Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Why I Voted For Trump...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Terraceth
    replied
    Originally posted by Ronson View Post
    I might prefer a parliamentary-type vote like they have in Britain, in how they elect their prime minister. Maybe let the House and Senate cast votes for president.

    Just a thought.
    If we do that, I think we'd have to reconfigure the powers of the president a good amount. Normally prime ministers actually have little in the way of "official" powers like the president does. Their "power" comes less from the constitution and more from the fact they have the support of a majority of the legislature, like Nancy Pelosi or Mitch McConnell do. The Speaker of the House is the most analogous position to a prime minister in the US.

    And like prime ministers, normally presidents elected by their legislatures tend to have fairly limited powers. Which makes a good amount of sense, honestly... if the president is elected directly by the legislature, why invest them with a bunch of power rather than just giving it to the legislature in the first place?

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by Ronson View Post
    I might prefer a parliamentary-type vote like they have in Britain, in how they elect their prime minister. Maybe let the House and Senate cast votes for president.

    Just a thought.
    It used to be that state legislatures would choose the electors, and then those electors would vote for president. I sometimes think we should return to that model and do away with a vote of the people.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
    They went with the electoral college because it allowed the states with a lot of slaves to use those slaves for voting power despite not actually letting them vote.
    No. In fact, pro-slavery states were strongly opposed to the electoral college because it gave them less overall power in deciding who would be president. It had nothing to do with whether or not slaves could vote, because the states with the largest slave populations naturally also had the largest white populations, so even if slaves couldn't vote, a state like Virginia, which at the time had a larger white population than five of the smaller Northern states combined, would have still dominated a popular vote contest.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ronson
    replied
    Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
    Which is preferable to the states that are swing states winning every national election?

    You say this as if they have a strong voice in the electoral college. They don't; the electoral college increases it slightly but only marginally. They might as well secede under the electoral college by this logic.
    I might prefer a parliamentary-type vote like they have in Britain, in how they elect their prime minister. Maybe let the House and Senate cast votes for president.

    Just a thought.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cow Poke
    replied
    Originally posted by JimL View Post
    And what is that difference, CP?
    It's actually pretty simple. Our nation was made up of "the several states", to be "one nation". Hence, "the United States of America".

    The "several states" were left to govern themselves where the national interest wasn't greater.

    The "several states" are not "the united counties of the states" or any such thing, they are each their own entity.

    There are less populated rural areas and more populated big cities within states and we don't have an EC system in state.
    Blame the founding fathers. It's the way it is, and everybody who runs for office - local, state or national - knows that and runs their campaigns accordingly.

    Leave a comment:


  • Terraceth
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    It is indeed incredibly undemocratic. Just like each state getting two Senators regardless of population.

    But that is exactly why the Founding Fathers designed it that way. They wanted a Republic, not a Democracy.
    That's not why they designed the electoral college that way. They went with the electoral college because it allowed the states with a lot of slaves to use those slaves for voting power despite not actually letting them vote. So the reason why the electoral college was created was slavery. This is explicitly noted in James Madison's notes on the convention.

    EDIT: I should provide proof of this. Here is James Madison's statement. Most of it is an argument as to why the president should not be chosen by the legislature, but at the end he explains the reason for dismissing the popular vote:

    "If it be a fundamental principle of free Govt. that the Legislative, Executive & Judiciary powers should be separately exercised, it is equally so that they be independently exercised. There is the same & perhaps greater reason why the Executive shd. be independent of the Legislature, than why the Judiciary should: A coalition of the two former powers would be more immediately & certainly dangerous to public liberty. It is essential then that the appointment of the Executive should either be drawn from some source, or held by some tenure, that will give him a free agency with regard to the Legislature. This could not be if he was to be appointable from time to time by the Legislature. It was not clear that an appointment in the 1st. instance even with an eligibility afterwards would not establish an improper connection between the two departments. Certain it was that the appointment would be attended with intrigues and contentions that ought not to be unnecessarily admitted. He was disposed for these reasons to refer the appointment to some other source. The people at large was in his opinion the fittest in itself. It would be as likely as any that could be devised to produce an Executive Magistrate of distinguished Character. The people generally could only know & vote for some Citizen whose merits had rendered him an object of general attention & esteem. There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections."

    Source

    Originally posted by Ronson View Post
    If not for the EC, states with the biggest cities and densest populations would win every national election.
    Which is preferable to the states that are swing states winning every national election?

    Places like Montana and Utah may as well secede under a strict democracy.
    You say this as if they have a strong voice in the electoral college. They don't; the electoral college increases it slightly but only marginally. They might as well secede under the electoral college by this logic.

    Originally posted by JimL View Post
    Not to mention the votes that went to Jill Stein.
    Even if every person who voted for Jill Stein moved their vote to Hillary Clinton--which would absolutely not be the case, because a lot, probably even most, wouldn't have voted for Hillary anyway--then Hillary still would have lost the election.
    Last edited by Terraceth; 12-10-2019, 08:48 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • JimL
    replied
    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    We are the United STATES of America, Jim -- but the point you keep missing is that everybody who runs for politics knows what the rules are, and gears their entire campaign accordingly. Or should. And everybody knows there's a difference between NATIONAL and STATEWIDE offices.
    And what is that difference, CP? There are less populated rural areas and more populated big cities within states and we don't have an EC system in state.

    Leave a comment:


  • JimL
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    Outside of the 4 most populous states the rest of the country would in effect be like colonies ordered around by them.
    So if the democrats win over Texas by say 100 votes, will the electoral college still be fair with respect to the smaller states?

    Leave a comment:


  • JimL
    replied
    Originally posted by Ronson View Post
    So any third-party candidate, like Libertarian, Green, Socialist, American Independent - they're all working against democracy and for Russia? Because that's where your logic ultimately takes you.
    Not necessarily, it just works out that way. Worked for them in 2016, and could work again. Russia knows this, even if you don't.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cow Poke
    replied
    Originally posted by JimL View Post
    Right, we're still operating under an antiquated system. We don't divide up sections of a state in state elections, and there is no good reason to do the same for the country in a national election.
    We are the United STATES of America, Jim -- but the point you keep missing is that everybody who runs for politics knows what the rules are, and gears their entire campaign accordingly. Or should. And everybody knows there's a difference between NATIONAL and STATEWIDE offices.

    Leave a comment:


  • JimL
    replied
    Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
    Unlike Democrats who have flipflopped on all sorts of things, Trump actually acknowledged that his view has changed. Have you ever changed your mind on anything, I wonder?
    His mind changed because he won and realized that the electoral college was to his advantage.

    Leave a comment:


  • JimL
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    But popular votes is not how you win.
    Right, we're still operating under an antiquated system. We don't divide up sections of a state in state elections, and there is no good reason to do the same for the country in a national election.

    Leave a comment:


  • JimL
    replied
    Originally posted by whag View Post
    Um, she certainly was godawful and part of the problem. She’s in the banks’ pockets, is a horrible communicator, promotes and defends rapists and sexual harassers (Jeffrey Epstein, her husband who raped Juanita Broderick), is power hungry, SUPPORTED NAFTA, etc. She’s almost the exact same thing as Trump, minus the impulsivity. 3 million people can be in denial and/or vote for the inverse reason of Trumpers (“lesser of two evils” rationale).
    Well, that is a matter of opinion. Personally I think she would have been heads over heels better the the Russian plant.

    Leave a comment:


  • JimL
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    But she does lose the Electoral College by ignoring key states.
    Not to mention the votes that went to Jill Stein.

    Leave a comment:


  • JimL
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    You can say that about all of the Democrat candidates.
    You could yes, if one decided to run as an independent. That's how Gore lost to Bush, and Hillary lost to Trump, even though as it turned out Gore actually won, and we ended up in Iraq creating a mess in the Middle East and trillions in debt to China. There was a suggestion that Gabbard would do that, but she's denied it.

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by seer, Today, 02:50 PM
12 responses
60 views
0 likes
Last Post thormas
by thormas
 
Started by rogue06, Today, 02:18 PM
3 responses
38 views
0 likes
Last Post rogue06
by rogue06
 
Started by Whateverman, Yesterday, 07:17 PM
53 responses
223 views
0 likes
Last Post Stoic
by Stoic
 
Started by Whateverman, Yesterday, 04:39 PM
3 responses
37 views
0 likes
Last Post Whateverman  
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, Yesterday, 03:30 PM
91 responses
423 views
0 likes
Last Post seanD
by seanD
 
Working...
X