The American government, to name but a few of its admirable qualities, is capable of great compassion, sensitivity, kindness, civility and generosity... in so much as it can make a profit by using such character traits... regularly seen as a portfolio exhibited by charities but whose swiss knife appendage assortment is constrained by a tradition of particularlized functionality.
Otherwise, the underlying Janus-faced nature of its Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde schizophrenic/bi-polar personality surfaces (like an improperly diagnosed acute schizophrenic episode being called a "social mood") in order to resort to using the implements from its other tool bag of tricks called imperialism, colonialism, selective Representative taxation, theft, skullduggery, poison, drugs, intoxication, biological and WMD threats, ambush, intimidation, pilfering, bullyism, exploitation, bribery, torture, right of imminent domain, civil asset forfeiture, rape, kidnapping, document falsification, double-speak (lying), conspiracy generation, pillage, conflict instigation, war, and multiple other tactics used by its brand of piracy secured under the phony white flag of a presumptive Democracy; all for the purpose of acquiring a profit in the form of a monetary or in-kind asset that it hoards and never intends to share equally with the welfare of its citizenry in mind, much less for the betterment of humanity. No less, as an adolescent argues in defense of their questionable behavior, advocates of U.S. policy to do whatever is necessary to remain a dominant economic gambler is supported in their rationale by saying it is justified because everyone else does it.
The U.S. government's agenda is to abide by any and all agreed up international rights, provisions, services and other stated observances, so long as it is not placed into a position where its dominant role of making a profit is felt or thought to be threatened. If a greater profit or a profit for someone not typically considered within its usual clientele can be garnered— by instigating a situation in which one or more international agreements can be excused because they hamper efforts to permit the inclusion of an outsider from making a profit (for politically expedient services rendered), all diplomatic ambivalences become ostracized to admit whichever theatrical character personality will best serve the interests of those in a reigning administration; whatever they may be under a given circumstance of making a profit that the public most likely will not share in... in order that a few might prosper... at public expense (either the American public and/or some other nation's public).
The U.S. government was never set up as a Democracy, but as a business model in which laws could be drafted under the guise of some greater humanistic ideal from which emerged a series of myth and illusion which could assist a few in taking advantage of the many, like current lottery games that are little more than a government sponsored tax on the poor. By advancing a policy of exploiting the public to pay taxes that can be hoarded along with multiple other resources that "just happen" to come available should the nation experience a depression, environmental catastrophe, or war; but are otherwise non-existent to provide relief in a social atmosphere where employment and other social benefits are decidedly absent because of an over-riding interest in a few to take as much as they can... and let the public suffer and grow callouses from self-immolated denigrations that emotionally and intellectually weaken it from starvation caused by a barrage of broken promises and perpetual career politician manipulations that the overall government, in its many departments, uses as but another tool to wrest every last dollar it can from a public cast into the role of being the undeserving poor... and let the people be damned if it doesn't like it.
The public's desperation and outrage for a government system of continued hoarding and exploitation became surfaced in the form of behavior in which the get-rich-quick and even-the-playing-field schemes of Donald Trump were chosen by enough people that the rigged voting system could be triggered into ascendency (come into play) and discard the majority chosen business-as-usual themes of Hillary Clinton that many in the public have become woefully and rightly disgusted by. Heaven help the American public when reality slaps them in the face. What the people need is a new form of government, because the present one is nothing what it publicly purports to be. Its so-called Democracy is a laughable ruse that is no longer funny to a populace that is growing out of its village idiot niaveté. It is a businessman-born contrivance, a duplicity, a system of carnival mirrors mixed with the rurally-brewed intoxications of mud -and- guts patriotism, politically correct tradition and mirror-on-the-wall wistfulness. It was never meant to give the public an actual collective voice through a voting process that was only effected as a means to supply the public with but another illusion of self-determination, self-control and self-direction.
It is a system of cut-throat piracy in which Executives are paid enormous sums just so that they will not steal from the companies whose existence is owed to a series of thefts and who intentionally hire such smiley-faced suit-wearing desperadoes to steal ever-larger sums for them by introducing new models of chiromantic, sooth-saying business prognostication meant to divine a possible future growth that need not actually take place; except in the starry-eye greed of unwary investors who participate in the various show-and-tell story-tellings... that will eventually undermine the public's confidence even more-so when the reality of having been forced to bank on an improbable future comes knocking at their door and expects them to pay in cash what they hold on a piece of paper with the Official letter-head of a ghost (shell) company stamped with the tax exempt, diplomatic immunity seal of a government administration no longer in office, and thus is permitted by standardized laws of permissible corporate and government theft, to be freed of any liability... and leaves the public to suffer the full consequences thereof.
The system is designed to leave the public holding the bag filled with newspaper clippings upon which their hopes and dreams were written like the general statements found on fortune cookie messages... all of which they will nonetheless be taxed for in order to make up for any inconvenience that executives, politicians and selective clergy might have suffered in the loss of yet another activity to take advantage of the public... because the existence of bad Capitalists over-shadow the last remaining good ones. What were once government organized money making activities for a select few that were largely concealed from the public; in this new era of a Trump-style crudely expressed reality show of simplistic observations can now gain approval for public display through a fully initiated corporate-run government. Openly revealing the truth about a long-practiced duplicity and machination breeds a sense of optimism that real change is about to occur... and with change comes the opportunity for different forms of guile and the means of acquiring yet greater wealth... for a select few already in a position to take advantage of the new social ambiance!
If we were to define American Democracy from the phrase used by Abraham Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address:
Some readers might not be aware that it is a phrase that omitted the word "All" when it was taken from the Abolitionist preacher Theodore Parker whose original comment was:
...We might then interpret such a phrase that describes a government based on a majority... or at least a majority of voters... and thus represents the legitimate government, instead of the illegitimate one now being practiced because it utilizes a gaming system called the Electoral College (as well as a "proportionate" allocation some claim is a veiled segregationist formula that is an alternative means of rigging the voting process). No less, although the President was announced shortly after the initial votes became tallied; in a process run like an elementary school-yard foot race instead of making a decision based on an Actual Democratic voting process wherein the winner is the person who is chosen AFTER ALL THE VOTES ARE COUNTED (or delayed, based on a mandatory recount)... the choice of who is to be President based on a selective account of the voting public— means that all the many thousands of yet-to-be-counted votes by voters who participated in a process they thought was an expression of Democracy, amounts to pointing out that their vote is worthless. Democracy does not exist in America because it has a government that was never intended to be run as an Actual Democracy... much less seek a Universal equality... unless there is a greater (selectively individualized and hordable) profit to be realized in order to make the U.S. fiscally superior. If votes are still being counted days after a person is already selected to hold an office, then those whose votes have yet to be counted, wasted their time expressing belief in a valued patriotism that tells them they are duped into believing every single vote counts... when they actually don't. The voting process in America is in shambles, when we take stock of such examples as:
All too often the public is confronted by those in political positions who are able to make necessary changes, but make one excuse or another in order to cover-up their inadequacy for accomplishing the task. Though they are quite capable of performing routine office manager duties so long as the system of bureaucracy does not change, they do not have the capacity to formulate changes desperately needed by the public. It is a stupid system of governance to expect politicians to develop needed reforms and structure a system of actual equality when they are not known for any especial level of intelligence, but are widely viewed as exhibiting the logic of a used car salesman (or saleswoman). In short, they are not smart enough. The can walk the walk and talk the talk of a person who sounds knowledgeable and expresses the need for a particular improvement, but most are little more than a show -and- tell mynah bird that must mimic the desires of senior members, thereby giving evidence of a governing system wholly inadequate to the task of outlining the future path of a nation whose diverse peoples hunger for true progress in body, mind and spirit.
Because the political process has produced a system wherein elected officials need not be anything but a clone of themselves, the career politician often exhibits little more than the deteriorated end result of a copy made from a copy made from previous copies... thus expressing an official letter-head stamped onto a form letter that supplies the people with a bureaucracy of retarded individuals seen in multiple branches, divisions and departments... protected by a bureaucracy that practices a standardized policy of: "You can't get rid of me no matter how incompetent I am, and are therefore stuck with me without engaging in a lengthy and costly removal process; or you can give me a large severance package in order that we may part on mutually beneficial terms".
In other words, career politicians often exhibit the existence of an internalized government cloning process that provides the public with a leadership exhibiting a lineage of incremental deteriorations due to political system that uses a conveyor belt mentality in making a copy of a copy of a copy containing the same message simply enclosed in a different envelope. The government is an institutionalized cloning process that has produced a system run by retarded automatons that expects the public to share in their replicated nonsense. The American system of government is a politicized process of inter-generational retardation clothed in expensive suits. Leadership does not need to be intelligent— it only needs to be a walking, talking idiot that can scribble their name and call it an official act... with copies of the pen bought at a discount but sold at a 1000% rate to a public whose history is one of believing in the presence of a democracy that does not nor ever has existed.
In effect, Americans are living a shameful and disgusting lie, particularly when America relies on the protection from a military that claims it engages in activities in support of an ideal called democracy that it does not itself practice... as noted by the lack of a voting system in its own Communistic (communal) practices of Socialism that it wants to keep the public from sharing in the advantages of its benefits that should rightly be provided as basic necessities that all citizens should have. The U.S. military (and other military forces in the world) says it fights for the rights of others to have a Democracy, yet does not engage in the practice of Democracy nor permit its own members to even consider the adoption of a democratic system!
If democracy is so very great, and is not simply an acceptable excuse to commit destruction, murder and practice various military maneuvers with costly military equipment, then it should practice what it preaches. But if someone says that the military is the way it is because it is the most efficient and effective social order, then the entire nation should replicate this presumed great setting... except that in an analysis, we must recognize that the military is predominantly a consumer, and not a producer... (with "making civilians into soldiers", an analogy notwithstanding). Making the military into a producer entails the need for a transformation into a character profile that its leadership is wholly deficient of in this dimension of thinking outside the box of strict military consumerism. In other words, if a vote were held amongst enlisted and commissioned personnel, and they wanted leaders who were more productive-oriented in order to achieve the same level of self-sufficiency the government requires of citizens seeking welfare assistance, many of its warrior-glorification leaders would no doubt lose their positions and entitlements (though some would want to start a war in order to regain the viability of their war-rior) mentality.
Instead, the word "Democracy" is part of an elaborate government sponsored con game using a bait-and-switch form of military tactic in order to play out its war game mentality that has existed for thousands of years. Despite all the defensive rationales used to support and placate its puff-chested honor and pride, (which are very much the same rationalization used to support dictatorships and monarchies)... let us be honest in what it says as opposed to what it does. How so very weak is the so-called democracy of the United States that it must rely on a military that is itself so very far from a democracy... other than having a presumed democracy whose definition can be flexibly changed with alterations according to the time and place of application for a given purpose that typically cost lives, or a lot of money and resources that could be put to better usage elsewhere. What a shameful and disgusting hypocrisy... a perspective just as silly as a tribe of primitives embracing a pantheon of nature gods as projected extensions of emotionally contorted superstitions whereby situations are deliberately instigated in order to develop scenarios to establish a socially accepted proving ground (artfully concocted by way of artificiality)!
It is the expression of a mental illness in which any nation that claims itself to be anti-communist and anti-socialist, permits a socialistically-communistic military to protect and represent it; by claiming it is defending the right of people throughout the world to practice a democracy (as an acceptable guise so that it can carry out numerous wargame tactics); when its very formula of functionality is against the practice of a democracy... by simply noting the lack of a public voting system in its own communes called military bases! Why in the world would a rational and conscientious people want to continue practicing a social custom that amounts to a globally-practiced socialized insanity that most cultural anthropologists and Sociologists study (without a background in psychology or experience working with variously defined mental patients)? The situation shows a disgustingly pervasive mental illness that some of the deepest forms of self-reflection have not learned how to effectively recognize, much less begin to purge themselves of such an insanity. While many people do recognize the presence of a needed Socialism in the many social programs in use, the government refuses to acknowledge that its purported democracy is not so value-laden as it is defined, mainly because an Actual Democracy and equality are not permitted to be practiced. However, because the mental illness has been practiced for so long that it has become institutionalized, effective methods for cleansing the emotional and mental dispositions of humanity may leave us with little choice but take drastic measures in some instances in order to purge humanity of the disease that some people already consider to have a genetic component.
The Communist and Socialist practices of the U.S. military are bought and paid for by a Republic form of government; both of which pay lip service to a Democracy that is kept at a distance locked in an internment camp... to be periodically released (under heavy guard) like prisoners of war being cleaned up before talking to a Representative aid worker— in order to dispel any rumors of abuse and neglect, because media reports can easily be redacted to serve the purpose of those with ulterior motives... such as helping to conceal the passive aggressive personality of those supporting conservative ideology and efforts to gain the release of democracy so that they can place democracy behind doors that only they have keys to... and can likewise display democracy to the public in whatever garments it cares to provide. In other words, the public is subjected to one hypocrisy after another to keep it from having the right to control a government that rightfully belongs to them.
In using Abraham Lincoln's phrase to denote a definition of what many people think epitomizes the presumed American brand of democracy, it must be further noted that Lincoln was most interested in preserving the Union... with or without Slavery. In other words, the suffering of the Blacks would have been preserved for much longer if the Union could be preserved because of it. In the current model of American politics, because of Trump's supposed win (even before all votes had been tallied because of a system that does not value the "one person- one vote" ideal of equality); America will have an established Corporatocracy that is more interested in profit... with or without serving the needs of the people, which will become a tertiary issue that will compound its former secondary political interest. If enough people in Congress can be won over to this model of governance, the Corporatocratic formula will become further entrenched as that to be preserved at any cost... and let the people be damned if they don't like it because the police and military forces will back of the government no matter how unjust it is to the people. With Trump, Corporate America (and their partners living abroad), have a much easier access to the public's tax coffers. The theft of tax dollars by Bush the minor (Jr.), Cheney and Rumsfeld will be chump change compared to the loss Trump and his cohorts will pick pocket from the public right out in the open. (Or perhaps we should say "Trump Change" instead of "Chump Change".)
In a larger explication of what Lincoln ended his Gettysburg Address with:
We must note that it is a truism... of sorts. But not because there exists this vainglorious stature of a Democracy in the world's presence, but because IT DOESN'T EXIST! Democracy can't perish if it doesn't exist in the first place. You need to be alive before you can be dead.
America's Republic ("Representative") form of government strips away the right of the public to control its own government. Like so many idiots who think that an absence of war automatically means there is peace, they think that democracy is some sort of automatically occurring growth when their is a presumed absence of a Monorachy or dictatorship.... even though the current "Republic" style of government is the practice of a Plutocratic-aristocracy which permits the presence of joblessness, lack of a National Healthcare service, poverty and numerous other social ills to occur in a time of so-called "peace". Peace is routinely defined in terms of an absence of war but not an absence of crime, poverty, homelessness, etc...
The government was and is deliberately set up to minimize, ostracize, obfuscate, distract, detour, and disenfranchise the public from every having any real ownership of their government. Likewise, most so-called personal property assets are attached with a life-long lease fixed with an obligatory cost called a tax... such as a tax on one's own, one's land, one's vehicle, etc... Hence, a person never actually owns such items, they are leasing them. If you stop paying on them you can either lose them or make them inoperable (such as a car that can not be driven without an up-to-date registration). In many instances, a person will pay many times over the initial cost of an item. Actual ownership is just another illusion... a sleight of hand trick like so much of the activity the U.S. government is involved in; along with their counterparts in every country on the planet.
That to which the government is trying to convince the public's of the world as existing, is a FRAUD. The U.S. government is perpetrating a disgusting fraud that it practices some noble character called Democracy, when it is a flat-out lie. It uses the word Democracy as a precedent (premise, pretense) to give itself permission to effect whatever imperialistic action it wants to take against anyone, including its own citizens. It doesn't give a damn about democracy, just so long as the people accept the illusion that they have one, so as to provide a context in which it can perpetrate any conniving tactic to fulfill the motives of those holding the authoritative reins, be it in business, government or religion. The public is little more than pawns to be bought and sold... or discarded by whomever controls the business purse strings, government's interpretations and application of law, or what text of what religion gains in ascendancy by one or another promoter. This is the extent of human historical truth. He who wins the war writes the history. And he who wins a presidential election will get away with by whatever bribe, threat, ambush or bully-pulpit law is best suited for a given task that rarely if ever is based on the Public's Will documented by a Referendum.
However, all blame can not be solely placed on those elected to office and those they help to acquire some position in or out of government. Whereas several news outlets described a "shocked" and "stunned"... public bewilderment... as to how someone such as Trump could be elected President; what such headlines are not accurately describing is the lack of empathy many everyday, common people have with the sufferings of their fellow citizens... citizens whose perspective of equality, justice and liberty have been stepped on every four years because they were run by those who perpetuated the old system of bureaucracy— and is what many wanted to escape from by not voting on Hillary, despite all the obnoxious behavior and lack of intelligence exhibited by Trump. To them, he represents a break from a system that has cause so many problems for millions in and out of the U.S. The problem is, even this type of change will do little to help the people because it simply puts the control of government of those who do not know how to think outside the conventional box of governance except with extremes that will produce more misery... but a lot more money for a few. If Trump (or someone like Hillary) are to represent the American people, what a disgusting sort of people Americans are— just as the Electoral College represents the lack of democracy.
The American public can be so stupid at times. When there exists a system of election which can undermine the collective Will of a voting public in a supposed practice of Democracy, how many more times does the public need to be kicked in the shins, punched in the stomach and spat in the face, before they engage in effecting an Actual Democracy? How many more times will the people put up with having to accept the results of a system rigged against them? When are Americans going to grow out of their prepubescently articulated idealisms that have no factuality— in order to right a wrong (about Democracy) that is over two-hundred years old? And as the old saying goes... one picture is worth a thousand words:
As seen in the 2016 Presidential results in which Trump won the contest because he garnered the larger percentage of Electoral College votes and Hillary lost though she had gotten the majority of votes overall (called the popular vote)... this means the practice of an assumed democracy was undermined by a process which permitted a person to be chosen because of a minority vote. In short, the U.S. government is not designed to practice democracy... only the means by which a FALSE DEMOCRACY is accepted by the people as a true one. Whereas it's practice is labeled as being "Democratic", this word does not equate with "Democracy". Being democratic is not the same thing as practicing a democracy. It is a fallacy in thinking to think it does. The "Republic-an" form of government practiced in the U.S. is an extremely limited expression of Democracy; as to make it almost non-existent because of all the many ways in which the people are obstructed, minimized, undermined, obfuscated and otherwise disenfranchised from running "their" (the peoples) government. In a sense, the Electoral College collectively becomes another "person" that acts as a Monarch who can decree who is (and thus who is not) s-elected. It is the same type of mentality which constructed the notion of "person" for businesses, where companies get all the benefits of an individual but are excluded from any individualized responsibility for wrong doing. It is a schizophrenic-like (ambivalence) double-standard permitted in the Republic form of government.
(Electoral College is) the system by which the president and vice president of the United States are chosen. It was devised by the framers of the United States Constitution to provide a method of election that was feasible, desirable, and consistent with a republican form of government.
One of the most troubling aspects of the electoral college system is the possibility that the winner might not be the candidate with the most popular votes. Three presidents—Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876, Benjamin Harrison in 1888, and George W. Bush in 2000—were elected with fewer popular votes than their opponents, and Andrew Jackson lost to John Quincy Adams in the House of Representatives after winning a plurality of the popular and electoral vote in 1824. In 18 elections between 1824 and 2000, presidents were elected without popular majorities—including Abraham Lincoln, who won election in 1860 with under 40 percent of the national vote. During much of the 20th century, however, the effect of the general ticket system was to exaggerate the popular vote, not reverse it. For example, in 1980 Ronald Reagan won just over 50 percent of the popular vote and 91 percent of the electoral vote; in 1988 George Bush received 53 percent of the popular vote and 79 percent of the electoral vote; and in 1992 and 1996 William J. Clinton won 43 and 49 percent of the popular vote, respectively, and 69 and 70 percent of the electoral vote. Third-party candidates with broad national support are generally penalized in the electoral college—as was Ross Perot, who won 19 percent of the popular vote in 1992 and no electoral votes—though candidates with geographically concentrated support—such as Dixiecrat candidate Strom Thurmond, who won 39 electoral votes in 1948 with just over 2 percent of the national vote—are occasionally able to win electoral votes.
The divergence between popular and electoral votes indicates some of the principal advantages and disadvantages of the electoral college system. Many who favour the system maintain that it provides presidents with a special federative majority and a broad national mandate for governing, unifying the two major parties across the country and requiring broad geographic support to win the presidency. In addition, they argue that the electoral college protects the interests of small states and sparsely populated areas, which they claim would be ignored if the president was directly elected. Opponents, however, argue that the potential for an undemocratic outcome—in which the winner of the popular vote loses the electoral vote—the bias against third parties and independent candidates, the disincentive for voter turnout in states where one of the parties is clearly dominant, and the possibility of a “faithless” elector who votes for a candidate other than the one to whom he is pledged make the electoral college outmoded and undesirable. Many opponents advocate eliminating the electoral college altogether and replacing it with a direct popular vote. Their position has been buttressed by public opinion polls, which regularly show that Americans prefer a popular vote to the electoral college system. Other possible reforms include a district plan, similar to those used in Maine and Nebraska, which would allocate electoral votes by legislative district rather than at the statewide level; and a proportional plan, which would assign electoral votes on the basis of the percentage of popular votes a candidate received. Supporters of the electoral college contend that its longevity has proven its merit and that previous attempts to reform the system have been unsuccessful.
In 2000 George W. Bush's narrow 271–266 electoral college victory over Al Gore, who won the nationwide popular vote by more than 500,000 votes, prompted renewed calls for the abolition of the electoral college. Doing so, however, would require adopting a constitutional amendment by a two-thirds vote of both chambers of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the states. Because many smaller states fear that eliminating the electoral college would reduce their electoral influence, adoption of such an amendment is considered difficult and unlikely.
Some advocates of reform, recognizing the enormous constitutional hurdle, instead focused their efforts on passing a so-called National Popular Vote (NPV) bill through state legislatures. State legislatures that enacted the NPV would agree that their state's electoral votes would be cast for the winner of the national popular vote—even if that person was not the winner of the state's popular vote; language in the bill stipulated that it would not take effect until the NPV was passed by states possessing enough electoral votes to determine the winner of the presidential election. By 2010 several states—including Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Jersey—had adopted the NPV, and it had been passed in at least one legislative house in more than a dozen other states.
During most of the Constitutional Convention, presidential selection was vested in the legislature. The electoral college was proposed near the end of the convention by the Committee on Unfinished Parts, chaired by David Brearley of New Jersey, to provide a system that would select the most qualified president and vice president. Historians have suggested a variety of reasons for the adoption of the electoral college, including concerns about the separation of powers and the relationship between the executive and legislative branches, the balance between small and large states, slavery, and the perceived dangers of direct democracy. One supporter of the electoral college, Alexander Hamilton, argued that while it might not be perfect, it was “at least excellent.”
Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution stipulated that states could select electors in any manner they desired and in a number equal to their congressional representation (senators plus representatives). (The Twenty-Third Amendment, adopted in 1961, provided electoral college representation for Washington, D.C.) The electors would then meet and vote for two people, at least one of whom could not be an inhabitant of their state. Under the original plan, the person receiving the largest number of votes, provided it was a majority of the number of electors, would be elected president, and the person with the second largest number of votes would become vice president. If no one received a majority, the presidency of the United States would be decided by the House of Representatives, voting by states and choosing from among the top five candidates in the electoral vote. A tie for vice president would be broken by the Senate. Despite the Convention's rejection of a direct popular vote as unwise and unworkable, the initial public reaction to the electoral college system was favourable. The major issue of concern regarding the presidency during the debate over ratification of the Constitution was not the method of selection but the president's unlimited eligibility for re-election.
The development of national political parties toward the end of the 18th century provided the new system with its first major challenge. Informal congressional caucuses, organized along party lines, selected presidential nominees. Electors, chosen by state legislatures mostly on the basis of partisan inclination, were not expected to exercise independent judgment when voting. So strong were partisan loyalties in 1800 that all the Democratic-Republican electors voted for their party's candidates, Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr. Since the framers had not anticipated party-line voting and there was no mechanism for indicating a separate choice for president and vice president, the tie had to be broken by the Federalist-controlled House of Representatives. The election of Jefferson after 36 ballots led to the adoption of the Twelfth Amendment in 1804, which specified separate ballots for president and vice president and reduced the number of candidates from which the House could choose from five to three.
The development of political parties coincided with the expansion of popular choice. By 1836 all states selected their electors by direct popular vote except South Carolina, which did so only after the American Civil War. In choosing electors, most states adopted a general-ticket system in which slates of partisan electors were selected on the basis of a statewide vote. Thus, the winner of a state's popular vote would win its entire electoral vote. Only Maine and Nebraska have chosen to deviate from this method, instead allocating electoral votes to the victor in each House district and a two-electoral-vote bonus to the statewide winner. The winner-take-all system generally favoured major parties over minor parties, large states over small states, and cohesive voting groups concentrated in large states over those that were more diffusely dispersed across the country.
Source: "Electoral College." Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite, 2013.
Electoral College: body to elect the President and Vice President of the U.S. The College was conceived as a compromise between direct popular elections for the nation's highest office and rule by appointment or inheritance. It was originally intended in the Constitution that the electors would be chosen by the State Legislatures. But this has been modified so that the electors are chosen by the voters of each state—often without their names appearing on the ballot—by the indirect method of allowing voters to indicate their choice for president and vice president and then allowing the winning party's electors to cast the state's votes for the candidates chosen. Each state has as many votes in the college as the total number of Senators and Representatives. If no candidate receives a majority of electoral votes, the house of Representatives elects the president from among the top three candidates.
This happened twice in the 19th century— in 1800, when Thomas Jefferson was chosen by the House, and in 1824, when John Quincy Adams was chosen. Since the winning candidate in each state receives all the State's electoral votes, it is mathematically possible for the losing presidential candidate to receive more popular votes than the man elected by the college. This happened in 1824 with Jackson and Adams, in 1876 with Tilden and Hayes, and in 1888 when Benjamin Harrison defeated Grover Cleveland. There has been constant dissatisfaction with the electoral college, but the institution still survives.
Source: The New American Desk Encyclopedia, revised and updated, 1989
The "popular vote win" is a conciliation prize meant to appease the conscience of those whose vote was cast for a losing candidate, and must be provided with a salve, bandaid (or tourniquet, cyanide capsule/single-shot pistol). Basing the electoral number on the number of Senators and Representatives, instead of permitting the electorate to represent itself, is a way in which the majority becomes transformed into a "manageable" minority and thus permits the collective Will of the People to be circumvented and exploited by a minority that practices the old barbaric perspective that a "winner gets all", proportionism is only used when the same minority can be advantaged... to a point of exercising a majority of opinion, or in the case of business, be able to receive a helping hand from the public (such as in the case of bailouts and subsidies), but not have to be likewise supportive thereof.
And in the event of a so-called unresolvable "tie" between two candidates, it is not the people who get to select the President, but the "unbiased" Supreme Court that was chosen by the President and can therefore side with a given political party... as a means of paying back a given president for being selected for the position as a Court Justice (and was a position ratified not by the people, but by the Congress involved in its own political motivations that may have less to do with the well-being of the public than individualized internal conflicts). The people themselves are not permitted to exercise a fully blossomed democracy. At every turn the people are confronted by one or another obstacle which denies them the ability to collectively direct the course of their own lives. In short, the voting system, and the overall system of governance is an anti-democracy joke.
An extension of the "winner takes all" practice is seen in the observed allowance of permitting the President to select numerous people for different jobs, instead of using a more equitable system as described by a practice of democracy, thus describing a Spoils System that was supposed to have been done away with decades ago... but is, in actuality, alive and prospering in the U.S., as well as many other countries who also subscribe to a phony practice of Democracy. It is provided to the President as a concession for winning the election... and let both the people and Democracy be damned if they don't like it. The spoils system advocates the people be ruled by those selected by appointment by the President, though others in their respective positions select staff whose activities can have an impact on how the government functions... and the people did not elect any of them to office!
If the people want an Actual Democracy, they might well have to fight and kill for it. As such, an "Actual Democracy" will then be the "winner takes all" reward.
(Spoils System) also called patronage system:
(It is a) practice in which the political party winning an election rewards its campaign workers and other active supporters by appointment to government posts and by other favours. The spoils system involves political activity by public employees in support of their party and the employees' removal from office if their party loses the election. A change in party control of government necessarily brings new officials to high positions carrying political responsibility, but the spoils system extends personnel turnover down to routine or subordinate governmental positions.
The term was in use in American politics as early as 1812, but it was made famous in a speech made in 1832 by Senator William Marcy of New York. In defending one of President Andrew Jackson's appointments, Marcy said, “To the victor belong the spoils of the enemy.” In Marcy's time, the term spoils referred to the political appointments, such as cabinet offices or ambassadorships, controlled by an elected official.
Arguments in favour of the spoils system defend it as a means of maintaining an active party organization by offering loyal workers occupational rewards. It also guarantees the ruling party loyal and cooperative employees. Supporters of the practice claim this results in more effective government because the appointed office-holders have a stake in helping the elected official to carry out his policies and fulfill his campaign promises.
On the other hand, the spoils system too often resulted in appointments that were based strictly on the needs of the party, without regard for the appointee's qualifications or ability to do the job. Extensive changes in positions that did not affect government policy, such as President Benjamin Harrison's changing 31,000 postmasters in one year, also led to inefficiency.
The spoils system flourished unchallenged in the United States from the 1820s until after the Civil War, at which time the system's abuses prompted civil-service reforms designed to cut down the number of government posts filled by appointment and to award jobs on the basis of merit. The Pendleton Federal Civil Service Act of 1883 provided the initial basis for the adoption of the merit system in the recruitment of federal officials, and by the late 20th century merit systems had almost completely replaced the spoils system at the federal, state, and city levels of government.
In addition to designating the awarding of public offices to party supporters, the term has come to refer to other abuses of political power designed to benefit and enrich the ruling party. These practices may involve, for example, siphoning public funds to the party by contracting with party contributors to handle public projects at inflated rates or by granting public franchises to party contributors at very low prices. The term also includes favouring supporters in areas like the prosecution of law cases, the placement of insurance policies, or the levying of taxes.
Although spoils system is an American political term, the practice of distributing public offices to reward supporters and strengthen a government is and has been common in many other countries as well.
Source: "Spoils System." Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite, 2013.
(In the foregoing, "strengthen a government" should be read as "strengthen a given political perspective" and should not be interpreted to necessarily mean make a government better.)
The practiced "Spoils System" is a continuance of the "rape and pillage" activities conducted by soldiers of ancient and more recent times, in which, for example, U.S. soldiers have fathered children in Asia and elsewhere, but have not had to provide any support. Such children, for example from the Viet Nam era, are referred to as "Amerasians" (American/Asian mix)... though other armies throughout history (such as during the American Civil war) have plundered and raped without consequence... not to mention Union soldiers against Native Americans and Native Americans against Whites, Whites against Blacks, Blacks against Whites, Whites and Blacks against Hispanics, the Nazi's against multiple populations, etc... War is a means by which a spoils system takes hold in many social dimensions and given allowance that under a non-war mentality, such activity might well be viewed as immoral, criminal and unconscionable.
Another extension of the Spoils system as it relates to the old military mindset of the victor taking whatever they want, this mentality reverberates in the echo of using the word "General" to describe positions and processes (both in and out of the U.S.), such as:
...and even the usage of:
While one may argue that the uppercase designated word "General" is in many circumstances meant to be interpreted as a lowercase (non-capitalized) "general" sense to reference the definition of generality such as being "basic" or some non-specific... (and yet is a specific entity/quality/quantity nonetheless), the usage of the word in context with a position which originated in a distant past where the usage of the word "General" was meant to convey a position of leadership and supremacy; is all too revealing a connection between it and a military command orientation. It is a means by which a person is permitted to pursue a volition of preeminence which no doubt became expressed in such actions as those defined as forced obedience by way of "right of eminent domain", "manifest destiny" and imperialism through colonialism... and the continuance of taxation without (personal/direct) representation. Representation is by way of a vicariousness that does not really care about what the collective will of the people think... or else there would be both public discussions and votes about every issue a so-called Representative was to vote on. Our usage of language does indeed affect our thoughts which in turn effect behavioral contrarities defined in various terms of conflict. Perhaps we can start to resolve such an orientation by getting rid of such titles... particularly in a "peace promoting" organization such as the United Nations.
Despite all its claims for supporting Democracy, the U.S. government is a lousy example of it. The U.S. government doesn't want to practice a democracy, it wants to practice duping the public into believing there exists a democracy, in order for a few to take advantage of the majority by way of delusions. In fact, as it is, the U.S. government actually is against democracy. If it has to collude with both business and religion to keep the public leashed to its harness, then so be it. If needs to start a war or get involved in a "police action" to keep the people distracted from pursuing a democracy, then so be it. If it must carry out an attack on its own people, make threats, use scare tactics, create a poor economy, or whatever, it will do so in order to keep the people from recognizing that they do not live in a Democracy... but the illusion of one. The "republic" form of government in the U.S. is not a democracy. No country existing today has ever practiced a fully blossomed Democracy. None of us living today knows what it is like to live in a society where an Actual Democracy exists. The Republic form of government is a confidence scam. The system is rigged against the public.
In trying to fix the rigged system, in light of the 2016 Presidential election events, some may think that problems in the political system can be fixed by making them more fair, such as by getting rid of the Electoral College so that the people can have the person they want for the Presidency. And then their thoughts may turn to the adoption of other policies such as campaign finance reform, so that those with a lot of money do not dictate to the public who should be electable. Yet neither of these will actually result in greatly changing the political landscape if those who are elected are forced to confine their activities according to laws created by a system that needs to be redesigned. Changing these to practices will not alter how politicians work... since they are restricted by a Constitution that wants to maintain the old system of government where democracy plays a minor part on behalf of the larger public. Along with these two considerations for change, there are those who are adamant in their desire for a balanced budget... without considering the overall benefits to the people in either case. In other words, a balanced budget does not substantially help to serve the people any better than an unbalanced one.