Sure. But the Presidency isn't a state-level office. We've built a semi-democracy with inequality at its core.
And the presidency is not just for 1 select state or another, you got equal representation as the constitution allows. You liberals need to spread out if you want roll over all of it's citizens.
A fact that I'm not trying to change, BTW.
A fact you and the rest of the sour grapes crowd cannot seem to get a grasp of...Democracy & Republic that is.
Ah, so we are stuck with the old tyrannies of our ancestors. I think the Founders might have had something to say about that, too. They recognized the right of the People to abolish a government that didn't suit their purposes.
Tyrannies? the very right you have to display your animus toward the government that you live under is because of this constitution. The founders spoke of inalienable rights, rights given to men by their creator that were not bestowed by mere men, the right to life, liberals love to end it they call it abortion, the right to liberty, liberals believe in liberty as long as you live as they live, or think as they think, no tolerance for descent, and finally the right pursue Happiness, liberals believe that it is a right to be happy, to pursue their happiness through the allocation of one mans personal property & distributing it to another...which is not liberty, nor is it happiness for the man being robbed of his personal property for the so called the common good...What liberals espouse is Tyranny! Yes, the only thing the founders would have said about the regressive liberals in this country was that they were enemies of liberty, enemies of the constitution, and a clear & present danger to the body politic. You don't know the first damn thing about what the founders espoused or why, you couldn't and still be spewing your anti-American, anti-constitutional drivel.
Meanwhile, I don't disagree that changing it will be hard. I'm only telling you that there is a limit to how long the genuine will of the People can be frustrated, and if Trump starts to implement some of the policies that he's at least flirted with in the campaign, it could push the breaking point a lot sooner.
The will of the people have spoken, and the United State of California will be taking a back seat for awhile. The fact that you all have lost over 1030 democrat seats nationwide since 2009 when Obama and the regressive left had control tells a much different story about the way people are voting nationally, and short of complete reinvention of the party they are toast, imploded, finished as a party. democrats are completely disconnected with average Americans. Trump aint no prize, but if he delivers on the promises he has made in a meaningful way and people realize they are better than they were when he took office, democrats will never be able to sell their marxist nonsense for another 80 years, which was just about the last time America flirted with marxism under FDR.
There are many hard things in American political life that have been accomplished. Abolishing slavery was hard. Civil rights is hard. Women's rights are hard. And yet, significant progress has been made on all of these fronts.
And the same document that you hate, The U.S. Constitution, was the same document used to abolish all the above. You won't get that under mob rule unless the mob agrees, or unless you intend to overthrow the mob . In this country we are a nation of laws, not bent to the whims of the popular vote on anything, all actions are subject to the scrutiny of the laws that are bestowed by this constitution and sometimes they cut both ways, you cannot have everything you want and remain free. You cannot have your freedom while trampling another's no matter how much you disagree with their worldview, that is the nature of freedom.
But that wasn't the reason the system was set up the way it was. It couldn't have been. When the Constitution was conceived, America was agrarian, the industrial revolution that would drive people into the cities was mostly in the unforeseen future, and there was a much darker need. The slave states had demanded that their slaves be given some representation in the determination of population for purposes of apportioning representation in federal elections. This impacted House elections, and gave the Slave Power influence there additional weight depending on the number of slaves that they had, but also necessitated an level of indirection in Presidential elections, because direct popular vote would never have reproduced that added margin. When the three-fifths compromise was abolished, this logic ceased to function.
I whole heartedly disagree with you, the writings on the subject speak exactly to factions residing in regions gaining control over the nation. Interpret that as you wish....I have and disagree with your assessment.
But Hamilton gave us a fig-leaf that the electors could exercise independent discretion. And on the strength of that (yet unproven) purpose, and a sort of political inertia, it has endured.
Actually it is proven, and has happened twice, both times it went to the House of representatives for a Contingent Election. It should be mentioned that there were more than two parties to choose from then as well.
You know what I mean, I think. He won the popular vote and the EC both.
The only one that matters is the EC, republicans would have never pressed to change the constitution over a popular vote loss either...we kind of understand the election rules going in, and respect the constitution though.
I'm as American as you are, and I have as much right to determine our future political course as you do.
I am not contesting your rights as a citizen, or how you vote but, please extend me and the rest that disagree with your political ideology/worldview the same courtesy.
And I'm not trying to make it anything but a democratic republic under the rule of law. It's a false distinction you make between populous and law.
Not true, there are vast differences in a pure democracy:
| "Rule by the omnipotent majority. In a democracy, an individual, and any group of individuals composing any minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of the majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man." |
and a representative republic:
| A republic is similar to a representative democracy except it has a written constitution of basic rights that protect the minority from being completely unrepresented or overridden by the majority. |
http://www.diffen.com/difference/Democracy_vs_Republic
What you want is majority rule, which is just not what the constitution or the extraneous documents of the framers designed. You may hate it but, it is the one thing that keeps tyranny from occurring, be that tyranny from a leader or tyranny of the mob.
The first word of the Constitution are "We the People" for no small reason. The Constitution was meant as a declaration of the People, with the voices of their representatives. It cannot indefinitely contradict the will of that People without undoing itself.
It hasn't contradicted the will of the people nationally, the will of the people is not the majority that reside in a minority of states, it is the plurality of collective citizens across an entire nation of states. California & New York do not speak for the entire nation as much as you might like it to.
There are dangers in Clinton, certainly. Her disproportionate support of Israel (a trait which Obama does not share to the same degree), her warmongering, her seeming blindness to some of the struggles of ordinary Americans. But all of those dangers and more that are scarcely imagined can be found in the president-elect, and far greater in magnitude.
Her disproportionate support of Israel is a direct reflection of the international relations failure that Obama is...recent events prove that. You haven't even experienced this new president, nor have I, so what you have is a broad assumption at this point. I wasn't fond of Obama either and he turned out even worse than my expectations...the man is shameful his current action against our ally for yet another band of islamic terrorists just proves that point. The man chooses to ally with those that seek genocide against the state of Israel...Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran,et al. :down:
It is the People who will be the main body of the resistance. I stand with the better, the younger, the more diverse and all-embracing part of America, you stand with a shrinking minority, terrified for its future, but temporarily empowered by an anachronistic bias build into the existing power structure, like a polar bear balancing on a shrinking iceberg. I like my chances, in the long run.
You mean you stand with the weaker, the younger generation that expects safe zones & comfort dogs when things don't go their way or they didn't get a trophy? The world doesn't work that way and it is high time that someone kicks them in the butt, and tells them that life is tough, a struggle, and anything worth having means very hard work & resolve to accomplish. There are no safe spaces in the big bad world, it just hits you head on. Really I think the younger generation is ill equipped to deal with the reality which is life. If all you have is bunch of whiners with their hands out expecting a government check from those that did achieve, than the future won't be that bright for them I can assure you. You have spouted some pretty platitudes above, and I wish you luck in your endeavor.
