>>MOD WARNING<< Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dead

Its has no adblock... Just click or google any 2016 Presidental district map.

 

Ok. What am I looking for? I see a lot of red where few people live and blue where a lot of people live. It is nice to know corn crops and cattle are well represented.

 

I'm not clear on your point. Those in red have no right to be represented? A few states in the middle have the power of a small blue state. It is, and always has been, a fight for those not blinded by ideology.

It's absolute madness to suggest that the red states should be enslaved to the blue states.

 

Ahh yes pretend to be "Tolerant" and for "Diversity" and look down on any who does not live in over crowded high crime cities.. Good luck with that mindset.

 

i agree...people need to eat and i love steak, corn on the cob and ice cold milk

 

Colorado Rocky High! wow

 

The point he is making is that those states with less population are OVER represented

 

But not that blue states (with the majority of the American population) should be enslaved to red states? (Your hyperbole extended)

 

A statenent that applies equally to Congress - which no one takes issue with.

 

"Enslaved"

 

No. Not really. Some of those states get ONE representative.

If you were right, the red states would ALWAYS win, and that's far from true. The process ensures the candidates have to talk to the entire country while campaigning. Your way, they only have to campaign in 3-4 states to win the entire thing. That's about as unfair as you can get.

 

I am not "look[ing] down on any[one]." I am merely recognizing the fact that the map has so much red because the cities (i.e. blue areas) have concentrated people while the red areas contain people far more dispersed. I have no issue with rural voters. I have no problem with people who do not see eye to eye with me politically. I do, though, have a problem with our anti-democratic system that results in minority control of the presidency, the senate, and the courts. A vote in rural Alabama should be as important as a city vote from Miami. Today, that is not true.

 

I am merely recognizing the fact that the map has so much red because the cities (i.e. blue areas) have concentrated people while the red areas contain people far more dispersed. I have no issue with rural voters. I have no problem with people who do not see eye to eye with me politically. I do, though, have a problem with our anti-democratic system that results in minority control of the presidency, the senate, and the courts. A vote in rural Alabama should be as important as a city vote from Miami. Today, that is not true. Today, the blue areas (i.e. the majority areas) are -- to use your word -- "enslaved" to the red states.

 

"My version" (i.e. the winner of the popular vote winning exists all over the "western world." Not sure why you limit it to the "western world" as if the "eastern world" is somehow irrelevant when reviewing other governments, but whatever.

Here are some countries that have "my version" in place. Since the American president is both head of state and head of government, I will specify below which each allows.

American Samoa (head of government only)
Argentina (both)
Austria (head of state only)
Bolivia (both)
Brazil (both)
Chili (both)
Columbia (both)
Costa Rica (both)
Cyprus (both)
Dominican Republic (both)
Czech Republic (head of state only)
Ecuador (both)
El Salvador (both)
Finland (head of state only)
France (head of state appoints head of government)
Guatamala (both)
Haiti (head of state only)
Hondurus (both)
Iceland (head of state only)
Ireland (head of state only)

And a bunch more... (esp. in the "Eastern hemisphere).

There are no valid reasons for a "democracy" to put a mechanism between the will of the majority and the winner of the election. In the US, it is the courts that protect the rights of the minority (as well as the oath politicians take).

Let me use two I didn't use, above: Mexico and Portugal.

This is not true. See, above.

Undeniable? I have a right to vote. I am a citizen who is over 18 years old and have never been convicted of a crime. Please tell me how the government can revoke my right to vote.

 

Tragically, we insist on honoring a legal document and not arbitrarily altering it on harebrained whims.

 

Liechtenstein was a nice touch. Hans-Adam, reigning prince over a constitutional monarchy, has more power than Donald Trump --- in a land 162 square miles large.

 

BUT that’s NEVER been true. Democrats would completely ignore states that can’t help them get elected. Clinton proved that in 2016. And when you look at the Dem leaders they ONLY they look down upon those who disagree with them. Listen to their words. Look at how you’re labeled racist if you do t agree with them. Look at how those on the Left sooner will sever ties with those who don’t agree with them. Look at leftists ostracize those in business who don’t agree with them. Look at how the left will cancel or destroy people’s lives who don’t agree with them. This just doesn’t happen on the Right anywhere near the same degree. Find a business where leftists are fearful for their jobs if they spoke badly of Trump? Now compare that to tech? Pelosi tried to shut down a business personally, who slighted her. Leftists try to shut down Chikfila or Hobbylobby every year. Leftists march the streets and burn businesses that even try to say they support the Left and it doesn’t matter. They get burned anyway.

Dem leaders have already said that you can move to cities for help, because they DO NOT CARE about anyone who won’t vote for them. They would let states die out because why should they care? Their votes would be meaningless so the state would be useless. They could always move to a city right?

 

I want to see those SOBs come out our way and harvest and process their own damn food.

 

My village of 3,000 had Latin in its high school. Today, you can make serious money taking even-odds $100 bets that any liberal who takes the McGuffey Reader final exam will fail. I saw three college English majors botch it so badly they never darkened our social door again. (Glorious!)

http://www.bookrags.com/McGuffey_Readers/

 

And yet, you cannot provide an example of a western democracy where the head of government is elected by popular vote.
Except Turkey - depending on how loosely you define "western democracy"
So, how can you 'all over" claim have any validity?

The President -is- elected by the majority - else, the election goes to the house.
Civics 101....

Mexico:
Portugal: Head of government is appointed by the head of state.
Mexico: Not a western democracy.

Your state can decide to not hold an election for President, and instead decide on its electors though other means.
It has the plenary power to do so, as given to it by the US Constitution.
Thus, you do not have the right to vote for Preident only the privilege to do so, granted by your state.

 

"Its not fair!!!!"

 

Then how did Obama and Clinton win two terms each?

 

They won the popular vote and had enough of those excess votes spread out in enough states to win.

 

The fringe of both parties do the same thing. For every boycott of Goya, there is a boycott of Nike. "Leftists" don't riot or "burn businesses." Instigators, most from outside the area being burned come to engage in havoc much to the consternation of the people organizing the peaceful protests. Some fringe leftists are criminals and some fringe right wingers are criminals. The difference is the adults in the room on the left don't side with the criminal leftists. Trump, the president has told the Proud Boys to "standby" and in response to a planned kidnapping of Michigan's governor, he led a chant to "lock her up."

Which "Dem leaders" said that? I must have missed that.

 

It's entertaining how you move the goal posts. It started with "my version of democracy does not exist in the western world" to "name a western democracy where the head of government is elected by popular vote." I provided a list of countries where either the head of state of the head of government are elected by direct election. As I have routinely wrote, I don't care how other people choose their leaders. I don't live in those countries. Regardless, plenty of countries East and West allow their citizens to directly vote for their heads of state and/or heads of governments. You want to squeeze the amount of countries from which to choose because you refused to concede the key point initially: that the electoral college is anti-democratic. That was and is my original point. And it is undeniable.

Here's an interesting question since you seem to care about how other countries handle their elections: How many countries allow a candidate to lose who received more votes than his or her opponent? Are there any countries in the world that hold elections and allow the candidate who receives fewer votes to win? That, I think, would be a short list.

The candidate who receives the most electoral college votes wins (so long as they reach 270). Big difference.

I know the majority in Bush v. Gore held “The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College.”

The undeniable fact is that as my state has chosen a statewide election, I have the right to vote for president.