Title couldn’t say it all.
“The Electoral College was created to be a deliberative body drawn from privileged elites.
It would not necessarily respond to public opinion, which was not highly regarded by the founders, to put it mildly.
“The mass of people … seldom judge or determine right,” as Alexander Hamilton put it during the framing of the Constitution, expressing a common elite view.”
CJKent, you are correct. In the original 1787 Constitution, there was to be no direct election of POTUS. They did not trust the populous. So I think it was state legislators who would appoint the electors. And then of course there was this matter of 3/5's.
So as it is today, a vote from someone in Wyoming carries about 3x the weight of a vote from someone in CA.
Wyoming 3ev, 578,759 population California 55ev, 39,512,223 population
Why should Wyoming voters have more say so than we do?
SJG
YES ABOLISH THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE FOR EVER !!1
"Sorry but you are an idiot." Correct They weren't and aren't supposed to deliberate anything. They are supposed to vote the way they were selected to vote. I believer there is a Supreme Court case on this issue pending now.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE saved america from the leftist overthrow , go trump save america
al gore , hillary clinton too bad, so sad losers
victory for the deplorables
The Electoral College is contrary to our basic principles of fairness in elections.
SJG
@doctorevil The United States Constitution does not specify a notion of pledging; no federal law or constitutional statute binds an elector's vote to anything. All pledging laws originate at the state level. there have been numerous faithless electors that did not vote for the candidate they were selected to vote for there was no penalty, additionally
During the 1836 election, Virginia's entire 23-man electoral delegation faithlessly abstained[3] from voting for victorious Democratic vice presidential nominee Richard M. Johnson.[4] The loss of Virginia's support caused Johnson to fall one electoral vote short of a majority, causing the vice presidential election to be thrown into the U.S. Senate for the only time in American history. The presidential election itself was not in dispute because Virginia's electors voted for Democratic presidential nominee Martin Van Buren as pledged. The U.S. Senate ultimately elected Johnson as vice president after a party-line vote.< also There have been a total of 167 instances of faithlessness as of 2016. Nearly all have voted for third party candidates or non-candidates, as opposed to switching their support to a major opposing candidate. Ultimately, faithless electors have only impacted the outcome of an election once, during the 1796 election where Thomas Pinckney would have become the President and John Adams the Vice President< this is from the constitution and wikipedia
The Electoral College and 3/5's were how Southerners had been able to dominate the White House and stack the Courts.
Where this lead was quite predictable.
When John Brown raided Harper's Ferry he had with him is Provisional Constitution for the United States. He called the sitting government "slave power", meaning the political power slavery gave them and the power the money gave them.
His constitution was approved unanimously by the Free Black Community in Chatham Canada.
SJG
Adam Schiff: No meaningful impeachment trial without John Bolton youtube.com
If Trump wanted to help his party he could just promise not to run in Nov, or he could just resign. This would give them a chance to come up with a reasonable candidate.
Humble Pie-30 Days In The Hole youtube.com
Frampton, Do You Feel Like We Do youtube.com
SJG's Photo Album tuscl.net
25: Yes, you are correct. However, what you said does not mean that electors are not selected to vote a particular way, and always have been. Whether or not that can be enforced is open for debate, at least until the Supreme Court decides the current faithless elector case. npr.org
In the 1787 Constitution there was no popular vote for President. Electors were to be selected by state legislators.
Also, originally most of the states had very restrictive voter eligibility rules.
Things have changed and the Electoral College is now an anachronism.
SJG
Abolishing the electoral college would make LA county stronger than 43 states, yet only make up a minuscule amount of the land area. Let that sink in.
Thge stupidity of preogressives is breathtaking. Either that or they are simply liars. Without the electoral college in the Constitution there is no Constitution or country. We are a collection of states and rural states have always feared and hated city states. No way on earth will most americans sit by and let Cities run the show. Starve the dirty rats andwatch them try to grow food.
why change, we kick the british out in 1776 and now i think we are the in the top 5 richest country in the world, we model our country based off the constitution. i think norway or sweden is richer
abolishing the electoral college would mean that each person's vote counts the same as any other. Based on persons, not on geography.
Our constitution is too limited, more than anything it protects property rights from Constituted Popular Sovereignty.
The United States had a huge advantage because what we experienced as colonialism was not racist. Our revolution was mostly a revolution against British Bureaucratic Promptitude.
We have not experienced the kind of racist colonialism which set up Latin America.
So we had the advantage of using public subsidy to launch a middle class, in the form of free or low cost land.
And then after the Civil War when this was gone, we got a new public subsidy via the New Deal, progressive taxation and spending to re-launch a middle-class. So this collectivist public subsidy system gave as a huge advantage in terms of education, better working democracy, and a stronger economy. We got this huge advantage which Latin America and most places ruled by colonialism or monarchy did not.
But it is not our constitution which best reflects this going forward, it is the new constitutions found in Western Europe which reflect it.
SJG
Our Constitution turned us away from the Delaration of Independence, and made us into something more like England.
We have had the advantage of several rounds of public investment in making a middle class and to ending stigma based on race or low socio economic status. But our Constitution is not the more progressive, it is not now, nor was it ever.
In this new era of gross industrial super abundance the most important thing is to make sure that out groups are not made into scapegoats.
There are newer constitutions which do a better job of this.
SJG
Abolishing the electoral colllege would be a national security risk.
The Founding Fathers were in many ways resistant to popular democracy. Very restrictive voter eligibility rules, no popular election of the President.
SJG
It is really simple. I laid it out in the begining.... Why would any president care about other states with low population. They would pander or make laws for the top 10 populations. Then in those states only hit up the major cities. That is why the EC was invented. It gave a "voice" to those smaller populations and states.
The arguement about how peoples votes dont count the same isn't 100% correct. Everyones votes still counts... especially when races are tight. a few votes could sway the EC in that state. So the individual vote still matters. Also the EC was put in place to possibly help with VOTING FRAUD or fear of fraud.
Now onto SJG and schiff comment about "more witnesses". that is wrong. These articles that were brought to the Senate should only have witnesses called that were called in the House or during the Houses investigation. Also the people who wrote the report for the said articles. No biden, no Bolton, etc. Just the people who they deemed had enough evidence to vote YES in the house. If the articles fail in the senate. The house will could "redo" and subpeona bolton and what not to get new info/evidence. But they should also let the Republicans in the house have equal power to call witnesses. If they want fair it needs to be fair across the board.
A single vote cast in WY carries 3x the EV weight of a single vote cast in CA.
The basic principle of electoral democracy is that all votes count the same. We do not have this.
In a criminal trial, there can be new witnesses called. New evidence. And Trump has withheld documents and blocked witnesses.
Looks like the Senate will get the 4 moderate Republicans to do this, for at least some new witnesses.
SJG
Are These Signs of Oncoming Economic Disaster? youtube.com
Debate: Does Supporting Trump Work for Working People? youtube.com
Republican Senators ask question of Trump Lawyers youtube.com
White House has issued formal threat to John Bolton to keep him from publishing book youtube.com
John Bolton ‘Implied’ Misconduct In Marie Yovanovitch Ouster In Call, Rep Eliot Engel Claims | MSNBC youtube.com
How Dangerous Could John Bolton Possibly Be For President Donald Trump? youtube.com
“Yet Another Declaration of War on Palestinians”: Rashid Khalidi on Trump’s Middle East “Peace” Plan democracynow.org
Mehdi Hasan: Trump’s Middle East Plan Is a Policy of Apartheid & Settler Colonialism democracynow.org
Mehdi Hasan: The Impeachment Trial Has Been a Farce Since Day One Filled with GOP Lies democracynow.org
Senators Grill Trump’s Lawyers, House Managers in New Phase of Impeachment Trial youtube.com
John Bolton Bombshell Revelation Upends Trump's Impeachment Defense, Sends His Legal Team Scrambling youtube.com
LIVE House GOP talk Trump Impeachment & meltdown over John Bolton youtube.com
Psychedelic Jazz youtube.com
Joe Bonamassa Official - "I'll Play The Blues For You" youtube.com
In a criminal court they also get a mistrial if the process wasn't fair. Like when House dem's didnt allow any witnesses by the house republicans.... or when an investigative body has contact with witnesses and doesn't release the report on said contact (IG report about WB contact with Schiff or his staff), or when the jury is "tainted".... ie: Senators who are running for nomination get to vote against a political opponent. I am not saying those Senators will vote with an agenda... but if you want to say "criminal" trial. You have to look at that. Also in a criminal trial there needs to be a CRIME. Right now the articles are vague. Also you repeatedly hear Schiff say... DO ME A FAVOR. When the transcript clearly states DO US A FAVOR. So he is mis-representing. In a criminal trial you would hear many objections to that and what not. So if you want to talk "criminal" then you need to talk about it across the board not when it fits a narrative.
Like I have mentioned in other posts.... if the Senate right now said.... GO BACK AND REDO to get the witnesses they want and evidence... GOOD. But on its face value those articles of impeachment should have never been brought up or voted YES on. They are that weak.
What should scare everyone is the premise of this whole deal. They are basiclly saying you need to prove innocence. Not you are innocent until proven guilty. The burden is on the House Managers to prove the case with what they had to begin with. If they needed "more" they should have waited. In criminal cases it is what happens. Most murder cases that are over a year old before they arrest someone.... they know who did it they just need time to find more evidence. So again.... the House didn't do its job... they rushed it and now are looking like idiots. If they would have waited, let the courts decide about Ex privilege and what not (only would have waited until end of this month or so) and then got the possible witnesses (bolton and others).... they could or could not have a stronger case. But they rushed.... and again if you want to talk "criminal"... many cases get thrown out because of rush jobs.
They can add witnesses, they need to add witnesses, and based on the Collins / Murkowski / Romney question to the Chief Justice and to the Trump Defense and to the Impeachment Managers, it looks very likely that they will.
SJG
Also love how in your youtube vids bring up Marie Yovanovitch....
She was blocking some Ukranians from testifying and getting visas.
She is an employee and appointee of the President. So he can hire and fire at will. Is like a normal boss firing a secretary. They can do it if they think that person isn't doing a good job or even disagree with them.
Side note on "witnesses".... if people actually want now a "fair trial" like Schiff was demanding.
Let Bolton testify... but then bring up the list that the house Repbulicans wanted to testify that were denied. I will even say that they dont need the Biden's. Even though they are at the heart of the matter.... especially when Trumps team talked about how the Obama admin and cabinet people had issues with it. But just let the people testify who were on the lists in the House.... then also Schiff needs to testify for his Report and Investigation. He needs to talk about procedure and why he did the stuff he did. If it was all to protect the WB... good. But he just needs to be under oath for his report and procedure. It is like asking a detective on a case to come in and testify to his findings. It is expected that they do it. Why did he send an underlying to do it in the house? Just basic questions that need to be asked.
My whole issue with this is it wasn't fair from the word go. It was a one sided affair. If Trump is guilty of a crime... nail him.
Remember this.... Clinton was brought up on a crime. It wasn't because he got a BJ... it was that he lied under oath about it. A president lying under oath is a huge issue.... let alone anyone lying under oath. It is why he got disbarred and what not. But the Senate thought it wasn't a "big deal".
Established policy that you cannot indict a sitting President. This is why Mueller declined to make any judgement that Trump had or had not broken any law.
The only thing which can be done is an Impeachment Inquiry, rather like a Grand Jury. And there are not too sides in such. Elections Matter!
SJG
You are correct... elections matter.
Mueller didn't know how to proceed on that like you mentioned. But he also came out and stated NO OBSTRUCTION charges by trump as well. He also uncovered multiple instances of abuse by others for political gain. Hence we are going thru the FISA bullshit, the IG reports, etc. THis is something that is scary as hell for all of us. I am just waiting to see what will come of it.
To be honest I think this is why the impeachment fiasco was pushed thru so hard and fast with a sloppy performance and investigation. They wanted to get ahead of the rest of the FISA stuff and what not. Because many of the same players screaming impeachment have their fingers in this FISA stuff.... or they backed it. They want to get Trump thrown out for the "political gain" aspect because it might come out that they did some stuff for political gain as well.
But this is the most important question anyone has to ask themselves.... If it wasn't Biden that is tied to a corrupt company Burisma..... would we even be talking about this right now? Would Trump even be looked at for impeachment and what not. Honestly.... it can go both ways.
1 . would Trump even have brought it up or be looking at it.
I am all for using the USA tax payers money the correct way and making sure it is wasted with corruption and the like. (look at the warehouses of supplies being found in Puerto Rico that were left to waste and not given to its people... all to make Trump look bad). So anyone one looking into corruption is a good thing if you ask me...regaurdless of if it is a political opponent or some John Doe nobody. It is our money and should be used correctly or given back to us the Citizens.... and we can waste it as we see fit.... Strippers. ;-)
You bring up the there isn't Two sides... BULL SHIT.
there are two sides to every story. You can push a narrative and not want to find the "truth" if you try. Which is exactly what happened with the investigation. We dont know what any of the witnesses might have said that the Republicans wanted to bring in. It could have exhonorated or implicated.... WE DONT KNOW. That is the issue. It could have contridicted everything even more so what the Sondlands, Vindmans, etc all stated.... or it could have totally made those testimonies bullet proof. WE DONT KNOW. That is the issue. They didn't allow the house republicans to call any of the witnesses they wanted.... it was ONE SIDED and needed to be TWO SIDED affair to be called "fair".
If you say there are not two sides... you are wrong and dont believe in how our justice system works. You must believe you are guilty and need to prove innocence. Remember in our justice system everyone has a chance to prove or disprove the case.... invesigators are supposed to look at all angles and look under every stone to come to a conclusion.... that didn't happen. There was doubt raised.... yet Schiff didn't want to look into that doubt. It was one track railroad job from the word go. Like I have stated.... we could be i a whole different mind set if Schiff allowed the courts to play out on the subpeona issue, if he would have let the Republicans call witnesses, etc. We could have a mound of info that would say yep Guilty or the reverse.... innocent. But he didn't allow that. Hence is why he should be a witness and put under oath. He didn't want to go under oath to give his report to the house... he sent an underlying.
Also in another thread you kept talking about "criminal trial" stuff.
Schiff would have been thrown out of court and a mistrial would have been called. He keeps lying and using the DO ME A FAVOR quote when it was DO US A FAVOR.... it is in the transcript and admitted as evidence. Then he keeps talking about a quid pro quo and "bribery".... those are not the articles of impeachment. So you cant bring that up during a trial... He keeps bring up "russia" and Mueller probe... again not apart of these articles of impeachment. If this was a "criminal" trial the case would have been thrown out already. Schiff isn't staying on topic because the case is that weak. If he would have taken his time and done his job during the investigation it could be a whole different ball game..... for or against impeaching the president.
Mueller did not clear Trump and he did not indict him. As the standing rule is that you cannot indict a sitting President. So lacking that authority, he always opted to say nothing about Trump's guilt, or lack there of.
But I heard myself the original news broadcasts of Trump asking Russia to hack into Hillary Clinton's emails. Trump was encouraging foreign interference in our elections.
We have never before had a President who would not release his tax returns, and who was holding on to overseas business holdings.
And Trump continues to try to enrich himself by using the powers of his office to gain proceeds at his properties.
So the first Articles of Impeachment were submitted in 2017 by Brad Sherman and Al Green, over the emoluments clause.
And we have never had anyone get elected as President who was denounced by the leaders of his own party, especially if that is the Republican Party. Nikki Halley, Mitt Romney, John McCain, and eventually George W. Bush and Jeff Flake.
Trump's Campaign was just Hate Speech, directed against Racial Minorities, Religious Minorities, and against immigrants.
His Immigrant detention centers fall within Nuremberg precedents. They violate international law. They violate US law. We do not allow indefinite detention. We have strict rules requiring arraignment before a judge within a strict time limit.
The last court ruling pertaining to unauthorized border crossings was made in 1997, and it imposes strict time limits. No since court decision authorizes the Trump practices.
Never before has any POTUS been rebuked by the courts like Trump has.
And retired Generals and Admirals rebuked him during the 2016 campaign when he said of bringing back water boarding that he would "bring back a whole lot worse than that".
Our retired military reminded him publicly that our Uniform Code of Military Justice prohibits torture and that it is not like it was when Bush was President. Our military personnel are prohibited from obeying unlawful orders.
Trump should have been impeached in Jan 2017, when he finished taking the oath of office. But this could not happen because the Republicans still controlled the House.
We are counting on the Ukraine to continue our policy of containing Russia. We used to look to West Germany. Now it is the Ukraine
How do you stop this? en.wikipedia.org
I could not care less what happens to the Biden's. But our politicians cannot seek or accept foreign interference in our elections.
No one sabotaged any Trump Puerto Rico relief.
crsm27, you are a product of a running virus, its called Fox News and the Right Internet.
Us law has no applicability in the Ukraine.
Lt Col Alexander Vindman is an extremely credible witness. And like he said, he reported Trump's phone call because, "It was his duty".
A House Impeachment Inquiry is like a Grand Jury. It does not need to be balanced. The Trial, the Senate process, will have that balance.
Adam Schiff is obviously a highly intelligent and principled man. The job he is doing is a difficult one. I am glad that some of my fellow Californians elected him to a position of such responsibility.
Delaying critical and Congressionally approved military aide to the Ukraine, and pulling our troops off the Turkish and Syrian border, and seemingly in a move prearranged with Putin, to let them get their long sought goad of the "Warm Water Port", disregarding decades of conflict in the middle-east over this, and letting our troops have to retreat under fire!
If it were a Russian Head of State who did these things, he'd of been executed!
SJG
Chuck Schumer, really good! youtube.com
Should We Believe John Bolton? youtube.com
thats right the electoral college is by privilege elites
Originally people could not vote for POTUS and Vice President, or for US Senators.
Things have improved but there is still more to do.
SJG
Sorry but you are an idiot. It was to give all states a voice. Right now 10 states hold over 50% of the population. Should those states "govern" for all the rest? NO... it is why the founders made it this way. So every state would have "representation".