₦airaland Forum

Missy89:
Lol. You democrats need to brush up your economics. How will a $12 minimum wage boon millions of workers working minimum wage jobs? Are you going to force employers not to downsize in other to still make profit or invest in automation? Increasing the minimum wage will prevent low skilled workers from getting entry level jobs that they need for experience and only experience people will get minimum wage jobs since employers will want more productivity if they are paying more.

Wages should be decided by city's standard of living and the market. If you don't want a $7.50 an hour pay, you should not take the job or learn more skills so you can make more money. Besides, it only helps big corporations that the left hates so much since it will drive their competitors out of business.

What is the difference between killing someone with a firearm and killing the same person with a stone? If you want death penalty for murder, then be for death penalty for murders. The weapon that is used is not really relevant because a life is lost whichever way. If you want to cherry pick you will have to change the rules with the police too. Assaulting someone with a stone can be considered a DEADLY WEAPON

Progressives are quite funny

What happens when some cities review theirs but your party blocks it.

Before you put up a defence,here's proof of your party doing what they do best-Obstruction.
http://nytimes.com/2016/02/22/us/alabama-moves-to-halt-pay-law-in-birmingham.html

http://al.com/news/index.ssf/2016/02/bill_to_block_city_minimum_wag_2.html

If Progressives are quite funny,don't you think you republicans are the biggest hypocrites there is

CFCman:
The $12 proposal won't be a one-size-fits-all solution, according to Clinton. The states and local governments would retain the power to set whatever minimum wage that would correspond to their respective costs of living.

As for the death penalty issue, I was just thinking aloud lol. Clinton only wants the death penalty for serial killers, mass murderers and terrorists (I guess terrorists could also be mass murderers).

You're right. Murder is murder, whether committed by a firearm or poison.

The fed ( even states and local government) needs to stay out of wages really. lets the market deal with this small issues

ValerianSteel:
What happens when some cities review theirs but your party blocks it.

Before you put up a defence,here's proof of your party doing what they do best-Obstruction.
http://nytimes.com/2016/02/22/us/alabama-moves-to-halt-pay-law-in-birmingham.html

http://al.com/news/index.ssf/2016/02/bill_to_block_city_minimum_wag_2.html

If Progressives are quite funny,don't you think you republicans are the biggest hypocrites there is

When i said cities i didn't mean city officials. I meant the standard of living in that city which is controlled by the market not the people in city hall.

Wages should be determined by the market not politicians. I will obstruct the bill myself if i was in that house. if there was no "minimum wage to begin with, there will be no need to review it and wages will go up and down as markets moves and how much people are willing to sell their labor

Missy89:
When i said cities i didn't mean city officials. I meant the standard of living in that city which is controlled by the market not the people in city hall.

Wages should be determined by the market not politicians. I will obstruct the bill myself if i was in that house. if there was no "minimum wage to begin with, there will be no need to review it and wages will go up and down as markets moves and how much people are willing to sell their labor

Don't spin this Missy.City Officials are there to protect the interest of people.Definitely a city passing a minimum wage review will only do so if the market supports it.

You might care to know that business owners in Birmingham city supported the review.They were comfortable with the increase.These are tax paying businesses and they pushed for the increase so why should the GOP controlled legislature block it.

Isn't funny how Red States don't want Washington telling them how to do things but in turn they want to dictate to cities how they want things

Electoral College Forecast.

Hillary-358
Trump-180

[img]http://2.bp..com/-R0G6uEkHF_E/V2C3S8NAM2I/AAAAAAAAC2w/mFO2wkm9bPcSnDgtipA-eeQpIuj4uehOwCLcB/s1600/electoral.college.map.2016_6.13.png[/img]


http://frontloading..com/2016/06/the-electoral-college-map-61316.html

Missy89:
The fed ( even states and local government) needs to stay out of wages really. lets the market deal with this small issues

Hey Missy, I disagree with you on minimum wage but I will let you and my buddy Duke it out so you won't feel like We are tag teaming you.

Lucasbalo:
Appleyard, please explain to me how the electoral system is a sham and anti democratic ?. Even with the electoral system for the presidential election, everyone votes still counts in America know something Americans don't know.

Hmm. I have discussed this US electoral college system with some of my American friends in time past, and i discovered that, in the course of the discussion, the only argument most of them could muster is that, the system has been working for years, and as such, there is nothing wrong with it. But they are wrong. There are a lot of idiosyncrasies associated with the system that many people don't even know.

For instance, the Electoral college makes it possible for a candidate to clinch the Presidency by winning just eleven states and disregarding the rest of the country. And i want to believe that some of you good Americans are aware that about 3 to 4 times, the Presidential candidate that won the popular vote lost the election? And we should call it ''democratic''? Tufieeh!

The underlying fact here is that, by design, the Electoral College system fundamentally undermines the basic principle of one man-one vote denoting undemocratic realities such as:

(1)The Electoral College system further distorts the one-person, one-vote principle of democracy because electoral votes are not distributed according to population. Every state gets one electoral vote for each member of its delegation to the House of Representatives (this by itself would be a rough measure of its population) and each state also gets two “bonus” electors representing its two senators.
This causes significant overrepresentation of small states in the “College.” In the most extreme case, using 2010 Census figures and the new distribution of House seats based on that census, an individual citizen in Wyoming has more than triple the weight in electoral votes as an individual in California. Yes, you read that right. In fact, it’s closer to quadruple than triple. Can this be a good thing?

(2) States with smaller populations have far more representatives per population than states with larger populations. E.g, residents of the three least-populated states -Wyoming, Vermont, and North Dakota - have one congressional representative for every 200,000 people, while those in the three states with the highest population - California, Texas, and New York - have only one congressional member for every 670,000 people. This representational inequality clearly gives citizens from small population states a much stronger voice per citizen than those residing in large states when it comes to electing the president. Is that fair? :-(

(3) Forty-eight states allocate all of their Electors to one candidate (Maine and Nebraska use proportional representation). This state-level decision of how to allocate Electors produces the issue of swing-state distortion, where citizens in states that are relatively evenly split between the two parties have far more influence in selecting the president than citizens in states where a majority are clearly voting for one party. Moreover, citizens are often discouraged to vote in presidential elections if they know that the allocation of all of their state’s electors is a foregone conclusion. Campaign activity exemplifies the implications of this all-or-nothing allocation issue and its egregious undermining of the principle of one citizen-one vote. Candidates rarely invest campaign funds in states that aren’t “in play” - i.e., states whose electoral votes are considered to be already won or lost based on large margins of victory in previous elections and on current polling.
For example, in the 2008 presidential election, the campaign of then-candidate Barack Obama spent nearly $40 million on advertising in Pennsylvania, a swing state with twenty-one electoral votes, and about $25,000 in Illinois, with an equivalent number of electors. The Obama strategists knew that there was no reason to spend any time courting voters in his home state, Illinois, since he would clearly win the majority of Illinois’s popular votes and all twenty-one of its electoral votes. Republican and third-party supporters in Illinois had no chance of having their voices heard and citizens living in Illinois were being told very clearly that they are much less important than those living in Pennsylvania. You see it?

(4) “Faithless” Electors: After all of the undermining of one citizen-one vote that is described above, there is still the issue that the Elector doesn’t actually have to vote for whom they pledged.
For example, in 2000, D.C. elector Barbara Lett-Simmons abstained rather than vote for Al Gore as she had pledged. Her feeble protest resulted in silencing the voices of thousands of D.C. residents.


If democrasy is the goverment of the MAJORITY, then this system is CERTAINLY anti-democratic, and thats why i called it a sham. Like Cfcman said, it needs a channge.

lol. A black trump supporter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAeB_yl2E90&spfreload=10

That's why the Nigerian law on electing a president and Vice President could work here in America.
The least populous states will have their voices heard if a nominee is required to garner no less than 1/3 or 2/5 of the vote in three-fourths of the states and DC.

Another Trump Supporter. Trump will win.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkeeDlrqE5c

ValerianSteel:
Don't spin this Missy.City Officials are there to protect the interest of people.Definitely a city passing a minimum wage review will only do so if the market supports it.

You might care to know that business owners in Birmingham city supported the review.They were comfortable with the increase.These are tax paying businesses and they pushed for the increase so why should the GOP controlled legislature block it.

Isn't funny how Red States don't want Washington telling them how to do things but in turn they want to dictate to cities how they want things

The only reason some businesses are for minimum wage is because it will push their competitor out of business. Big corporations like Walmart have lobbied for increase wages before. A company does not need to push for any increase, they can just pay more without any legislation. The only reason they have been push is to force other small competitors to pay it too.

Cant you see how funny it sounds? why should a company push for a minimum wage law when they can just increase it themselves if they are so willing to pay?

Appleyard:
Hmm. I have discussed this US electoral college system with some of my American friends in time past, and i discovered that, in the course of the discussion, the only argument most of them could muster is that, the system has been working for years, and as such, there is nothing wrong with it. But they are wrong. There are a lot of idiosyncrasies associated with the system that many people don't even know.

For instance, the Electoral college makes it possible for a candidate to clinch the Presidency by winning just eleven states and disregarding the rest of the country. And i want to believe that some of you good Americans are aware that about 3 to 4 times, the Presidential candidate that won the popular vote lost the election? And we should call it ''democratic''? Tufieeh!

The underlying fact here is that, by design, the Electoral College system fundamentally undermines the basic principle of one man-one vote denoting undemocratic realities such as:

(1)The Electoral College system further distorts the one-person, one-vote principle of democracy because electoral votes are not distributed according to population. Every state gets one electoral vote for each member of its delegation to the House of Representatives (this by itself would be a rough measure of its population) and each state also gets two “bonus” electors representing its two senators.
This causes significant overrepresentation of small states in the “College.” In the most extreme case, using 2010 Census figures and the new distribution of House seats based on that census, an individual citizen in Wyoming has more than triple the weight in electoral votes as an individual in California. Yes, you read that right. In fact, it’s closer to quadruple than triple. Can this be a good thing?

(2) States with smaller populations have far more representatives per population than states with larger populations. E.g, residents of the three least-populated states -Wyoming, Vermont, and North Dakota - have one congressional representative for every 200,000 people, while those in the three states with the highest population - California, Texas, and New York - have only one congressional member for every 670,000 people. This representational inequality clearly gives citizens from small population states a much stronger voice per citizen than those residing in large states when it comes to electing the president. Is that fair? :-(

(3) Forty-eight states allocate all of their Electors to one candidate (Maine and Nebraska use proportional representation). This state-level decision of how to allocate Electors produces the issue of swing-state distortion, where citizens in states that are relatively evenly split between the two parties have far more influence in selecting the president than citizens in states where a majority are clearly voting for one party. Moreover, citizens are often discouraged to vote in presidential elections if they know that the allocation of all of their state’s electors is a foregone conclusion. Campaign activity exemplifies the implications of this all-or-nothing allocation issue and its egregious undermining of the principle of one citizen-one vote. Candidates rarely invest campaign funds in states that aren’t “in play” - i.e., states whose electoral votes are considered to be already won or lost based on large margins of victory in previous elections and on current polling.
For example, in the 2008 presidential election, the campaign of then-candidate Barack Obama spent nearly $40 million on advertising in Pennsylvania, a swing state with twenty-one electoral votes, and about $25,000 in Illinois, with an equivalent number of electors. The Obama strategists knew that there was no reason to spend any time courting voters in his home state, Illinois, since he would clearly win the majority of Illinois’s popular votes and all twenty-one of its electoral votes. Republican and third-party supporters in Illinois had no chance of having their voices heard and citizens living in Illinois were being told very clearly that they are much less important than those living in Pennsylvania. You see it?

(4) “Faithless” Electors: After all of the undermining of one citizen-one vote that is described above, there is still the issue that the Elector doesn’t actually have to vote for whom they pledged.
For example, in 2000, D.C. elector Barbara Lett-Simmons abstained rather than vote for Al Gore as she had pledged. Her feeble protest resulted in silencing the voices of thousands of D.C. residents.


If democrasy is the goverment of the MAJORITY, then this system is CERTAINLY anti-democratic, and thats why i called it a sham. Like CSTR5 said, it needs a channge.

Well it is obvious you know very little about America.

The electoral college system was specifically designed to prevent one person one vote. The founding fathers wanted to prevent the tyranny of the majority. That is the whole point of a republic. Lol

James Madison wrote in Federalist Paper 51: "It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure." Many of the features of the Constitutional organization of the Federal government are meant to keep any branch or department from attaining domination of the others, but in fulfilling that function, they also serve as a safeguard against any popular majority, as represented then by the House of Representatives (and now by the Senate and the House of Representatives in partnership), from being able to oppress other citizens. Again Madison from the same work: "In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions."


Article IV Section 4, of the Constitution: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of government … ”

And living in this republic means that every voice matters, majorities do not rule and those with the loudest voices do not automatically win. The will of the people means all of the people.


It does not matter if your state presidential electoral result is a forgone conclusion as well. The most important law that directly affects you comes from the city, county and your state and the congress. You can always put pressure on your representative to put a hold on any bill you don't want under the rules of unanimous consent.

That is why NJ might be blue in presidential elections but have a republican governor. The republican party carried 24 states in the last general elections but have 31 governors.

Appleyard:
Hmm. I have discussed this US electoral college system with some of my American friends in time past, and i discovered that, in the course of the discussion, the only argument most of them could muster is that, the system has been working for years, and as such, there is nothing wrong with it. But they are wrong. There are a lot of idiosyncrasies associated with the system that many people don't even know.

For instance, the Electoral college makes it possible for a candidate to clinch the Presidency by winning just eleven states and disregarding the rest of the country. And i want to believe that some of you good Americans are aware that about 3 to 4 times, the Presidential candidate that won the popular vote lost the election? And we should call it ''democratic''? Tufieeh!

The underlying fact here is that, by design, the Electoral College system fundamentally undermines the basic principle of one man-one vote denoting undemocratic realities such as:

(1)The Electoral College system further distorts the one-person, one-vote principle of democracy because electoral votes are not distributed according to population. Every state gets one electoral vote for each member of its delegation to the House of Representatives (this by itself would be a rough measure of its population) and each state also gets two “bonus” electors representing its two senators.
This causes significant overrepresentation of small states in the “College.” In the most extreme case, using 2010 Census figures and the new distribution of House seats based on that census, an individual citizen in Wyoming has more than triple the weight in electoral votes as an individual in California. Yes, you read that right. In fact, it’s closer to quadruple than triple. Can this be a good thing?

(2) States with smaller populations have far more representatives per population than states with larger populations. E.g, residents of the three least-populated states -Wyoming, Vermont, and North Dakota - have one congressional representative for every 200,000 people, while those in the three states with the highest population - California, Texas, and New York - have only one congressional member for every 670,000 people. This representational inequality clearly gives citizens from small population states a much stronger voice per citizen than those residing in large states when it comes to electing the president. Is that fair? :-(

(3) Forty-eight states allocate all of their Electors to one candidate (Maine and Nebraska use proportional representation). This state-level decision of how to allocate Electors produces the issue of swing-state distortion, where citizens in states that are relatively evenly split between the two parties have far more influence in selecting the president than citizens in states where a majority are clearly voting for one party. Moreover, citizens are often discouraged to vote in presidential elections if they know that the allocation of all of their state’s electors is a foregone conclusion. Campaign activity exemplifies the implications of this all-or-nothing allocation issue and its egregious undermining of the principle of one citizen-one vote. Candidates rarely invest campaign funds in states that aren’t “in play” - i.e., states whose electoral votes are considered to be already won or lost based on large margins of victory in previous elections and on current polling.
For example, in the 2008 presidential election, the campaign of then-candidate Barack Obama spent nearly $40 million on advertising in Pennsylvania, a swing state with twenty-one electoral votes, and about $25,000 in Illinois, with an equivalent number of electors. The Obama strategists knew that there was no reason to spend any time courting voters in his home state, Illinois, since he would clearly win the majority of Illinois’s popular votes and all twenty-one of its electoral votes. Republican and third-party supporters in Illinois had no chance of having their voices heard and citizens living in Illinois were being told very clearly that they are much less important than those living in Pennsylvania. You see it?

(4) “Faithless” Electors: After all of the undermining of one citizen-one vote that is described above, there is still the issue that the Elector doesn’t actually have to vote for whom they pledged.
For example, in 2000, D.C. elector Barbara Lett-Simmons abstained rather than vote for Al Gore as she had pledged. Her feeble protest resulted in silencing the voices of thousands of D.C. residents.


If democrasy is the goverment of the MAJORITY, then this system is CERTAINLY anti-democratic, and thats why i called it a sham. Like CSTR5 said, it needs a channge.

Missy gave you a good answer. My problem is with you calling electoral system undemocratic and a sham. It's not. It's been serving America well for over a century.

Missy89:
The electoral college system was specifically designed to prevent one person one vote. The founding fathers wanted to prevent the tyranny of the majority. That is the whole point of a republic. Lol

James Madison wrote in Federalist Paper 51: "It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure." Many of the features of the Constitutional organization of the Federal government are meant to keep any branch or department from attaining domination of the others, but in fulfilling that function, they also serve as a safeguard against any popular majority, as represented then by the House of Representatives (and now by the Senate and the House of Representatives in partnership), from being able to oppress other citizens. Again Madison from the same work: "In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions."

This, i must say is plain ignorance. The hallmark of democracy is the ''ultimate will of the people,'' and the will of the people rest on the inate notion of the power of Thought and Conscience, the faculty from where individual beliefs and perceptions emanate and are put forward as ''interest'' by means of a formal and informal mode of ''expression'', which in this case, are by elections.

It is trite that these individuals interest varies in accordance with the stark disparity embedded in the human power of perception, and thus, democracy has always centred on the ''aggregate and proportional interest'' of the ''majority'' in deriving its legitimacy for the formulation and accomplishment of national ideology. That is why democracy is the government of the people, for the people, and by the people, NOT all of the people, but THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE, because by the power of thought differential, it can never be all of the people.
This is what democrasy is all about in any democratic electoral setting - the Government according to the Electoral interest of the Majority, and not of the Minority. Therefore, any electoral system that termed itself a democracy but seek to achieve its legitimacy by means of a Minority, is a sham, a gross departure from the tenets of democracy and a complete bastardization of the meaning of the term. And this is exactly what the American Electoral system is all about. No matter how the likes of Mr. Morgan tries to frame it, the fact remains that the US Electoral College System that makes it possible for a candidate that won the most or popular votes and still lose the election, is not a democracy, and can never be a democratic system of electing leadership, let alone conferring legitimacy on it, because, legitimacy evolves from the sovereign, and the sovereign is the people from which it derives its validity - the ''Democratic Majority''.

The undemocratic and unpopular nature of this system is even more pronounced when one realize that in this 21st century, the US is the only nation practicing this gross aberration, and what an aberration it is.

And living in this republic means that every voice matters, majorities do not rule and those with the loudest voices do not automatically win. The will of the people means all of the people.

NEVER! The will of the people does not mean ALL of the people, and can never be ALL of the people. The proponents of the democratic system quite envisaged that the overall interests of every members of the population differs, and cannot be represented equally at the same time, hence; the will of the overwhelming majority is held as basics for compromise and consensus . Thus, in a democracy, the will of the people is represented by the aggregated and proportional will of the Democratic Majority, not the other way round. Any other way is an aberration.

And that is the underlying reality.

^^
Interesting essay from you.

Although, I'm for abolishing the EC, I think a 'modified' popular vote system should be instituted. The modified popular vote system would ensure that voters in ALL states have a say in who becomes their president.

The Libertarian presidential and vice presidential nominees, Gary Johnson and William Weld, will participate in a CNN town hall event on Wednesday starting from 9pm ET.

Lucasbalo:
Missy gave you a good answer. My problem is with you calling electoral system undemocratic and a sham. It's not. It's been serving America well for over a century.

I have answered her. I called the system a sham and undemocratic because it runs contrary to the principles of democracy which is mainly based on Democratic Majority. I was only speaking from a principle point of view, not to ridicule the US per se. If it is working well for them, no problem. But its noteworthy that many voices across the US are now calling for a change in the system.

Appleyard:
I have answered her. I called the system a sham and undemocratic because it runs contrary to the principles of democracy which is mainly based on democracy. I was only speaking from a principle point of view, not to ridicule the US per se. If it is working well for them, no problem. But its noteworthy that many voices across the US are now calling for a change in the system.

Overwhelming majority of Americans still like the system.

Missy89:
The only reason some businesses are for minimum wage is because it will push their competitor out of business. Big corporations like Walmart have lobbied for increase wages before. A company does not need to push for any increase, they can just pay more without any legislation. The only reason they have been push is to force other small competitors to pay it too.

Cant you see how funny it sounds? why should a company push for a minimum wage law when they can just increase it themselves if they are so willing to pay?

We all know businesses will always be selfish.Most of these big corporations are skillful,very skillful,they aren't willing to adhere to any minimum wage and would rather use their prerogative.The minimum wage is the last hope of the little guy.If or not it serves the dirty purpose of big corporations,it still remains that the minimum wage be set to benefit the little guy out there.

When a city chooses to increase theirs,they do so considering what is obtainable in such city alone and not elsewhere.If city officials believe everyone deserves a raise cause the city can afford it irrespective of big corporations,they'll up the minimum wage.Increase in wages equals more taxes.Win win for the little guy and eventually the state as a whole.

CFCman:
^^
Interesting essay from you.

Although, I'm for abolishing the EC, I think a 'modified' popular vote system should be instituted. The modified popular vote system would ensure that voters in ALL states have a say in who becomes their president.

This I support.

Lucasbalo:
Overwhelming majority of Americans still like the system.

Then that is a plus for them.

Appleyard:
Then that is a plus for them.

So Gore won more popular votes than George W but lost the Presidency because of the electoral votes. That's was the time I really wanted the popular votes to be the way to go. Bush took us to two worthless and unpopular wars that almost bankrupt the country and the economical effects are still being felt up till today. Hopefully, something like that would not be the case again.

ValerianSteel:
We all know businesses will always be selfish.Most of these big corporations are skillful,very skillful,they aren't willing to adhere to any minimum wage and would rather use their prerogative.The minimum wage is the last hope of the little guy.If or not it serves the dirty purpose of big corporations,it still remains that the minimum wage be set to benefit the little guy out there.

When a city chooses to increase theirs,they do so considering what is obtainable in such city alone and not elsewhere.If city officials believe everyone deserves a raise cause the city can afford it irrespective of big corporations,they'll up the minimum wage.Increase in wages equals more taxes.Win win for the little guy and eventually the state as a whole.

And the little guys will have more money to spend instead of the big corporations hiding their untaxable money in off shore accounts. Most of the minimum wage earners gets assistance from the government in form of Medicaid, Section 8 Housing Aide, Link Card and sometimes Child Care because their salaries are too low. Who in the hell can survive on $7.25 an hour ?. Maybe some of our Putin lovers on Nairaland.

Lucasbalo:
So Gore won more popular votes than George W but lost the Presidency because of the electoral votes. That's was the time I really wanted the popular votes to be the way to go. Bush took us to two worthless and unpopular wars that almost bankrupt the country and the economical effects are still being felt up till today. Hopefully, something like that would not be the case again.

That is my point. A man who was elected solely by the minority tend to become irresponsive to the wishes of the majority, unlike the man elected by the majority.

Yeah, we hope it never happens again, not only for the interest of America, but also for the world at large.

CFCman:
That's why the Nigerian law on electing a president and Vice President could work here in America.
The least populous states will have their voices heard if a nominee is required to garner no less than 1/3 or 2/5 of the vote in three-fourths of the states and DC.

Exactly!

Appleyard:
Exactly!

I'd say the Electoral College indirectly suppresses voter turnout because Republicans in New York may not feel that their voice would be heard if they know that all of NY's EC votes would go to the Democratic nominee.

But if they (Repubs) know that the candidate needs to garner no less than a third of the vote in the state, it motivates them to turn up at the precincts.

CFCman:
^^
Interesting essay from you.

Although, I'm for abolishing the EC, I think a 'modified' popular vote system should be instituted. The modified popular vote system would ensure that voters in ALL states have a say in who becomes their president.

You have said it all, and the emphasis is 'ALL' voters should have their say. That is the exact essence of any democratic Electoral System, not the backdoor channel.

CFCman:
I'd say the Electoral College indirectly suppresses voter turnout because Republicans in New York may not feel that their voice would be heard if they know that all of NY's EC votes would go to the Democratic nominee.

But if they (Repubs) know that the candidate needs to garner no less than a third of the vote in the state, it motivates them to turn up at the precincts.

You see now? That was the exact situation i was explaining earlier on when i said ''faithless voters.'' Democracy is all about the vote count of every voter, but where the system discourages many voters from turning up at the prescints, the idea is totally defeated. A lot of Americans are yet to realize how the EC works, thats why many are still okay with it. But for the likes of you who knows the nitty gritty of the system, will never be comfortable with it, as long as it goes against the basic principle of Democrasy, which is the Majority.

If this guy could win in the Netherlands then Trump can in the US

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgnqjMRJUJI

Appleyard:
This, i must say is plain ignorance. The hallmark of democracy is the ''ultimate will of the people,'' and the will of the people rest on the inate notion of the power of Thought and Conscience, the faculty from where individual beliefs and perceptions emanate and are put forward as ''interest'' by means of a formal and informal mode of ''expression'', which in this case, are by elections.

It is trite that these individuals interest varies in accordance with the stark disparity embedded in the human power of perception, and thus, democracy has always centred on the ''aggregate and proportional interest'' of the ''majority'' in deriving its legitimacy for the formulation and accomplishment of national ideology. That is why democracy is the government of the people, for the people, and by the people, NOT all of the people, but THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE, because by the power of thought differential, it can never be all of the people.
This is what democrasy is all about in any democratic electoral setting - the Government according to the Electoral interest of the Majority, and not of the Minority. Therefore, any electoral system that termed itself a democracy but seek to achieve its legitimacy by means of a Minority, is a sham, a gross departure from the tenets of democracy and a complete bastardization of the meaning of the term. And this is exactly what the American Electoral system is all about. No matter how the likes of Mr. Morgan tries to frame it, the fact remains that the US Electoral College System that makes it possible for a candidate that won the most or popular votes and still lose the election, is not a democracy, and can never be a democratic system of electing leadership, let alone conferring legitimacy on it, because, legitimacy evolves from the sovereign, and the sovereign is the people from which it derives its validity - the ''Democratic Majority''.

The undemocratic and unpopular nature of this system is even more pronounced when one realize that in this 21st century, the US is the only nation practicing this gross aberration, and what an aberration it is.



NEVER! The will of the people does not mean ALL of the people, and can never be ALL of the people. The proponents of the democratic system quite envisaged that the overall interests of every members of the population differs, and cannot be represented equally at the same time, hence; the will of the overwhelming majority is held as basics for compromise and consensus . Thus, in a democracy, the will of the people is represented by the aggregated and proportional will of the Democratic Majority, not the other way round. Any other way is an aberration.

And that is the underlying reality.

My words were clear. That is the way the country was designed to be, Hence a republic.

There is no country that practice direct democracy. Looks like you got lost in the semantics. The word democracy have several types. Direct and indirect democracy (or representative democracy) Only Swiss cantons of Appenzell Innerrhoden and Glarus practice direct democracy where majority rules.

I am sorry but you are the ignorant person here. I will quote from the founding fathers again. Read Federalist paper 10 where they argued that Direct democracy will not be as effective.

James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 10:

In a pure democracy, "there is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual."

At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Edmund Randolph said, "... that in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy."

John Adams said, "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."

Chief Justice John Marshall observed,

Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos."


And why are you so concerned by the way? Your post will be well used in places like Russia where Putin gets 140% of the votes in some regions don't you think? American form of democracy is not a mistake. Thanks for your concern anyway.

CFCman:
I'd say the Electoral College indirectly suppresses voter turnout because Republicans in New York may not feel that their voice would be heard if they know that all of NY's EC votes would go to the Democratic nominee.

But if they (Repubs) know that the candidate needs to garner no less than a third of the vote in the state, it motivates them to turn up at the precincts.

None or few few states vote for one party in its entire history. By the way, county and states elections tell you more about the voters in that state than presidential elections which might take time before they flip. A New York conservative is more left leaning than a conservative in Texas. and a Texas liberal is very moderate than the liberal in Seattle. That is why when you pull up the map of all the counties ( attached below) It is very mixed.

If people feel like there rights are being trampled upon and their voices not heard, there will be mass migration every year from state to state but since everybody has different issues that the vote for, it shows more on the down ballot , state and county elections not the presidential elections.

Another good example is the 60s after the civil rights acts. Deep south states start flipping the the civil rights party ( Republican party) But it was just the high educated urban areas. The congressional district's were still very blue until the late 90s ( took 30 years). But if you look at the presidential elections, it will look as if they all flipped to be republicans but the only reason why they vote republican on presidential elections is because the party platform advocates for state rights.

ValerianSteel:
This I support.

So what happens when a mob takes over the process?.