US inches closer to change in how presidential elections are counted

[Hume]

No, my comment was accurate. Regardless of the system they use, few nations have direct election by popular vote of their leader.

You need to read the Constitution. We do not have a parliament.

 

[Hume]

No, my comment was accurate. Regardless of the system they use, few nations have direct election by popular vote of their leader.

Few nations had a revolution in 1776. What's your point?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[T. A. Gardner]

You need to read the Constitution. We do not have a parliament.

You are clearly an idiot. In Europe, the leader of the nation, the Prime Minister, is not elected by direct popular vote. That was my point you fucking retard.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Few nations had a revolution in 1776. What's your point?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That you haven't got a fucking clue here, not one.

 

[Hume]

You are clearly an idiot. In Europe, the leader of the nation, the Prime Minister, is not elected by direct popular vote. That was my point you fucking retard.

I myself said we do not have a parliament.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

I myself said we do not have a parliament.

WTF does that have to do with what we're discussing here?

 

[Ichabod Stain]

No, it doesn't. Majority rule is often a bad thing. A simple popular vote often doesn't result in the best choice and often results in bad and unforseen consequences.

yes. you're an elitist who lives elitism, fascism and mass murder.

 

[Steinbeck]

Time to return to literacy tests, and add in a basic civics test for voting. It can be given in three parts, part 1 for local govt. offices, part 2 for state level offices, and part 3 for federal offices. You can vote in any election you passed the test for.

This will probably eliminate 95% of voters from at least one level. Hume and most Democrats would fail all three.

If you don't have any idea what you're voting for, and can't read, you don't need to vote at all.

 

[martin]

You copied that from somewhere. Cite the source. Did not read it

If you didn't read it what makes you suspect it's copied? You're a fool, Hume, and this is one more topic over your head. The comment was my own but if you put the question to any Constitutional source you will get the same basic answer.

 

[archives]

A Constitution is the definition of how an incorporated nation will be constituted. It has to be pretty specific in terms of how the government will functionally work. Things like rights and obligations can be made flexible as culture evolves, but how the government operates cannot. That's how our constitution has failed badly. I don't see it as worth keeping for that reason alone.

I’d argue that it isn’t specific, rather establishes a framework giving future generations a template to operate, problem is many don’t recognize that flexibility and are limited by their strict constructionism

 

[archives]

So are the state's representatives. Who speaks for the state / state government?


Absolutely!

But as we all know State Legislatures are manipulated thru such as gerrymandering and party politics while the direct vote is the actual opinion of the State’s citizenry

 

[Into the Night]

Ah, yet another strawman.

Fallacy fallacy.

As for the Constitution, it can be changed, and frequently is,

It doesn't need to be changed. You just want to discard it.

according to whatever fashion strikes the fancy of the SC judges, right or left wing, so you ideologues and fantasists have no room for sniveling.

The Supreme Court has no authority to change the Constitution, moron.

 

[Into the Night]

The Constitution needs to be amended so "the people elect the President."

Won't happen, Hugo.

 

[Into the Night]

Sober up. You comment was incoherent.

Why do you want illegal aliens to vote, Hugo?

 

[Into the Night]

But as we all know State Legislatures are manipulated thru such as gerrymandering and party politics while the direct vote is the actual opinion of the State’s citizenry

Reversal fallacy.

 

[Grim Reaper]

Why do you want illegal aliens to vote, Hugo?

Hume never said a word about illegal voting, that whole leap came from you. You’re not responding to him, you’re arguing with a hallucination you built because you had nothing else to throw.

You didn’t catch him in anything. You just panicked, grabbed the wildest accusation in reach, and hoped no one noticed it had zero connection to what was actually said.

 

[Into the Night]

Hume never said a word about illegal voting,

Trying to deny his posts won't work, Sybil.

 

[Grim Reaper]

Trying to deny his posts won't work, Sybil.

Deny what posts? Hume never mentioned illegal voting, that entire accusation came from you. You’re not catching anyone in a lie, you’re just rewriting the conversation in your head and hoping the rest of us play along. You can chant Sybil all you want, but it doesn’t magically turn your made‑up claim into something Hume actually said.

 

[CasualLurker]

Nonsense .... the whole design of the Constitution is to CHANGE, to EVOLVE. That is why we have AMENDMENTS. It can be done, it has been done .... BY THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE. Our history shows that. What generation will do this is up to debate.

The process that the Constitution put in place for being amended requires far more...consensus for lack of a better word...than a sharply divided America will ever see again. I think that we've seen the last amendment this republic will ever have unless a lawless, illegitimate one is created by the fascist state that we've become.

 

[CasualLurker]

I’d argue that it isn’t specific, rather establishes a framework giving future generations a template to operate, problem is many don’t recognize that flexibility and are limited by their strict constructionism

If a constitution meant to be that but doesn't make that clear from the outset, within its articles, it's a poorly written document.