The American election explained — for Canadians!

MSgt John Taylor - Master Sergeant; You appear to be confusing "The Head of the Commonwealth" (which just happens to be the same person who is the Queen of Canada) with the Queen of Canada (which just happens to be the same person who is the Queen of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland).

I looked into the matter before I moved to where I am now, and the UK Parliament has NO authority to "approve" the successor to "Her Majesty, Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada". That will have to be done by the Government of Canada (consisting of the Canadian House of Parliament and the Canadian Senate).

One should never confuse "appearance" with "substance".

Besides Canada has had a woman on the face of its $20.00 bill since around 1953. There WERE other women depicted on the face of Canadian currency (image of $1,00 bill above [Princess Patricia, an outspoken and effective feminist in her day]) as well as on the reverse but the image of Therese Casgrain and "The Famous Five" (also above) was replaced by one of an icebreaker (rather innocuous politically) when people started pointing out that "The Famous Five" (outstanding feminists that they were were a bunch of racial and religious bigots).

The Bank of Canada will be issuing new banknotes depicting "notable Canadian women" sometime in 2018 (which I just learned) and you can see the list of names which have already been approved for consideration at the link below.

PS - Sorry about providing more information than you ever thought that you might want to know, but your tale intrigued me.

PPS - Were you in Cold Lake when the Senior NCO of one of the USAF maintenance detachments said to the RCAF Sergeant "You mean you can FIX those things?" in reference to some of the "black box components" that the USAF standard of training called for a simple "replace and discard original"?

http://www.bankofcanada.ca/banknotes/banknoteable/nominations-so-far/

A common myth. The Royal Family's property and holdings generate tax income which is paid to the government directly. Out of **THAT** money, the monarchy is "paid" their allowance. Has nothing to do with the tax payer.

PO3 Donald Murphy - A bit of oversimplification for a very complicated arrangement. You and they can have it, still maintain our system is better, no archaic traditions.

Well to be fair, theres no power. The UK Monarchy is ceremonial only. The Prime Minister meets with the Queen once a year to present his plan for nation and to get her "blessing" but thats largely ceremonial. They talk, joke, laugh, etc. then he leaves the palace and basically goes back to 10 Downing Street and does whatever his government planned to do all along. I think the only nation that still has a monarchy that has power is Spain, but I can't remember.

SSG (Join to see) - My point is that if a state's population is 30 million, that does not mean that ALL of them are registered to vote. So a small state like Ohio could conceivably "out vote" a larger state like California. The turn out is abysmal considering the size of the population. There have been three "rogue" votes where the popular candidate did not win the white house.

If a nation like India can have "one-man-one-vote" then fear is your only benchmark for not having it here. We have lobbying - which no other nation partakes of - so nix any impartiality. Big money does not want you and I doing whats sensible/patriotic. God forbid we vote for issues/candidates that are in the nation's best interests.

PO3 Donald Murphy - By rogue vote I meant where a elector did not vote the way the popular vote in his/her state indicated. We generally know the outcome of the election very soon because the rogue thing almost never happens, but the President is not officially elected until the electors vote in December.
And yes, I could win the PowerBall with a single ticket but the odds of that are about the same as Ohio having a large enough turn out to out number California. Voter apathy is fairly level across the nation.

SSG (Join to see) - Staff; Ref Pt. 1 - You didn't address the question at all. I didn't ask you what ILLEGAL ACTIONS would happen IF the Electoral College ACTUALLY exercised its LEGAL power and authority I asked you a straight-forward, fact based question.

Would you like to try again? If not, would you please like to let everyone know that they should feel that their freedoms are more than adequately protected because the US military would overthrow the US government because an arm of the US government acted in a perfectly legal manner and in accordance with how the Founding Fathers Originally Intended it to act?

Ref Pt 2 - Would you like to tell me what is the smallest number of states that a candidate has to carry in order for them to receive 50%+1 of the Electoral College votes? [I will grant you that it would be rather unusual for a single voter to go to the polls in that number of states, but it COULD happen (provided that you made it difficult enough to find a polling place that was open and made it difficult enough for someone to obtain "Approved Voter ID").

SSG (Join to see) - Yeah thats kinda the same thing. There is no law forcing the electoral voters to vote the way their area leans towards.

Also remember that theres 50 states. If everyone in California was democrat AND registered to vote, thats only 15 million or so (assuming 50% of the population is vote eligible). So you'd still have an opportunity for the voter eligible in every other state to make a dent. As there are presently only two parties, the EC is tolerated as the winner is gonna be one of the two. One man one vote, the skies the limit.