i prefer popular vote.....1-man...1-vote.......each vote given equal weight...

the state in which you reside should have no bearing on a federal election...imo

a democrat voter in Texas, tough cookies...
the State of Texas cast it's votes for the republican candidate...

same tough cookies for the republican voter living in California....
the State of California cast it's votes for the democratic candidate...

1-man....1-vote............anything less is bull....

Are you ok with the electoral college determining the winners in an election or do you prefer the popular vote to determine an election..?

Since the POTUS is President of the United States, the States should continue doing the electing.

Are you ok with the electoral college determining the winners in an election or do you prefer the popular vote to determine an election..?

Are you ok with the electoral college determining the winners in an election or do you prefer the popular vote to determine an election..?

Well, the whole Electoral College deal, was part of the same fundamental distrust of the common people and real democracy that our ancestors in power had. It's the same reason why originally, we weren't allowed to elect our own Senators.

I think that a decision on something like this, requires appreciation of the full ramifications and consequences.

I prefer real democracy, myself. Even when a majority of the people around me are clearly idiots masquerading as grown up human beings, I'd rather have our fate be determined by our own willingness to at least pretend to take responsibility for ourselves.

I know that a bunch of Presidential elections would have been a lot closer, had there been none of this winner-take-all stuff (only two states apportion electors proportionally), and only one in recent memory would have been reversed (Bush Gore).

It MIGHT, or MIGHT NOT stop some Presidents from deluding themselves that they have a 'mandate from the people' which they clearly don't have.

Well, the whole Electoral College deal, was part of the same fundamental distrust of the common people and real democracy that our ancestors in power had. It's the same reason why originally, we weren't allowed to elect our own Senators.

I think that a decision on something like this, requires appreciation of the full ramifications and consequences.

I prefer real democracy, myself. Even when a majority of the people around me are clearly idiots masquerading as grown up human beings, I'd rather have our fate be determined by our own willingness to at least pretend to take responsibility for ourselves.

I know that a bunch of Presidential elections would have been a lot closer, had there been none of this winner-take-all stuff (only two states apportion electors proportionally), and only one in recent memory would have been reversed (Bush Gore).

It MIGHT, or MIGHT NOT stop some Presidents from deluding themselves that they have a 'mandate from the people' which they clearly don't have.

'splain "Real Democracy"!
We have a System here in Switzerland that comes about as close to Direct Democracy as you want to go,and it's mostly a Pain in the Butt!
While it has it's advantages,Amendments ,or a total Revision of our Constitution is far too easy!
So,think before you wish!
You were given a Constitutional Republic,If you can Keep it,to paraphrase one of your Founders!

The Constitution says:
"We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
The meaning of this is simply We, the people of the United States, acting freely and voluntarily as individuals, consent and agree that we will cooperate with each other in sustaining such a government as is provided for in this Constitution.
The necessity for the consent of "the people" is implied in this declaration. The whole authority of the Constitution rests upon it. If they did not consent, it was of no validity. Of course it had no validity, except as between those who actually consented. No one's consent could be presumed against him, without his actual consent being given, any more than in the case of any other contract to pay money, or render service. And to make it binding upon any one, his signature, or other positive evidence of consent, was as necessary as in the case of any other-contract. If the instrument meant to say that any of "the people of the United States" would be bound by it, who did not consent, it was a usurpation and a lie. The most that can be inferred from the form, "We, the people," is, that the instrument offered membership to all "the people of the United States;" leaving it for them to accept or refuse it, at their pleasure.
The agreement is a simple one, like any other agreement. It is the same as one that should say: We, the people of the town of A––––, agree to sustain a church, a school, a hospital, or a theatre, for ourselves and our children.
Such an agreement clearly could have no validity, except as between those who actually consented to it. If a portion only of “
"the people of the town of A––––," should assent to this
contract, and should then proceed to compel contributions of money or service from those who had not consented, they would be mere robbers; and would deserve to be treated as such.

"Real Democracy", the rule of the mob, the establishment of a ruling class and a ruled class, the stamping on the rights of others by popular proclamation.

As to the US, you are mistaken, a Republic was what was taken by the so called founders that met for a purpose they had no authority to do and enslaved the people. Or as so well explained by Lysander Spooner in No Treason #2, The Constitution:



There are but 39 signatures on that document, now all dead.

Holy Moly,in that Case,you are actually living in Nowhere-Land!

Not actually I live upon the land that has always been here, since the big bang, much nicer now than then but still the same.

As to the usurpers, they have authority extending from the barrel of a gun, a gun that is paid for by the victims as are the ones holding the guns.

Nowhere-Land, that fictional space where the slaves live under the impression they are actually free while bowing to their servants calling them masters. Such a confusing place. Sort of like Switzerland and that mythical "Direct Democracy" thing.

I doubt you are in a Position to judge ANY political System from where you are sitting!
Say,what are you,a Constitutional Anarchist,or an anarchistical Constitutionalist?

Judge, what needs judging? It would seem history makes it self evident.

Constitutional Anarchist and anarchistical constitutionalist are both oxymoronic. I would say that you have provided conclusive proof that any seeming judgement on your part about political systems would be the one in question.

You guys don't have to have me define democracy. There's plenty of dictionaries in the world.

And yes, you are wrong again, the reason why we used to be unable to vote for our senators is the same reason they set up the electoral college. The peasantry is trusted to vote for who they want locally, but are assumed to be too ignorant and greedy (like the upper classes aren't) to establish national leadership.

I do NOT myself favor a move to 100% direct democratic government. I prefer elected leaders (hopefully reasonably wise and or knowledgeable) who act for us. Because I read polls, and know how capricious mobs can be.

well,as long as it makes sense in your own mind!