Deleted
Posts: 0
May 21, 2024 2:56:21 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2018 17:16:15 GMT
Below is a tweet I put in the catch all thread and then I read a response/exchange to the tweet and found it interesting enough to start a thread.
Ally Maynard...
“Kavanaugh was nominated by a candidate who lost the popular vote by 3 million+ votes.
The 49 Senators who voted 'No' on Kavanaugh represent 181.8 million Americans.
The 51 Senators who voted 'Yes' represent 143.2 million.
Our political system is broken.”
El Guapo...
“As much as I hate kavanaugh and trump, the electoral system is set up to protect the minority against a few population centers controlling policy and governance. The issue lies with power given to federal government/executive branch over individual states (and in general)”
danostrowski...
“Nope. It was set up as part of the 3/5ths compromise. If you read the the constitutional convention, you'll see the founders couldn't agree upon the best way to select the president and when the 3/5ths compromise happened they just used that metric for the electoral college.”
El Guapo...
“Yes, result of this ? Protection fr straight majority rule, whch overwhelmingly favors states w urban population centers (and generally 1 politically way of thinking)...snarky comments on scope of fed and executive power being 2 much? Please see I hate trump and have a nice day”
danostrowski.....
“the electoral system is set up to protect the minority against a few population centers controlling policy and governance"
This makes no fucking sense and it is absolutely not why this system was set up. It was to appease slave holders, and it favors some voters for no reason.”
El Guapo...
“No sense ? Clearly I’ll explain it. People in more populous tend 2 vote 4 their interests. This will always sway the popular vote and not reflective of people (in the minority) of other smaller (see definition of minority) less populous states that vote 4 their interests. Simple”
Ally Maynard..
“ It’s literally taxation without representation”
We had this discussion about the electoral college after the election. In spite of trump losing the popular vote by 3M and Bush losing the popular vote to Gore many felt the electoral college was still needed.
What was dismissed in the original discussion for a reason to have the electoral college was the part that after the election a group of representatives from each state would meet and either agree with the voter’s choice and if not, put someone this group felt was qualified for the job of president. But over the years the states watered it down to where it became just a formality. Which means another check & balance put in place by the Founding Fathers has been neutered.
I think more then a few would agree trump is the one type person the Founding Fathers were afraid would end up president and did their best to prevent it.
Maybe its time to do away with the electoral college and let the popular vote chose the president. That way the majority rules , good or bad, and every vote counts instead of some only counting a %.
|
|
|
|
Post by Crack-a-lackin on Oct 6, 2018 17:22:36 GMT
I absolutely agree it’s time to get rid of the electoral college.
|
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Oct 6, 2018 17:28:13 GMT
I'm of two thoughts on the electoral system.
1) I think it would be nice to have the majority actually win and for each vote go count no matter what state you live in.
2) on the other hand, living in a rural area, I understand the differences in needs and wants of different geographical regions. There are differences in what the cities (in my case Denver, Boulder, and Fort Collins) have as their priorities and what the eastern plains and western slope of the state have. The electoral college is supposed to ensure that the places with the highest concentration of people don't get to mandate what happens for all.
The coasts, which has a greater concentration of people, have no idea what the people in the flyover states find important.
I like the split electoral votes rather than winner take all. I don't know if that would be any different than a popular vote only.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 21, 2024 2:56:21 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2018 18:37:11 GMT
As a country we are taught the majority wins. In every election or selection, doesn’t matter what kind, the person or position or whatever that receives the most votes wins.
The exception is the Presidential election. There if you should happen to live in CA your vote counts less then someone’s vote in Montana. But yet by living in CA where my vote counts less, I still pay the same % of Federal taxes as the voter in Montana. And to add insult to injury, my tax dollars are used to fund federal programs in states like Montana that doesn’t pay as much in Federal taxes as CA, and these programs don’t benefit me or anyone living in CA for that matter. Translation: These states want California’s tax dollars but don’t want their vote to count as much because there are too many of them.
So is that fair?
|
|
|
|
Post by cade387 on Oct 6, 2018 19:36:55 GMT
I wonder how it would be to go back to who comes in second is the VP no matter the party. If Hilary was VP right now and she would potentially be the tie breaker vote in the senate? Would be very interesting
|
|
|
|
Post by pierkiss on Oct 6, 2018 21:57:28 GMT
I wonder how it would be to go back to who comes in second is the VP no matter the party. If Hilary was VP right now and she would potentially be the tie breaker vote in the senate? Would be very interesting Every once in a while my husband and I debate this idea. Sometimes I think it would be fantastic. Because then both parties are represented and tasked with making decisions that should benefit everyone instead of a select few within ones party. Other times I think it would be a disaster because the two people are such polar opposites. And nothing would ever get done. Maybe. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 21, 2024 2:56:21 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2018 22:18:11 GMT
I wonder how it would be to go back to who comes in second is the VP no matter the party. If Hilary was VP right now and she would potentially be the tie breaker vote in the senate? Would be very interesting Every once in a while my husband and I debate this idea. Sometimes I think it would be fantastic. Because then both parties are represented and tasked with making decisions that should benefit everyone instead of a select few within ones party. Other times I think it would be a disaster because the two people are such polar opposites. And nothing would ever get done. Maybe. OMG! As soon as I read your posts, an image popped into my head. Did you ever see the SNL skit of the debate were Trump (Baldwin) kept sneaking up behind Hillary (McKinnon)? I could just see Hillary addressing Congress and Trump, if he were the VP, kept popping up behind her at the lectern! |
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Oct 6, 2018 23:05:48 GMT
Top 2, 1st and 2nd of all the candidates or 1st and second if just 2, a candidate from each party. If it is from all he candidates it could be 2 from one party or 1 from each or even a 3rd party..
|
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Oct 6, 2018 23:08:37 GMT
There’s a reason the Constitution was quickly amended to change the system of making the 2nd top vote getter Vice President. It wasn’t working well at all, even among the founding fathers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Oct 6, 2018 23:41:44 GMT
Going to a popular vote system would force candidates to consider and speak to the concerns of both urban and rural people in order to win. Imagine that.
|
|
|
|
Post by pierkiss on Oct 6, 2018 23:52:08 GMT
Every once in a while my husband and I debate this idea. Sometimes I think it would be fantastic. Because then both parties are represented and tasked with making decisions that should benefit everyone instead of a select few within ones party. Other times I think it would be a disaster because the two people are such polar opposites. And nothing would ever get done. Maybe. OMG! As soon as I read your posts, an image popped into my head. Did you ever see the SNL skit of the debate were Trump (Baldwin) kept sneaking up behind Hillary (McKinnon)? I could just see Hillary addressing Congress and Trump, if he were the VP, kept popping up behind her at the lectern! Hahaha! That one pissed me off and made me laugh my ass off at the same time! 😂 |
|
|
|
Post by SockMonkey on Oct 7, 2018 0:53:48 GMT
I think ending Citizens United would go a long way to restoring how our political parties can actually represent the people (and not mega corporations).
Just an idea.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 21, 2024 2:56:21 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2018 1:36:01 GMT
Citizens United can’t vote. People vote. People have the ability to gather information and make an informed decision when they vote.
Too many chose not to.
The problem is with the voter. Not Citizen United, not Facebook, not twitter, not Russia (at least yet) not the deliberate spreading of misinformation, not the politician running for office.
Until the individual voter starts to take responsibility for their votes by doing their due diligence before they vote we’re screwed.
42% of registered voters chose not to vote in the 2016, and I have no idea how many voters sent a “message” vote.
The time has come to place the blame where it belongs and that is squarely on the voters.
|
|
|
|
Post by SockMonkey on Oct 7, 2018 1:47:37 GMT
Citizens United can’t vote. People vote. People have the ability to gather information and make an informed decision when they vote. Too many chose not to. The problem is with the voter. Not Citizen United, not Facebook, not twitter, not Russia (at least yet) not the deliberate spreading of misinformation, not the politician running for office. Until the individual voter starts to take responsibility for their votes by doing their due diligence before they vote we’re screwed. 42% of registered voters chose not to vote in the 2016, and I have no idea how many voters sent a “message” vote. The time has come to place the blame where it belongs and that is squarely on the voters. Money wins campaigns, though. I agree with you on voter responsibility, but the funding of political campaigns is an important factor. |
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Oct 7, 2018 1:51:47 GMT
Citizens United can’t vote. People vote. People have the ability to gather information and make an informed decision when they vote. Too many chose not to. The problem is with the voter. Not Citizen United, not Facebook, not twitter, not Russia (at least yet) not the deliberate spreading of misinformation, not the politician running for office. Until the individual voter starts to take responsibility for their votes by doing their due diligence before they vote we’re screwed. 42% of registered voters chose not to vote in the 2016, and I have no idea how many voters sent a “message” vote. The time has come to place the blame where it belongs and that is squarely on the voters. Money wins campaigns, though. I agree with you on voter responsibility, but the funding of political campaigns is an important factor. And look who finds the big bucks! |
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Oct 7, 2018 3:22:22 GMT
And look who finds the big bucks! Also look who hands out the big bucks while calling in favors at our expense! |
|
|
|
Post by jeremysgirl on Oct 7, 2018 4:32:09 GMT
freecharlie said: The coasts, which has a greater concentration of people, have no idea what the people in the flyover states find important. The issue isn't coastal vs. "flyover" I hate that term BTW. I live in an urban areas in a "flyover" state. I think you would find *my* needs are not much different from other urban dwellers. This is really an issue of urban vs. rural. In Michigan, you see the fight everytime the water issue in Flint (urban) or education in Detroit (urban) comes up. Rural communities don't want to pay for the cities. It's a hard sell that there is mutual benefit to everyone.
|
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Oct 7, 2018 5:02:34 GMT
freecharlie said: The coasts, which has a greater concentration of people, have no idea what the people in the flyover states find important. The issue isn't coastal vs. "flyover" I hate that term BTW. I live in an urban areas in a "flyover" state. I think you would find *my* needs are not much different from other urban dwellers. This is really an issue of urban vs. rural. In Michigan, you see the fight everytime the water issue in Flint (urban) or education in Detroit (urban) comes up. Rural communities don't want to pay for the cities. It's a hard sell that there is mutual benefit to everyone. we don't seem to have the same urban issues here in Colorado, we have issues, but not the same. |
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Oct 7, 2018 15:33:09 GMT
freecharlie said: The coasts, which has a greater concentration of people, have no idea what the people in the flyover states find important. The issue isn't coastal vs. "flyover" I hate that term BTW. I live in an urban areas in a "flyover" state. I think you would find *my* needs are not much different from other urban dwellers. This is really an issue of urban vs. rural. In Michigan, you see the fight everytime the water issue in Flint (urban) or education in Detroit (urban) comes up. Rural communities don't want to pay for the cities. It's a hard sell that there is mutual benefit to everyone. Rural folks need to remember that the urban tax base and business community are what bring jobs and keep the state financially solvent. Urban folks need to remember that rural folks feed us, produce our energy and provide our building materials. There really is no us vs. them. It’s all of us. |
|
|
|
Post by femalebusiness on Oct 7, 2018 15:41:13 GMT
As a country we are taught the majority wins. In every election or selection, doesn’t matter what kind, the person or position or whatever that receives the most votes wins. The exception is the Presidential election. There if you should happen to live in CA your vote counts less then someone’s vote in Montana. But yet by living in CA where my vote counts less, I still pay the same % of Federal taxes as the voter in Montana. And to add insult to injury, my tax dollars are used to fund federal programs in states like Montana that doesn’t pay as much in Federal taxes as CA, and these programs don’t benefit me or anyone living in CA for that matter. Translation: These states want California’s tax dollars but don’t want their vote to count as much because there are too many of them. So is that fair? Exactly. I am a California resident and have been all my life. At this point I almost feel like those who want to break off from the US aren't as nutty as I once thought they were. |
|
|
|
Post by jeremysgirl on Oct 7, 2018 15:44:03 GMT
freecharlie said: The coasts, which has a greater concentration of people, have no idea what the people in the flyover states find important. The issue isn't coastal vs. "flyover" I hate that term BTW. I live in an urban areas in a "flyover" state. I think you would find *my* needs are not much different from other urban dwellers. This is really an issue of urban vs. rural. In Michigan, you see the fight everytime the water issue in Flint (urban) or education in Detroit (urban) comes up. Rural communities don't want to pay for the cities. It's a hard sell that there is mutual benefit to everyone. Rural folks need to remember that the urban tax base and business community are what bring jobs and keep the state financially solvent. Urban folks need to remember that rural folks feed us, produce our energy and provide our building materials. There really is no us vs. them. It’s all of us. Well said. |
|
|
|
Post by #notLauren on Oct 7, 2018 15:49:51 GMT
I find it ironic that people are saying it's "us" because from my viewpoint (and that of many I know), the Democrats and liberals make just about every issue an "us vs. them"
|
|
PrettyInPeank
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,691 
|
Post by PrettyInPeank on Oct 7, 2018 15:51:31 GMT
Is it reasonable to believe it's possible to eliminate the electoral college? Or are we stuck with it because of powers that be.
|
|
|
|
Post by iamkristinl16 on Oct 7, 2018 16:08:25 GMT
IIRC, someone came up with a plan after the election that would combine popular vote with electoral votes so that it wasn't all or nothing. The electoral votes represented the popular vote of that state. I thought that was a great idea.
|
|
|
|
Post by #notLauren on Oct 7, 2018 16:09:33 GMT
Is it reasonable to believe it's possible to eliminate the electoral college? Or are we stuck with it because of powers that be. I think you're stuck with it because it would be next to impossible to get 3/4 of the states to ratify it. This has nothing to do with the powers that be. |
|
AmeliaBloomer
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,842
Location: USA
Jun 26, 2014 5:01:45 GMT
|
Post by AmeliaBloomer on Oct 7, 2018 23:01:18 GMT
The coasts, which has a greater concentration of people, have no idea what the people in the flyover states find important. Wait, what? Okay, fair warning: this is a trigger for me. Exactly what DO we people in the flyover states find important? You’re in a rural area. I’m four flyover states away in a metropolitan area of 9.5 million people. I have absolutely no way to judge if it’s indeed fact that people on the coasts don’t understand either of our priorities. Again: trigger. I’ve always had little patience for pundit talk about “understanding Middle America,” a huge swath of the county where the states are too unremarkable to learn the names and the people are so unremarkable as to render them culturally faceless. Flyover states; flyover people. So, when somebody comes up with an analysis of Middle America that recognizes that the breadth of economic, cultural, political and lifestyle priorities is no different and no “simpler” (ugh) than other areas of the country, I’m willing to listen. Until then, I can’t join any claims about who does or does not understand my priorities. Told ya’ it was a trigger. |
|
|
|
Post by compeateropeator on Oct 8, 2018 1:35:51 GMT
I find it ironic that people are saying it's "us" because from my viewpoint (and that of many I know), the Democrats and liberals make just about every issue an "us vs. them" As do the Republicans. At least from my viewpoint (and that of many I know...oh so many). I am not sure how that can slip by anyone paying any attention to the political arena of today? "Us vs them" is sadly the political motto that is heard loud and clear and used by all sides. Even our President uses it when he speaks about any issue. So how can we expect this attitude to change when it is coming from the top down? |
|
|
|
Post by #notLauren on Oct 8, 2018 1:43:06 GMT
I find it ironic that people are saying it's "us" because from my viewpoint (and that of many I know), the Democrats and liberals make just about every issue an "us vs. them" As do the Republicans. At least from my viewpoint (and that of many I know...oh so many). I am not sure how that can slip by anyone paying any attention to the political arena of today? "Us vs them" is sadly the political motto that is heard loud and clear and used by all sides. Even our President uses it when he speaks about any issue. So how can we expect this attitude to change when it is coming from the top down? To this day Hillary Clinton continues to call half the people of this country a basket of deplorables. None of the liberal posters here had any problem at all with that. So now because it’s Donald Trump you have a problem with it? |
|
|
|
Post by compeateropeator on Oct 8, 2018 2:03:02 GMT
As do the Republicans. At least from my viewpoint (and that of many I know...oh so many). I am not sure how that can slip by anyone paying any attention to the political arena of today? "Us vs them" is sadly the political motto that is heard loud and clear and used by all sides. Even our President uses it when he speaks about any issue. So how can we expect this attitude to change when it is coming from the top down? To this day Hillary Clinton continues to call half the people of this country a basket of deplorables. None of the liberal posters here had any problem at all with that. So now because it’s Donald Trump you have a problem with it? No I have a problem with it when it is Hillary Clinton also. Who, by the way, I am not a fan of, never supported, and never voted for (not that that should matter in the least). Have you seen what (many) Trump supporters (and President Trump himself) call the Democrats and Liberals? But it is okay because Hillary called people names also? Both sides calling each other names...check. Both sides using "us vs. them"...check. Each side denying that they do and act exactly like the other side does...check. Yup that just about sums up the political environment of today. It is my opinion and you are certainly welcome to your own opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by ktdoesntscrap on Oct 8, 2018 2:14:20 GMT
I think ending Citizens United would go a long way to restoring how our political parties can actually represent the people (and not mega corporations). Just an idea. campaign finance reform. Limit spending and donations. I would put the cap on $1000. No person or entity could donate more than $1000 to any campaign and tv and raido ad sales would be equal amoungst all candidates. Taking money out of elections is the only way to bring integrity back. |
|
