Civics Education in the US

Democrat "leaders" now want 16 yo children to vote, illegals and inmates to vote. This irrefutably, true.

Change my mind...

 

MANIPULATIVE CONNIVANCE

Given all three instances of "power" (the Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial), I think the Founding Fathers were some VERY CLEVER people. That triumvirate is well-balanced each in its own political purview and legislative power:
*The Executive executes should a nation ever be in danger. Foreign policy is the presidential main-domain as the Executive need not in most instances the approval of the other two "powers". The Executive proposes National Legislation, and shares the power of law-passage with the Legislative branch.
*The PotUS defends "national policy" where necessary, but "national policy" is also a matter of law-making that the Legislature must also approve (and can change when "negotiating" said approval.
*The Judiciary (the Supreme Court) considers law passed by the Legislature and approved by the Executive in the context of the Constitution (and even lower) to assure its "fairness or correctness". (Which is why it must not be "packed", as it is today.)

The balance shown above of powers was really quite unique at a time when the prevalent government institution was a monarch who decided all and ruled uniquely.

This was an "economic consideration" of relevance ONLY in the 18th and early 19th century, when slavery was the principle means of production in the mostly agricultural southern states.

The Industrial Age changed all that, and as such, the vote for the presidency today is truly national in scope and not "statewise". We have as a market-economy one that is national in scope and not particular to any given state or group of states.

What our "Founders" created was the very first instance of a true-democracy since ancient Greek times (when the word was invented). But what the founders did was a child of their-times. Which has since "grown-up". It's not yet mature, however, and its voting procedures are still indicative of the political machinations that are now TWO CENTURIES OLD!

Both gerrymandering and the EC are stark manipulations of the popular-vote and therefore not "apt" for a truly democratic-nation where political power is and should be based upon the pure popular-vote count.

We-as-a-"free"-nation have no need for such manipulative connivances ...

 

The voting mechanism in use today is a connivance that destroys the popular-vote and should therefore be declared as "illegal". We need not do away with the Electoral College. What our democracy needs is only that the EC desists in applying its "winner-takes-all" rule, which is good for horse- and dog-races but that's all!

All a state's EC need do is report the result of the non-emasculated Popular-Vote be delivered to Congress for approval and announcement of the presidential-vote winner.

The US must learn to respect the all-inclusive dominant power of the unhindered and non-manipulated popular-vote - as most all other democracies on earth have long since employed.

And why have these democracies done differently? Because they saw fully how the present machinations of the popular-vote in America are blatantly apparent. Five times in history, two most recently, the popular-vote has been overturned by the Electoral Colleges - and thus the winner has become the loser.

PS: And the voting-district gerrymandering of the popular-vote at state-level elections is just another showcase for the same voting unfairness ...

 

Yeah that's what happens when you dont know how to play the game

 

Legislation criminalizing First Amendment protests, specifically those protests against Israel, like BDS.

 

No, I don't assume that.

 

Why are you using identity cards and voting in the same sentence?

 

Which 38 of the several sovereign states do you think will approve such an amendment?

 

Why? Because you want a one party system?

 

What, ever, makes you think it shouldn't apply? An election for public-office should be honest&forthright. Especially the PRESIDENCY!

And right now the vote is manipulated by various state Electoral Colleges, which is how Donald Dork won the election. Despite the fact that Hillary obtained one of the most important voting-pluralities in the US's history of presidential elections.

The 12th Amendment that created the Electoral College was a "gift" to the southern-states that did not want to free the slaves. At the time, the "United States" consisted of only 17 states. Many might think that amongst 17-states that this "funny rule" (first-past-the-post presidential vote, winner-takes-all-votes) would not matter that much.

Today, we are no longer "17 states" - and that silly-rule matters in that it has wrongly produced a loser of the popular-vote (five times in history) at a point-in-time when we really needed someone with a brain in their head* in the White House ...

 

States do not have "electoral colleges" per se.

Each states has a slate of electors whose votes they send to the electoral college based on which candidate wins the state. The Democratic and Republican parties each choose a group of electors prior to the election that serves that purpose. Most of the electors are former party elected officials.

How was Hillary Clinton's popular vote total "one of the most important voting-pluralities in the U.S's history of presidential elections"?
If it was that important, shouldn't she have won more than 12 states?

 

What the heck we had the EC at the beginning it's in the Constitution article 2 section one.

you dont even know what the 12th amendment did....it changed the ballot procedure for President and VP

 

OH MAH GAWD ...

From here (Scientific American): Two Linguists Use Their Skills to Inspect 21,739 Trump Tweets

He "connected" - and that's all that mattered ...

 

Hijacking your own thread?

 

The Twelfth Amendment stipulates that each elector must cast distinct votes for President and Vice President, instead of two votes for President. ... If no candidate for Vice President has a majority of the total votes, the Senate, with each Senator having one vote, chooses the Vice President.

Wikipedia › wiki › Twelfth_Amend...
Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

 

It's dead-simple, and here it goes for the Nth Time:
*In the world-today, most developed country employ the popular-vote to determine the Head of state. That's easiest in most developed-democracies because that person comes out of the Legislature and is not elected directly.
*The US has an archaic electoral vote-counting method that EC's employ to seriously manipulates the votes counted. First, it negates ALL THE POPULAR-VOTES EXCEPT THAT OF THE WINNER. Then it allocates the total alloted EC-votes of the state to the winner by negating/invalidating/nullifying/voiding/invalidating the losing votes of all others who were listed.
*Despite the fact that all Americans knew very well that they were voting - not for the state governor - but for the presidency of the republic.
*This makes no sense whatsoever in any developed nation anywhere in the world except the US.
*It has become a bad-habit and most people (studies show) don't really give-a-damn, which simply demonstrates their lack of schooling in Civics ...

The number of states "won" would be a significant consideration IF ALL STATES HAD THE SAME NUMBER OF EC-VOTES TO REPORT TO CONGRESS.

But it isn't. All that matter is the number of EC-Votes "won" - and by a process in which all losing-votes across the nation were negated/voided/not counted resulting in the fact that the popular-vote winner was actually the loser of the election!

Now you tell me how it is fair-and-honest that all the votes are simply counted to elect a governor in your state, but for the PotUS the vote counting should be manipulated ... ?

 

You have not indicated how the voting for president can be or is being manipulated. It is a system that has worked for more than two centuries. There is little reason to discard it.

 

Come to South Florida during an election and I will show you the bussing going on.

It's real and very common in urban areas.

 

It wasn't always like this, at least not everywhere. When I was a kid, we couldn't graduate from 8th grade and continue on to high school without passing the dreaded "Constitution test," a day-long series of oral and written exams that would prove our knowledge of the Constitution and all of its amendments. I can't speak for the hundreds of other public school districts ... at the time, I assumed it was universal ... but we spent a lot of time, beginning in the 5th grade, studying civics in Los Angeles suburb where I grew up.

There should be a comprehensive online class for adults. I googled it, and there are resources, but nothing specifically for adults who just want to be engaged in the various processes and be able to discuss or debate in forums like this.

 

Care to elaborate?

 

In the suburbs of Chicago 1979 it was the same

 

Most developed country employ the popular-vote to determine the Head of state.

Really?

 

Bull crap.

An basic education is important but a proper work ethic is the key to succeeding.

I have hired and later fired some very educated people simply because they had a crap worth ethic.

 

It was the same in SFL back in the 70's, however today in the Broward School District civics is lightly educated and more about the history and struggles of minorities than civics.

 

I have some math for you, and everyone else on this thread.

First a little EC history:

https://www.history.com/news/electoral-college-founding-fathers-constitutional-convention

"The result was the controversial “three-fifths compromise,” in which black slaves would be counted as three-fifths of a person for the purpose of allocating representatives and electors and calculating federal taxes. The compromise ensured that Southern states would ratify the Constitution and gave Virginia, home to more than 200,000 slaves, a quarter (12) of the total electoral votes required to win the presidency (46)."

Now for the math showing the current unequal allocation of EC votes. I'm comparing Wyoming and California. I don't live in either of those states, and only chose them because they are at opposite ends of the EC divide.

Wyoming, population approx. 577,000. 3 EC votes, or 1 for every 192,333 people.

California, population approx. 40 million. 55 EC votes, or 1 for every 717,272 people.

That's a 3.7 to 1 advantage for the voters in Wyoming in how much their EC votes count.

If that seems fair and equitable to you and others here, please tell me why.