- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
[POLL] United States Presidential Elections 2016
- Thread starter Sanji Himura
- 10,343 comments
- 408,641 views
- Status
- 87,585
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
No evidence was presented of Savile's crimes until 2011. They started in the 1960s and persisted throughout the intervening decades - and definitely happened despite the lack of victims, witnesses and evidence at the time.
No evidence of wrongdoing yet is not no evidence of wrongdoing ever.
Again, that's not proof that it happened, but the cautionary tale of Savile remains. Everyone in his industry knew but he was too famous and well-connected (he was knighted and friends with Margaret Thatcher) for any allegations or even victims to surface in his lifetime. Given that Hillary managed to bend the entire Democrat party to her will, I think the former applies to the Clintons too - and it seems likely that no-one will ever discover if the Paedoplane is true or a fabrication (and it seems too far-fetched with too many parts required to be kept so quiet for so long - like any other conspiracy) within the Clintons' lifetime either.
Last edited:
- 4,464
- Azle, TX
- supermanfromazle
- SanjiHimura
1. The Constitution authorizes the State legislatures to distribute their electors however they see fit. I have emphasized the relevant section.
US Constitution: Article 2
2. As was shown a page ago, abolishing the electoral college entirely in favor of a national popular vote system is bad news because a large bulk of the population is living in just two cities, Los Angeles and New York City. If we threw out results from just those two cities, Trump would have won the national popular vote by 1 million votes. The overall point of the electoral college is to give the rural areas enough power to have a say in national elections.
3. There have only been 4 elections since 1824 where the eventual Presidential election winner has lost the popular vote, 1876, 1888, 2000 and this year. The election of 1824 didn't actually count since no one obtained an electoral college majority on election night. An 8.3% inaccuracy rating since 1824 of the electoral college is actually pretty good.
4. That might be a good idea on paper, but again, that is up to the states as it is their constitutional right to distribute the electors however they see fit.
- 1,433
- Northern Ireland
If you think of politics as a game - which for better or worse, it pretty much is - the game that was played was "win a majority of electoral votes", and this game is (likely) played differently to the game where the goal is "win a majority of popular votes". In the former, the focus is on winning a set of valuable battleground states; in the latter the focus would be on getting out your vote in the most populous areas. Since the games are different, you can't definitively use a result from one to conclude a result in the other.
Silly example but it'd be like in chess, if after you've been checkmated, you declare "but I had more rooks than you at the end - so really I won!". You can't change the rules of the game after it's been played...........
What I would say though is, whilst Trump losing the popular vote doesn't invalidate the result, since it's such a rare occurance, it does suggest that his victory really wasn't that emphatic.
I know very little about it but as far as I understand it the electoral college is very much undemocratic, but that this was intentional, there can be good reasons for doing so, and there are some who think that more democracy should not be automatically seen as a better democracy. Here's an article I like which touches on this (the first half, the second half is less relevant), as well as the concept of electors having the freedom to act faithlessly, which the article argues follows similar principles. I do find it interesting that some here and many elsewhere who have championed the electoral college (coincidentally favourable to Trump), were also against the idea of faithless electors (coincidentally not favourable to Trump)..............funny that.
- 2,188
- Northwest Passage
The electoral college today is different than originally intended. Originally, the popular vote was to mean nothing, and only the electors' votes matter. This was a true republican way of government. But, since (I think) 1830, it's mostly been winner take all, whoever wins the popular vote in a state wins all the electoral votes in that state. It was edited to give more power to the people. (Note that it's still the same in the Constitution, but it's the states themselves that made laws for winner take all. The states could have been the ones to do something that you're saying.)
Not necessarily. Any democratic method would lead to the same result; a bias of heavily populated areas over lightly populated areas. The only true equality method would be to give each state 1 electoral vote, and whoever wins that state wins that vote. But than the large states would get pissed and call it unequal. The only reason why one state would be more heavily favored is because it's more heavily populated.
In a way it's one of the few flaws of the Electoral College. But in a way, it's not a flaw at all. There are some states like Texas, California, and New York, that no matter what, will always vote a certain way. The candidate getting those votes will get huge popular vote numbers, and huge electoral college numbers. The way how it is now, kind of, balances out the power those states have.
At this point, we can't make any foundational changes to the Constitution, like overhauling the Electoral College. It just wouldn't happen.
Had Hillary have beaten Trump in the same way he beat her, there would be more Conservative outcry (although Conservatives are supposed to be defenders of the Constitution), and more Liberals would be saying "she beat him fair and square, everything's all good".
- 1,971
- Seattle, WA
I'm going to leave this here rather than in the Carrie Fisher thread which deserves to not be derailed.
http://twitchy.com/wa-37/2016/12/27...death-coming-in-threes-names-the-next-victim/
@R1600Turbo Conjecture? Nope. This is exactly what I was talking about.
How is this not politicizing the death of a celebrity by a liberal whining about the election?
How is this not completely classless?
http://twitchy.com/wa-37/2016/12/27...death-coming-in-threes-names-the-next-victim/
@R1600Turbo Conjecture? Nope. This is exactly what I was talking about.
How is this not politicizing the death of a celebrity by a liberal whining about the election?
How is this not completely classless?
- 1,971
- Seattle, WA
Crickets, I figured as much, never has this been more appropriate.
- 1,971
- Seattle, WA
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
I followed the discussion in the other thread, and I genuinely have no idea what you're talking about. I don't blame him for not replying.
- 1,971
- Seattle, WA
In a nutshell, stupid people on twitter using the deaths of celebrities to whine about the outcome of the election, see the Alec Baldwin linked tweet above for an example.
- 3,196
- Hong Kong
- Hybrid_Tifoso
That's odd. I remember reading that in order for a constitutional amendment to take place and the Electoral College to be abolished, such amendment will require two-thirds of the votes in both the House and Senate to be sent to the state legislatures, and three-fourths of which is required for the amendment to be applied to all states. So the responsibility is on the Congress first to initiate an amendment to the constitution, and subsequently, the way in which electors are distributed.
But then that is not the main argument of my post, which were the reasons why I'm against the Electoral College and the 'winner-takes-all' system, so I'm not going to waste much time arguing on that.
So you're sacrificing the weight of votes in cities in favour of votes in rural areas? That still doesn't resonate with 'equality' to me.
But then if you look at it the other way, 2 of the 5 most-recent presidential elections elected a president who lost on the popular vote. And the election in 2000 happened not long after the advent of the modern Internet. This, to me, seems to be a trend that will continue for quite some time to come, considering the increasing prevalence of the Internet and, in particular, content farms. And I believe some people living in rural areas will continue to believe in what content farms say without actually bothering to check their validity. I don't have the stats to prove it, so that's just my thought.
But that would be equality between states. What I was talking about was equality between every individual. And since the country (and states) is comprised mostly by the people, shouldn't the people be valued over the states?
- 4,464
- Azle, TX
- supermanfromazle
- SanjiHimura
There is also the Convention of the States (or an Article V convention). That requires 3/4th of the states to approve in calling one. No need in involving Congress at all. The Article V convention process is already underway as some state legislatures are already voting on calling for a convention.
Not exactly. Under the current system, large cities do influence how electoral votes are distributed. If you look at the county by county map of the election results, every state that Hillary won did contain a very large city in it. The only exception to this rule is Texas.
I agree. However, the other side of the coin is that those content farms can turn up sensitive information, information that some people in government don't want to be public (see Wikileaks).
We never were a true democracy. We were set up as a republic. The whole democracy thing is a progressive thing that started in the early 20th century as a way to damage the republic. A true democracy is mob rule.
BobK
Premium
- 7,020
- Massachusetts, USA
How about if we applied the same standard to the United Nations then? Instead of each member nation getting one vote, they'd get a number of votes proportional to their population.
In essence, China and India would dominate, and small nations would have essentially no voice whatsoever.
Wouldn't that be a good idea in your opinion?
mister dog
(Banned)
- 8,396
- Spain
- misterdog
- misterdog7
Sanctions on Russia now by Obama:
https://www.rt.com/news/372190-us-expels-russian-diplomats/
Looking forward to finally see that evidence. Wonder if Trump will revert these last ditch efforts to blame a foreign entity for the dems having lost the election. Strangely another foreign entity was influencing the elections too (Saudi's bankrolling Hillary), but you don't hear too much about that.
https://www.rt.com/news/372190-us-expels-russian-diplomats/
Looking forward to finally see that evidence. Wonder if Trump will revert these last ditch efforts to blame a foreign entity for the dems having lost the election. Strangely another foreign entity was influencing the elections too (Saudi's bankrolling Hillary), but you don't hear too much about that.
xyloscissor
(Banned)
- 933
- United States
We can't be rid of him soon enough, childish beyond 'normal' partisan politics by a mile.
Obama
Fixed that for him
Hopefully many things he has done will be challenged such as all those executive orders and most of all his failed health care. One can dream at least.
To touch briefly on that money part, foreign or local I believe campaign finance is something we can never get right. Among other things it opens the door to all this anti republic nonsense attacking our voting system.
mister dog
(Banned)
- 8,396
- Spain
- misterdog
- misterdog7
- 7,621
- Exorcet
- OE Exorcet
China and India are 36% of the world population according to Google, so they wouldn't even be a majority if they agreed on everything.
Also, one vote per state/nation/city isn't a focus on individuals. A system based around individual votes would give every person a vote and not lump them into arbitrary categories, like the nation they happen to live in.
xyloscissor
(Banned)
- 933
- United States
- 9,401
- Western Sydney
- mustafur
United nations and United states are not the same, despite the similar names, the UN doesn't have anywhere near the power over it's members as the Federal Government of the US has over it's states.
xyloscissor
(Banned)
- 933
- United States
Like I said, it appears you know very little about our form of government, our federal government is supposed to be limited in power just as it is stated in our constitution. The same can be said for the UN in theory at least, in reality the parallel is to large to ignore. That bit about United States? That is how we are founded, a United States, not a Federal Government. United Nations? How long do you think that will last before the UN becomes way to large and overpowers the world?
I think you might want that although I'm not sure, the model I'm using as in the U.S. and your opinion of how we should lose state's rights kinda leans that way. @BobK is right in asking you that question and your answer does not hold any water.
- 9,401
- Western Sydney
- mustafur
What kind of nonsense is this, why does every US member I question on this just assume I don't know how your country started. Your getting paranoia confused with knowledge and reality.
Name one State that has Veto power in congress that others don't have?
and explain how I am against state rights, when we are talking about a federal issue.
United Nations is not the same as United states.
Name one State that has Veto power in congress that others don't have?
and explain how I am against state rights, when we are talking about a federal issue.
United Nations is not the same as United states.
xyloscissor
(Banned)
- 933
- United States
Am I wrong in thinking you are against our electoral college? A federal issue it is and it isn't, the states get to decide not the mob. You know, being in our constitution and all.
The UN is starting out in a very similar way to how our federal government did, we had states first, then the fed kinda like how there were countries first and then a UN. How can you say the U.S. should have a mob rule voting system but not the world? I don't get it.
If you don't see it is wrong to ask the U.S. to give up it's state rights to a federal government but ask the U.N. to give every country an equal say I'm at a loss.
The United States of America /= The Federal Democracy of America, it simply does not.
Out of curiosity if Hillary had won would we be having this discussion?
- 5,588
- Dahlonega, GA
- ryzno
This is the one thing I've never understood about our President. Why do they give the out going President 2-3 months to screw over the next President? This is not the first time a party lost and they screwed the next guy.
Why!!
xyloscissor
(Banned)
- 933
- United States
- 9,401
- Western Sydney
- mustafur
Well for starters Mob Rule or what ever you call it, it's the same thing as saying Rural mob rule which is what the Electoral collage does as it makes rural votes more important.
Second of all the UN is completely Flawed and i don't agree with it's existance atleast in it's current form, the powerful countries have Veto power which can stop crucial things that need to happen and wipes them from the agenda. and then you have countries such as Saudi Arabia who are on the Human rights council yet they will lock up people who simply asking why should women have a gaurdian at all times. Like they even know what Rights are.
You haven't explained to me what the electoral Collage has to do with states rights though, states rights has been a states issue, increasing federal law still is a federal issue.
and Yes it wouldn't of mattered who won the election, I don't support either candidates and I've made this clear on this thread too many times to count, pointing out both their flaws.
- 2,188
- Northwest Passage
The only way for there to be equality among every individual would be a true popular vote. That will never happen. The people do hold equal value to the states though; the states' electors are proportionally representative to that states population. But, I get what your saying. But at this point, there's no possible way the electoral college will change, unless something cataclysmic happens, or one political party controls 60-70% of Congress (which in itself is cataclysmic).
xyloscissor
(Banned)
- 933
- United States
Nope, it is the same as saying each state has it's right to say what happens in the Federal Government, there is nothing democratic about it, it's republic and we are guaranteed that right. Rural mob? That means nothing to me, lets go back to the UN for a second, is the smallest country with a vote rural giving them a rural mob rule? I don't understand you I'm afraid but here ya go just so you know what we are granted under law.
Article IV (Article 4 - States' Relations)
Section 1
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Section 2
1: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
2: A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.
3: No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.11
Section 3
1: New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
2: The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
Section 4
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
At least we agree on that much, the UN is crap. The fact you don't want to draw the similarity between the U.S. Fed and the U.N. is all up to you.
It is very simple, let's take a few more looks at our law then; the electoral collage guarantees each state an apropriate amount of say equal to the rules of the republic. Increasing federal law is much more than a simple federal issue because we have a system of checks and balances meant to limit the federal government.(section 8)
Article I (Article 1 - Legislative)
Section 1
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
Section 2
1: The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.
2: No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.
3: Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.2 The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.
4: When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.
5: The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
Section 3
1: The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof,3 for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.
2: Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year; and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.4
3: No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.
4: The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.
5: The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.
6: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
7: Judgment in Cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
Section 4
1: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
2: The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December,5 unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.
Section 5
1: Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.
2: Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.
3: Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.
4: Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.
Section 6
1: The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States.6 They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
2: No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.
Section 7
1: All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
2: Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.
3: Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.
Section 8
1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
2: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
5: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
6: To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
9: To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
10: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
13: To provide and maintain a Navy;
14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;And
18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Can you now see the power of state and the limit of federal powers? Pay close attention to the early bits that explain why who gets what vote and then make sure and understand section 8. That should answer all your questions, disagree with our form of government if you wish but know what it is before you blindly say doing away with the electoral college has no impact on states rights because that is just plain wrong.
tl;dr? Our republic protects the minority against the majority it really is that simple.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
