Jump to content
270soft Forum

President Trump


ThePotatoWalrus

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, Sami said:

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.

Why so "worrying".  You want to Make America Great Again by being more like Canada and France? :o

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

Ha ha,

Canada is quite well working despite their Prime Minister who is spending a lot of money after the good work of Harper! (he's a conservative, I am a liberal and I say it)

For you a democracy works when 55% of the people is voting and when an elector in Florida is more important than an elector in California or in Kentucky?

The US is not yet an old democracy, but for a quite young nation the electoral system from 1788 is becoming older

And America can't be greater or united when the President got 25% of the people, Hillary got 26% of the people and Trump 25,5% (so both would have not got the will of the people behind because of the current system), that's also why Bernie could won by large.

I would make a parenthesys but on another point, about the popularity of Bernie

His ratting polls were huge because he would have inspirated to vote even more than those who believed in Obama in 2008 because this man is a progressist since decades and always said what he was thinking right, not what the elites were asking to him.

The working class was divided between Clinton and Trump but this class had Bernie in first choice for a huge number.

And for me Hillary was not the best choice ever made by the Democrats, because she was not clear on what she did, because she has been dishonest and shows this, but the Republican candidate was really unfit for presidence and I don't know if you read it but Donald has scrapped his promises about Obamacare, about deportation of illegal immigrants (he will do the same than Obama on this issue), he won't push to abolish the gay marriage, in fact he only kept three things currently:

-Free gun

-Threat abortion

-Be laxist on environnment

It's close to what a Marco Rubio would have been able to do.

For me the best of the Republican party were Jep Bush and John Kasich, because both were able to govern for more than they own, in the Democratic side it was Bernie.

But you can be sure nobody won this election in terms of policies, the country stays divided and even Trump quite well understood that he have to be moderated on several issues.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, jnewt said:

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

I never said that. What I said is that if we went by popular vote, we'd be throwing everything that isn't a huge population center under the bus. Besides, the states don't have an equal amount of delegates per state, they still decently reflect populations, so the electoral college isn't silencing the people all that much.

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Jaster said:

I never said that. What I said is that if we went by popular vote, we'd be throwing everything that isn't a huge population center under the bus. Besides, the states don't have an equal amount of delegates per state, they still decently reflect populations, so the electoral college isn't silencing the people all that much.

But the US isn't a country that's 90% rural like it was in 1789. It's a modern, industrialized, First-World, High-Income Earner, high-HDI, and all of those other terms used by the UN for the very wealthiest and most developed of nations in the world today (though you'd never know it from some pictures of Washington Heights and parts of Queens in NYC, South-Central LA, East Chicago, some underdeveloped parts of the rural Appalachans(sp) or Heartland, or failed company towns in the Rust Belt). This status precludes a large, or significant rural population (by percentage) due to the way modern economic practices and much more efficient and high-tech farming methods function. In fact, I believe, last I checked the US has a roughly (very roughly) 80-20% urban-rural, which is quite typical of a modern, industrialized, First World Country today. In fact, only the most destitute, backward, and underdeveloped Third Word Countries have large rural population percentages in the modern day. That being said, in that kind of society and economy, why should rural areas be artificially overrepresented? The only reason they ever have been, or have been advocated, in the 20th Century, and this same thing has been done as a scheme in Canadian, Australian, British, South African, and European politics, is to artificially increase politically conservative power and representation in government well-beyond it's real population base, because rural populations are usually staunchly conservative. But, you, @servo75, and others may have a hard time believing that, as the myth among conservatives in the US today seems to be that ONLY liberals use any sort of unfair, underhanded, or manipulative tactics to artificially shore up their power, and that conservatives are too ethical and honourable and forthright to engage in such loathsome tactics.

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...