I'll counter your post #500 with a useless reply #800. So there.

What is that weird little crescent moon symbol with lines running through it? Does that mean pence? You europeans and your funny money.

Oh, it's a Euro. I thought you guys went all Brexit and everything.

I've heard that Southern Michigan residents call Canadian money "funny money" because it's colorful (probably helps that it's worthless too).

Ah, good! I noticed that at the time but thought that you were privy to someone else's birthday.

The Euro / Pound ratio is getting closer to parity though, so that's one advantage of Brexit...

Funny money is better than no money!

Somebody told me that the American people don't actually vote the president in, and that instead they're voting in "electors" in their state to vote for the president. And it's expected that the electors vote the way their state voted, but they aren't required to. Is this true? And yet America goes around the world trying to force "democracy" on people?! Pot, meet kettle!!!!

Yes.

The names of the candidates. The electors are free to pick whoever they wish, but they will most likely vote with the populace.

- That's the most stupid thing! People pick a president on the ballot, but that only picks an anonymous elector. How on earth can you talk about democr...
- It's constitutional.
- Okay then.

It sounds like it's all a sham anyway because the electors are chosen to match the popular vote, and apparently most states have laws in place requiring the electors to vote for the party that they represent (and the parties generally choose the electors knowing they will do so anyway). I don't imagine the parties would ever ask their electors to vote against the party, but I wonder if they could still use this power to elect the wrong candidate? I guess not unless another republican's name is on the ballot. Still, would the sabotage themselves if they decided they didn't like their candidate? I suppose.

What's the point of having the electors at all? Either they can vote for whoever they wish and they undermine democracy, or they are required to vote for the same people the population did and it's a complete waste of time and resources.

Is it just me or are the "united" states about as far away from united as can be without civil war?

Append:

Besides, if historical reasons mattered, wouldn't you try to honor the original intent behind the system and enforce people voting for "electors" within their district instead of bastardizing the entire election process into this sham? If you throw away the district elections (which, for the record, is nearly how the Canadian systems works, albeit it has its flaws too) then you need to rethink the entire system because it doesn't make sense out of context.

'MERICA?