Constitution: Our politicians need to study the Constitution...

bhanusa Loc: Maui, Hawaii

Our politicians need to study the Constitution

George II Loc: Fayetteville, Georgia

they are beyond listning to the people. the two party system and the electorial college needs replaced....
just sayin,
The "G"

Wuligal Loc: Slippery Rock, Pa.

George II wrote:

they are beyond listning to the people. the two party system and the electorial college needs replaced....
just sayin,
The "G"

With what would you replace the two party system and Electoral college?

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

Wuligal wrote:

With what would you replace the two party system and Electoral college?

The Electoral College no longer serves a purpose. It did way back when but not any more.
Part of the problem is, too many people actually believe the USA only has a two party system and it's just not the case. Yes, there are two major political parties, but there are more than two political parties. I'm a card carrying member of the number 3 party but because of the archaic rules in my home state, I can't vote in primary elections. We the people need to do away with any rules that perpetuate the two party myth. As for replacing the electoral collage; don't replace it, do away with it and let the popular vote stand.

btbg

rmorrison1116 wrote:

The Electoral College no longer serves a purpose. ... (show quote)

The electoral college absolutely does serve a useful purpose. Without it five or six states would ultimately decide all national elections. The whole point is to make sure that smaller states still have some say and it works well. That's why there have been multiple elections where the popular vote winner did not win the election. In each of those cases, the electoral college winner won far more counties and voter precincts than the popular vote winner.

Kraken Loc: Barry's Bay

btbg wrote:

The electoral college absolutely does serve a useful purpose. Without it five or six states would ultimately decide all national elections. The whole point is to make sure that smaller states still have some say and it works well. That's why there have been multiple elections where the popular vote winner did not win the election. In each of those cases, the electoral college winner won far more counties and voter precincts than the popular vote winner.

America is one of the very few countries left that still use the archaic electoral useless college.

Why do some Americans so desperately want to live in the past?

Is it the cowboy image that they are trying so hard to hold on to?

The rest of the world is going to leave you in the dust partner on so many fronts.

DennyT Loc: Central Missouri woods

btbg wrote:

The electoral college absolutely does serve a useful purpose. Without it five or six states would ultimately decide all national elections. The whole point is to make sure that smaller states still have some say and it works well. That's why there have been multiple elections where the popular vote winner did not win the election. In each of those cases, the electoral college winner won far more counties and voter precincts than the popular vote winner.

States do not vote. States do not decide elections.

The American people do !! ( or should)

Stupid comment

David Martin Loc: Cary, NC

The U.S. was designed to be a federal republic and not a democracy. The electoral college was designed to prevent "tyranny of the majority," as James Madison described it. It still serves a useful purpose. Some just don't agree with that purpose and wish to abolish it. It's all about power.

BboH Loc: s of 2/21, Ellicott City, MD

btbg wrote:

The electoral college absolutely does serve a useful purpose. Without it five or six states would ultimately decide all national elections. The whole point is to make sure that smaller states still have some say and it works well. That's why there have been multiple elections where the popular vote winner did not win the election. In each of those cases, the electoral college winner won far more counties and voter precincts than the popular vote winner.

HARK - HEAR! HEAR!

Triple G

Here are some of the pros and cons of eliminating electoral college. Why should anyone’s vote have more weight than any other’s in the modern age?

https://connectusfund.org/14-pros-and-cons-of-abolishing-the-electoral-college

David Martin Loc: Cary, NC

Triple G wrote:

Here are some of the pros and cons of eliminating electoral college. Why should anyone’s vote have more weight than any other’s in the modern age?

https://connectusfund.org/14-pros-and-cons-of-abolishing-the-electoral-college

Because we are a federation of 50 co-equal states, not a single entity.
No state is more important than any other, although consideration is given to more populous states in the House of Representatives.
What you really want to do is to abolish the states.
The U.S. was never intended to be a democracy.

DennyT Loc: Central Missouri woods

David Martin wrote:

The U.S. was designed to be a federal republic and not a democracy. The electoral college was designed to prevent "tyranny of the majority," as James Madison described it. It still serves a useful purpose. Some just don't agree with that purpose and wish to abolish it. It's all about power.

Sorry Dave your wrong.
What people today define as a democracy is NOT what Madison meant when he used the term democracy:

When founding thinkers such as James Madison spoke of democracy, they were usually referring to direct democracy, what Madison frequently labeled “pure” democracy. Madison made the distinction between a republic and a direct democracy exquisitely clear in “Federalist No. 14”: “In a democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a republic, they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents. A democracy, consequently, will be confined to a small spot. A republic may be extended over a large region.” Both a democracy and a republic were popular forms of government:

Read the following:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/11/yes-constitution-democracy/616949/

What those incorrectly cry “ republic not democracy “ really mean is the partisan belief that there is more of the other party in the big states than the small states.

DennyT Loc: Central Missouri woods

David Martin wrote:

Because we are a federation of 50 co-equal states, not a single entity.
No state is more important than any other, although consideration is given to more populous states in the House of Representatives.
What you really want to do is to abolish the states.
The U.S. was never intended to be a democracy.

Quote whining about states. People vote not states.
The first three words of the constitution are “ We the people.....”
Not “ we the states...””

Why don’t you be honest and say : my side my loss if we had the popular vote ...

Frank T Loc: New York, NY

David Martin wrote:

The U.S. was designed to be a federal republic and not a democracy. The electoral college was designed to prevent "tyranny of the majority," as James Madison described it. It still serves a useful purpose. Some just don't agree with that purpose and wish to abolish it. It's all about power.

Actually, the electoral college was designed so that the votes of the populace could be over-ridden by the government if they elected someone that the government officials deemed unsuitable.
It was never to prevent the "tyranny of the minority" as 1. it's just a ridiculous idea and 2. The electoral college actually causes the "Tyranny of the minority" as can easily be seen when Trump was elected with a minority of the popular vote but a majority of the Electoral College.

The real reason that Republicans support the Electoral College is that they've lost the support of the majority of the people in the United States and this is the only way they can possibly hold on to any power.

David Martin Loc: Cary, NC

DennyT wrote:

Why don’t you be honest and say : my side my loss if we had the popular vote ...

Don't presume to know what I think.
You must hold that belief. I said nothing about "sides" or parties. And yes, people vote, not states. I'm glad you noticed that. Yet, our current system holds that states are equal.
As I said, what you suggest is essentially abolishing the states and having one entity encompassing the entire country.
If that's what you want, fine.
Just be honest about what you are recommending.
No need to accuse someone of "whining". 'Cause that language sure sounds like whining to me. Best to remain adult and civil, even though we're in The Attic.

Taxpayers get a deduction on federal income taxes for some or all of what they pay in state income tax.
Some states do not have state income tax.
Why should residents of states without state income tax essentially pay the bill for giving a tax break to those who live in states with high income taxes?
[Notice that this has nothing to do with "sides" or parties or candidates for office.]