Jump to content

Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...


Recommended Posts

There have now been five times during this country's history when the President of this COUNTRY(operative word here) was elected to office but who had garnered less of the NATIONAL(another operative word here) popular vote than their opponent, and all because of the very nature of how the Electoral College manipulates the popular vote, and once again and as you Stephan made earlier note of in an apparent display of evenhandedness, all originally established within our Constitution as a measure to assuage the fears of smaller populated original 13 States.

However, lets remember here that when those original 13 States signed onto the "deal", this country was much more thought of being more of a "loose knit" collaboration of states, what with some being "free" and others being "slave holding" at the time, and with THIS being the primary reason for those smaller populated states and most of them being slave holding states at the time of pressing for the inclusion of the EC within the Constitution.

However, and getting back to the issue of there now being five instances in which the newly elected President has lost the popular vote but won the EC vote, let us also consider the thought in these instances the President-elect of this COUNTRY enters into office from the very start of their administration with a minority of his fellow countrymen in support of him and his policies than who would or do not.

(...and one more thing here...if just over one hundred years ago in 1913, the 17th Amendment was ratified in order for each state's U.S. Senator to be elected by the popular vote and instead of the original method by which each states' legislative bodies elect them, and thus then a direct to the people referendum, then I say we're well overdo for another amendment to rid this COUNTRY of how we choose the person who'll be responsible for administering the laws and our foreign policy for the ENTIRETY of it!)  

  • Like 2

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Stephan55 said:

Much to contemplate here.

We have heard your vote against the Electoral College.
Our fine delegate from Sedona Land hath said:

It brought to memory similar arguments from a distant time in another land in which delegates made the counterpoint that larger states might easily overpower and drown out the voice of the smaller states, if there were not some safe guards of a "fair" and "equal" measure of representation built in.
What say you to such an argument that might be put forth to defend the Electoral College?
Doest such a counterpoint carry any merit to thy mind?

Regarding such matters as witches and lawyers, truly none save you have yet brought up these concerns in our fare land. Though I doest recall a similar problem, again from a distant land in another time.
If any of our other delegates confirm such a presence and concern, perhaps a federal amendment can be added to address such an issue.
But first methinks it would behoove your independent consult with the scarecrow (after he has been awarded a brain) and the Lion (after he has validated his courage) before proposing such a bill and submitting it for review by this august body.
If it be shown that the witches are benign, and merely wish to practice Wicca and or Earth centered naturalistic religious practices, then they shall be protected as any "religion."
I propose that this land have an amendment protecting the freedom of religion, and freedom from religion.
By the power invested in me, this kingdom shall not become a theocracy under my
However I may consider any amendment banning all lawyers who advertise their
litigious services beyond those listed in a phone book or on-line search. 

My role as Monarch though supreme is but a temporary office, to deal with the immediate problems at hand.
But our goal at this convention is to establish a self-sustaining government, guided by a constitutional rule of law and free of all despots, be they benevolent or tyrannical.
At present we are here to establish a sturdy foundation upon which this government can be securely built.
It has not yet been considered by this body, and we have yet to hear the voices of delegates from our other Provinces that may wish to limit the responsibilities, size, and intrusion the federal government.
If the Province's choose to extend the power of the federal government at the diminishment of Provincial rule then so be it. But the decision to do so must be unanimous.

Regarding "free lunches" and "free suppers," doest thou propose this as a national measure for the destitute and infirm, or for all?
I see merit in concerns about the former being cared for, but for consideration we require clarification as to the extent of this concern, and whether or not it can or should be addressed at the Provincial levels, or does it merit a national amendment?

Maybe in the 18th century the EC seemed like a good idea, but today it doesn't. It seems silly that

every other election is decided by popular vote, but that for the most powerful office in the land isn't.

Get rid of the EC and let the chips fall where they may. The EC was off the burner for a long time

because before Bush Gore 2000, the last time the popular vote winner lost was in 1876 if I am

remembering it correctly. Now it's back in people's minds, though as a practical matter, I don't see

it changing anytime soon. Free lunches for everyone. Since this is an exercise in things that are not

likely to happen, why not? 

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
  • Create New...