https://www.foxnews.com/politics/house-d...-days-back

---

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/house-d...-days-back

Both sound like good ideas to me.
The idea that a President might pardon himself makes us prone to turning into a dictatorship, putting one man too far above the law.
Eliminating the electoral college and going with a national popular vote is also an improvement, making sure everybody gets a meaningful vote for President, not just swing state voters.  
Note that if you don't include a runoff election you become more like Mexico and less like Brazil or France. A runoff election would be needed.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/house-d...-days-back

Both sound like good ideas to me.
The idea that a President might pardon himself makes us prone to turning into a dictatorship, putting one man too far above the law.
Eliminating the electoral college and going with a national popular vote is also an improvement, making sure everybody gets a meaningful vote for President, not just swing state voters.  
Note that if you don't include a runoff election you become more like Mexico and less like Brazil or France. A runoff election would be needed.

Would democrats still be pushing for abolishment of the electoral college if SSN verification and proof of life were required to cast a vote? I highly doubt it.

---

Banishment of the electoral college is the quickest way to another Civil War.

---

Banishment of the electoral college is the quickest way to another Civil War.

That is why the dems are trying to take everyones weapons away before doing so, lol.

---

Talk about trying to rewrite the Constitution.

---

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/house-d...-days-back

Both sound like good ideas to me.
The idea that a President might pardon himself makes us prone to turning into a dictatorship, putting one man too far above the law.
Eliminating the electoral college and going with a national popular vote is also an improvement, making sure everybody gets a meaningful vote for President, not just swing state voters.  
Note that if you don't include a runoff election you become more like Mexico and less like Brazil or France. A runoff election would be needed.

That's called a democracy and is fundamentally flawed. Our system is a constitutional republic specifically designed to fight against a democracy. In a democracy it's simply mob rule, that's great when your in the majority but come see me when your a minority and tell me you still thinks it's a good idea.

---

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/house-d...-days-back

Both sound like good ideas to me.
The idea that a President might pardon himself makes us prone to turning into a dictatorship, putting one man too far above the law.
Eliminating the electoral college and going with a national popular vote is also an improvement, making sure everybody gets a meaningful vote for President, not just swing state voters.  
Note that if you don't include a runoff election you become more like Mexico and less like Brazil or France. A runoff election would be needed.

That's called a democracy and is fundamentally flawed. Our system is a constitutional republic specifically designed to fight against a democracy. In a democracy it's simply mob rule, that's great when your in the majority but come see me when your a minority and tell me you still thinks it's a good idea.

---

Love it! The Dems are pushing all in with a weak hand from the word go. They certainly are living up to their goal of “fixing”!

---

Both sound like good ideas to me.
The idea that a President might pardon himself makes us prone to turning into a dictatorship, putting one man too far above the law.
Eliminating the electoral college and going with a national popular vote is also an improvement, making sure everybody gets a meaningful vote for President, not just swing state voters.  
Note that if you don't include a runoff election you become more like Mexico and less like Brazil or France. A runoff election would be needed.

Would democrats still be pushing for abolishment of the electoral college if SSN verification and proof of life were required to cast a vote? I highly doubt it.

Go ask a Democrat.
If you read further down the same article, a big voting rights/ election security bill is about to go to the House floor.  Perhaps you should call your senator and let him know that you'd like to see him or her add "SSN verification and proof of life" to it?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/house-d...-days-back

They're following the process for introducing Constitutional amendments. I disagree with the idea of dissolving the College. A desire to do so indicates a lack of understanding of its purpose. Limiting Presidential pardon power? I am all in favor of anything that increases accountability on the person sitting in the Oval Office, but I'm concerned about where you would draw the line when determining who the President can and can't pardon. What's a "person in the administration"? Are we just talking VPOTUS and Cabinet, or are we talking about Billy the intern who works in the DHS mailroom, technically making him part of the administration since his boss of bosses is the Secretary of Homeland Insecurity?


I'd also like to point out that this is, once again, one Democrat without co-signers. If I had a nickel for every grandstanding bill advanced by a member of Congress, regardless of party, designed to puff out their chest and get their name in the headlines, I'd fix the defecit.

---

Talk about trying to rewrite the Constitution.

---

mikesez
[quote pid='1184982' dateline='1546623584']
Both sound like good ideas to me.
The idea that a President might pardon himself makes us prone to turning into a dictatorship, putting one man too far above the law.
Eliminating the electoral college and going with a national popular vote is also an improvement, making sure everybody gets a meaningful vote for President, not just swing state voters.  
Note that if you don't include a runoff election you become more like Mexico and less like Brazil or France. A runoff election would be needed.

That's called a democracy and is fundamentally flawed. Our system is a constitutional republic specifically designed to fight against a democracy. In a democracy it's simply mob rule, that's great when your in the majority but come see me when your a minority and tell me you still thinks it's a good idea.
[/quote]

Those are the pat answers that a typical southern civics teacher might have fed his students in the last few decades.  Unfortunately they are wrong. 
The senate and the judges were designed to be the guards against mob rule. 
The electoral college was designed originally (both before and after amendment 12) only to send three nominees to the House without provoking passions among the people at large about who those nominees should be.  It has not worked as designed.  It turned out to be easier than the founders thought to mount a national campaign and win the thing outright, especially with states giving all of their votes to the statewide plurality winner.  Part of the design of the electoral college was also to punt on the question of voting rights - if you have a national popular vote, there has to be a uniform rule about who has the right to vote.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Then electorial college was put in place so that the smaller states have an equal say in who gets elected. Would you want California and say New York just decide who is President? I know I wouldn't....Smaller states grouped together have an equal playing field now. Ending the electorial college would make the playing fiels un-equal

---

You know trouble is right around the corner when your best friend tells you to hold his beer!!

Then electorial college was put in place so that the smaller states have an equal say in who gets elected. Would you want California and say New York just decide who is President? I know I wouldn't....Smaller states grouped together have an equal playing field now. Ending the electorial college would make the playing fiels un-equal

Who ever would have thought "The United States" actually meant something.

---

Then electorial college was put in place so that the smaller states have an equal say in who gets elected. Would you want California and say New York just decide who is President? I know I wouldn't....Smaller states grouped together have an equal playing field now. Ending the electorial college would make the playing fiels un-equal

That's incorrect.  Florida gets 29 votes and Wyoming gets 3.  That's not equal.
It was put in place to narrow down a very wide field of candidates to 3 people.
Then the House votes, with each state getting one vote.
So yes, as designed, the states are each supposed to get one vote.
But it doesn't work as designed, and probably never could.
We should try to make it better.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Then electorial college was put in place so that the smaller states have an equal say in who gets elected. Would you want California and say New York just decide who is President? I know I wouldn't....Smaller states grouped together have an equal playing field now. Ending the electorial college would make the playing fiels un-equal

That's incorrect.  Florida gets 29 votes and Wyoming gets 3.  That's not equal.
It was put in place to narrow down a very wide field of candidates to 3 people.
Then the House votes, with each state getting one vote.
So yes, as designed, the states are each supposed to get one vote.
But it doesn't work as designed, and probably never could.
We should try to make it better.

That is perfectly fair because Florida's population is massive compared to Wyoming.

What it stops is an enormous single county from deciding the votes for a whole state

Didn't Maine's 3 votes get split like 2 - 1 or something last election?

---

Talk about trying to rewrite the Constitution.

---

mikesez
[quote pid='1184982' dateline='1546623584']
Both sound like good ideas to me.
The idea that a President might pardon himself makes us prone to turning into a dictatorship, putting one man too far above the law.
Eliminating the electoral college and going with a national popular vote is also an improvement, making sure everybody gets a meaningful vote for President, not just swing state voters.  
Note that if you don't include a runoff election you become more like Mexico and less like Brazil or France. A runoff election would be needed.

That's called a democracy and is fundamentally flawed. Our system is a constitutional republic specifically designed to fight against a democracy. In a democracy it's simply mob rule, that's great when your in the majority but come see me when your a minority and tell me you still thinks it's a good idea.

Those are the pat answers that a typical southern civics teacher might have fed his students in the last few decades.  Unfortunately they are wrong. 
The senate and the judges were designed to be the guards against mob rule. 
The electoral college was designed originally (both before and after amendment 12) only to send three nominees to the House without provoking passions among the people at large about who those nominees should be.  It has not worked as designed.  It turned out to be easier than the founders thought to mount a national campaign and win the thing outright, especially with states giving all of their votes to the statewide plurality winner.  Part of the design of the electoral college was also to punt on the question of voting rights - if you have a national popular vote, there has to be a uniform rule about who has the right to vote.
[/quote]

Ooooooo, now we get regional arrogance as well; Mikey never fails to push the boundaries. And the Senate was supposed to represent the State governments to provide another bulwark against mob rule, but the 17th has been used, again, to reduce the power and rights of those governments as would ending the EC. But us ol' dumb Suthunas is too blockheaded to know what's best fo' us.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

That's called a democracy and is fundamentally flawed. Our system is a constitutional republic specifically designed to fight against a democracy. In a democracy it's simply mob rule, that's great when your in the majority but come see me when your a minority and tell me you still thinks it's a good idea.

Those are the pat answers that a typical southern civics teacher might have fed his students in the last few decades.  Unfortunately they are wrong. 
The senate and the judges were designed to be the guards against mob rule. 
The electoral college was designed originally (both before and after amendment 12) only to send three nominees to the House without provoking passions among the people at large about who those nominees should be.  It has not worked as designed.  It turned out to be easier than the founders thought to mount a national campaign and win the thing outright, especially with states giving all of their votes to the statewide plurality winner.  Part of the design of the electoral college was also to punt on the question of voting rights - if you have a national popular vote, there has to be a uniform rule about who has the right to vote.

Ooooooo, now we get regional arrogance as well; Mikey never fails to push the boundaries. And the Senate was supposed to represent the State governments to provide another bulwark against mob rule, but the 17th has been used, again, to reduce the power and rights of those governments as would ending the EC. But us ol' dumb Suthunas is too blockheaded to know what's best fo' us.
[/quote]

I was born in NC and raised in Jacksonville.
I received the same incorrect education on this topic as most of you. But I stayed curious and recently studied this stuff in more depth. Why don't you stay on topic instead of making this about me?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Talk about trying to rewrite the Constitution.

---

mikesez
[quote pid='1184982' dateline='1546623584']
Both sound like good ideas to me.
The idea that a President might pardon himself makes us prone to turning into a dictatorship, putting one man too far above the law.
Eliminating the electoral college and going with a national popular vote is also an improvement, making sure everybody gets a meaningful vote for President, not just swing state voters.  
Note that if you don't include a runoff election you become more like Mexico and less like Brazil or France. A runoff election would be needed.

That's called a democracy and is fundamentally flawed. Our system is a constitutional republic specifically designed to fight against a democracy. In a democracy it's simply mob rule, that's great when your in the majority but come see me when your a minority and tell me you still thinks it's a good idea.

Those are the pat answers that a typical southern civics teacher might have fed his students in the last few decades.  Unfortunately they are wrong. 
The senate and the judges were designed to be the guards against mob rule. 
The electoral college was designed originally (both before and after amendment 12) only to send three nominees to the House without provoking passions among the people at large about who those nominees should be.  It has not worked as designed.  It turned out to be easier than the founders thought to mount a national campaign and win the thing outright, especially with states giving all of their votes to the statewide plurality winner.  Part of the design of the electoral college was also to punt on the question of voting rights - if you have a national popular vote, there has to be a uniform rule about who has the right to vote.
[/quote]

You need to study civics man, the Senate which is elected by popular vote thanks to the 17th amendment can't possibly be an example of controlling mob rule. The judicial branch is absolutely not designed to monitoir, interfer, or determine executive elections that's no where in the frame work of the Constitution. 

How can you say we where not designed as a republic it's all over founding documents. Cracks me up one election doesn't go the lefts way and now we should revisit the framework laid out for us to make sure it's fair. You can't make this up

---

That's called a democracy and is fundamentally flawed. Our system is a constitutional republic specifically designed to fight against a democracy. In a democracy it's simply mob rule, that's great when your in the majority but come see me when your a minority and tell me you still thinks it's a good idea.

Those are the pat answers that a typical southern civics teacher might have fed his students in the last few decades.  Unfortunately they are wrong. 
The senate and the judges were designed to be the guards against mob rule. 
The electoral college was designed originally (both before and after amendment 12) only to send three nominees to the House without provoking passions among the people at large about who those nominees should be.  It has not worked as designed.  It turned out to be easier than the founders thought to mount a national campaign and win the thing outright, especially with states giving all of their votes to the statewide plurality winner.  Part of the design of the electoral college was also to punt on the question of voting rights - if you have a national popular vote, there has to be a uniform rule about who has the right to vote.

You need to study civics man, the Senate which is elected by popular vote thanks to the 17th amendment can't possibly be an example of controlling mob rule. The judicial branch is absolutely not designed to monitoir, interfer, or determine executive elections that's no where in the frame work of the Constitution. 

How can you say we where not designed as a republic it's all over founding documents. Cracks me up one election doesn't go the lefts way and now we should revisit the framework laid out for us to make sure it's fair. You can't make this up
[/quote]

I didn't say "we were not designed as a Republic."
I agree it's all over the founding documents, which I have read. I've read federalist 68 and other explanations of the system.  The electoral college has never worked as Hamilton described in these documents.
The electoral college was designed so that a Presidential Candidate only had to make himself known to a few elites. Votes were supposed to be split many ways, and then the House would select among three candidates. We quickly formed national level parties that held national level conventions specifically to avoid splitting votes and specifically to thwart the system Hamilton designed.  So the "mob rule" aspect is there, already.

The Senate is still a place where California gets two votes and Alaska also gets two votes.  If there was a proposed federal law that only city people wanted, the Senate would stop it.  And the Senate is coequal with regard to appointing judges.  Judges strike down laws where a majority infringes the rights of a minority.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Then electorial college was put in place so that the smaller states have an equal say in who gets elected. Would you want California and say New York just decide who is President? I know I wouldn't....Smaller states grouped together have an equal playing field now. Ending the electorial college would make the playing fiels un-equal

Don't kid yourself, the Electoral College was put into place for states with the most slaveholders, notably Virginia, from where 8 of the first 9 presidents hailed. They could count slaves as 3/5 of a person when calculating the number of electoral votes allotted to their states, even though they couldn't vote.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

Then electorial college was put in place so that the smaller states have an equal say in who gets elected. Would you want California and say New York just decide who is President? I know I wouldn't....Smaller states grouped together have an equal playing field now. Ending the electorial college would make the playing fiels un-equal

Don't kid yourself, the Electoral College was put into place for states with the most slaveholders, notably Virginia, from where 8 of the first 9 presidents hailed. They could count slaves as 3/5 of a person when calculating the number of electoral votes allotted to their states, even though they couldn't vote.

Yes, that was a big part as well.
It was set up as a workaround to constraints, like wanting representation for slaves, that don't exist anymore.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.