"The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate."<quoted text>
The election of the president of the United States in November against the railings of SuperFAG who cannot even admit the UK is a monarchy.
Nope, nothing about November elections.
The words of a manchild against the words of the Constitution. I opt for the Constitution.
The Queen has always appointed the leader of the winning/majority party after an election.<quoted text>The prime minister of the United King_dom is appointed by the MONARCH.
Yes or no?
I say yes.
Yes or no?
I say yes.
The fact that you keep asking me if I have ever voted for the PM demonstrates your attempt to make a connection between the two.<quoted text>Funny how you have to invent things I never said to try to make a point.
I never ever said anything remotely like comparing the POTUS was similar to the prime minister of the monarchy of the UK.
Your problem is that our PM is not like your president; the roles are different.
I am quoting you exactly, manchild. Inventions are your game.
And these assertions can be found where, exactly?<quoted text>
I am the one that had to remind you that the UK was appointed in the first place and I am the one who corrected you when you insisted that the Queen had to rubber stamp an "election" of the PM.
Of course not because people do not "run" for PM. Party leaders run for constituency seats like any other MP.<quoted text>
The PM is not elected.
Start arguing against what I actually say instead of running with red herrings.
And they have been explained as being ceremonial acts as evidenced by when the Queen uses these powers. You, of course, cannot accept this.<quoted text>I've listed the major powers of the UK monarch many times.
Stop lying, manchild. The argument is that these powers are ceremonial.<quoted text>
You insist she has no powers.
Has the Queen ever refused to appoint a party leader? Yes or no?<quoted text>
Does the monarchy appoint the PM?
Yes or no?
Maybe because the office of PM has NEVER been an elective process.<quoted text>
You have never EVER voted for the office of PM.
Will she ever? Yes or no?<quoted text>
Can the Queen shut down the Parliament today, if she wanted? Yes or no?
Lying once again. Like your dignity and maturity this bet is non-existant.<quoted text>
I'd bet you but then you have already demonstrated you are not a man of your word: you britished out of the bet.
To point out I was wrong would require showing that Macmillan was not a popular choice nor was an elected MP.<quoted text>Address?
I pointed out to you that you were wrong, and you were unable to admit it.
Does unanimous mean everyone, yes or no?
You, of course, pounced on a word.
To run away from the argument.
That is because, manchild, you are a coward who thinks that
catching a pawn means you win the game. Ignore the king, go for the pawn.
Why can you not admit that the Electoral College elects the president?