Broken Government

[BmorePat87]

(09-23-2020, 02:26 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Ehh, I still prefer the winner take all system.  As I've stated in the past, the US is not like other western countries in that the states are seen as almost of equal importance to the Federal government.  Statewide elections are winner take all, as it were, I see no reason that the POTUS should be different.



As long as the minimum of one per state was maintained I'd be fine with this.  Were are they going to fit all these people though? 




I agree, but that's entirely by design.  Seeing as how the entire premise of the thread is that the Framers system is not functioning as intended it seems odd to me to argue for eliminating something that is functioning exactly how the Framers intended.  I'm certainly not directing this at you, but all the people who complain about the Senate not being representative and kvetching that Wyoming has the same number of senators as CA clearly failed Civics 101. 


Hardly surprising as I don't think there's a single issue that could garner enough support for an amendment at this point in time.

Ah, but statewide elections are not for one president, they're for multiple electors. There's technically multiple post to be awarded. Not to mention, the reason states began to do this was to help the dominant faction in that state. 

Technically the Senate is not functioning exactly as intended. We elect our Senators. The Framers intended for the elite in state legislatures to select the best people, not the masses to select whoever they want.

I also do not think it's a matter of not knowing civics but disagreeing with it. The Framers were no infallible.