2020 US presidential election

Anything not relating to the X-Universe games (general tech talk, other games...) belongs here. Please read the rules before posting.

Moderator: Moderators for English X Forum

Post Reply
User avatar
Observe
Posts: 5079
Joined: Fri, 30. Dec 05, 17:47
xr

Re: 2020 US presidential election

Post by Observe » Thu, 25. Apr 19, 16:22

Masterbagger wrote:
Fri, 12. Apr 19, 06:01
We are definitely at a crossroads. We need to decide whether we are going to be a socialist nation or not and we need to settle it whatever the hell it takes. Even if we have to fight over it. It needs to happen.
Too late. In case you hadn't noticed, the U.S. is already a socialist nation. We just don't have a very functional version of it yet; because we still cling to the quaint notion that the individual is more important than the society.

Ever heard of social security or medicare? How about public roads, public schools, the post office and the fire department. All these are funded by taxation and regulated by the people (government). If it wasn't for socialism, America would be even more oppressed than it currently is. Don't worry so much about socialism. Your narrative is full of mythical boogeymen.

Early American Capitalism was marked by the slave trade. There was a civil war fought over that. The South lost, but the war rages on in the minds of white supremacists, militia organizations and others looking to the past with fondness (make America great "again"). Gun fanatic dinosaurs often belong to such groups, because they somehow feel that history wronged them and that guns will empower them to change the past. Not going to happen.

Yaunm
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu, 28. Jun 18, 09:25
xr

Re: 2020 US presidential election

Post by Yaunm » Thu, 25. Apr 19, 17:13

Observe wrote:
Thu, 25. Apr 19, 16:22
to change the past. Not going to happen.
Except for Trump in 2016. And Trump in 2020. And Brexit. What past are you talking about here?

User avatar
fiksal
Posts: 16569
Joined: Tue, 2. May 06, 17:05
x4

Re: 2020 US presidential election

Post by fiksal » Thu, 25. Apr 19, 22:34

Yaunm wrote:
Thu, 25. Apr 19, 12:31
Ah, this is too bad, she did win the popular vote after all. Sure it should be more difficult now, but, for the sake of democracy, i don't see why she Democrats don't just redistribute the votes of undocumented citizens to the right states to ensure proper result.
Clinton did win indeed. But people dont elect Presidents in US.

"redistribute" ? "undocumented" citizens? I guess we can hire the gestapo / aka ICE, seems up their alley.

Does the cost outweigh the benefit though?

Yaunm wrote:
Thu, 25. Apr 19, 12:31
Biden makes a great candidate too though. He is all pro-diversity, especially in family matters. Here is his program https://joebiden.info. Self explanatory really, and i'm sure all Liberals will love it, once this starts making the rounds in the mainstream media.
Question is - is being "touchy" enough to win Trump voters? Maybe he has a winning strategy for getting voters on the other side of the pond. What's the winning level of harassment exactly? Someone needs to measure.
Yaunm wrote:
Thu, 25. Apr 19, 12:31
Sounds like Trump has no chance.
I wouldnt say so, - I think if Trump rages some more, blames more Mexicans on not building his tiny wall, maybe shoots someone in New York, that'll put him back on a horse. So to speak. I think at that point we dont even need to do another election, ever.
Gimli wrote:Let the Orcs come as thick as summer-moths round a candle!

Mightysword
Posts: 4350
Joined: Wed, 10. Mar 04, 05:11
x3tc

Re: 2020 US presidential election

Post by Mightysword » Fri, 26. Apr 19, 00:25

fiksal wrote:
Thu, 25. Apr 19, 22:34
Clinton did win indeed.
Clinton win the popular vote, she did not win the presidential race. Which is a race where the rule are clearly defined and has been so for hundreds of years. Don't like it? Fine, try and change it. Want it to be just a simple popularity contest? Get to work and make that reality. Until that happens, sentiment does not invalid technicality. Just like someone who doesn't like the law doesn't mean they can self-declare they are immune to such law.

But people dont elect Presidents in US.
Yes we do, or are you saying the 46mil people who voted for him are not "people" ? :roll:

This is the exact kind of display that is problematic these days in politic. Don't like Trump? Prove yourself better than him instead of just shitting on him nonestop.
Reading comprehension is hard.
Reading with prejudice makes comprehension harder.

User avatar
Morkonan
Posts: 10113
Joined: Sun, 25. Sep 11, 04:33
x3tc

Re: 2020 US presidential election

Post by Morkonan » Fri, 26. Apr 19, 01:23

Mightysword wrote:
Wed, 24. Apr 19, 00:14
...- If she says this knowing it's simply an empty promise, than she proves herself again just another crook preying on a vulnerable population...
Just a note - This is why I made that "liars" rant. Every single Democratic hopeful that thinks they have a chance to get elected because of some expectation of a massive voter pushback against Trump is making these very same "promises" and, when they're not being so brash, hinting that they "might" make them. Every_Single_One They're saying anything they think can gain them some small portion of an audience that will "talk-them-up" until word of mouth equates to "Presidential Hopeful Status."

Now, "Uncle Joe" has announced his bid. I like Uncle Joe, but just as someone who seems to be a fairly decent guy. For a Presidential candidate? I don't know about that... He's kind of getting a bit long-in-the-tooth. He's "Old." I'm not prejudiced against old people, I just don't think he's going to get enough support to be viable because of that. He has yet to really start laying out his platform, so I have to withhold judgement until he does.
If she has a team that is seriously good enough to pull off this promise, than that team would be more than good enough to fix the current taxcode. It will be less controversial while achieve far more than this little scheme of her. But I guess that's old news and won't win her political brownie points.
For now, that's not going to get changed one little bit, IMO. Trump's "Tax Cut" still has to be absorbed before any sort of radical change could get traction. It may be that the shortfall from those cuts is going to have a ripple effect in the codes, but it's difficult to see how that could have a positive effect for Joe Taxpayer. Someone might, if they get enough popular support, try one of those "loophole closure" moves to gain more of the "99% Movement" support. But, in reality, that's not going to do very much for the balance-sheet.

Someone could say "Why don't we cut back a little bit on government spending?" Holy Crap, do you think that might happen? Heck no. It's all gonna end with printing more money.
Mightysword wrote:
Fri, 26. Apr 19, 00:25
fiksal wrote:
Thu, 25. Apr 19, 22:34
Clinton did win indeed.
Clinton win the popular vote, she did not win the presidential race. Which is a race where the rule are clearly defined and has been so for hundreds of years. Don't like it? Fine, try and change it. Want it to be just a simple popularity contest? Get to work and make that reality. Until that happens, sentiment does not invalid technicality. Just like someone who doesn't like the law doesn't mean they can self-declare they are immune to such law....
^-- This.

If two chess players sit down for a game of chess and one of them flips the board over and declares themselves the winner... They are not going to be declared the winner by the judges.

The issue on the rules is very simple to understand - We are a Representative Republic. States are sovereign entities and must have their interests protected and acknowledged. But, not all States have equal populations. Moreover, a in order to win the office, a Presidential candidate has to pay attention to regions where there are lower population concentrations, too. They can't just fly to every major metropolis and focus only on the concerns of those people while ignoring the famers and suburbanites. And, there ya go. Understanding complete. We now understand why there is an "Electoral College."

A wholly "popular vote" system would mean that candidates could just target the most dense areas of population and "win the Popular Vote."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U ... population

Which is kind of how Hillary Clinton LOST the election...

User avatar
Ketraar
EGOSOFT
EGOSOFT
Posts: 11741
Joined: Fri, 21. May 04, 17:15
x4

Re: 2020 US presidential election

Post by Ketraar » Fri, 26. Apr 19, 02:18

Morkonan wrote:
Fri, 26. Apr 19, 01:23
A wholly "popular vote" system would mean that candidates could just target the most dense areas of population and "win the Popular Vote."
This is a point made often and it still is not anywhere near accurate.
This old video explains it very well https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k

Not just the EC is a bad system, but also the FPTP system is stupid in a representative system, having it so that about half the votes are discarded is ludicrous (watch the video for worse case scenario). Elections for single seat office its stupid to have the votes artificially split. For the senate it may make sense to have votes on a per state amount rather then population, there it kinda make sense, not for president.

As its now its not really very democratic, especially for the self proclaimed beacon of democracy. Not even going into gerrymandering and all that nonsense that just makes any non US person not living in a dictatorship go O.O

MFG

Ketraar
Image

User avatar
fiksal
Posts: 16569
Joined: Tue, 2. May 06, 17:05
x4

Re: 2020 US presidential election

Post by fiksal » Fri, 26. Apr 19, 02:40

Mightysword wrote:
Fri, 26. Apr 19, 00:25
fiksal wrote:
Thu, 25. Apr 19, 22:34
Clinton did win indeed.
Clinton win the popular vote, she did not win the presidential race.
Literally what I said ;)
What did you think I mean?

Mightysword wrote:
Fri, 26. Apr 19, 00:25
But people dont elect Presidents in US.
Yes we do, or are you saying the 46mil people who voted for him are not "people" ? :roll:

This is the exact kind of display that is problematic these days in politic. Don't like Trump? Prove yourself better than him instead of just shitting on him nonestop.
To be technically correct, the voters do not elect the president. The electors do, acting as electors.

I am saying the total number of votes (within a particular State) of people that voted for Trump was considered by the electors.

As your know States have various rules on how the electors can vote.

So no, technically, voters, who happen to be people, do not directly elect the president of US.

In Russia, they for example do - directly vote and elect the president... (disclaimer: when law isnt broken)


And this has nothing to do with shitting on anyone. Didn't even start in this thread
Last edited by fiksal on Fri, 26. Apr 19, 04:40, edited 3 times in total.
Gimli wrote:Let the Orcs come as thick as summer-moths round a candle!

RegisterMe
Posts: 8903
Joined: Sun, 14. Oct 07, 17:47
x4

Re: 2020 US presidential election

Post by RegisterMe » Fri, 26. Apr 19, 03:15

Seems to me inevitable that this thread is going to merge (not necessarily mod magiced) with the Trump thread anyhow so..........
I can't breathe.

- George Floyd, 25th May 2020

User avatar
fiksal
Posts: 16569
Joined: Tue, 2. May 06, 17:05
x4

Re: 2020 US presidential election

Post by fiksal » Fri, 26. Apr 19, 03:23

RegisterMe wrote:
Fri, 26. Apr 19, 03:15
Seems to me inevitable that this thread is going to merge (not necessarily mod magiced) with the Trump thread anyhow so..........
Yes, but we could try to keep the topics separated
Gimli wrote:Let the Orcs come as thick as summer-moths round a candle!

RegisterMe
Posts: 8903
Joined: Sun, 14. Oct 07, 17:47
x4

Re: 2020 US presidential election

Post by RegisterMe » Fri, 26. Apr 19, 03:29

How so?
I can't breathe.

- George Floyd, 25th May 2020

User avatar
Masterbagger
Posts: 1080
Joined: Tue, 14. Oct 14, 00:49
x4

Re: 2020 US presidential election

Post by Masterbagger » Fri, 26. Apr 19, 03:32

Observe wrote:
Thu, 25. Apr 19, 16:22
Early American Capitalism was marked by the slave trade. There was a civil war fought over that. The South lost, but the war rages on in the minds of white supremacists, militia organizations and others looking to the past with fondness (make America great "again"). Gun fanatic dinosaurs often belong to such groups, because they somehow feel that history wronged them and that guns will empower them to change the past. Not going to happen.
That is so nutty I can't even begin to guess what process caused those words to come together in that order.
Who made that man a gunner?

Mightysword
Posts: 4350
Joined: Wed, 10. Mar 04, 05:11
x3tc

Re: 2020 US presidential election

Post by Mightysword » Fri, 26. Apr 19, 03:41

RegisterMe wrote:
Fri, 26. Apr 19, 03:15
Seems to me inevitable that this thread is going to merge (not necessarily mod magiced) with the Trump thread anyhow so..........
I'm strongly disagree. Trump is the sitting President, most likely he will be the incumbent in the next election. Thus, you can't avoid talking about it without him in the picture.

But the thread is kept on things that related to the race, including Trump. At least this thread hasn't been invaded by the almost daily ritual of link to the gazillion article and youtube video about "here are your 10 reason to hate Trump today". For that I'm grateful, and prefer it to be kept that way. :P
Reading comprehension is hard.
Reading with prejudice makes comprehension harder.

User avatar
Observe
Posts: 5079
Joined: Fri, 30. Dec 05, 17:47
xr

Re: 2020 US presidential election

Post by Observe » Fri, 26. Apr 19, 04:05

Mightysword wrote:
Fri, 26. Apr 19, 03:41
RegisterMe wrote:
Fri, 26. Apr 19, 03:15
Seems to me inevitable that this thread is going to merge (not necessarily mod magiced) with the Trump thread anyhow so..........
I'm strongly disagree. Trump is the sitting President, most likely he will be the incumbent in the next election. Thus, you can't avoid talking about it without him in the picture.
This thread is about the upcoming election and related subjects. Trump is one candidate among many. Statistically, Trump will likely win, but it should be interesting nonetheless.

RegisterMe
Posts: 8903
Joined: Sun, 14. Oct 07, 17:47
x4

Re: 2020 US presidential election

Post by RegisterMe » Fri, 26. Apr 19, 04:17

Mightysword wrote:
Fri, 26. Apr 19, 03:41
RegisterMe wrote:
Fri, 26. Apr 19, 03:15
Seems to me inevitable that this thread is going to merge (not necessarily mod magiced) with the Trump thread anyhow so..........
I'm strongly disagree. Trump is the sitting President, most likely he will be the incumbent in the next election. Thus, you can't avoid talking about it without him in the picture.
Precisely.
I can't breathe.

- George Floyd, 25th May 2020

User avatar
fiksal
Posts: 16569
Joined: Tue, 2. May 06, 17:05
x4

Re: 2020 US presidential election

Post by fiksal » Fri, 26. Apr 19, 04:36

@Morkonan

Ah. The electoral college conversations are fun. But we all know how exactly it works, we just repeat the things we know to each other. ... ;) ... so that's fun?


RegisterMe wrote:
Fri, 26. Apr 19, 03:29
How so?
as above, just make an effort to not talk about Trump things unrelated to the race. (and instead do that in the Trump thread)
Gimli wrote:Let the Orcs come as thick as summer-moths round a candle!

User avatar
Morkonan
Posts: 10113
Joined: Sun, 25. Sep 11, 04:33
x3tc

Re: 2020 US presidential election

Post by Morkonan » Fri, 26. Apr 19, 05:02

Ketraar wrote:
Fri, 26. Apr 19, 02:18
Morkonan wrote:
Fri, 26. Apr 19, 01:23
A wholly "popular vote" system would mean that candidates could just target the most dense areas of population and "win the Popular Vote."
This is a point made often and it still is not anywhere near accurate.
This old video explains it very well https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k
By itself, it may not be justification for the Electoral System. However, taken in context with the rest of the things the EC attempts to balance, it's justifiable. Candidates may not have to physically "visit" a city, but they do tend to focus on urban issues and, at times, cultivate certain cities in attempt to gain those votes. There may be something to be said about the meta-effects of "density" when one has the favor of such populations.

Now, as to targeting large population densities in a purely "Popular Vote" system, it's an entirely reasonable strategy based on efficiency. CGPGrey also plays a shell-game with the terms "percentage of total population" and "popular vote" I think. The total number of votes in the 2016 election was around 138 million. If one could win over the support of a large majority of urban dwellers, that would be a very significant number in comparison to the likely number of total votes cast. NOT population. Not the possible number of all eligible voters. But, based on voter turnout, who's likely to vote, how efficient and what the campaign cost-benefits would be, focusing largely on urban centers would have a definite pay-off. And, keep in mind, that doesn't mean they don't win other votes, either. There's going to be things that are not dependent upon them taking on suburban issues in their platform that will still gain the votes of those living in less densely supported regions.

CGPGrey often starts off his vids with a premise and then proves it while ignoring some practical reasons things aren't the way he says they are. Not that I don't appreciate some of his informative vids - He's a good youtuber, by and large, with high production values. I just dislike certain sorts of interpretations presented in absence of practical reality. If, for instance, the opposite existed and the determination was purely by popular vote, would it not be the case that candidates would focus on that in disregard of some regional matters of concern or certain State issues or the concerns of areas with very low population density in comparison? If so, he'd be doing a vid about that injustice, wouldn't he?

It's a compromise solution that exists right now. It's not completely "fair," it's only designed to be "more fair" under the desired conditions, mainly the sovereignty and concerns of States, versus other methods.
Not just the EC is a bad system, but also the FPTP system is stupid in a representative system, having it so that about half the votes are discarded is ludicrous (watch the video for worse case scenario). Elections for single seat office its stupid to have the votes artificially split.
How are votes being "artificially split" here? In the US after a Presidential Election, even those who voted against the winner generally rally around the newly elected President as being representative of "The Will of the People." It may seem strange, but that's what we do. In the case of the latest elected President, though, the polarizing of politics and this President's general lack of ability or desire to act as a unifying force has still left the country somewhat divided on opinion. (Keep in mind that Obama had similar issues during his Presidency at times, but not to this degree really.)
As its now its not really very democratic, especially for the self proclaimed beacon of democracy. Not even going into gerrymandering and all that nonsense that just makes any non US person not living in a dictatorship go O.O
The US is a Representative Republic with Democratic Principles. It's not a pure politically defined "Democracy." But, it is "Democratic."

PS - I agree it's not a "perfect system." It's as fair as it can be right now while still observing the fundamentals present in our political system, namely the sovereignty of the States. (They aren't counties or principalities or regions - They're more akin to nations in an "Empire" than many other things.) It is subject to being "somewhat" exploited, though none of what goes on during a Presidential Election occurs in the vacuum CGPGrey/others may insist exists in their examples. Thanks to Television, Radio and Telephone, which make daily appearances of candidates across the entire nation possible, on TV or in daily newspapers and radio, we're dealing with mechanics that actually work to reduce the effectiveness of campaigns focusing their efforts on one segment of the population over another. So, if you're looking for an equalizer for a "Fair Democratic System of Voting" that's a pretty big factor. And... such sorts of communication can be easily manipulated depending on the easy of creating content and broadcasting it. Thanks to "teh internetz" we now see the impact of that form of mass media, too.
fiksal wrote:
Fri, 26. Apr 19, 04:36
@Morkonan

Ah. The electoral college conversations are fun. But we all know how exactly it works, we just repeat the things we know to each other. ... ;) ... so that's fun?
Eh... I didn't bring it up to start with. :) But, if it is going to be brought into the discussion, the reasons it exist kind of have to be stated else it's just going to devolve into ways to invalidate elections by staring out with the premise that they're "fundamentally flawed and unfair to everybody/RIGGED!." :)

On a side note: How in the heck are Democrats going to figure out their Army of candidates? It's a "Progressive" takeover, practically speaking. I'm not sure how traditional "Liberals" feel about it, either. Are they happy with some choices? Ticked off there's nobody carrying their "flag" or not taking the "radical Progressive" bait being lofted everywhere? Will "Uncle Joe" turn the tide or is he going to jump into the Progressive punch-bowl with both feet?

User avatar
fiksal
Posts: 16569
Joined: Tue, 2. May 06, 17:05
x4

Re: 2020 US presidential election

Post by fiksal » Fri, 26. Apr 19, 05:22

Morkonan wrote:
Fri, 26. Apr 19, 05:02
fiksal wrote:
Fri, 26. Apr 19, 04:36
@Morkonan

Ah. The electoral college conversations are fun. But we all know how exactly it works, we just repeat the things we know to each other. ... ;) ... so that's fun?
Eh... I didn't bring it up to start with. :) But, if it is going to be brought into the discussion, the reasons it exist kind of have to be stated else it's just going to devolve into ways to invalidate elections by staring out with the premise that they're "fundamentally flawed and unfair to everybody/RIGGED!." :)
hm...huh, it does seem like I missed part of the discussion there... well

And yes, it certainly exists for many reasons. From the first, where people were not to be trusted to people in the cities to not be fully trusted. And then various flavors on that.
Honestly I am not sure I like either Electoral College or Direct democracy.

I could add that, maybe switch up the election of executive branch into election of several people. Maybe I'll like that.

Morkonan wrote:
Fri, 26. Apr 19, 05:02
On a side note: How in the heck are Democrats going to figure out their Army of candidates? It's a "Progressive" takeover, practically speaking. I'm not sure how traditional "Liberals" feel about it, either. Are they happy with some choices? Ticked off there's nobody carrying their "flag" or not taking the "radical Progressive" bait being lofted everywhere? Will "Uncle Joe" turn the tide or is he going to jump into the Progressive punch-bowl with both feet?
I'll personally need an excel sheet I think, with easily sort-able columns. Maybe assign some weights, few points... draw some graphs... play Witcher.
Gimli wrote:Let the Orcs come as thick as summer-moths round a candle!

User avatar
Ketraar
EGOSOFT
EGOSOFT
Posts: 11741
Joined: Fri, 21. May 04, 17:15
x4

Re: 2020 US presidential election

Post by Ketraar » Fri, 26. Apr 19, 10:41

Morkonan wrote:
Fri, 26. Apr 19, 05:02
How are votes being "artificially split" here? In the US after a Presidential Election, even those who voted against the winner generally rally around the newly elected President as being representative of "The Will of the People." It may seem strange, but that's what we do. In the case of the latest elected President, though, the polarizing of politics and this President's general lack of ability or desire to act as a unifying force has still left the country somewhat divided on opinion. (Keep in mind that Obama had similar issues during his Presidency at times, but not to this degree really.)
They are split in the sense that if you are voting in a area with a strong opposing majority, your vote literally is worth nothing, which discourages people from voting in the first place, added with gerrymandering, its even worse as the majorities are artificially constructed. This is the most idiotic system I know of, even dictators try to at least appear to be democratic. In addition FPTP forces a 2 party systems, making it impossible for 3rd or more parties to have any chance or voice, which again reduces representation.
The US is a Representative Republic with Democratic Principles. It's not a pure politically defined "Democracy." But, it is "Democratic."
Please Mork, I have such high regard to your intellect, dont ruin it with this nonsensical debate about what constitutes a democracy and how the US being a Republic has anything to do on how you elect your president. I live in a republic, most people in the "western" world live in Republics.

You already have a states representation by having a senate that has 2 reps from each state, making the states having equal power there, there is no logic in having the states elect the President, again, since its a single seat office, might as well not have it being elected by the people and have it say be nominated by either senate or Congress, similar to parliamentary systems, but I recall reading that the point of having the "people" elect the president was to have a 3 way power check, just that the people designing the system dont trust the people to vote the right way and thus had this important task handed over to people that had a clue what is best. Not very democratic, but it was never supposed to be. It just does no longer fit the times.

MFG

Ketraar
Image

Bishop149
Posts: 7232
Joined: Fri, 9. Apr 04, 21:19
x3

Re: 2020 US presidential election

Post by Bishop149 » Fri, 26. Apr 19, 12:08

My experience recently as a know-nothing Brit.

[Joe Biden enters the race]
Me: "Ah, he should be popular! Obama's VP, generally regarded as a nice guy, not too "extreme" for the Yanks. . . . right?"
Most of Leftist America online: "JOE BIDEN IS LITERALLY HITLER IN NICE SLIPPERS!!"
Me: "Woah. . . . ok, calm down, surely better than Trump though? Might actually beat him?"
Most of Leftist America online: "BOTH THOSE THINGS ARE DEBATABLE!!"

The American Left seems rather similar to the British Left in the regard that they spend so much time fighting amoung themselves they fail to mobilise against the "real enemy"
"Shoot for the Moon. If you miss, you'll end up co-orbiting the Sun alongside Earth, living out your days alone in the void within sight of the lush, welcoming home you left behind." - XKCD

User avatar
Morkonan
Posts: 10113
Joined: Sun, 25. Sep 11, 04:33
x3tc

Re: 2020 US presidential election

Post by Morkonan » Sat, 27. Apr 19, 00:17

Ketraar wrote:
Fri, 26. Apr 19, 10:41
They are split in the sense that if you are voting in a area with a strong opposing majority, your vote literally is worth nothing, which discourages people from voting in the first place, added with gerrymandering, its even worse as the majorities are artificially constructed. This is the most idiotic system I know of, even dictators try to at least appear to be democratic. In addition FPTP forces a 2 party systems, making it impossible for 3rd or more parties to have any chance or voice, which again reduces representation.
You seem to be arguing against "voting." So, if there's a majority anywhere does that then discount the meaningfulness of the votes cast for the losing side? As far as two-party system goes, the US has plenty of political parties. There are "Independents" holding office in Congress right now. Here's a list: https://ballotpedia.org/Current_third-p ... iceholders
You already have a states representation by having a senate that has 2 reps from each state, making the states having equal power there, there is no logic in having the states elect the President, again, since its a single seat office, might as well not have it being elected by the people and have it say be nominated by either senate or Congress, similar to parliamentary systems, but I recall reading that the point of having the "people" elect the president was to have a 3 way power check, just that the people designing the system dont trust the people to vote the right way and thus had this important task handed over to people that had a clue what is best. Not very democratic, but it was never supposed to be. It just does no longer fit the times.
It is important that the States be represented as independent entities bound together in a shared government. That's important... It's a fundamental part of our political system.

Now, is it "archaic?" Maybe. In some ways there can certainly be an argument that a general democratic election is the better way and the EC should be flushed down the toilet. But... all the elections are conducted by the States. They set up the ballots. They organize voting and poling places. They do all the "grunt work" of carrying on a national election. Candidates don't apply to a "Federal Ballot" - They have to get their names on individual State ballots. Party Primaries are also generally conducted by State, though specifics (with much controversy) are according to the individual party.

In short, the whole framework of a National Election revolves around the States and their individual empowerment of the election process. Framed like that, taking the State's involvement out of the election equation would be taking a very prominent role away from the States. And, there's some political philosophizing going on with that idea, too - We're founded not only on the principles of individual liberty, but the collective rights of States which, by "Right", have all the powers that are not specifically relegated to the Federal Government and enumerated in the Constitution. In short - The collective power, concerns, and rights of individuals specific to a region is observed. The Federal Government can not make a law forcing people to remove all the snow from their property without the people and States in Northern regions rebelling at the very idea of picking up a snowshovel no matter how much the Snowblower Manufacturer's Association lobbies for such a law.

In short - The process of conducting a National election in the US reaffirms some basic ideas and while the empowerment of the individual is at the forefront, so is the idea of the collective rights of people in the member States and the power of those States. Removing the E.C. would do away with that affirmation and would certainly have ramifications regarding the concept of "Statehood" in our system of government.

A losing vote is still a vote. Elected candidates pay attention to those votes, too. They're a message from their constituents and "good" politicians read and understand that message and seek to serve even those who did not vote for them by attempting to address issues in competing platforms that they appeared to be concerned about. "Good" politicians, that is... No, I don't know where those are. :)
fiksal wrote:
Fri, 26. Apr 19, 05:22
..I could add that, maybe switch up the election of executive branch into election of several people. Maybe I'll like that.
I wouldn't mind seeing the offices of President and Vice-President split instead of them running together on the same ticket... However, I would also not like to see it set up as an adversarial sort of governance process. It wouldn't be right to burden a President with having to fight their own Administration - They already have to fight, if necessary, another branch of government or two, if it came to that.
I'll personally need an excel sheet I think, with easily sort-able columns. Maybe assign some weights, few points... draw some graphs... play Witcher.
I should really get that game... And, I should reinstall my ancient copy of Office that doesn't require friggin subscription fees. I have no idea if Win10 will even accept it. (Really friggin' tired of "MicroSoft Orifice" refusing to accept that I don't want it to have any file associations at all, ever, never, ever...

<click .ods file, MicroSoft Orifice pops up because it claims everything and resets my friggin file associations all-too-often>

"Oh, you would like to use Micro$oft Orifice? You should register for your Micro$oft Orifice sub$cription, today!"

<Get ticked-off, decide to look at my meme collection, click .jpg, expecting it to be associated with IRFanView>

"LOOKIT! WE GIVED U A PICTSHUR VIEWER! U WANNA UPKLODE IT TO UR ONEDRIBE, TOO, I BET!>"

</quit Goes to play Witcher, but doesn't have it>

Post Reply

Return to “Off Topic English”