PM Abhisit Announces Next Election Will Be Held On Nov 14

[hextac]

House dissolution is 45 days before the election. If the red leaders read the constituion they will know that.

Which is why November 14th is the date for elections.

If it's so easy, why hasn't Abhisit said yet on which day he will dissolve the House?

October 1st + 45 = November 14

[SomTumTiger]

House dissolution is 45 days before the election. If the red leaders read the constituion they will know that.

Which is why November 14th is the date for elections.

If it's so easy, why hasn't Abhisit said yet on which day he will dissolve the House?

October 1st + 45 = November 14

Stop using that simple math - you will definitely confuse the reds.

[timekeeper]

4. Term and dissolution

The term of the House of Representatives is exactly four years from the previous Election Day. Upon the expiration of the House, the king will issue a Royal Decree calling for a general election of the House, in which the date of the election must be announced; this must be done within forty days of the expiration. The date of the election must be the same for the entire kingdom.

The king holds the Royal prerogative to dissolve the House before its expiration. When this happens a Royal Decree is issue where the election date is announced; this must be done no less than forty days and not more than sixty days from the date of dissolution. The reasons and circumstances of a dissolution can be made only once

Edited May 5, 2010 by timekeeper

[timekeeper]

House dissolution is 45 days before the election. If the red leaders read the constituion they will know that.

Which is why November 14th is the date for elections.

If it's so easy, why hasn't Abhisit said yet on which day he will dissolve the House?

4. Term and dissolution

The term of the House of Representatives is exactly four years from the previous Election Day. Upon the expiration of the House, the king will issue a Royal Decree calling for a general election of the House, in which the date of the election must be announced; this must be done within forty days of the expiration. The date of the election must be the same for the entire kingdom.

The king holds the Royal prerogative to dissolve the House before its expiration. When this happens a Royal Decree is issue where the election date is announced; this must be done no less than forty days and not more than sixty days from the date of dissolution. The reasons and circumstances of a dissolution can be made only once

[Robby nz]

Hang on a bit people, the PM has said IF the reds accept the road map then elections will be held on Nov 14.

Is that not saying that first the reds must accept the proposal and be prepared to be part of the process before a definite date for elections can be set?

As far as we know the road map has not been accepted instead there have been demands (always demands) for a dissolution date before they will accept.

Two opposing points right? so where to from here?

Another point: If I heard correctly the Dr in his English language speech said they would not try to negotiate amnesty on any charges of overthrowing the monarchy.

Does that mean they will try to negotiate amnesty on other charges?

[ChiangMaiFun]

So at the end of the day, the reds lost.

Shame people died on both sides from their stupidity.

I'd say they won (mostly)... what a weird way of looking at it - without the struggle elections NEVER would be held this year - Abhisit would never have called an election - don't you get it?

Absolute crap ----

PTP could have done all of this without a violent street mob resorting to terrorism. All they would have to have done is be an efficient and vocal opposition party. Tried "no-confidence' votes often, spoken out etc ....

Instead PTP did .......... nothing.

and this from the yellow who said 'elections next year - no change' well, khun JD' there are election THIS year which would never have happened if it was not for the protests - get used to it - they won

[WinnieTheKhwai]

I really, seriously doubt that there's anyone anywhere who 'won' in this mess.

And besides, the system as established after the coup (and before that, to be honest) remains. Even if Phua Thai wins the elections, by a landslide or otherwise then what. Elected government clearly isn't the center of power. The appointed senators and judiciary won't go away anytime soon.

[ChiangMaiFun]

I really, seriously doubt that there's anyone anywhere who 'won' in this mess.

And besides, the system as established after the coup (and before that, to be honest) remains. Even if Phua Thai wins the elections, by a landslide or otherwise then what. Elected government clearly isn't the center of power. The appointed senators and judiciary won't go away anytime soon.

I was only referring to bringing the dissolution and elections forward - not the whole kabushhh! overall Thailand is decades away from stable government as we all know - I really do liken it to being around '12 years' of age - as opposed to mid-30s plus of established democracies.

[Chaimai]

and this from the yellow who said 'elections next year - no change' well, khun JD' there are election THIS year which would never have happened if it was not for the protests - get used to it - they won

WOW !

You consider a victory to be an accelerated election timescale that WOULD have been conceded in 'normal' negotiations.

The vitriol, violence and vengence from the red leadership was a waste of time - and costly, in financial and human terms, for Thailand.

Some people just like the sound of their own voice and a feeling of importance.

Oh! .... and, of course, none of this was about Thaksin.

[mca]

Elections are all well and good but the Grand National size hurdle still to be faced is all sides, factions or whoever actually accepting the results of those elections.

I'm not holding my breath....

[ChiangMaiFun]

and this from the yellow who said 'elections next year - no change' well, khun JD' there are election THIS year which would never have happened if it was not for the protests - get used to it - they won

WOW !

You consider a victory to be an accelerated election timescale that WOULD have been conceded in 'normal' negotiations.

The vitriol, violence and vengence from the red leadership was a waste of time - and costly, in financial and human terms, for Thailand.

Some people just like the sound of their own voice and a feeling of importance.

Oh! .... and, of course, none of this was about Thaksin.

Hang on! be fair - whatever the methodology you AGREE that their protests have succeeded right? the term of the government is two more years - and we now have dissolution on the horizon and an election DATE. IF Abhisit has given this earlier we may not have had all these violent problems (which i am wholly against by the way).

You cannot say 'WOULD' you don't know... and without the protsets there WOULD have been NO negotiations anyway! so in this sense and context - they won.

[bangkokrick]

and this from the yellow who said 'elections next year - no change' well, khun JD' there are election THIS year which would never have happened if it was not for the protests - get used to it - they won

WOW !

You consider a victory to be an accelerated election timescale that WOULD have been conceded in 'normal' negotiations.

The vitriol, violence and vengence from the red leadership was a waste of time - and costly, in financial and human terms, for Thailand.

Some people just like the sound of their own voice and a feeling of importance.

Oh! .... and, of course, none of this was about Thaksin.

Hang on! be fair - whatever the methodology you AGREE that their protests have succeeded right? the term of the government is two more years - and we now have dissolution on the horizon and an election DATE. IF Abhisit has given this earlier we may not have had all these violent problems (which i am wholly against by the way).

You cannot say 'WOULD' you don't know... and without the protsets there WOULD have been NO negotiations anyway! so in this sense and context - they won.

No one has one in this situation. Thailand has lost lives, credibility, jobs, money and tourism. It will be a long time before any of this is restored.

Cheers, Rick

[Chaimai]

Hang on! be fair - whatever the methodology you AGREE that their protests have succeeded right? the term of the government is two more years - and we now have dissolution on the horizon and an election DATE. IF Abhisit has given this earlier we may not have had all these violent problems (which i am wholly against by the way).

You cannot say 'WOULD' you don't know... and without the protsets there WOULD have been NO negotiations anyway! so in this sense and context - they won.

You can repeat it as many times as you like but you still will not build up this 'hollow victory' into the resounding 'win' that you desire.

On balance, I genuinely believe that the protest has done the red movement more harm than good. In terms of PR it has been a disaster - from the 'blood donation' to the hospital incursion.

The accelerated election date could have been achieved without the bloodshed and hystrionics of Arisman et al. Remember. Abhisit brought the 'elections this year' out of the locker at a very early stage. Unfortunately, the arrogance of the red leaders (and the non-driving force of Thaksin) did not want a negotiated solution. Thy wanted to play the 'bigger dick' competition without the right tackle !

Two good things do come out of this - first, the further alienation of Thaksin. Whilst the spectre of Khun T hangs over Thailand it is difficult to progress. Secondly, Thailand (better placed with Abhisit in the chair) has the unique opportunity to show the world that it can hold free and fair elections. I agree 100% that, subject to this genuinely happening, whoever wins will be a valid government.

I am not confident that Thailand is ready to achieve this, based on what I have seen over the last 2 months.

[ChiangMaiFun]

Hang on! be fair - whatever the methodology you AGREE that their protests have succeeded right? the term of the government is two more years - and we now have dissolution on the horizon and an election DATE. IF Abhisit has given this earlier we may not have had all these violent problems (which i am wholly against by the way).

You cannot say 'WOULD' you don't know... and without the protsets there WOULD have been NO negotiations anyway! so in this sense and context - they won.

You can repeat it as many times as you like but you still will not build up this 'hollow victory' into the resounding 'win' that you desire.

On balance, I genuinely believe that the protest has done the red movement more harm than good. In terms of PR it has been a disaster - from the 'blood donation' to the hospital incursion.

The accelerated election date could have been achieved without the bloodshed and hystrionics of Arisman et al. Remember. Abhisit brought the 'elections this year' out of the locker at a very early stage. Unfortunately, the arrogance of the red leaders (and the non-driving force of Thaksin) did not want a negotiated solution. Thy wanted to play the 'bigger dick' competition without the right tackle !

Two good things do come out of this - first, the further alienation of Thaksin. Whilst the spectre of Khun T hangs over Thailand it is difficult to progress. Secondly, Thailand (better placed with Abhisit in the chair) has the unique opportunity to show the world that it can hold free and fair elections. I agree 100% that, subject to this genuinely happening, whoever wins will be a valid government.

I am not confident that Thailand is ready to achieve this, based on what I have seen over the last 2 months.

coulds and woulds - we don't know and we are 'where we are' - let's try and get a fair election and whoever wins get's my support IF there are no tricks and dicks who try an steal it (heaven forbid!).

[pornsasi]

Of course we got to see the final conclusion and the termination of protests but IMHO :

Common sense won , and that means moderates like Abhisit , Anupong and on the red side Veera won .

And that means Thailand won .

Red or anti red cretins-fanatics lost

And that is good ...

[Chaimai]

coulds and woulds - we don't know and we are 'where we are' - let's try and get a fair election and whoever wins get's my support IF there are no tricks and dicks who try an steal it (heaven forbid!).

Something we agree on 100%

[WarpSpeed]

Elections are all well and good but the Grand National size hurdle still to be faced is all sides, factions or whoever actually accepting the results of those elections.

I'm not holding my breath....

Yes and I think this entire proposal should be predicated on not only this point publicly with posted penalties described in gory detail openly and up front for all to sign and accept, but as well I think that both parties leaders who broke laws and instigated illegal criminal demonstrations (I.E. taking over the airports etc.) should be fully prosecuted equally at which point once convicted they would then be commuted by the powers that be in the annual ceremonies. The timing would be perfect too as it would follow shortly thereafter of the elections and would go a long ways towards reconciliation and putting this behind all concerned..

Granted most of it would be show, but what is politics anyway if not a show? They need a fairy tail ending to this drama and this would provide that for the country's healing process IMO..

[pornsasi]

coulds and woulds - we don't know and we are 'where we are' - let's try and get a fair election and whoever wins get's my support IF there are no tricks and dicks who try an steal it (heaven forbid!).

Something we agree on 100%

Secunded

[elcent]

found on CNN home page just now ...

TOURISM INDUSTRY REACTS ...

Forget Phuket, there are now other Asian tourist hotspots to consider. Hainan, Marinduque, Phu Quoc and the Ho Tram Strip are being touted by developers and local governments as Asia's next major tourist destinations. FULL STORY

[mavup]

Bangkok Faces Risks in November Vote Offer

Wall Street Journal

May 5, 2010

BANGKOK—Thailand's army leaders made an enemy when they assigned Maj. Gen. Khattiya Sawasdipol to lead aerobics-dance classes in Bangkok's public markets a couple of years ago.

Rebel leader Maj. Gen. Khattiya Sawasdipol runs a radical group of Thailand's Red Shirt protesters from within a fortified area close to Bangkok's financial district. Some analysts worry that his faction could turn violent.

Today, Maj. Gen. Khattiya is a renegade operating among the Red Shirt protesters in Bangkok's streets, and his increasingly militant followers illustrate the risks the government faces if it fails to secure a political deal to end the eight-week crisis.

Protest leaders Tuesday appeared close to agreeing to Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva's latest offer to hold elections on Nov. 14 in exchange for calling off the debilitating demonstrations, which have crippled Bangkok's main shopping district for weeks and caused hundreds of millions of dollars in losses. Thaksin Shinawatra, the fugitive former prime minister ousted in a 2006 military coup who is a driving force behind Red Shirt protests, said in a phone call to supporters Tuesday that prospects for reconciliation were good.

Rally organizers, however, said they were waiting for proof of the government's sincerity, and questioned the proposed election date. "We want to see the government commit to a dissolution," said Nattawut Saikua, one of the main protest leaders. "It's in the government's hands now."

Thai stock-market prices soared on news that the Red Shirts were considering the election offer. The Stock Exchange of Thailand Index rose 4.4% to close at 796.86 points.

But if the offer is rejected amid disputes over the polling date, political analysts say tensions could deteriorate further—and open the way for hard-liners to determine what happens next.

Though the anti-government protesters in Thailand are ostensibly pitted against the Royal Thai Armed Forces, the truth is much more ambiguous.

One such hard-liner is Maj. Gen. Khattiya, better known as "Seh Daeng," or, roughly, "Commander Red." His followers represent a volatile splinter group in the protesters' push to replace a bureaucratic establishment with a populist, rural-dominated government. Some independent analysts say Maj. Gen. Khattiya's growing influence over such militant members of the broader Red Shirt movement could lead to bloodshed.

The major general on Tuesday scoffed at the prime minister's latest offer. "He's trying to trick the protest leaders into stepping down, but the protesters want to stay," he said. "It's just a plan to buy time and push up stock prices."

Maj. Gen. Khattiya, suspended from duty in 2008 for visiting Thaksin overseas without permission, was once a rising star in Thailand's armed forces, trained in fighting antigovernment forces. He earned his reputation as a maverick fighting Communist insurgents in near the border with Laos in the 1970s and Muslim rebels in the south. He scorns what he calls his superiors' fondness for golf, which he considers soft, and promotes himself as a Thai-style Rambo in a series of books he has written about his exploits in the field.

His assignment to lead aerobics classes—not unusual in Thai army discipline—appeared to designed to cure Maj. Gen. Khattiya of his radical political views and to bring him in line with the chain of command. The reorientation didn't work.

On the streets of Bangkok, his followers—some of whom appear to be teenagers—are a fringe subset of the broader antigovernment movement. Though their number isn't known, some 5,000 people have joined his new populist and militaristic Khattiya Karma political party.

"Change is coming to Thailand, and the army won't be able to withstand us," Maj. Gen. Khattiya, 58 years old, says during an interview, while keeping a watchful eye on his shock-troops patrolling their base camp at the entrance to Bangkok's main business district.

He says he raised his ragtag militia for one last mission: to turn the marathon anti-government protest on the streets of Bangkok into a full-blown civil war.

Maj. Gen. Khattiya's critics dismiss him as a showman full of bluster. Some mainstream Red Shirt leaders disown him and his methods, including barricading a hospital near the site where protesters have been camped out for more than a month.

But the rogue commander says he has his own authority stemming directly from Thaksin.

He has the ear of the former prime minister, visiting him several times in Dubai and elsewhere since the military coup forced the leader from power in 2006, the major general and Army officers say.

"I won't leave until Thaksin tells me to," Maj. Gen. Khattiya adds.

Thaksin couldn't be reached to comment.

It is unclear how heavily Maj. Gen. Khattiya or his followers are armed, or whether they rely solely on their supply of rocks and sharpened bamboo stakes.

Already, 27 demonstrators have been killed and more than 100 injured during the conflict, most during violent clashes with troops on April 10. Maj. Gen. Khattiya denies being involved in any of the violence. But he adds that talking without the threat of arms to back it up is "useless"—a stance that makes him a figure of fear in Bangkok's nervous business community.

At the same time, many protesters are devoted to Maj. Gen. Khattiya, snapping up his line of T-shirts and jackets.

"I feel warm inside when I see him. He's a good soldier who takes care of the people here," says Toy Jitsuwan, a 56-year-old hairstylist, clasping her hands to her breast.

Political analysts here say the protest movement has several layers, each operating relatively independently from each other.

That means Red Shirt leaders can claim to have nothing to do with Maj. Gen. Khattiya while benefiting from whatever havoc he might wreak.

It also means his arguments for violent resistance lend credibility to the Thai government's claims that "terrorists" within the protesters' ranks are bent on overthrowing the country's venerated monarchy.

On the front lines of the active center of the protest, Maj. Gen. Khattiya's word is law.

Suspected infiltrators are escorted out of the encampment with a nod of his head, and barricades are erected or moved at his say-so.

He struts around his personal redoubt inside the larger Red Shirt camp, wearing military fatigues in open view of police and soldiers, even though he was recently freed on bail after being charged for illegally possessing firearms.

He sometimes ventures further into public areas, especially when television crews are around, and makes a performance of inspecting the sharpened bamboo stakes and kerosene-soaked tires that fortify the protesters' camp.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...ttoWhatsNewsTop

[noahvail]

House dissolution is 45 days before the election. If the red leaders read the constituion they will know that.

Which is why November 14th is the date for elections.

If it's so easy, why hasn't Abhisit said yet on which day he will dissolve the House?

Now, DeadSnoopy, you know that the only person in the entire world who can answer that question is the PM himself.

So asking on ThaiVisa, Why won't he do it? Why won't he do it? Why won't he do it? Why won't he do it? two hundred times is not going to get you an answer, only ramp up your post count. You're doing a good job of that, eh...

I can't wait for when the good PM answers your question. Then I expect another 200 posts of, He won't go through with it! He won't go through with it! He won't go through with it! from you. Predictable.

Sounds childish when I write it, I know. Sounds childish when you write it, too. I'm only writing it to put up a mirror for you to look into. Sadly, when you do it, it has become the whinging of a person who happens to have a lot of time on his hands and is a fast typist.

If there are those out there who think I'm feeding the troll, perhaps you are right. Thing is, he may actually believe the stuff he writing...even the lies that have come from the one and only DeadSnoopy.

[otherstuff1957]

Snoopy is doing a Weng!

[TAWP]

Another reason why the PM should be elected by the thai people rather then by a fleety coalition of conflicting and changing interests .

Within the constitutional monarchy and under the supreme authority of HM that is ...

I strongly disagree. A president is elected by the people, a PM is elected by the MPs that are elected by the people. That is how it is done in most countries.

[noahvail]

Another reason why the PM should be elected by the thai people rather then by a fleety coalition of conflicting and changing interests .

Within the constitutional monarchy and under the supreme authority of HM that is ...

I strongly disagree. A president is elected by the people, a PM is elected by the MPs that are elected by the people. That is how it is done in most countries.

Even in the United States, the President is not elected by a direct popular vote. Each person votes for an elector from his/her district. These people form the electoral college. A snippet from the America.gov website:

"More than 100 million voters are likely to cast ballots in nationwide U.S. elections November 4 (2008). But only 538 men and women will elect the next president of the United States, and those elections will take place in 50 state capitals and in Washington, D.C., December 15. This indirect election system, called the Electoral College and devised in 1787 by the framers of the Constitution, puzzles Americans and non-Americans alike. It reflects the federal governing system of allocating powers not only to a national government and to the people but also to the states."

So, even in that bastion of democracy where one man, one vote is the rallying cry - it's only the 538 people who comprise the Electoral College who vote directly for the President. And each one can make a vote of conscience different from the ballot that its constituents have voted for. Even if each elector votes the way his constituency wants, it's still possible to have a President lose the popular vote election yet win the Presidency itself.

As I recall, that's happened four times so far, but I can't be certain of those particular memory cells

[pornsasi]

Another reason why the PM should be elected by the thai people rather then by a fleety coalition of conflicting and changing interests .

Within the constitutional monarchy and under the supreme authority of HM that is ...

I strongly disagree. A president is elected by the people, a PM is elected by the MPs that are elected by the people. That is how it is done in most countries.

Dont strongly disagree unless better informed .

ISRAEL

ElectionDuring the thirteenth Knesset (1992–1996) it was decided to hold a separate ballot for prime minister modeled after American presidential elections. In 1996, when the first such election took place, the outcome was a surprise win for Benjamin Netanyahu after election polls predicted that Peres was the winner.^[2] However, in the Knesset election held at the same time, Labour won. Thus Netanyahu, despite his theoretical position of power, needed the support of the religious parties to form a viable government.

Ultimately Netanyahu failed to hold the government together, and early elections for both Prime Minister and the Knesset were called in 1999. Although five candidates announced their intention to run, the three representing minor parties (Benny Begin of Herut – The National Movement, Azmi Bishara of Balad and Yitzhak Mordechai of the Centre Party) dropped out before election day, and Ehud Barak beat Netanyahu in the election. However, the new system had failed again, as although Barak's One Israel party (an alliance of Labour, Gesher and Meimad) won the Knesset election, they garnered only 26 seats, the lowest ever by a winning party, meaning that a coalition with six smaller parties was once again necessary.

In early 2001, Barak resigned following the outbreak of the al-Aqsa Intifada. However, the government was not brought down, and only elections for prime minister were necessary. In the election itself, Ariel Sharon comfortably beat Barak, taking 62.4% of the vote. However, because Likud only had 21 seats in the Knesset, Sharon had to form a national unity government. Following Sharon's victory, it was decided to scrap separate elections for prime minister and return to the previous system.

[ChiangMaiFun]

Snoopy is doing a Weng!

You're Weng there - I like Snoopy's posts

[ChiangMaiFun]

coulds and woulds - we don't know and we are 'where we are' - let's try and get a fair election and whoever wins get's my support IF there are no tricks and dicks who try an steal it (heaven forbid!).

Something we agree on 100%

Ohhh that's worrying...

[pornsasi]

Another reason why the PM should be elected by the thai people rather then by a fleety coalition of conflicting and changing interests .

Within the constitutional monarchy and under the supreme authority of HM that is ...

I strongly disagree. A president is elected by the people, a PM is elected by the MPs that are elected by the people. That is how it is done in most countries.

How one become PM :

Appointment by the head of state after parliament nominates a candidate: Example: The Republic of Ireland where the President of Ireland appoints the Taoiseach on the nomination of the Dáil Éireann. <LI>The head of state nominates a candidate for prime minister who is then submitted to parliament for approval before appointment as prime minister: Example: Spain, where the King sends a nomination to parliament for approval. Also Germany where under the German Basic Law (constitution) the Bundestag votes on a candidate nominated by the federal president. In these cases, parliament can choose another candidate who then would be appointed by the head of state. <LI>The head of state appoints a prime minister who has a set timescale within which s/he must gain a vote of confidence: (Example: Italy, Romania, Thailand) <LI>The head of state appoints the leader of the political party with the majority of the votes in the Parliament as Prime Minister: (Example: Greece) <LI>Direct election by parliament: (Example: Japan, Papua New Guinea, Pakistan.) <LI>Direct election by popular vote: (Example: Israel, 1996–2001, where the prime minister was elected in a general election, with no regard to political affiliation.) <LI>Nomination by a state office holder other than the head of state or his/her representative: (Example: Under the modern Swedish Instrument of Government, the power to appoint someone to form a government has been moved from the monarch to the Speaker of Parliament and the parliament itself. The speaker nominates a candidate, who is then elected to prime minister (statsminister) by the parliament if an absolute majority of the members of parliament does not vote no (i.e. he can be elected even if more MP:s vote no than yes).

[ChiangMaiFun]

Another reason why the PM should be elected by the thai people rather then by a fleety coalition of conflicting and changing interests .

Within the constitutional monarchy and under the supreme authority of HM that is ...

I strongly disagree. A president is elected by the people, a PM is elected by the MPs that are elected by the people. That is how it is done in most countries.

veering into things we cannot discuss - but is a large part of all this - if only Thailand trusted it's people and allowed them to SPEAK instead of the draconian censorship laws.

[pornsasi]

Another reason why the PM should be elected by the thai people rather then by a fleety coalition of conflicting and changing interests .

Within the constitutional monarchy and under the supreme authority of HM that is ...

I strongly disagree. A president is elected by the people, a PM is elected by the MPs that are elected by the people. That is how it is done in most countries.

Even in the United States, the President is not elected by a direct popular vote. Each person votes for an elector from his/her district. These people form the electoral college. A snippet from the America.gov website:

"More than 100 million voters are likely to cast ballots in nationwide U.S. elections November 4 (2008). But only 538 men and women will elect the next president of the United States, and those elections will take place in 50 state capitals and in Washington, D.C., December 15. This indirect election system, called the Electoral College and devised in 1787 by the framers of the Constitution, puzzles Americans and non-Americans alike. It reflects the federal governing system of allocating powers not only to a national government and to the people but also to the states."

So, even in that bastion of democracy where one man, one vote is the rallying cry - it's only the 538 people who comprise the Electoral College who vote directly for the President. And each one can make a vote of conscience different from the ballot that its constituents have voted for. Even if each elector votes the way his constituency wants, it's still possible to have a President lose the popular vote election yet win the Presidency itself.

As I recall, that's happened four times so far, but I can't be certain of those particular memory cells

What you say is true but in 93% of cases, throughout the entire and tumultuous presidential US history , the vote of the electoral college and the popular vote were the same . Which means that in practice the president is almost always elected by the people of the US .