And in a sense, that's still the people's say in government.

 

 

 

I'm not saying it's not. The electoral system does, to a great extent, represent the wishes of the people. My argument is that the popular vote does it even better.

 

 

 

If we are going to get into a bunch of conspiracy theory BS, then i'm out of this conversation. You conspiracy theroists are all a bunch of nut-jobs that need to get sent to your own little island where you can theorize until the end of time about how you got there.

 

 

 

I don't quite understand. How does pointing out that states cast their electoral votes for whomever wins the popular vote in their particular state qualify as a "conspiracy theory?"

 

 

 

Looks like Wikipedia's in on it, too:

 

The election of the President of the United States and the Vice President of the United States is indirect. Presidential electors are selected on a state by state basis as determined by the laws of each state. Currently each state uses the popular vote on Election Day to elect electors. Although ballots list the names of the presidential candidates, voters within the 50 states and the District of Columbia are actually choosing Electors from their state when they vote for President and Vice President. These Presidential Electors in turn cast the official (electoral) votes for those two offices.

And in a sense, that's still the people's say in government.

 

 

 

I'm not saying it's not. The electoral system does, to a great extent, represent the wishes of the people. My argument is that the popular vote does it even better.

 

 

 

If we are going to get into a bunch of conspiracy theory BS, then i'm out of this conversation. You conspiracy theroists are all a bunch of nut-jobs that need to get sent to your own little island where you can theorize until the end of time about how you got there.

 

 

 

I don't quite understand. How does pointing out that states cast their electoral votes for whomever wins the popular vote in their particular state qualify as a "conspiracy theory?"

 

 

 

Looks like Wikipedia's in on it, too:

 

The election of the President of the United States and the Vice President of the United States is indirect. Presidential electors are selected on a state by state basis as determined by the laws of each state. Currently each state uses the popular vote on Election Day to elect electors. Although ballots list the names of the presidential candidates, voters within the 50 states and the District of Columbia are actually choosing Electors from their state when they vote for President and Vice President. These Presidential Electors in turn cast the official (electoral) votes for those two offices.

 

 

 

Huh?? I made by conspiracy thoery remark based on your comments:

 

 

 

..You actually think that states have the "sovereign right" to vote for whomever they want? States have the right to decide the president in the same way that Iraqis had the right to free elections in the Hussein era. Federalism is dead. If you're really worried about increasing states' rights, become a lawyer and challenge Lopez, don't worry about preserving "rights" that don't really exist anyway.

 

 

 

where you were alluding that states have no sovereignty at all and likened it to oppressed people of a genocidal dictatorship, then went on to site a Supreme Court case, that, near as I can tell (I am not a lawyer and will never be one...too old) UPHELD the 10th Amendment.

 

 

 

Like I said, conspiracy theory BS

you were alluding that states have no sovereignty at all

 

 

 

No. I said that they don't have one particular sovereign right.

 

 

 

 

 

and likened it to oppressed people of a genocidal dictatorship

 

 

 

It was an analogy. Both state electors and the Iraqi people technically had the right to vote for whichever guy they liked the most. Neither do. State electors are bound by the popular vote, and Iraqis were bound by Saddam's genocidal tendencies. I wasn't implying anything beyond that.

 

 

 

then went on to site a Supreme Court case, that, near as I can tell (I am not a lawyer and will never be one...too old) UPHELD the 10th Amendment.

 

 

 

I'll admit this was unclear. The issue isn't Lopez, it's the precedent set by Lopez which has subsequently been ignored by every Supreme Court decision since then. A test case reaffirming Lopez could (at least partially) bring back federalism. But in any case, it's not really relevant.

 

 

 

 

 

Like I said, conspiracy theory BS

 

 

 

I see neither conspiring nor theorizing.

 

If you actually want to answer the points I brought up in my last post, though, feel free.