What if your candidate wins the popular vote, but is not made President?

What if your candidate wins the popular vote, but is not made President?

In instances like that the Scotus decides.

Think back to the 2000 election.

a reply to: neo96

That election was a very rare occurrence but one which does again illustrate the need to do away with the electoral college system and allow the popular vote total to decide who will be president. I don't like the idea of the Supreme Ct. deciding an election due to a state's voting tabulation issues or a vote in the House of Representatives either due to none of the candidates reaching an electoral majority. It ultimately must be the choice of the people if the electorate is an informed and educated one.

a reply to: kendix1960

Exactly.

I remember BIG words after the election. This far no farther sort of thing. What happened is we just take note of the problem and continue exactly the same.

What that stolen election did to our country and even the world was HUGE. Yet, NOTHING.

and nothing will ever happen as long as the ESTABLISHMENT chooses who is fighting them...lol

But hey, right on man, power to the people...errr

Also, the fact that each state can just tally up its popular vote individually, and submit such to the national tally would solve any issues of one area getting more focus than others.

It can be worked out, but we defend the problem tooth and nail, because NO ONE really wants change.

They like the fact that what we have is NOT what we fought for. That the articles of confederation failed because BANKS weakened the federation by counterfeiting and causing discord after they realized that these freaking farmers would get away with living as THEY choose to democratically. It could have been worked out, but the PEOPLES system was scrapped and replaced with a wealthy OWNERS system.

Thats why the constitution was written behind closed doors and nearly caused a second revolution. We were told to wait and see, that this would be good. And it was for a while. That fact is illiterate commoners can not be trusted entirely.

THANKFULLY we are not illiterate farmers from the 1700s. We still treat our people with an air of contempt when speaking about direct democracy.

What is the point of educating your people and bringing them out of the darkness if you really NEVER plan on giving them back what is rightfully theirs....the mastery of their own destiny not linked to the appetites of wicked men who OWN the country and achieve this ownership through underhanded means in the highest echelons.

Until that changes. NOTHING, NOTHING will.

You know it.....

a reply to: tadaman

That is the problem clearly defined. We absolutely must take our country back from the nefarious dark forces and wicked agencies that control it. We should start with the C.I.A. IMO.

a reply to: kendix1960

We should ask for their help. If there are any true patriots they would have joined their ranks.

They are not all "bad". They are like butchers though. You dont ask your local butcher to not have blood on his hands? Its his job. Also, mostly, its not all nefarious. Most are just smart people doing what others cant.

There are no clear cut enemies and allies.

a reply to: tadaman

While it's true the C.I.A. has been a valuable tool from time to time, their Murder, Inc. way of doing business and their characteristic loose cannon out of control lack of accountability makes them very dangerous as a part of our government. I do think it should be eradicated and replaced by something that is accountable and directed by the president. The latter, of course, requires that the president himself or herself is not also nefarious and corrupt. A tall order given the presence of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump on our political landscape, and lets not forget the very shady Ted Cruz as well in this rogue's gallery!

originally posted by: kendix1960
a reply to: tadaman

I would like to add that President John F. Kennedy threatened to shatter the C.I.A. into a thousand pieces and cast it to the winds and he was subsequently killed. His brother, Robert, strongly suspected it was the C.I.A. that had J.F.K. murdered.

edit on 8-3-2016 by kendix1960 because: added addeddum

a reply to: kendix1960

The federal reserve killed him for printing money not in their system, through congress instead, and they used internal muscle to kill him.

It wasnt the CIA.

a reply to: tadaman

Bobby Kennedy actually asked the then director of the C.I.A. if they had killed his brother. Bobby later reported that while the director denied same, the answer Bobby got was far from convincing given the uncertain nature of the tone of the director's voice. Whether the Federal Reserve had a role in the murder or not, there is still much we don't know and probably will never know about this case. Why? because the clandestine powers that actually control our country don't want us to know! I firmly believe that the C.I.A. is a part of that power structure.

a reply to: kendix1960

Do you have any reputable links on Kennedy asking the CIA about the assassination and their answer?

originally posted by: neo96
What if your candidate wins the popular vote, but is not made President?

In instances like that the Scotus decides.

Think back to the 2000 election.

No, the SCOTUS only got involved because Gore wanted selective recounts in Florida, which was against the Constitution of Florida. If they'd followed the rules there would have been no appeals to the SCOTUS.

And Bush would still have won, even with the recounts.

originally posted by: tadaman
THANKFULLY we are not illiterate farmers from the 1700s. We still treat our people with an air of contempt when speaking about direct democracy.

Neither were the Founders. They knew what they wanted with the President, and it wasn't a position that was seen as a representative of the People. They had already lived under tyranny, they weren't looking to create another.

The President is selected by the States, not the People.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

There are good reasons why the electoral college was established as a way to choose the President way back in the 18th century, but I believe it has now outlived it's useful purpose. First we must take steps through an improved educational system to make certain our electorate is fully informed as to the issues and understands all aspects of same, and also to make certain that they are ready to understand what each candidate stands for. Then the country should transition to a direct popular vote for the President. A real democratic system, at the right time, deserves nothing less in my opinion. It is 2016. We can't continue to think like we are still back in the 1700's. What was correct for that long ago America is no longer correct for the America of today once we have an educated fully informed voting population. It is in that education process, therefore, that we first need to put our best efforts.

a reply to: Aazadan

Numerous John F. Kennedy and Robert Kennedy complete biographies, as well as novels by Theodore H.White and others, and Kennedy, An Unfinished Life by Robert Downey, not to mention many magazine articles read and reviewed over the course of many years. Bobby promised to get to the bottom of his brother's murder if he, himself, were elected President, but, as we all know, Bobby was also murdered while campaigning for President in June, 1968.

originally posted by: kendix1960First we must take steps through an improved educational system to make certain our electorate is fully informed as to the issues and understands all aspects of same, and also to make certain that they are ready to understand what each candidate stands for.

This is quite literally impossible. Even the founders understood that. That's why they restricted voting to people who would be more likely to be educated on the issues, and made a system of representatives. Rep's at least can be briefed by experts on each field, while the ordinary person cannot.

a reply to: Aazadan

We need to reinstate Civics in the high school and college liberal arts programs and make same mandatory toward earning a a degree. The class must emphasize political science and government. It can and must be done. We don't need representatives to do our thinking for us even though the founding fathers found that to be necessary 200 years ago. I believe the American people are capable of choosing their President directly and should have the right to do so once educated and well informed. I still advocate the eventual elimination of the electoral college. But I agree that this can't be done until the electorate has had the chance to become ready for a direct popular vote for the President through enhanced education via government, civics and political science courses at the high school and college levels.

a reply to: Aazadan

This is quite literally impossible. Even the founders understood that. That's why they restricted voting to people who would be more likely to be educated on the issues, and made a system of representatives. Rep's at least can be briefed by experts on each field, while the ordinary person cannot.

The founding fathers could hardly envision the tools we have available now, that would enable an actual democracy.

That said though, that idea has its own pitfalls, and you'd still have to have representation to do the day to day managing of government (because we the people, have other jobs to do all day)....

a reply to: Gazrok

We should still be able to elect our President by direct popular vote when the electorate becomes educated enough through enhanced programs so as to be able to make informed and knowledgeable choices. Then, of course, we would still have to leave the day to day management of government to our representatives in Congress and to those at the local levels of government.

originally posted by: kendix1960
a reply to: Aazadan

We need to reinstate Civics in the high school and college liberal arts programs and make same mandatory toward earning a a degree. The class must emphasize political science and government. It can and must be done. We don't need representatives to do our thinking for us even though the founding fathers found that to be necessary 200 years ago. I believe the American people are capable of choosing their President directly and should have the right to do so once educated and well informed. I still advocate the eventual elimination of the electoral college. But I agree that this can't be done until the electorate has had the chance to become ready for a direct popular vote for the President through enhanced education via government, civics and political science courses at the high school and college levels.

It's not about civics and political science, it's about having the intellect to do the job and the time/energy/interest in learning about every subject necessary. No one can do that, and mass media is very poor at educating people. The best system is to have representatives who can be directly educated by people who know about a subject.

Very few people can become experts in foreign policy with just a single country, but an electorate in order to choose our direction has to be an expert in all of them. Then they also have to be experts in engineering in order to design proper building codes and things like road safety standards. After that they need to be experts on education in order to design a proper curriculum, and after all of that you still need to be as competent as our best generals to decide on military strategy, and as if all of that weren't enough we haven't touched on the economy, monetary policy, criminal justice, legislation, immigration, labor policy, health standards, food standards, and many others.

An average understanding on any of the above is effectively worthless for the purposes of voting for the most effective policy. You can vote for what you like the most, but if you only have an average or even a bit above average understanding of any of them, you don't have the proper knowledge to offer up a true vote which makes that person a low information voter.

We could try and alleviate this by offering up tests to prove a person has sufficient knowledge to vote on a subject but history has shown that poll tests are too open to corruption.