>> Why is that a god thing?
>
> Our constitution was based on control of things by the states not simply
> the majority the citizens.

That's correct as a statement of historical origin. I don't believe we
really have that form of government any more. The assault on federalism
began when the ink on the Constitution wasn't even dry, and it was
largely completed by the 1930s. The electoral college is a relic of a
bygone era, and it does not do what its proponents claim.

> It wasn't until the 17A in 1913 that there
> was direct election of senators by the citizenry. Prior to that, senators
> were put in place by the state.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 12/10/2016 5:01 PM, Winston_Smith wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Dec 2016 14:00:52 -0800, Wayne wrote:
>
>> The whiners make the wrong assumption that Hillary would have won a
>> popular vote campaign. That is NOT a given.
>>
>> Both candidates would have campaigned differently, and Trump would have
>> had a good chance of winning a popular vote.
>
> The two articles below make a pretty good case there was at an
> absolute minimum 50,000 fraudulent Hillary votes in both Pennsylvania
> and Michigan.

No, they don't. They are completely specious bullshit.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 12/10/2016 6:38 PM, Wayne wrote:
> On 12/10/2016 2:12 PM, Dechucka wrote:
>>
>> "Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> news:o2hts7$bvt$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> On 12/10/2016 1:34 PM, Winston_Smith wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 11 Dec 2016 07:21:27 +1100, "Dechucka" wrote:
>>>>> "RD Sandman" wrote
>>>>

>>>>>> Do you think that all things in government should be controlled by
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> population of a state or a city rather than the country?
>>>>>

>>>>> That's what you currently have in your POTUS election
>>>>
>>>> The electoral college is essentially a mirror image of Congress - a
>>>> mix of all states equal and all citizens equal.
>>>>
>>>> If you want to dump the college, let's dump the Senate too. Elect the
>>>> House by one nationwide popular vote.
>>>>
>>>> No more chance for the "out" party to block, or at least moderate, the
>>>> actions of the just elected "in" party of the one and only legislative
>>>> body. Don't like it? Next election change parties. The next election
>>>> change parties. Elect the entire House and President at the same time;
>>>> get rid of any sort of flywheel effect. Whatever the low-information
>>>> sheeple want at the moment.
>>>>
>>>> Instability squared.
>>>>
>>>> Sucks if yours is the "out" party. Sucks since the rules will be
>>>> changed and your party will never ever be elected again.
>>>>
>>> The popular vote whiners are a bunch of sore loser pussies.
>>>
>>> Both parties knew that the winner is determined by electoral votes,
>>> and they campaigned that way.
>>
>> Dud system
>
> Nope. The president of the states is chosen by the states. That's much
> better than telling the small states to fuck off during an election.

I've instructed you in this already. The electoral college does *not*
do anything to gain more attention for small states in presidential
elections.

[edhun...@gmail.com]

Well, it's sort of halfway between. Each state gets a number of electors equal to its representation in Congress, including both House and Senate representatives. The number of Senators is completely biased toward small states, but the number of Electoral College electors lies between the proportional representation of the House and the by-state bias for small states in the case of the Senate.

The effect isn't large, but as Alexander Hamilton said about the Senate, it's anti-republican -- only a little less so.

--
Ed Huntress