Poll: U.S. Electoral College

[temporal1]

Liberals and Democrats think “democracy” is Chicago, L.A. and NYC telling the rest of the country what to do.

Correct.
Altho, i don’t believe all the believers are presented with succinct facts like this. So much is decided on superficial talking points, empty platitudes, half-truths, fear-mongering, lies, etc.

Actually, lots of Democrats have stated publicly that Trump voters should be deprived of having a job, have their children taken away from them, and not be allowed to vote or hold elected office.

So no, I don’t think Democrats believe in “democracy”. They believe in their own unfettered totalitarian rule.

This, too.

[Ken]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. And given that premise, all people should be treated equally when it comes to democracy, with universal suffrage and the principle of one person-one vote.”

We live in a Republic, a Federal Republic. In fact, we live in a Constitutional Federal Republic, not a Democracy.

Our Constitution supports the one person-one vote principle only in the House of Representatives, not in the Senate, nor in the Electoral College, because we live in a Constitutional Federal Government.

We're a federation of individual states.

Representation in the House of Representatives is based on population. There is where the principle of one person-one vote is applicable within the frame of our Constitution.

Representation in the Senate is based upon political units (on states), and there the principle is one state-one vote. One person-one vote in the Senate would destroy the whole idea of the federal government.

One person-one vote as understood by the Warren Court (forcibly applied to the Senate) was never supported by the U.S. Constitution.

The structure of federalism is also retained in the Electoral College. That is why the Constitution didn't apply the principle of one person-one vote to that either.

One person-one vote is unconstitutional when applied either to the Senate or to the presidential election.

Every Senate election is one-person one-vote. As is every other election in the US aside from the presidency. I just voted in a Senate election and presumably my vote counted the same as everyone else's in my state who voted in the senatorial election. How we allocate Senators by state is a different issue than how we vote for them.

And no, there is nothing constitutional about the winner-take-all nature of the Electoral College. States are free to apportion electors by district or proportionately according to the popular vote if they want. The Constitution is silent on that issue. That is something for states to decide and some do it differently like Nebraska and Maine.

[Falco Underhill]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. And given that premise, all people should be treated equally when it comes to democracy, with universal suffrage and the principle of one person-one vote.”

We live in a Republic, a Federal Republic. In fact, we live in a Constitutional Federal Republic, not a Democracy.

Our Constitution supports the one person-one vote principle only in the House of Representatives, not in the Senate, nor in the Electoral College, because we live in a Constitutional Federal Government.

We're a federation of individual states.

Representation in the House of Representatives is based on population. There is where the principle of one person-one vote is applicable within the frame of our Constitution.

Representation in the Senate is based upon political units (on states), and there the principle is one state-one vote. One person-one vote in the Senate would destroy the whole idea of the federal government.

One person-one vote as understood by the Warren Court (forcibly applied to the Senate) was never supported by the U.S. Constitution.

The structure of federalism is also retained in the Electoral College. That is why the Constitution didn't apply the principle of one person-one vote to that either.

One person-one vote is unconstitutional when applied either to the Senate or to the presidential election.

Every Senate election is one-person one-vote.

I wasn't talking about Senate election. I was talking about Senate Representation, as was the Warren Court when it applied the one person-one vote principle to representation in the state Senate. He wasn't talking about Senate elections either.

States vote for presidents, not citizens. You don't even vote for a president, you vote for your state's electors. And there's nothing in the Constitution that says you even get to vote for your state's electors. If the state legislators so decided, they could choose the electors themselves.

State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress -- US Constitution Article II

States vote for presidents through their electors, and the president is an officer of the states.

And no, there is nothing constitutional about the winner-take-all nature of the Electoral College.

The Electoral College isn't constitutional?

It's in the Constitution, therefore, it's Constitutional.

What do you think makes anything Constitutional, your personal opinion, Ken?

[JimFoxvog]

...
Representation in the House of Representatives is based on population. There is where the principle of one person-one vote is applicable within the frame of our Constitution.
...

I wish the courts could apply this better. Congressional districts in many states are so badly gerrymandered that it is clear before anyone is nominated which party will win. The Democrats do that here in Illinois. In many states it's the Republicans.

...
The structure of federalism is also retained in the Electoral College. That is why the Constitution didn't apply the principle of one person-one vote to that either.
...

Yes. That is why many support a Constitutional Amendment to abolish the Electoral College. Such an amendment passed the House in 1969 338-70, a strongly bipartisan vote. https://history.house.gov/Historical-Hi ... l-College/

[Falco Underhill]

...
Representation in the House of Representatives is based on population. There is where the principle of one person-one vote is applicable within the frame of our Constitution.
...

I wish the courts could apply this better. Congressional districts in many states are so badly gerrymandered that it is clear before anyone is nominated which party will win. The Democrats do that here in Illinois. In many states it's the Republicans.

On that we actually agree, Jim.

...
The structure of federalism is also retained in the Electoral College. That is why the Constitution didn't apply the principle of one person-one vote to that either.
...

Yes. That is why many support a Constitutional Amendment to abolish the Electoral College. Such an amendment passed the House in 1969 338-70, a strongly bipartisan vote. https://history.house.gov/Historical-Hi ... l-College/

Yes, you would need to pass an amendment to make a national popular election for president constitutional. You'd have to change the constitution because that isn't what we have.

People don't understand that today because the politicians don't even understand it. Whenever we say, "he lost the popular vote" we're speaking nonsense because there never has been a popular vote for president in this country.

A real popular national election for president would destroy the federalist structure of the United States, and result in chaos, imo. I suspect that's where we disagree. You'd like to see it change?

At any rate, we are light years away from actually getting such an amendment passed, at least I hope. Nonetheless, it's good to try and understand it all.

We need to regain an appreciation for the concept of federalism again, imo.

[Robert]

Every Senate election is one-person one-vote.

In the original Constitution, the Senate was appointed by the State leaders. They were supposed to be a representative of the State. The 17th Amendment changed that to a voting system. I think it should be repealed. There is no way for the States to limit the spending of the Federal government with unfunded mandates or the House where the populous can vote the treasury dry, which has happened already.

So the Senate is a voted position, but it was not supposed to be so. It was supposed to be up to the States how they selected Senators. Some could vote them in, while others were appointed by the State leadership. I see wisdom in this approach. Senators are just additional Representatives now. If they do not give money to the populous, they get voted out too.

[Josh]

...
Representation in the House of Representatives is based on population. There is where the principle of one person-one vote is applicable within the frame of our Constitution.
...

I wish the courts could apply this better. Congressional districts in many states are so badly gerrymandered that it is clear before anyone is nominated which party will win. The Democrats do that here in Illinois. In many states it's the Republicans.

...
The structure of federalism is also retained in the Electoral College. That is why the Constitution didn't apply the principle of one person-one vote to that either.
...

Yes. That is why many support a Constitutional Amendment to abolish the Electoral College. Such an amendment passed the House in 1969 338-70, a strongly bipartisan vote. https://history.house.gov/Historical-Hi ... l-College/

Gerrymandering is mostly a result of the Voting Rights Act, which required making “safe” districts that are majority black. Over time, as America becomes less segregated, that results in very distorted voting maps.

If you don’t like gerrymandering then repeal the Voting Rights Act and stop making race a factor in voting.

[Josh]

Every Senate election is one-person one-vote.

In the original Constitution, the Senate was appointed by the State leaders. They were supposed to be a representative of the State. The 17th Amendment changed that to a voting system. I think it should be repealed. There is no way for the States to limit the spending of the Federal government with unfunded mandates or the House where the populous can vote the treasury dry, which has happened already.

So the Senate is a voted position, but it was not supposed to be so. It was supposed to be up to the States how they selected Senators. Some could vote them in, while others were appointed by the State leadership. I see wisdom in this approach. Senators are just additional Representatives now. If they do not give money to the populous, they get voted out too.

And Senators are notorious for enriching themselves in office and doing whatever Big Business wants. They do not represent the interests of the state legislature - which is to say, the people - anymore.

[Ken]

Every Senate election is one-person one-vote.

In the original Constitution, the Senate was appointed by the State leaders. They were supposed to be a representative of the State. The 17th Amendment changed that to a voting system. I think it should be repealed. There is no way for the States to limit the spending of the Federal government with unfunded mandates or the House where the populous can vote the treasury dry, which has happened already.

So the Senate is a voted position, but it was not supposed to be so. It was supposed to be up to the States how they selected Senators. Some could vote them in, while others were appointed by the State leadership. I see wisdom in this approach. Senators are just additional Representatives now. If they do not give money to the populous, they get voted out too.

The original constitution also legalized slavery. Times change and our laws change with it.