The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.

[MarkPerry 488]

Sorry you find Constitutional History uninteresting. Learning isn't for everyone.

What you posted is what every US student learns before they leave Jr High.

I thought you maybe had some interesting point of view on the Electoral College.

[yuna628 9,527]

What you posted is what every US student learns before they leave Jr High.

I thought you maybe had some interesting point of view on the Electoral College.

Doubtful a lot of US students learn a thing before they leave High School. But if kids these days don't find our own history interesting, this is exactly why America has the problems it does.

[Ebunoluwa 6,136]

Us Trump supporters are a happy bunch, We and Donald Trump are living the American Dream, A underdog comes out of nowhere and wins. This is why Trump Victory is so historic. He is by definition what makes America great.

It's going to be an exciting 4 years in the USA.

Your oligarchy will treat you like a consumer, a customer if you will, since the country will be ran like a business by millionairs

and billionaires. Those chosen few are about their own pockets in pursuit of global greed and not concerned about

your well being and pursuit of happiness as a citizen.

The picks of recent by Trump spell disaster to which tune the Trumpettes will march like good little worker bees who deserve

no raises, no overtime, no nothing, just work and sweat like peasants for the royal court.

Global corporations, alligators added to the swamp and many U turns will soon become a way of life.

The blind will only cheer the stinking rich corrupt picks on for so long.

The Trump victory is historic because people could not differentiate between "just something and someone different" and

a logical difference articulated and laid out in policies to truly improve the country.

Good luck with that reality 'star' and his bankruptcy record and the rest of his big campaign donors.

[Merrytooth 5,748]

Because the Founders did not trust the general public to make voting decisions for themselves, instead this is why we vote for 'electors' instead of the President directly. That being said in the Founders time only certain individuals were supposed to be voting in the first place (wise, educated, white, landowners)

I don't trust the elites either. Who knows if they are voting for the greater good of the country or for their own selfish benefits/gains.

Some are so high up in the ivory tower and won't understand the sufferings of peasants.

[yuna628 9,527]

I don't trust the elites either. Who knows if they are voting for the greater good of the country or for their own selfish benefits/gains.

Some are so high up in the ivory tower and won't understand the sufferings of peasants.

Nor should we of course. And yet who do we tend to elect?

[bowens44 213]

Maybe. If they deny Trump it will show it's value. This exactly the reason it exists. To keep madmen and lunatics out of the oval office.

[Ban Hammer 12,829]

Because the Founders did not trust the general public to make voting decisions for themselves, instead this is why we vote for 'electors' instead of the President directly. That being said in the Founders time only certain individuals were supposed to be voting in the first place (wise, educated, white, landowners) - not the sort of thing we'd ever imagine our elections being today. Rather hypocritical and harsh of course, but they did recognize that an uninformed populace did not make the best decisions. The Electors too were supposed to be among those wise individuals, of highest moral character, and their purpose was not to offer up a carte blanche to the 'will of the people', or tow a party line in that regard. They were supposed to make a very heavy decision and use their best judgment in assessing who their actual vote would go towards. They recognized people often made horrible decisions as to their choice of leader, and an elector was to be the safeguard against pitchforks, demagoguery, exploitation, dictators, foreign influence, and popular easily-swayed sentiment. Each elector was to be a man of the people and understand very clearly the citizens he represented in his state. This of course doesn't seem fair in how we would think of a democracy, but the Founders were clear that a direct democracy or referendum democracy was not to be our thing. A republic afterall, often butts heads with our modern-day thinking of how politics and government should be. Had things been exactly as the Founders intended, many of our Presidents may well have never been so. Certainly not Trump or even Hillary either. Republicans and Democrats can both love and hate the EC as much as they please when it gives the result that they want, but again if it worked the way it was supposed to, things would be very different indeed.

i'm not seeing how this supports your earlier assertion.

[Ebunoluwa 6,136]

When the cabinet looks like a board room it should concern everyone.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/13/opinions/cabinet-boardroom-michaels-opinion/index.html

[Mounat 74]

When the cabinet looks like a board room it should concern everyone.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/13/opinions/cabinet-boardroom-michaels-opinion/index.html

Not those who are waiting for the jobs to come back and the country emptied of brown and black people.

They thought they were getting screwed by the liberal elites but now they'll really get the &$##& of their lives.

Trump is just a front, like Dubya and Reagan before him, for real dark forces.

Stock up on Vaseline middle 'Murica.

Edited December 14, 2016 by Mounat

[yuna628 9,527]

i'm not seeing how this supports your earlier assertion.

Meaning that we were supposed to vote for electors and trust that they would make the decision, even if that decision went against the popular vote or even the EC mathematical winner. In todays terms, electors pretty much give a carte blanche instead of using their own judgment. It is clear this election cycle that many electors wish to be faithless, and some at the very least want to review security information regarding Trump before they make a decision. They have concerns, and those concerns are valid. I think this is a good thing, closer to how it was supposed to be.

[MarkPerry 488]

When the cabinet looks like a board room it should concern everyone.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/13/opinions/cabinet-boardroom-michaels-opinion/index.html

Concern? A lot of these people are business leaders who have spent their career signing the front of a check and running a business, and a lot of them are high ranking military.

We need people who know how to run a business, not people who have been career politics like Hillary Clinton being Sec. of State.

Are you jealous or scared of winners? People who have had great success in life?

Edited December 14, 2016 by MarkPerry

[Ban Hammer 12,829]

Meaning that we were supposed to vote for electors and trust that they would make the decision, even if that decision went against the popular vote or even the EC mathematical winner. In todays terms, electors pretty much give a carte blanche instead of using their own judgment. It is clear this election cycle that many electors wish to be faithless, and some at the very least want to review security information regarding Trump before they make a decision. They have concerns, and those concerns are valid. I think this is a good thing, closer to how it was supposed to be.

so rogue electors - which isn't exactly democratic nor following the election results of that state.

i'll pass on that.

[Dashinka 23,209]

Because the Founders did not trust the general public to make voting decisions for themselves, instead this is why we vote for 'electors' instead of the President directly. That being said in the Founders time only certain individuals were supposed to be voting in the first place (wise, educated, white, landowners) - not the sort of thing we'd ever imagine our elections being today. Rather hypocritical and harsh of course, but they did recognize that an uninformed populace did not make the best decisions. The Electors too were supposed to be among those wise individuals, of highest moral character, and their purpose was not to offer up a carte blanche to the 'will of the people', or tow a party line in that regard. They were supposed to make a very heavy decision and use their best judgment in assessing who their actual vote would go towards. They recognized people often made horrible decisions as to their choice of leader, and an elector was to be the safeguard against pitchforks, demagoguery, exploitation, dictators, foreign influence, and popular easily-swayed sentiment. Each elector was to be a man of the people and understand very clearly the citizens he represented in his state. This of course doesn't seem fair in how we would think of a democracy, but the Founders were clear that a direct democracy or referendum democracy was not to be our thing. A republic afterall, often butts heads with our modern-day thinking of how politics and government should be. Had things been exactly as the Founders intended, many of our Presidents may well have never been so. Certainly not Trump or even Hillary either. Republicans and Democrats can both love and hate the EC as much as they please when it gives the result that they want, but again if it worked the way it was supposed to, things would be very different indeed.

This is interesting, then why don't we simply just let the congress vote in the president and Vice President and forego the popular votes altogether. Aren't the representatives and senators already supposed to know the pulse of their constituents? I realize that this would again bring politics into the mix, but it would do away with all the endless campaigning that seems to start earlier and earlier with each four year cycle. There are drawbacks of course, particularly with the elite leadership class maintaining their perpetual control. Overall, I think it is naive to think that we could get a pool of non-partisan "common" people together to choose the president, I think we have learned that partisanship has infiltrates all of our institutions that are supposed to be neutral in particular the press and the justice system.

[smilesammich 10,727]

rogue electors..sounds like a trigger!

This is interesting, then why don't we simply just let the congress vote in the president and Vice President and forego the popular votes altogether. Aren't the representatives and senators already supposed to know the pulse of their constituents? I realize that this would again bring politics into the mix, but it would do away with all the endless campaigning that seems to start earlier and earlier with each four year cycle. There are drawbacks of course, particularly with the elite leadership class maintaining their perpetual control. Overall, I think it is naive to think that we could get a pool of non-partisan "common" people together to choose the president, I think we have learned that partisanship has infiltrates all of our institutions that are supposed to be neutral in particular the press and the justice system.

so there'd be no difference.

[yuna628 9,527]

so rogue electors - which isn't exactly democratic nor following the election results of that state.

i'll pass on that.

Conservatives and Con-Libs have long shouted that we need to get the country back onto the path of how the Founders intended. Perhaps they should carefully study what they are wishing for. Fundamentally there are going to be some aspects of our Republic that are incompatible with the evolving nature of democracy. We have long tried to toy with both, and it doesn't always work out pretty.

This is interesting, then why don't we simply just let the congress vote in the president and Vice President and forego the popular votes altogether. Aren't the representatives and senators already supposed to know the pulse of their constituents? I realize that this would again bring politics into the mix, but it would do away with all the endless campaigning that seems to start earlier and earlier with each four year cycle. There are drawbacks of course, particularly with the elite leadership class maintaining their perpetual control. Overall, I think it is naive to think that we could get a pool of non-partisan "common" people together to choose the president, I think we have learned that partisanship has infiltrates all of our institutions that are supposed to be neutral in particular the press and the justice system.

The Founders did consider this and many other options available to them, and held votes on it many times. In the end they decided this was the best way (though not exactly the most unanimous way). Unfortunately what they may not have been able to anticipate is the drawbacks you mention being able to take control of certain aspects of our political way of life. I think they may have been concerned about it, but things back then were not quite as fluid and the influencing power of 'elites' were not as strong as it is today. Our tendency to want to move closer toward pure democracy may on the surface seem to be a good thing. Afterall giving more power to the people seems to be the very basis of freedom. But there is always unintended consequences, and those consequences seemed to concern them the most above all else. They had seen the effects of them all over Europe. You could say then, that what they devised was very convoluted and yes, naïve. But perhaps this was exactly on purpose. I think the tweaks we have made to the EC over the years have actually hurt the originalist balance that was supposed to be in place. For starters the EC of now is indeed very partisan and party centric controlled. From the start of things electors were to be chosen based only on specific criteria and not partisan politics. Electors really were supposed to be the last sort of veto power of the people in case things went off the rails.

rogue electors..sounds like a trigger!

so there'd be no difference.

Not much no. Therein is some of the problem.