America's Presidential electoral college system: a severe Achilles heel.

My, but you are a real gas bag, aint' ya? You're not that clever or profound, just long winded in trying NOT to come off as condescending or in mental sync with Levant's erroneous clap trap.
When you admit that you didn't read the entire exchange, then it becomes obvious that you have a bias in your review, as you proceed to comment on things THAT YOU DO NOT HAVE FULL INFORMATION ON. It's called comprehensive reading.....ask any high school English teacher. Try it before your fingers hit the keys next time.

Again, you waste time and space in trying to double down on your incorrect review of my exchange with Levant. Here's what transpired that pulls the rug out from under your assertion:

Levant: Show me hungry children in the US. That there are hungry children in the US is a flat out lie perpetrated by socialists wanting to get more of my money so that those who choose to not work can feed their children while spending all available aid on drugs or other things other than food for their children.

KungFuLiberal: Clearly, unless you have emaciated kids in rags being assisted by the Red Cross in a decrepit area, your (Levant) mindset discounts any other form of poverty or hunger in this country.

So go back and READ CAREFULLY AND COMPREHENSIVELY THE ENTIRE EXCHANGE, or just read Levant's absurd screeds as he responds to others. Then you can attempt an intellectually honest discussion (minus your bias about "liberals").

 

Quick fact check. 1) You've not been appointed to speak for all liberals. My views, along w/ my past votes (3 times for Nader) & candidates I've supported (Bernie Sanders last time & this one) entitles me to claim the, " liberal, " title, if I so chose. Just 'cause you don't like something I say is not justification for you to reclassify me as right-wing. Likewise, just because I take issue w/ the way YOU are arguing a point, doesn' t mean that I have a, " bias about liberals." I' m sure you've done none of the research you like to prescribe for others to know anything about my views or to give you a legitimate basis for judging MY arguments to be disingenuous.
2) Correction: I HAD read your entire conversation. I had assumed that it taken some time for the debate to get from the electoral college to your argument over hunger & poverty; it turns out that part of the conversation was between Levant & LafayetteBis. You seem to've entered with, "Levant regurgitates the lamest right wing propaganda I've seen to date..." followed by, "Then there's the idiocy regarding..." It seems your idea of making a good argument requires a liberal use of pejorative language. What I read of Levant's posts prior to your arrival could not in any way be deemed, "absurd screeds, " as you say; but a pattern IS emerging, & if I cared to waste my time, I'm near-certain I know whose posts to examine in the search for screeds. Call me a, "gas bag, " all you want; it's apparently all you've got, in lieu of an intelligent argument. But as for this dispute, I'm cutting my losses here since, as previously-noted, this thread is SUPPOSED to be about the electoral college.

 

Quick fact check...(1) the chronology of the posts clearly shows YOU first inserting your opinion/views about liberals WITHOUT PROVOCATION FROM ME. I never claimed or insinuated that I spoke for all liberals....that seems to be your conclusion based on your inability or unwillingness to comprehend what you read. Any joker can claim to support someone or some cause....it's the entirety of their posts that tells where they are truly coming from, and you come off as duplicitous at best in your declarations.
(2) You first claimed you didn't read the entire exchange, NOW you claim you did. Either stop lying or go back, check what you wrote and correct yourself. What's pathetic is that you fall back on the lame stand by retort of all failed right wing wonks who can't defend their positions by feigning offense or objection to language....simply because I just hack through your BS and call a spade a spade. For all your smoke, you just can't logically or factually support your initial critique of my exchange with Levant (a truly preposterous figure). All one has to do is just READ comprehensively and carefully all my responses to see it's more than just "name calling" that has your pseudo-intellectual panties in a bunch.

So, since this thread is about the electoral college. contain your responses/posts to that and stop having a hissy fit over what others write that may veer off topic. Saves you time and space...saves the readers enduring another pretentious diatribe from you.

Since you've got nothing else to offer but insipid stubbornness, I'm done with you and will move on. Adios.

 

The Electoral College works just fine; it's the voters who are corrupt and defective.

All governments are almost perfect mirrors of the cultures they rule over. Americans love corruption, they just don't like it when' those other people' get more stuff than they do, is all. No system is going to work when its base is corrupt and selfish *******s. This is why culture wars are more important, since culture is the actual determinant of success, not some 'system'.

 

There is truth in what you say....but it's too generalized. Remember, the major fault of the electoral college is that (a) it's outdated and unnecessary given the current population sizes of our individual states (b) modern technology can allow for everyone of voting age to vote (c) As far as I know, there is no guarantee or way to enforce the electoral voter casting that ballot based on the state popular vote once they step behind that blind.

 

What makes it outdated?

 

A lot of people shouldn't be allowed to vote, and no way the popular vote will do any better, except get more demagogues and personality cult leaders elected. Literacy and civics tests should be required. the latter can even be broken up into , local, state, and national govt. tests, i.e. pass one you get to vote at that level, pass all three you get to vote in all three, etc. If you're not interested enough to learn the basics, it's just stupid to let you vote on anything, since you don't have a clue as to what you're voting for in the first place, just a TV commercial or something and you liked their smile. The public schools can handle the classes and testing as part of their qualifying for grants if needed. IF some sick **** admins can find the time for 'Drag Queen Story Times' for grade school kids, they can make time for civics classes and send the drag queens home.

 

In order for your scenario to take place, you would have to revamp American society from one that worships the concept of profit above all else and is based on competing for limited space and opportunities. This means a public education system in all 50 states that covers the "basics" of what you list (private would be for specialty studies). This means a revamp of economic resources to assure decent funding of school property, facilities, supplies ... a no nonsense teacher accreditation and evaluation format...in all 50 states. This means FEDERAL mandates and oversite. Once you have that, THEN your scenario makes sense.

 

That part of your post is cogent. But you follow it w/ something that's, at best, non sequitur, & likely contradictory as well:

Follow me, here. If, "No system is going to work when its base is corrupt & selfish..." But, "Americans love corruption," and, "All governments are almost perfect mirrors of the cultures they rule over," then our fate is already sealed. The only way to work around your assertions up to the word, "selfish," to yet still have a, "culture war," to install a culture that could lead to our, "success," would be, according to your argument, to replace the, "corrrupt & selfish," American base (not my assessment) w/ a different one. Assuming you don't mean getting rid of all current Americans, that only leaves subjugating that base, i.e. the American citizenry, to a foreign, non-"American" culture which isn't corrupt. If you meant to argue for the installment of Sharia Law or whatever type of culture you believe to be uncorrupt, then ignore my post; it just didn't feel like that was your intended point.

 

You don't think people can be changed. Fine. I do. Don't torture yourself over it.

Meanwhile, the Peanut Gallery can amuse themselves reading up on Henry George's premises re the necessary public morals needed for any real reforms to work, and also the article in the WSJ on how Trump's win has changed the Right from sociopath Social Darwinist Reaganauts to patriotic populists opposed to 'globalist' labor racketeering and re-building our domestic economy, a decided shift in outlook from the Bush II era policies, while the 'Left' still peddles tired old Pravda slogans and relies on hard core racism and violence as tactics.

 

There's nothing to torture myself over, unless I blamed myself that you weren't able to pay attention to my words:

You do understand that the words I put in quotations are yours, right?
And I had, after all-- before beginning to explain that you'd possibly written something different than you had intended-- tried to prevent a continuation of that sort of carelessness by urging you, at the start, to, "Follow me, here." So there's no need for you
to be concerned that I will be beating myself up over your error. But if we now are finally on the same page, I will try a reinterpretation because, though clearer, your meaning still includes more than a touch of, let's just call it, "imprecision."

So you're saying that any of us who read (your words, post #129), "...it's the voters who are corrupt & defective," and, "No system is going to work when its base is corrupt & selfish *******s," were misleading ourselves by failing to imagine your great faith in the human spirit, even that within we corrupt, American assh**es-- that was the word you had in mind, wasn't it, despite your using a singular verb?-- & your belief in our ability to better ourselves, yes? And, from your reply, this transformative influence which will enable us to create the, "necessary public morals needed for any real reforms to work(your words, again)," is President Trump & his most ardent followers?

I want to make sure I haven't misread you, again, because your statements about, "AMERICANS lov(ing) corruption," lacked any modifiers to indicate you did not intend that in anything close to its absolute sense, if you'd not meant it to include Trump-backers. So, more accurately, what you were saying was that those of us who'd not gotten onboard the Trump express were, & are, the rubbish blocking America's track to greatness? (Feel free to give a more appropriate analogy).

You were also less than specific on just how many of the non-Trumpist among us would need to follow Trump's purifying example in order that our country could reach critical mass for achieving greatness (if you'll forgive my switching metaphors). If you could clarify that much, I'd feel that your central premise would be far more discernable than it, initially, had been. Thanks.

 

boy, that was a load....I hope the Peanut gallery has some Pepto Bismol on hand after reading the above.

Since we are ALL Americans now (no more less-than-human folk) and have the technology so that all have a say, the electoral college's function is no longer needed. Period. But since it gives power to politicians and corporations with anonymity, it's going to be a tough bear to beat.

Like I said before, In order for your scenario to take place, you would have to revamp American society from one that worships the concept of profit above all else and is based on competing for limited space and opportunities. This means a public education system in all 50 states that covers the "basics" of what you list (private would be for specialty studies). This means a revamp of economic resources to assure decent funding of school property, facilities, supplies ... a no nonsense teacher accreditation and evaluation format...in all 50 states. This means FEDERAL mandates and oversite. Once you have that, THEN your scenario makes sense.

 

Trump won despite all those illegal aliens voting in California, which they claim means Hillary won the popular vote, that's why they whine.. They like to ignore the reasons why Hillary and the left wingers suddenly called off their Big Giant Recount in Michigan when they got to Detroit as well.

 

When you repeat Trump's lies without any valid, documented proof, you're as bad as he is. Oh and please supply the reading audience with the valid source documentation for your final sentence. We'll wait.