There is no "Popular Vote" winner.

[Crucible]

The French system is a two-step election, not unlike a universal primary followed by a final contest. To become the President, you need an absolute majority (but not a supermajority). So they have a first round, which eliminates all but two candidates, and then if none of those in the first round won a majority, they have a second round to select the final winner. Both rounds are held among the people of France, and are thus democratic. If one candidate wins an outright majority (as opposed to a plurality) in the first round, the second round is skipped. This common process is used by many countries, and it guarantees that the President rules with a meaningful democratic mandate, and in that sense, it stands in contrast to the American system, where a President can rule in contradiction of the popular vote.

This does not bear an even passing resemblance to the US system. There is no possibility of someone getting to be President with a minority of the votes, although it is possible to become president having not had the plurality of the first round vote.

France's last president elected by their electoral college was in the 60's. Since then, they made a super majority vote- because like us, there must be a super majority to undo it.

They are a lot like us- they still vote on many things by way of electorates- you are trying to call them apples and us oranges based on that one reform they made with the presidency

No, I've paid attention to recent events and actions. Putin has people assassinated in the capitals of other countries. He has journalists disappeared. He holds sham elections. He has people shot in his own capital. He's an evil man, and you are blinded by your own Fuhrer's adoration of him.

You liberals are just sore losers, is all.
The only thing Russia is guilty of is pointing out how absurdly rigged this election was in Hillary's favor.

And she still lost.
Get over it :chuckle:

 

[rexlunae]

France's last president elected by their electoral college was in the 60's.

Also their first. That was Charles de Gaulle, and he himself held a referendum to change the constitution to a popular vote.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_presidential_election,_1958

The system you're describing lasted 4 years. Or one US Presidential term. Less than one French Presidential term. There was exactly one election held under it.

Since then, they made a super majority vote- because like us, there must be a super majority to undo it.

Neither the US nor France rely on a supermajority for presidential elections. The US uses an indirect election system, by which the people elect electors, who elect the President, and France uses a two-round system to ensure that the President will have a majority. In both, a simple majority wins, but in the US, it's a majority of electors, not of voters, while in France, a run-off election is held after the first round if no one has a majority (which is quite common).

 

[drbrumley]

Coming soon: Rexlunae's 3-volume treatise on how the Trump-Putin conspiracy dates all the way back to the Byzantine Empire.

 

[Quincy]

Why not just get rid of the popular vote, anyway? It only confuses people, as most folks are used to things like reality shows that make the contestant with the most votes the winner. The politicians, even they act like the election is something they "win" . Which is weird, they're elected as public servants, not the winner of some lottery, king for a term or grand poobah, whatever.

 

[drbrumley]

Liberals will have their new cold war -- or else! It's great fun watching these people morph into neocons.

 

[Crucible]

The system you're describing lasted 4 years. Or one US Presidential term. Less than one French Presidential term. There was exactly one election held under it.

No, they took it away the one time it went against the popular vote is all. Europe is just plain socialist minded, stop trying to graph America to them- we left them for a reason.

Neither the US nor France rely on a supermajority for presidential elections.

Super majorities are typically required for important referendums. Except the UK, where liberals were just made by a simple majority on Brexit :chuckle:

 

[drbrumley]

No, they took it away the one time it went against the popular vote is all. Europe is just plain socialist minded, it doesn't mean America is wrong for not being the same.



Super majorities are typically required for important referendums. Except the UK, where liberals were just made by a simple majority on Brexit :chuckle:

Brexit was liberal? Seeking clarification

 

[Crucible]

Brexit was liberal? Seeking clarification

The liberals lost the vote because they insist that important things should be determined by a simple majority. There would have been no Brexit if they did what a responsible country would do and have a more majority vote.

In America, we have 2/3rds and even 75% votes. It prevents a spazzy society from making a spazzy decision.

 

[rexlunae]

No, they took it away the one time it went against the popular vote is all.

The electoral college in France wasn't directly elected as a distinct body. It was composed of the members of the national assembly, mayors, deputy mayors, and city council members. Therefore, there was no equivalent of the popular vote that the US has. Prior to 1958, France was a parliamentary republic. They literally ran the election one time this way, and changed it before the next election.

Europe is just plain socialist minded, stop trying to graph America to them- we left them for a reason.

Not sure what this has to do with socialism. It's just plain more democratic.

Also, it was your example.

Super majorities are typically required for important referendums. Except the UK, where liberals were just made by a simple majority on Brexit :chuckle:

For things like constitutional changes in the US, sure. I'm not aware of any case where it's required in France.

You were wrong. Can't you just admit that?

 

[rexlunae]

The liberals lost the vote because they insist that important things should be determined by a simple majority.

David Cameron set the rules of the vote. And he's not in any meaningful sense a liberal.

 

[Crucible]

David Cameron set the rules of the vote. And he's not in any meaningful sense a liberal.

As far as I'm concerned, everybody in Europe are liberals. It's countries aren't doing as they've been doing with real conservatives in it :chuckle:
You're crazy, hombre.

 

[Crucible]

You were wrong. Can't you just admit that?

You've been wrong about this entire matter, and dragged out the one bit about France's reform on presidential voting, which wasn't even the damn subject, to try and pretend like you have a case.
They still otherwise operate by the same measure of the States, having an electoral map.

Typical liberal herring

 

[drbrumley]

All Rex wants is to make the United States Government more national, less federal. Once you understand the difference between the two, then one knows where he is coming from. Albeit he is on the wrong side.

 

[rexlunae]

All Rex wants is to make the United States Government more national, less federal. Once you understand the difference between the two, then one knows where he is coming from. Albeit he is on the wrong side.

The Presidency is a national office.

 

[drbrumley]

The Presidency is a national office.

Under a federalist system.

 

[rexlunae]

You've been wrong about this entire matter, and dragged out the one bit about France's reform on presidential voting, which wasn't even the damn subject, to try and pretend like you have a case.
They still otherwise operate by the same measure of the States, having an electoral map.

Typical liberal herring

Let's review, because you seem to have gotten a little lost.

1. You claimed that the electoral college is a product of the fact that the US is a representative republic.
2. I pointed out that no other representative republic uses a similar structure.
3. You pointed to France, and gave an erroneous description of their political system as a counter to me.
4. I pointed out your mistakes about the French system.
5. You pointed to the one and only time France used an electoral college.
6. I pointed out that it was something that they changed immediately. That it's the exception that proves the rule.
7. You told me that I shouldn't look at France. But it was your example.

So, my point that no representative republic uses a like structure remains unanswered.

 

[Crucible]

Let's review, because you seem to have gotten a little lost.

1. You claimed that the electoral college is a product of the fact that the US is a representative republic.
2. I pointed out that no other representative republic uses a similar structure.
3. You pointed to France, and gave an erroneous description of their political system as a counter to me.
4. I pointed out your mistakes about the French system.
5. You pointed to the one and only time France used an electoral college.
6. I pointed out that it was something that they changed immediately. That it's the exception that proves the rule.
7. You told me that I shouldn't look at Furnace. But it was your example.

So, my point that no representative republic uses a like structure remains unanswered.

All representative republics in Europe have been swallowed by liberal bias. which is going to push and push because that's human nature- whatever minority is over there gets to suffer until another revolution occurs.
Have fun with your tyrannies and repeating history :wave:

The Founding Fathers thought of this country as a new world, and wanted to keep it from falling into the same pit that other countries have fell in and crawled out of for centuries.

 

[rocketman]

I pointed out that no other representative republic uses a similar structure.

So, my point that no representative republic uses a like structure remains unanswered.

Please give me your example for "other" representative republics. because I am not aware of one, nor am I aware of a union of states under a central government either.

 

[ClimateSanity]

I based that on the official number of likely undocumented people in the entire country, which is about 12 million, not those in one state. Even if you think that number is understated, you could triple it and it wouldn't change the outcome.



Which one? I saw a reference to a study at Old Dominion University.

Anyway, I'll wait for your post on that subject.

It may not change the outcome but if you throw in stuffing ballot boxes and multiple voting, that adds even more. The point is that her popular vote lead isn't as hefty as it seems when you factor out the illegal stuff.

 

[rexlunae]

Please give me your example for "other" representative republics, because I am not aware of one,

It's fascinating that you ask that question. On the one hand, I have Cruc, who seems to accept that representative republics are relatively common, and who gave France as a specific example. And now I've got you chiming in to deny the existence of such things. And yet you don't raise the objection to him, because you and he are both Trumpettes.

Well, since the vast majority of countries in the world are republics nowadays, and the vast majority of those are in some meaningful way representative, and since you seem to be able to locate both your keyboard and also the Internet, I'm going to guess that you have some scheme in mind for tying that term specifically, if inaccurately, to the United States, perhaps by defining a a representative republic in terms specifically of the US Electoral College, despite Cruc's flailing around attempting to use the 1958 French election as support of the universal wisdom of the US system.

... nor am I aware of a union of states under a central government either.

Brazil. India. Russia. Venezula. Belgium. Mexico.

You know what? There are a bunch. Read:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_republic