Elections prove my point. Popular votes are entirely uncorrelated with Senate representation, by design. Same with presidential elections. Compare the voting results of the US house (which is also biased but I won’t dig further into that now because it will devolve into a flame war) to the US senate for empirical evidence.
The offices of President, Representative, and Senator are all ultimately decided by popular votes.
Yes, the President is acshuarry voted in by the Electoral College, but do you know how the Electors in the College decide who to vote for? By reflecting the results of the popular vote in their respective state.
Now, if you are sincerely ignorant of how civics work in the USA, kindly go and educate yourself. It's honestly a really interesting and fun subject.
But, if you are deliberately spreading false information, kindly sod off like the third rate bank clerk that you are and stop inciting conflict.
I live in the EU and I have been in the USA plenty of times and it is a great country with great people. Now.. to the election stuff...
If you (plural - the people) don't like the "electorate college" method, change it. Perhaps it was serving you (plural - the people) 50-100-200 years ago, but now life, lifespan, roads, cities, technology has changed. Humans wrote this system, humans can change it. The quote "what got you here, won't get you there" applies perfectly for many functions that are more than 100 years old.
Every time you got elections in the USA, I am thinking the systems that many/most EU countries have vs what the US has, and it baffles me how the #2 in votes "is assigned the task to solve the country's problems for the next 4 years",
- aka president, pm, and other titles all over the world
- yes aren't supposed to RULE us, they are supposed to SERVE us.
Government is a system. Humans devised it. Humans placed it there. Humans can change it (if humans really-really-really want to and they have to really-really-really want because there are other humans who make a ton of $$$ by the current system and they will fight tooth-and-nail to keep it as it is now)(sorry for the long parentheses).
The framers were quite aware of what they were doing by building a republic instead of a democracy. Tyrannical majorities, especially when it’s a slight majority, are dangerous things. Democracy in general is dangerous. It’s 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for lunch.
The federal government is too big imo and people forget the country was built to be a federation of states which citizens could freely move around to and trade with. I think we would be better served to delegate more power back to the individual states.
The commerce clause has to be the most abused piece of law in this country.
You are making the same mistake as the other guy, which is the mistaken belief that the US federal government represents and is chosen by the people.
No, the US federal government represents and is chosen by the states. This is exemplified in how the US Constitution can be amended by a 3/4ths majority of the states, with each state getting one (yes: 1) vote.
It is the states and their respective governments that represent and are chosen by the people.
The states choose the President, but they can't do it via Congress because of the separation of powers between the branches of our government. So the Electoral College serves to emulate Congress, which is a method of representation that all states will agree on.
Incidentally, Congress can and will choose the President in the very unlikely event that the Electoral College deadlocks and fails to carry out its duty. This is considered a constitutional crisis, however, and it's a situation we all want to avoid.
Personally, I like the Electoral College because it reflects the above described political structure of the United States and the systems necessary to maintain it. The United States really is what it says on the tin, the states hold tremendous power because we are a union of states.
In its current implementation, it all amounts to minority rule that is increasingly radical and suppressing as much opposition votes as possible, because they know they are minority.
Please do not be so condescending when you don’t bring any facts to the conversation. Let me help you: please name the last 5 presidents and tell me how many of them won the popular vote?
For bonus points tell me how many bills have been passed in the House (popular representation) and shut down in the Senate (arbitrary “representation”)?
>Let me help you: please name the last 5 presidents and tell me how many of them won the popular vote?
And how is that relevant, again? The President is elected by the states via the Electoral College, which is designed to emulate Congress (and District of Columbia as if it were a state) because having Congress elect the President is very problematic. The electors in turn refer to the popular votes in their respective states to decide who they vote for (and deviating here is strongly discouraged).
The United States is a federation of states, all federal matters are decided by the states, and the states decide by holding popular votes within their borders. Please go and educate yourself on how the United States of America is politically structured before going off on misguided and ignorant rants to the benefit of no one.
>For bonus points tell me how many bills have been passed in the House (popular representation) and shut down in the Senate (arbitrary “representation”)?
This is by design. The House (aka the Lower House) proportionally represents states by population, while the Senate (aka the Upper House) represents states equally.
This is because the two Houses are responsible for different duties: The House legislates matters concerning finances, among other things, while the Senate legislates matters concerning government appointments and foreign policy (eg: treaties), among other things.
Certain matters should reflect the larger states better, while others should strive to not disenfranchise the smaller states as much, and the duties tasked to the two Houses reflect that practical reality.
Any bills must also pass both Houses in order to become part of the law of the land. This is so larger states cannot exert excessive influence over the smaller states. Remember: The United States is a federation of states, if smaller states are disenfranchised for the sole reason that they are small, there can be no union.
>KOSA was introduced in 2022 but failed to gain traction, and today its authors, Sens. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), have reintroduced it with slight modifications.
Or is president somehow related to appointment of senators?
> please name the last 5 presidents and tell me how many of them won the popular vote?
There is no national "popular vote", but rather popular votes plural in each state.
Most states are tilted toward one party or another, which can result in low voter turnouts in those states -- but if there were this mythical national "popular vote", then many folks in those states would vote.
So claims of who "won" or "lost" a national "popular vote" that never happened are entirely partisan nonsense. Stop it.
