Jump to content
270soft Forum

President Trump


ThePotatoWalrus

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Jonathan Kudelka said:

 

America has used the electoral college since the beginning in 1788 and there has been no problem.  You can't just change the rules afterwards because your candidate didn't win. This is actually the 5th time the popular vote winner did not become president, the others were in 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000. Hillary lost fair and square, which she admitted. Now instead of crying over the rules saying it's flawed we should be focused on coming together and respecting each other. The reason she won the popular vote (by 0.4%) is because the GOP is not focused on the popular vote as it has no bearing on the outcome, Democrats carry New York and California with no resistance from the GOP, if there were no electoral college then these states would be much closer because the GOP would spend the most time at these states because they are the largest instead of spending time in smaller states to get the most EV's. Trump actually won in a landslide 306 to 232.

You say "with no problems," but three of those four previous elections where the winning candidate lost the popular vote (except for 1888) produced significant acrimony, strife, and ill-will from the results, albeit in different way. And this isn't JUST a "sore loser" perspective (I didn't actually like Clinton either, or thought she was a "better" candidate, I thought they were both atrocious, just in different ways), I've believe the Electoral College should go for a long time now, not just because of candidates winning the Electoral vote but losing the popular, but also because an individual vote in a small counts for more weight in a presidential election than one in a large state, and because the system de facto, except in times of HUGE political turmoil allows the two main parties their lock on duopolous power, without realistic challenge from a Third Party or Independent candidate, and, as stands, into the forseeable future, doesn't force the two main parties to evolve or change significantly in their current platforms and have to court demographics they usually don't - elections are all decided now by a number of independent voters in a few swing states. These are reasons I feel the Electoral College is a broken and obsolete system.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 104
  • Created
  • Last Reply

The electoral college is no longer adapted to the United States for me.

The senate is important for the representativity of the states, but the electoral college...

And I would have quite an interesting question.

How many Americans are not coming to vote because of the Electoral College? (in safe blue and red states).

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Patine said:

allows the two main parties their lock on duopolous power, without realistic challenge from a Third Party or Independent candidate, and, as stands, into the forseeable future, doesn't force the two main parties to evolve or change significantly in their current platforms and have to court demographics they usually don't - elections are all decided now by a number of independent voters in a few swing states. These are reasons I feel the Electoral College is a broken and obsolete system.

The two parties have changed significantly over the past few decades, let alone century.  Have you played any other P4E scenarios? :wacko:

3rd Party candidates have much more voice in the Electoral College by being able to swing a state or dominate a section of the country.  They have no chance of being heard if they are competing against national popular vote totals.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion, the electoral college is necessary. The reason we use that instead of the popular vote is because the founding fathers knew that a "true" democracy would be bad, as it would be a tyranny of the majority. Major population centers like New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, and so on, are HEAVILY Democratic. You can look at the county-by-county maps and it shows the country at LEAST 75% red, yet Hillary is still scratching ahead in the popular vote. Imagine living in one of those red areas and being told you lose because a few big cities went the other way. Without the electoral college, it'd be a big F-U to the smaller states with low populations such as Montana, the Dakotas, and so on. The electoral college makes things fair.

One interesting thing I one to point out though is I've never seen liberals complain about the electoral college until now. They were very much for it just 5 years ago, but now that their candidate lost, they suddenly bombard it with hate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a fundamental question, is that it is better to be led by a tyranny of a majority or a tyranny of a minority?

For me the only reason of this electoral college was to respect the will of a majority of states but the electoral system in itself is blaming between 30 and 49,99% in each states (at the exclusion of D.C.).

For me it is unfair that Trump has won thanks to 20 000 votes in Wisconsin (and less than 50%), the same in Pennsilvanya (70 000 votes on 5 millions and less than 50%) or 9000 votes in Michigan while the other party has 800 000 votes in more at the national level but it is as much as unfair that Hillary who won in Minnesota with 46,9% or in Colorado with 47,3%.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jaster said:

In my opinion, the electoral college is necessary. The reason we use that instead of the popular vote is because the founding fathers knew that a "true" democracy would be bad, as it would be a tyranny of the majority.

I keep seeing "tyranny" thrown around like it's no big deal.  If we elected by popular vote we would not resemble a tyrannical government whatsoever, we'd simply be a country that rules by majority.  Regardless of who wins an election, this will not be a nation ruled by tyranny.  Saying our country would be a tyranny simply because we rule by majority is disrespectful to people who have actually lived through tyranny, like North Koreans and Cubans.   

Plus, by this logic, we're currently a tyranny of the minority.

3 hours ago, Jaster said:

Major population centers like New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, and so on, are HEAVILY Democratic. You can look at the county-by-county maps and it shows the country at LEAST 75% red, yet Hillary is still scratching ahead in the popular vote.

Yes, that's because so many red states are not densely populated.  Why should their vote count more because they're spread out more?

3 hours ago, Jaster said:

One interesting thing I one to point out though is I've never seen liberals complain about the electoral college until now. They were very much for it just 5 years ago, but now that their candidate lost, they suddenly bombard it with hate.

You must not be familiar with the election of 2000...

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jonathan Kudelka said:

It can't be "unfair" that Trump won because the rules are the rules.

An old quote by Voltaire, the founding ideologue behind some the of the principle constitutional foundations of governance the US and many other countries embrace today (like a division of authority between executive, legislative, and judicial, and the concept that citizens should have certain guaranteed right, inviolable by the government without due and fair process of law, amongst others), "just because something is legal doesn't make it right, and just because something is right doesn't make it legal." A poignant quote to that defence of why Trump won and the system around it MUST be blindly respected and honoured.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Jonathan Kudelka said:

It can't be "unfair" that Trump won because the rules are the rules. In the US we use the electoral college and it doesn't matter who wins the popular vote. You might not like it or want to keep it but Trump won fair and square and even Hillary, Obama, Warren and Sanders agree.

There are plenty of arguments for and against the Electoral College, but saying something "can't be unfair because rules are rules," is not a good argument.  If things are automatically fair because U.S. law says it's okay, then slavery would still be in existence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Democratically it is unfair but yes according to the constitution it is legal, and a law can be unfair and legal.

Only the attack on human rights at its highest level is enough unfair to be considered as illegal since Saint Thomas d'Aquin, hence for me the electoral college is unfair regarding the system of vote for 3 things:

In a democracy the vote has to be:

-Secret

-Equal

-personnal

Equal means, every seat has almost the same amount of electors and everybody has a vote, only one of two mainstream question is kept there.

And we can say that a democrat or republican vote is quite useless in California or in South Carolina while a vote in Florida is more important.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, jnewt said:

There are plenty of arguments for and against the Electoral College, but saying something "can't be unfair because rules are rules," is not a good argument.  If things are automatically fair because U.S. law says it's okay, then slavery would still be in existence.

fair1
fer/
adjective
adjective: fair; comparative adjective: fairer; superlative adjective: fairest
1.
in accordance with the rules or standards; legitimate.
 
I'll also say that "Fair is a four-letter word."  Lots of folks, especially the younger generation, think that "fair" is the same thing as "what they want."  It's a relative and subjective term.  The ONLY way you can judge it is if it follows rules or not.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm also in favor of all states assigning their electoral votes the way Maine and Nebraska do.  But that is never going to happen, because it would require a Constitutional amendment to redefine how electoral votes are allocated, and there's no way in hell that 38 states are going to agree to have that restriction upon them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, servo75 said:
fair1
fer/
adjective
adjective: fair; comparative adjective: fairer; superlative adjective: fairest
1.
in accordance with the rules or standards; legitimate.

Slavery was in accordance with the rules or standards.  Do you believe slavery was fair?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jonathan Kudelka said:

Everybody DOES have a vote... the U.S. is a democracy... i'm failing to see what a "Democracy" HAS to be... are you saying the U.S. is not a Democracy?

It's actually not a democracy.  A democracy would be next to impossible to use in modern society, so we have a democratic republic instead.  And our votes actually aren't all equal, as some states are either over- or underrepresented in the electoral college.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The US are a democracy, but every current democracy are not perfect, currently I know no total democracies, that's why the law is continually evolving and that's why there is the need to have juges and congressmen or senators.

The second point I showed to you is a mistake in many countries not only USA, in Great Britain, Canada, you have this problem, but the Electoral College is really not the best method to ensure the equal vote.

A Republican vote in California is not equal to a Republican vote in Florida and this is a sad fact, that's why a proportionnal vote would be better and there, a Republican vote in California would be equal to a Republican vote in Florida.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jnewt said:

Slavery was in accordance with the rules or standards.  Do you believe slavery was fair?

As I said, fair is a subjective term, so no I'm not going to take your bait.  Slavery was morally wrong which is easy to see today.  And we made it legally wrong with the 13th Amendment.  So the Constitution can change for the good, but it has to be followed as it exists at any given time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, servo75 said:

As I said, fair is a subjective term, so no I'm not going to take your bait.  Slavery was morally wrong which is easy to see today.  And we made it legally wrong with the 13th Amendment.  So the Constitution can change for the good, but it has to be followed as it exists at any given time.

No one's saying it shouldn't be followed.  As far as I know, no here has suggested Hillary should become President because she won the popular vote.  The only thing we have suggested is to do exactly what you said, change the Constitution by getting rid of the electoral college.  No one has suggested to just ignore the Constitution like you keep trying to say.  All anyone here has suggested is to change the Constitution.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes and It is worrying the low turnout in the USA also regarding to this system.

If I am right 2008 was the highest turnout since decades with 61%

This election seems around 55/56% (and it was around 50% in 1992/1996 and 2000 or 2004)

In Canada it's around 70%, in GB around 68%, and France which is half-presidential and chooses its president with the direct system (universal vote with the whole country as state) has always got a very high turnout, between 80 and 85% in both turns despite of the selection of 2 candidates in the second turn.

I am asking how could be the Electoral map of the USA and the total vote of the people if:

=>There was an automatic inscription in the electoral lists

=>The people who are not coming to vote (in safe states) had the opportunity to go to vote in thinking they can make the difference

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, jnewt said:

No one's saying it shouldn't be followed.  As far as I know, no here has suggested Hillary should become President because she won the popular vote.  The only thing we have suggested is to do exactly what you said, change the Constitution by getting rid of the electoral college.  No one has suggested to just ignore the Constitution like you keep trying to say.  All anyone here has suggested is to change the Constitution.

That's fine then.  I don't think either one of our plans has any chance because the states would have to surrender their sovereignty.  My point is that something can be morally questionable and still be legal.  The "fair" part, well fair is a point of view...

Link to post
Share on other sites

The US is a democratic republic.  While there are some aspects of democracy in it, there are checks to democracy because the Founders feared direct democracy.  In direct democracy, 2 people can vote to take everything from a third person.

The problem is who would manage the Congressional districts?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

The problem is who would manage the Congressional districts?

 

How about this. The majority party in Congress would select exactly half of the members of an electoral boundaries commission, and the minority party would also select exactly half. A binding decision would require a simple majority of the commission. That would mean, by necessity, some degree of compromise, concession, and reasonable negotiation would have to be made within the commission, and no one party could dominate or steamroller.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jvikings1 said:

The US is a democratic republic.  While there are some aspects of democracy in it, there are checks to democracy because the Founders feared direct democracy.  In direct democracy, 2 people can vote to take everything from a third person.

The problem is who would manage the Congressional districts?

 

Independent or bi-partisan committees.  You would need some sort of formula that restricts the breaking up of cities and counties.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, servo75 said:
fair1
fer/
adjective
adjective: fair; comparative adjective: fairer; superlative adjective: fairest
1.
in accordance with the rules or standards; legitimate.
 
I'll also say that "Fair is a four-letter word."  Lots of folks, especially the younger generation, think that "fair" is the same thing as "what they want."  It's a relative and subjective term.  The ONLY way you can judge it is if it follows rules or not.

I also want to add that politicians and union types talk about "fair" contracts and making the "rich" pay their "fair" share of taxes, whatever that means.  They seem to think that "fair" means "give us what we want."  Who the hell are they to impose their definitions of fair on us, to decide who gets to earn what and how much money they're "allowed" to keep?  The hubris of the leftist elite really tests the bounds of logic sometimes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, servo75 said:

I also want to add that politicians and union types talk about "fair" contracts and making the "rich" pay their "fair" share of taxes, whatever that means.  They seem to think that "fair" means "give us what we want."  Who the hell are they to impose their definitions of fair on us, to decide who gets to earn what and how much money they're "allowed" to keep?  The hubris of the leftist elite really tests the bounds of logic sometimes.

I don't think hubris or elitism are qualities exclusive only to one or more socio-political ideological groups. I think their sins possible (even to the point of likely) of any human beings with any real power or influence. I am getting bone sick of people going on and on these days as though fundamental character flaws of human nature in general are ONLY traits indicative of or found in people of ideological stances they don't like. It's one of several big things in the modern socio-political dialogue that's among the most insulting to the intelligence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...