Let's get rid of the Electoral College

HELL NO, Look at the **** show that is CA, NY and IL and tell me why you want those states electing the president. CA leads the country in taxes, homelessness, crime, and is bottom for education and infrastructure. They also have trillions in unfunded liability. NY and IL are not far behind.

Your facts are wrong.

No they are not. What do you have that backs you up? I see nothing but your opinion.

I guess since you hate democracy you are a commie. I always suspected this was the case.

This is a representative Republic. You have been told that a couple times.

Look at the defiinitions. They are essentially identical. We are a constitutional representative democracy.

Wrong. We are a republic. And they are not the same. Period.

Read the definitions. Keep in mind that factually our political institutions have evolved following costitutional principles from what they were in 1793

Evolved are the amendments. Words do not evolve, they are changed by law, not whims.

Whims have nothing to do with it. The institutions evolved following the constution. Amendments are part of rhe constution. My points are correct.

Yeah, you are the best.

its true, we never were "one man one vote". The ECis institutd to protect"ginst th tyranny of the large states"> What we have now is just the opposites. The large (popultion) tates are dienfranchised by hqving thir vote impct frction of the small states. What we need is to do away with "winner take all states" and then apply a mans in which to assure that veryones vote eighs the same.

Otherwise , its tyranny of the boonies.

I hope you don't mind that I cleaned up your message. I understand trying to write on a cell phone is a challenge for us fogies.

Not too long ago, California decided to have a referendum on gay marriage and had a straight up democratic vote to change the California Constitution. Does anyone remember proposition 8 in 2008?

Ruling by the whim of the majority only goes to hurt the minority. Seems like you would be one that would support minority rights.

You got that right. I am. Glad you recognize it.

We have one office that works for all of us. Seems reasonable we all jave equal say in it.

If we were a different country I might agree with you. But we are the USA, a single country made of 50 states. The states all have governments where the officials are elected by the majority and that works for them. But none of the 50 states are the same and are not all represented the same and that is why the Federal government is the way it is. The House represents the population of the states, the Senate represents the equality of the states and the President is elected by the states, not the people.

Just gonna have to deal with it.

price of beans?

Calif has a GDP about 2+ times that of Russia, so it seems to do passably
Get me to "1 person, one vote" really (This concept just exists in the Federalist Papers). If you dont like my view ofthe vote, be certain that I certainly dont like the concept of the " disenfranchisement of the many" Why not make NY , CALIF. ILL votes be only worth 3.5ths?? weve used that ellsewhere in our USSC rulings in he interpretation of our Constitution

And the electors re chosen supposedly by the vote,but a concept of winner take all is not what I think the fathers had in mind.

When a president is selected based on some kind of archaic process that has done well to disenfranchise voters, we have taken the full road to becoming our own banana republic.

n, of course , you realize that ALL the rules that are defined within our constitution were instituted when there qere only thirteen "states" and barely 3 million total population where the "big states" were equally about aerial dimensional view .

The goal of the U Constitution is really for 1 man 1 vote. Winner take all, disenfranchises certain states wealthy in population. You and a few others seem to absolutely want to do away with the nations frame as it was conceived.
We are a Democratic Republic, Monterey was 100% right on that. THOSE who can legally vote----choose their representatives (like electors) who then carry out their representative duties>

Thats as far as it goes. How the electors are allowed to practice their duty has always been an assignment NOT SPOKEN OF in the US CONSTITUTION. So doing away with "Winner take all" in the presidential election i but one way to restore equality of the franchise.
Noone can argue with that.

The only reason Trump won was because California voters were disenfranchised by population maxima and three key states were among the 48 winner take all states (only Maine, Nebraska, and DC use a proportional apportionment).

Id like to hear the argument that supports "W-T-A"