US Elections 2016

Message boards : Politics : US Elections 2016
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 . . . 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 · 26 · 27 . . . 35 · Next

AuthorMessage
qbit
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 19 Sep 04
Posts: 630
Credit: 6,868,528
RAC: 0
Austria
Message 1841894 - Posted: 13 Jan 2017, 14:43:42 UTC

I wonder if US ppl are ok with the current system. For me it seems strange that the candidate who gets less votes can still win.
ID: 1841894 · Report as offensive
Profile Ex: "Socialist"
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 12 Mar 12
Posts: 3433
Credit: 2,616,158
RAC: 2
United States
Message 1841896 - Posted: 13 Jan 2017, 14:47:37 UTC - in response to Message 1841894.  

I wonder if US ppl are ok with the current system. For me it seems strange that the candidate who gets less votes can still win.

I'm personally not OK with it, for the very reason you just said.

Others are OK with it as they say "it prevents tyranny of the majority"

I say it encourages tyranny of the minority.

How bout this: we keep a system like the electoral college as a stop-gap measure, while making it their job to attempt to reflect the popular vote, instead of their respective state's votes?
Yes I know the state's rights Guys here would not like that at all, because "the states elect the president, not the people" (which is sadly true)
#resist
ID: 1841896 · Report as offensive
W-K 666 Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 19012
Credit: 40,757,560
RAC: 67
United Kingdom
Message 1841899 - Posted: 13 Jan 2017, 14:53:40 UTC - in response to Message 1841898.  

I wonder if US ppl are ok with the current system. For me it seems strange that the candidate who gets less votes can still win.

Not the first time.

BTW: Bill Clinton only received 43% of the popular vote in 1996.

I believe he was the Duly Elected President of The United States.

Correct me if I am wrong.

Correction over 49%, that was the year Perot got 8.4%.
ID: 1841899 · Report as offensive
Profile KWSN - MajorKong
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 00
Posts: 2892
Credit: 1,499,890
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1841901 - Posted: 13 Jan 2017, 14:56:36 UTC - in response to Message 1841882.  


"Donald Trump's approval rating is the lowest of any president-elect in two decades"
"The controversial Republican lost the popular vote by 2.9m votes but managed to win certain key swing states in order to clinch the presidency."

(it's funny how differently people view reality)


Well, Ex...

You SHOULD know...

There is NO 'nationwide' popular vote for US President. The People do NOT elect the President. The State Governments (Legislatures) do. Read the Constitution. The State Legislatures, by custom -- but NOT Constitutionally required -- hold 'elections' within their respective States to decide how to vote. But these are totally separate from each other. There are 51 (50 States plus D.C.) separate 'elections'. They are not in any way, shape, form, or fashion, cumulative with one another.

The People do not elect the President, nor SHOULD they. The State Governments do. This is part of the checks and balances system. A strong case can be made that the 17th amendment was a mistake, taking away election of the US Senators from the State Governments. The People have their directly-elected representatives in Washington, D.C. -- The House of Representatives (which has the Power of the Purse).

And don't start saying anything about 'the People need a voice... doing things the Constitution's way deprives the People of their voice in matters'...

If you do go there, you are condemning representative democracy. The People (in each State) DO have a voice... You know... The Directly Elected State Governments of each individual State... IF you do go there, you are calling into question our entire system of Government (Republic -- aka. Representative Democracy), and are advocating Mob Rule (aka. Direct Democracy).
https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.
ID: 1841901 · Report as offensive
Profile Ex: "Socialist"
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 12 Mar 12
Posts: 3433
Credit: 2,616,158
RAC: 2
United States
Message 1841903 - Posted: 13 Jan 2017, 14:57:04 UTC - in response to Message 1841899.  

Meaning, Clinton still had more votes than the other candidate.

It's rare for someone to win the election while having less votes than [one of] their competitors, but it happened in November, no matter what word-play one uses to describe it.
#resist
ID: 1841903 · Report as offensive
Profile Ex: "Socialist"
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 12 Mar 12
Posts: 3433
Credit: 2,616,158
RAC: 2
United States
Message 1841904 - Posted: 13 Jan 2017, 14:58:43 UTC - in response to Message 1841901.  
Last modified: 13 Jan 2017, 15:46:04 UTC

MK, see message 1841896.

That's my best proposal currently.
#resist
ID: 1841904 · Report as offensive
kittyman Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Jul 00
Posts: 51468
Credit: 1,018,363,574
RAC: 1,004
United States
Message 1841926 - Posted: 13 Jan 2017, 16:40:23 UTC

None of your whining here matters.
Trump is our next president.
Get over it.
Get over yourselves.
Honor him.
You do not have to praise him.......yet.

Meow.
"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

ID: 1841926 · Report as offensive
Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 12273
Credit: 8,569,109
RAC: 79
United States
Message 1841927 - Posted: 13 Jan 2017, 16:42:50 UTC - in response to Message 1841906.  

I wonder if US ppl are ok with the current system. For me it seems strange that the candidate who gets less votes can still win.

Not the first time.

BTW: Bill Clinton only received 43% of the popular vote in 1996.

I believe he was the Duly Elected President of The United States.

Correct me if I am wrong.

Correction over 49%, that was the year Perot got 8.4%.

Correct, it was 1992 where he received only 43% of the vote.

Therefore: Duly Elected (receiving less than a majority of votes both times) 'Bill' Clinton was President of the United States.

Correct?


Percentages Clinton: 43.0%, Bush: 37.4%, Perot: 18.9%.
Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.
ID: 1841927 · Report as offensive
Profile KWSN - MajorKong
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 00
Posts: 2892
Credit: 1,499,890
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1841929 - Posted: 13 Jan 2017, 16:46:59 UTC - in response to Message 1841904.  
Last modified: 13 Jan 2017, 16:49:01 UTC

MK, see message 1841896.

That's my best proposal currently.


NO.

You still do not understand. The People do NOT vote for President in a nationwide popular vote, nor SHOULD they. The people elect members of their State Governments, which then appoint the people (the Electors) (by custom, a Statewide Popular vote decides who they appoint, but it is not a Constitutional requirement) who DO elect the President.


ANY attempt to have this changed is supporting Mob Rule (which was the explicit reason it was set up this way to begin with).

What is wrong? You don't support the 'Rule of Law' through the Constitutionally-limited Representative Democracy (Republic) that we (supposedly) have in place? Then you must support Tyranny of the Majority, for THAT is what Direct Democracy (Mob Rule) is.

Remember, we are NOT one monolithic nation. We ARE a Constitutional Federal Republic of Constitutional Republics (currently 50 of them).
https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.
ID: 1841929 · Report as offensive
Profile Ex: "Socialist"
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 12 Mar 12
Posts: 3433
Credit: 2,616,158
RAC: 2
United States
Message 1841932 - Posted: 13 Jan 2017, 16:55:56 UTC - in response to Message 1841929.  

I understand fully MK. I just don't agree with it.

Assuming following the constitutional rules you've outlined, and the way the system works today, then perhaps the states should individually make sure their electoral votes are properly split up to reflect the popular vote (*within* each state). I.e. a state with 10 electoral votes has a population who has voted 60/40, you then split up the votes 6 and 4...

Then go a bit further, and readjust the division of electoral votes per state, to better reflect the population of each state. I.e. State A has double the population of State B, then State A should have double the votes.

Would this be an acceptable compromise MK?
#resist
ID: 1841932 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1841933 - Posted: 13 Jan 2017, 16:58:36 UTC

What's wrong with the electoral college has an easy fix. The number of votes each state gets is the number of representatives it gets in the House.
ID: 1841933 · Report as offensive
Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 12273
Credit: 8,569,109
RAC: 79
United States
Message 1841958 - Posted: 13 Jan 2017, 19:12:46 UTC - in response to Message 1841939.  

What's wrong with the electoral college has an easy fix. The number of votes each state gets is the number of representatives it gets in the House.

No problem gary.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate

gary... You stated "an easy fix"

What!!!!!


I did some reading in December on how we've had a few changes in how the calculations for apportionment are done.

1) I did not see anything in it regarding how this involved amending the Constitution. The language used in the Constitution was apparently a little vague. Apportioned "according to their numbers". I believe they meant "proportional".

2) It appears that, like the difference between an arithmetic and geometric mean, rather than using proportions as the general population understands them (something linear), we are using something geometric.

Again, I am fairly sure that change did not involve an amendment and I'd like to know the logic, the pros and cons for doing the apportionment as we do now.
Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.
ID: 1841958 · Report as offensive
Profile KWSN - MajorKong
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 00
Posts: 2892
Credit: 1,499,890
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1842004 - Posted: 13 Jan 2017, 22:35:48 UTC - in response to Message 1841932.  

I understand fully MK. I just don't agree with it.

Assuming following the constitutional rules you've outlined, and the way the system works today, then perhaps the states should individually make sure their electoral votes are properly split up to reflect the popular vote (*within* each state). I.e. a state with 10 electoral votes has a population who has voted 60/40, you then split up the votes 6 and 4...

Then go a bit further, and readjust the division of electoral votes per state, to better reflect the population of each state. I.e. State A has double the population of State B, then State A should have double the votes.

Would this be an acceptable compromise MK?


The way each State divides up its EC votes is totally up to each individual State. The Federal Government has NO Constitutional Authority to impose any one-size-fits-all 'solution'. It is up to each State how they do theirs, and ONLY that State.

The way that the current number of EC Votes a State gets is (# of US Representatives in the US House + # of US Senators the State gets -- 2 at the moment). This was a compromise made in order to get the small-population States to agree to the Constitution.

The small-population States were concerned that they would be totally dominated by the large-population States. So, the House was proportional to Population, to keep the large-pop States happy. The Senate was made equal-numbers of Senators per State to keep the Small-pop States happy. Indeed, equal numbers of Senators for each State is the only part of the Constitution that is NOT subject to change by amendment.

US Constitution, Article 5 wrote:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.


Now then, Both sides would have rejected any simpler method for selecting the number of Electors, depending on the method.

The method in the Constitution, (each State gets a number of votes equal to its # of Representatives + its # of Senators). This way, the Large-Pop States still can dominate, but the Small-Pop States have a slight bonus.

California has 53 Representatives. 7 States, including North Dakota, have only 1. So, this becomes 55 and 3. Not that big of a change, and a VITAL compromise. What is the big deal?

Good luck getting it changed. There are 50 States. Three-Quarters of the States must agree to any Constitutional Amendment (38 of them currently).

There are:

7 States with 1 Representative. (Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming).
5 States with 2 Representatives. (Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island).
3 States with 3 Representatives. (Nebraska, New Mexico, and West Virginia).

That is a total of 15 States that have either 1, 2, or 3 Representatives. 13 No Votes by the States on a Constitutional Amendment is enough to kill it.

You think the Constitution is going to get changed to alter/abolish the Electoral College?? Not Gonna Happen.

And as I have said, the only possible end run by the Federal Government to do is to make the number of US Senators proportional to population, but per the Constitution, this is NOT possible either.

So no, this is not an acceptable compromise. It undoes the very compromise that made the US Constitution possible in the first place... The Great Compromise of 1787, and the small-population States will not go for it.

Part one of your suggestion can not be imposed on the State Governments from the outside, but must be an internal decision by each State Government on its own... 2 States have done what you suggest. There is another similar proposal making its rounds through the State Governments, some have agreed to it, some have not. But each State's decision to agree to it is binding only on that State, and indeed can be over-ridden at will by those States.

Part 2 is a total non-starter. Constitutionally impossible.
https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.
ID: 1842004 · Report as offensive
Profile KWSN - MajorKong
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 00
Posts: 2892
Credit: 1,499,890
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1842011 - Posted: 13 Jan 2017, 22:48:39 UTC - in response to Message 1841975.  

It began with liberal logic.

The number of representatives was fixed at 435 back in 1913. Reason given was practicality.

Constitution says "one for every 30,000." It is now "one for about every 700,000."

Just another rule of law the liberals think they can just ignore. ...and we allowed them to ignore it.


Have you ever read the Original 1st Amendment, from the 12 proposed amendments in the original Bill of Rights?

It is the only one that has not been adopted, yet.

3 through 12 were adopted right off and became Amendment 1 through Amendment 10.

The original #2 was finally ratified (or declared ratified, they missed a State -- Kentucky) May 18th 1992, a bit over 202 years after it got proposed by Congress.

The original #1 had to do with number of population per representative.
https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.
ID: 1842011 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1842028 - Posted: 13 Jan 2017, 23:57:05 UTC - in response to Message 1842004.  

MK, it wasn't about electors as to the reason for the Senate. It was about stopping big state legislation small states wouldn't like.

As to easy, if Trump FUBAR's as bad as many expect, the fact he didn't get more votes than his opponent will create a bad taste in the mouths of some of those small states and it can because very easy.
ID: 1842028 · Report as offensive
Profile KWSN - MajorKong
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 00
Posts: 2892
Credit: 1,499,890
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1842041 - Posted: 14 Jan 2017, 0:56:50 UTC - in response to Message 1842028.  

MK, it wasn't about electors as to the reason for the Senate. It was about stopping big state legislation small states wouldn't like.

As to easy, if Trump FUBAR's as bad as many expect, the fact he didn't get more votes than his opponent will create a bad taste in the mouths of some of those small states and it can because very easy.


Well, as to Trump eff'ing up, that is virtually a given. Remember, WELL before the election, I called him 'poison' and a 'fascist dictator wannabe'...

And as to your comment about 'the reason' the Senate was done that way, of COURSE it was about stopping big states from dictating things to the small states, and I said as much.

BUT... it was ALSO a factor in the design of the EC. The small states did not want to be quite so... irrelevant. So House PLUS Senate was used as the number of electors each State got. If electors were allocated on a solely population-proportional basis, the small States would end up being even more... ignored... than they already are.

The REAL method to electoral reform (at all levels) in the USA would be to increase the number of political parties present in the elections, and break the electoral duopoly that the R's and the D's currently enjoy. It is a disgrace that the D/R duopoly effectively prevents the current #3 party in the Nation from having ANY seats in Congress.

Solution? Break the D/R duopoly.
https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.
ID: 1842041 · Report as offensive
Profile Ex: "Socialist"
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 12 Mar 12
Posts: 3433
Credit: 2,616,158
RAC: 2
United States
Message 1842078 - Posted: 14 Jan 2017, 4:47:42 UTC - in response to Message 1842004.  

Interesting read MK. Once again, I've learned something right here in the Politics threads. (that happens occasionally)

I guess I'll just hold out hope for an amendment in the future, I can't disagree with Gary's idea that perhaps more states will be more on board after the PEeOTUS takes charge and runs things into the ground.

And I am glad to hear that at least 2 states break up their electoral votes in what I would call a 'proper' fashion, so as not to magnify the number of electoral votes a candidate ends up with.
#resist
ID: 1842078 · Report as offensive
Profile janneseti
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Oct 09
Posts: 14106
Credit: 655,366
RAC: 0
Sweden
Message 1842184 - Posted: 14 Jan 2017, 16:12:23 UTC - in response to Message 1842165.  

We are a nation of STATES. The federal government derives its power from the STATES.

Yes. The UNITED states.
Hmm...
ID: 1842184 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 . . . 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 · 26 · 27 . . . 35 · Next

Message boards : Politics : US Elections 2016


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.