posted
I'm starting to wonder if, come a few days more than seventeen months from this day, an incoming and outgoing POTUS will take that ride together from the White House to the Capitol?
Even if the various polls today show Joe with a slight lead over Trump, the polls tally popular vote, and not the unfair electoral vote that determines who will be POTUS (and, for that matter, the "not totally fair" appointment by state legislatures of US Senators, until the 17th Amendment was ratified during 1913), for as the site www.270towin.com points out, "this isn't a popularity contest". Lest we forget, we have had two instances already in this century where the "popularity contest" winner has lost the election.
So, with noting what the polls presently say, I still hold that Trump will defeat Joe and become POTUS 47.
We of course know the lack of love between Trump and Joe, but Joe has respect for the institutions of government, and of course will offer Trump to take the ride with him. While of course, the ride is not quite as symbolic as it once was with both wearing Top Hats in an an open topped vehicle, rather than in the Armored Personnel Carrier of today. During '21, we know Trump wasn't even in Washington when his term expired..
As a historical note, Eisenhower and Truman were "not exactly" known for their love of one another, yet they took the ride out of respect for the institution of our peaceful transfer of power.
It shall be interesting to see what occurs come January 20, 2025.
Posts: 10498 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The electoral vote is not unfair. States elect the POTUS, not enclaves of overpopulated cities; or at least that is supposed to be how it works. Without a properly-functioning electoral college system, five states would have the power of electing the POTUS, disenfranchising the 45 others.
Posts: 751 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
If that is where "we the people" live, why should "we..." be disenfranchised so that the three or four vote states have a disproportionate "say" on who will be POTUS and VPOTUS.
I think that "The Fathers" from the agrarian states were concerned about the very point you note, so this is how "we" ended up with this unfair provision within the Constitution. While such action has not prevailed since 1824 when Andrew Jackson was chosen by the House, under Article II (yes, there is a XII Amendment, but such did not upset the Father's intent), over John Q, this is equally unfair, as that vote is by caucus from each state, making the vote from Wyoming carry the same weight as that from California (well, for back then, we should say Ohio and New York), i.e., one state, one vote. This was the strategy of Trump interests on Jan 6 (well, inside the Chambers) to invalidate enough votes so as to have Joe's electoral college majority cease to be. Then the election would be moved to the House where under provisions of both the Article and Amendment thereto, Trump would have been re-elected.
Posts: 10498 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I hardly consider the Electoral College system "Unfair". I actually consider it a necessity to keep the large urban blobs from ruling on things about which they know nothing. We have way too much of this already. There remains a lot of suspicion that the vote counters in both Philadelphia and Atlanta waiting until the count from the rest of the state was in so they could determine how many "found" votes were necessary to sway the outcome for the state. I personally could not care less about how things go in New York or other major urban blobs as long a they stay there and leave the rest of the country unaffected, but also feel they should act likewise about the way things are done in the rest of the country.
Posts: 2921 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Harris, you clearly had The Fathers on your side. I respect that as much as I respect your views upholding what they framed.
But with same respect, I can't help wonder why your vote should have 19/6, or 316% weight than mine, or for that matter, our Late friends around here, Miss Vicki and Mr. Art, 54/6, or 900% (oh but just think, yours is only 3/6 or 50% of Liz Cheney's).
We of course must note that you reside, even if on the perimeter of a metropolitan area centered in another sate, the interests of your state are more agrarian than not.
Starting with my Evangelical Sister who resides in Greenwich CT, I also have friends who reside in Atlanta, Rome GA, Nashville, Fredericksburg - all of whom hold to the "stolen election" - and one here; an auto salesman - from her, I've bought three cars to date.
Beyond these friends, anyone else I know, friend or acquaintance, dismisses these claims and even if close, the vote counts were "fair and square".
Just like for the past 110 years (XVII Amendment), if a presidential election were conducted in the same manner as for any other Federal office, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Posts: 10498 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: Well, shouldn't they, Mr. Helfner?
If that is where "we the people" live, why should "we..." be disenfranchised so that the three or four vote states have a disproportionate "say" on who will be POTUS and VPOTUS.
Because this is the United States of America, just like it says in the preamble; it is disingenuous at best to remove the phrase "We the People" from its proper context and imply it really means "We the Majority" with tyranny of said majority implied.
quote:I think that "The Fathers" from the agrarian states were concerned about the very point you note, so this is how "we" ended up with this unfair provision within the Constitution. While such action has not prevailed since 1824 when Andrew Jackson was chosen by the House, under Article II (yes, there is a XII Amendment, but such did not upset the Father's intent), over John Q, this is equally unfair, as that vote is by caucus from each state, making the vote from Wyoming carry the same weight as that from California (well, for back then, we should say Ohio and New York), i.e., one state, one vote. This was the strategy of Trump interests on Jan 6 (well, inside the Chambers) to invalidate enough votes so as to have Joe's electoral college majority cease to be. Then the election would be moved to the House where under provisions of both the Article and Amendment thereto, Trump would have been re-elected.
Fraudulent votes certainly should be invalidated, no matter what "side" they come from. To infer that 2020 was a business-as-usual year as far as elections go is, again, disingenuous at best.
Posts: 751 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
