Dalai Mama
Drama Llama
La Pea Boheme
Posts: 6,985
Jun 26, 2014 0:31:31 GMT
|
Post by Dalai Mama on Nov 9, 2016 19:54:46 GMT
I am having trouble posting but do you realize that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote? I understand that. I also understand that our system was never set up as a straight Democracy. Exactly - the US is a republic, not a democracy.
|
|
~Lauren~
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,876
Jun 26, 2014 3:33:18 GMT
|
Post by ~Lauren~ on Nov 9, 2016 19:59:54 GMT
I understand that. I also understand that our system was never set up as a straight Democracy. Exactly - the US is a republic, not a democracy. It is a Democratic Republic. And the systems like the Electoral College were implemented for good reason and are the result of a great deal of negotiation in order to form the union. I am always astonished at how ignorant so many Americans are about our form of government, how it works and why it was implemented. You see the ignorance come out every election cycle.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Nov 9, 2016 20:00:02 GMT
You are an American citizen with the freedom to voice your concerns. Your state can change it's allocation of their electoral votes on the state level - as well as require the electors to abide by the voters of the state. If you (general you & flute4peace) want to become an activist, you could work to bring this to the attention of others within your state. Grow recognition of the way your state allocates its electoral votes beginning with your friends and neighbors. As that picks up speed, other states may take notice.
|
|
|
Post by terri on Nov 9, 2016 20:00:27 GMT
It was rigged in the sense that voting districts were changed so white candidates would have the advantage. It has been going on for years. In NC where I live a judge recently said it was done with "surgical precision" to discriminate against black voters. Also remember the Voters Right Act was dismantled in 2013 which meant less polling places in minority populations making it much harder for them to vote. Voting districts have no impact on the presidential election. With the exception of Maine and Nebraska every single other state awards all of their electors to the winner of the popular vote of the state. You are right not for the presidential election but it impacts House of Representative races. I was referencing Anita who mentioned rigged elections.
|
|
jodibeth
Shy Member
Posts: 43
Nov 17, 2015 0:08:23 GMT
|
Post by jodibeth on Nov 9, 2016 20:04:32 GMT
|
|
Dalai Mama
Drama Llama
La Pea Boheme
Posts: 6,985
Jun 26, 2014 0:31:31 GMT
|
Post by Dalai Mama on Nov 9, 2016 20:04:48 GMT
Exactly - the US is a republic, not a democracy. It is a Democratic Republic. And the systems like the Electoral College were implemented for good reason and are the result of a great deal of negotiation in order to form the union. I am always astonished at how ignorant so many Americans are about our form of government, how it works and why it was implemented. You see the ignorance come out every election cycle. I'm one of those who thinks the electoral college was much more logical when first proposed and implemented. Not so much any more. Representative allocation across all states would greatly improve it IMO.
|
|
~Lauren~
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,876
Jun 26, 2014 3:33:18 GMT
|
Post by ~Lauren~ on Nov 9, 2016 20:08:09 GMT
It is a Democratic Republic. And the systems like the Electoral College were implemented for good reason and are the result of a great deal of negotiation in order to form the union. I am always astonished at how ignorant so many Americans are about our form of government, how it works and why it was implemented. You see the ignorance come out every election cycle. I'm one of those who thinks the electoral college was much more logical when first proposed and implemented. Not so much any more. Representative allocation across all states would greatly improve it IMO. I'm surprised you feel that way. Take a look at the election map form last night. To me it shows that the EC is every bit as relevant (and for the same reasons) it was in the late 18th century.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Nov 9, 2016 20:10:16 GMT
Representative allocation across all states would greatly improve it IMO. Are you meaning something like what I suggested (states dividing their electoral votes), or are you meaning something else?
|
|
~Lauren~
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,876
Jun 26, 2014 3:33:18 GMT
|
Post by ~Lauren~ on Nov 9, 2016 20:12:38 GMT
I'm assuming she meant states dividing electoral votes and I agree with that. As a NYer, my Republican candidate rarely gets NYs electoral votes because the major urban areas all vote Democrat. I'd love to see NYs 29 EVs apportioned.
|
|
Dalai Mama
Drama Llama
La Pea Boheme
Posts: 6,985
Jun 26, 2014 0:31:31 GMT
|
Post by Dalai Mama on Nov 9, 2016 20:13:01 GMT
I'm one of those who thinks the electoral college was much more logical when first proposed and implemented. Not so much any more. Representative allocation across all states would greatly improve it IMO. I'm surprised you feel that way. Take a look at the election map form last night. To me it shows that the EC is every bit as relevant (and for the same reasons) it was in the late 18th century. Granted, the population is still more urban than rural, but the number of large urban centres is more widely distributed than it was in the 18th century.
|
|
flute4peace
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,757
Jul 3, 2014 14:38:35 GMT
|
Post by flute4peace on Nov 9, 2016 20:13:59 GMT
Which is why I feel it is not representative of the voters. I have no problem with them consolidating the popular vote into electoral votes, but only if it reflects the popular vote. My state's 6 votes went to the R side, but the popular vote would have been reflected as 4-2.
When a candidate can trail (even if it's only slightly) in the popular vote, but win by a large margin in the electoral vote, well it just doesn't sit well with me. And then the electors themselves can pay a fee and vote for whoever they want?
Yea, they say every vote counts, but 40% of the votes in my state didn't.
But as I said in another thread, it's been going on this way since the get-go. Who am I to complain?
Your state can change it's allocation of their electoral votes on the state level - as well as require the electors to abide by the voters of the state. They can go proportional, based on congressional districts, or some other combination. It just takes a vote by that particular state. It's only a change to the electoral college system itself that would require a constitutional amendment. This is good information, thanks! I doubt it would fly in my state, since it's weighted, but hopefully some other states could benefit from it.
|
|
Dalai Mama
Drama Llama
La Pea Boheme
Posts: 6,985
Jun 26, 2014 0:31:31 GMT
|
Post by Dalai Mama on Nov 9, 2016 20:14:22 GMT
Representative allocation across all states would greatly improve it IMO. Are you meaning something like what I suggested (states dividing their electoral votes), or are you meaning something else? I mean that the EC votes in a given state are split based on popular vote rather than having some states representative and others, winner-takes-all.
|
|
~Lauren~
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,876
Jun 26, 2014 3:33:18 GMT
|
Post by ~Lauren~ on Nov 9, 2016 20:15:38 GMT
I'm surprised you feel that way. Take a look at the election map form last night. To me it shows that the EC is every bit as relevant (and for the same reasons) it was in the late 18th century. Granted, the population is still more urban than rural, but the number of large urban centres is more widely distributed than it was in the 18th century. Well, yes it is, but the purpose of the EC is still valid; insuring that the needs and concerns of the less populated areas are not subsumed and lost in those of the urban areas. The fact that there are now more urban areas and the country is more spread out doesn't change that.
|
|
|
Post by gmcwife1 on Nov 9, 2016 20:16:03 GMT
I'm assuming she meant states dividing electoral votes and I agree with that. As a NYer, my Republican candidate rarely gets NYs electoral votes because the major urban areas all vote Democrat. I'd love to see NYs 29 EVs apportioned. Same for me as Washington state is the same way. I said the same thing yesterday on the similar thread.
|
|
flute4peace
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,757
Jul 3, 2014 14:38:35 GMT
|
Post by flute4peace on Nov 9, 2016 20:16:23 GMT
Exactly - the US is a republic, not a democracy. It is a Democratic Republic. And the systems like the Electoral College were implemented for good reason and are the result of a great deal of negotiation in order to form the union. I am always astonished at how ignorant so many Americans are about our form of government, how it works and why it was implemented. You see the ignorance come out every election cycle. I'm not afraid to admit I'm ignorant - or rather uneducated - about politics in general. That's why I've been asking so many questions. It's been nearly 30 years since I had Government class in HS, and this is really the first election I've followed. You've been very helpful with the explanations you've given me of the past few weeks, I appreciate that!
|
|
~Lauren~
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,876
Jun 26, 2014 3:33:18 GMT
|
Post by ~Lauren~ on Nov 9, 2016 20:18:51 GMT
My pleasure flute4peace. I love talking about this stuff and just wish more people would realize that the beginnings of this country were not thrown together haphazzardly and the fact that it's 200 years later doesn't change the underlying rationales for the various processes.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Nov 9, 2016 20:26:57 GMT
Are you meaning something like what I suggested (states dividing their electoral votes), or are you meaning something else? I mean that the EC votes in a given state are split based on popular vote rather than having some states representative and others, winner-takes-all. Our states are as varied within their boundaries as our country is. The people living in 90% of a state might not have a voice at all if the Electoral votes were based solely on cities of dense population. The people living in the Philadelphia metroplex area have no concept of the needs of the miners in more western parts of the state. (I can say this honestly as I am from the area around Philadelphia.) That's important. "Save the planet. Shut down the coal mines now!" is an easy cry when you're living in the city and don't have to face the reality of the huge loss of employment that would result for people living in other areas within the same state. Rural and urban need equal representation. They each need to have a voice in how they are governed. ETA - I just reread and I think I misread your answer. You said that the EC votes are now based on a popular vote. Sorry I misread that.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Nov 9, 2016 20:28:23 GMT
My pleasure flute4peace. I love talking about this stuff and just wish more people would realize that the beginnings of this country were not thrown together haphazzardly and the fact that it's 200 years later doesn't change the underlying rationales for the various processes. I like this post 1000 times.
|
|
Dalai Mama
Drama Llama
La Pea Boheme
Posts: 6,985
Jun 26, 2014 0:31:31 GMT
|
Post by Dalai Mama on Nov 9, 2016 20:28:58 GMT
Granted, the population is still more urban than rural, but the number of large urban centres is more widely distributed than it was in the 18th century. Well, yes it is, but the purpose of the EC is still valid; insuring that the needs and concerns of the less populated areas are not subsumed and lost in those of the urban areas. The fact that there are now more urban areas and the country is more spread out doesn't change that. Yes, but in the 18th century, the issue wasn't as much rural vs. urban but New England vs the rest of the country.
|
|
|
Post by scrapaddict702 on Nov 9, 2016 20:38:21 GMT
Twice in modern history. 2 out of 5 times. Gore and Clinton. I was waiting for final results before adding Clinton. But again - the OP makes no sense. This is not a feasible outcome for a Republican candidate based on historic voting patterns. I didn't understand the insinuation that "Trumpers" would ever be advocating for a straight popular vote - the math just doesn't make sense. I gather it as an argument that the system is rigged if it were to happen. It is widely thought that many of Trump's statements regarding rigging were to save face in the event of a loss because of his ego. Something I agree with, but I can't say that this particular insinuation regarding a potential reason for a loss was ever something I had heard about.
|
|
|
Post by scrapaddict702 on Nov 9, 2016 20:47:17 GMT
Exactly - the US is a republic, not a democracy. It is a Democratic Republic. And the systems like the Electoral College were implemented for good reason and are the result of a great deal of negotiation in order to form the union. I am always astonished at how ignorant so many Americans are about our form of government, how it works and why it was implemented. You see the ignorance come out every election cycle. On both sides. Finally something I can agree with you about. We give vigorous requirements for foreigners to gain US citizenship and there are no similar requirements for Americans to participate in government. I think that there is just as great of an uneducated white population as there is a minority population (because whites still comprise the majority of the country...I don't follow statistics because I don't like people feeling like just a number, but the straight up white number, not percentages, is probably quite higher because of the racial makeup) and feel that voter ID laws aren't where it should be at. You have to take a test and pass to drive a car, a great responsibility. You should be able to take a test (and even allow for retesting like licensing does) and pass in order to exercise your vote. There is so much (from both sides) that insinuates a candidate is going to do xyz (I know here someone posted something about talking to someone who firmly believed that HRC would repeal the second amendment single handedly) that they don't have the power to do and certain parts of the country without an adequate idea of how government operates believes whatever xyz happens to be. We need a populous that at the very minimum understands the basics of government voting. The reason why smear campaigns are what they are is because the lesser educated citizens are more likely to believe it as gospel instead of a marketing tactic. Millennials in general are a more skeptical group making them more likely to research things rather than take it at face value, but not all of the population is like that (and clearly, not ALL millennials are like that, either). Will it disincentivize some from voting? Sure. But then you're left with the people who want to make an educated decision with their votes, instead of just being a statistic to be gone after by a candidate. Smear campaigns won't work as well, the issues, platforms, and plans will be front and center.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Nov 9, 2016 20:57:36 GMT
There is so much (from both sides) that insinuates a candidate is going to do xyz (I know here someone posted something about talking to someone who firmly believed that HRC would repeal the second amendment single handedly) that they don't have the power to do and certain parts of the country without an adequate idea of how government operates believes whatever xyz happens to be. Obama did not enact Obamacare within the framework outlined to enact such legislation. He did a run around by employing executive order. He stumped so hard for Hillary to preserve his legacy in no small part because as an executive order and not law created through the legislative branch, it can be undone much more easily. So, even though I agree with your post in theory, the reality is sometimes more complicated.
|
|
Dalai Mama
Drama Llama
La Pea Boheme
Posts: 6,985
Jun 26, 2014 0:31:31 GMT
|
Post by Dalai Mama on Nov 9, 2016 21:04:03 GMT
I mean that the EC votes in a given state are split based on popular vote rather than having some states representative and others, winner-takes-all. Our states are as varied within their boundaries as our country is. The people living in 90% of a state might not have a voice at all if the Electoral votes were based solely on cities of dense population. The people living in the Philadelphia metroplex area have no concept of the needs of the miners in more western parts of the state. (I can say this honestly as I am from the area around Philadelphia.) That's important. "Save the planet. Shut down the coal mines now!" is an easy cry when you're living in the city and don't have to face the reality of the huge loss of employment that would result for people living in other areas within the same state. Rural and urban need equal representation. They each need to have a voice in how they are governed. ETA - I just reread and I think I misread your answer. You said that the EC votes are now based on a popular vote. Sorry I misread that. But, as I understand it, the Electoral College doesn't address the variations with in a state's boundaries, does it? I thought that, at least in the presidential race, the results are determined by the state as a whole.
|
|
|
Post by scrapaddict702 on Nov 9, 2016 21:09:53 GMT
There is so much (from both sides) that insinuates a candidate is going to do xyz (I know here someone posted something about talking to someone who firmly believed that HRC would repeal the second amendment single handedly) that they don't have the power to do and certain parts of the country without an adequate idea of how government operates believes whatever xyz happens to be. Obama did not enact Obamacare within the framework outlined to enact such legislation. He did a run around by employing executive order. He stumped so hard for Hillary to preserve his legacy in no small part because as an executive order and not law created through the legislative branch, it can be undone much more easily. So, even though I agree with your post in theory, the reality is sometimes more complicated. He didn't have Congress. Executive order is the only way for him to have gotten ANYTHING out of his presidency. He was effectively cock blocked every step of the way while Republicans screamed, 'look, he's not doing anything' ignoring the fact that they voted straight party lines instead of for compromise and progress. Right now, if you don't hold ALL the cards, NOTHING will get done. I vehemently disagree with the social issues that Republicans stand for and now that they have it all, I fear so much of what they will do to non straight Christian Americans. Honestly, THAT is why I'm so angry about this election. The social platforms against gays and muslims in particular...with that majority in their favor (and soon SCOTUS), they're going to push their beliefs and that means TAKING AWAY rights from others. It's easy to ignore a gay couple if you don't agree...but rather than say that they disagree and simply move on, they want to force their religious views down the LGBTQ's throat and steal away hard fought rights. Same with rights to choose. Republicans want to control what goes on in a woman's uterus at the expense of the woman who owns it. That in itself is far worse than my immense disgust at this nation. What I may be saying is nothing compared to what the social platform aims to enact and actually DO to certain groups in this nation. Checks and balances because a game of chess. Instead of voting for what was best for everyone, Republicans refused to even acknowledge that a Democrat might have a good idea and voted against it immediately, the reverse would probably have been the same given how our country is going at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Nov 9, 2016 21:11:27 GMT
But, as I understand it, the Electoral College doesn't address the variations with in a state's boundaries, does it? I thought that, at least in the presidential race, the results are determined by the state as a whole. Electoral Votes are determined at the state level. I guess I don't really know how each state weighs the different regions within their state to determine the outcome. All votes are taken at the local district level, so the variations are built in that way. It is possible that at the state level, the total popular vote is what matters OR that the summation of the lower district levels is what matters. I've never thought about it.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Nov 9, 2016 21:18:20 GMT
He didn't have Congress. Executive order is the only way for him to have gotten ANYTHING out of his presidency. He was effectively cock blocked every step of the way... ... and now his executive order may be undone. We have an adversarial government on purpose. A president must work with the Congress that he or she has. Obama has responsibility for telling the Republicans that they were sitting at the back of the bus that he was driving. He also has responsibility for NOT including them in routine meetings at the White House to try to find compromises. You can cry all you want to about how the Republicans decided to respond to that. It's not gonna change the reality that his executive orders are now on the chopping block precisely because they were executive orders.
|
|
jodibeth
Shy Member
Posts: 43
Nov 17, 2015 0:08:23 GMT
|
Post by jodibeth on Nov 9, 2016 21:36:02 GMT
I vehemently disagree with the social issues that Republicans stand for and now that they have it all, I fear so much of what they will do to non straight Christian Americans. Honestly, THAT is why I'm so angry about this election. The social platforms against gays and muslims in particular...with that majority in their favor (and soon SCOTUS), they're going to push their beliefs and that means TAKING AWAY rights from others. It's easy to ignore a gay couple if you don't agree...but rather than say that they disagree and simply move on, they want to force their religious views down the LGBTQ's throat and steal away hard fought rights. Same with rights to choose. Republicans want to control what goes on in a woman's uterus at the expense of the woman who owns it. That in itself is far worse than my immense disgust at this nation. What I may be saying is nothing compared to what the social platform aims to enact and actually DO to certain groups in this nation. This. This isn't a sour-grapes, my candidate lost situation. It's fear. People are legitimately scared.
|
|
|
Post by lisae on Nov 9, 2016 21:39:10 GMT
I'm a Democrat and while I would have benefited from a popular vote system in this election I stand by my statement here just a few days ago. The electoral college is needed so we aren't fussing over every close race in precincts all over the country. We would never get a result in anything except a complete blowout if not for the electoral college system.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Nov 9, 2016 21:44:49 GMT
This. This isn't a sour-grapes, my candidate lost situation. It's fear. People are legitimately scared I know.
|
|
|
Post by scrapaddict702 on Nov 9, 2016 21:49:25 GMT
He didn't have Congress. Executive order is the only way for him to have gotten ANYTHING out of his presidency. He was effectively cock blocked every step of the way... ... and now his executive order may be undone. We have an adversarial government on purpose. A president must work with the Congress that he or she has. Obama has responsibility for telling the Republicans that they were sitting at the back of the bus that he was driving. He also has responsibility for NOT including them in routine meetings at the White House to try to find compromises. You can cry all you want to about how the Republicans decided to respond to that. It's not gonna change the reality that his executive orders are now on the chopping block precisely because they were executive orders. Oh, FFS, I wasn't crying. I was purely stating fact. He was blocked by Congress. All politicians behave like children when it comes to even attempting to negotiate with the opposition. Crossed arms, stamping feet, refusing to meet halfway. It's amazing with that attitude that ANY of them are married.
|
|