Omg. Here is your front runner
- Thread starter Duck_walk
- Start date
we have a year to go. Don’t nominate a corporate bumbling fool. I warned you in 2015-2016.
Well since it was a public event it kind of makes sense he was speaking to and at people in the audience , and not to a camera covering the event.
He won’t be the Dem candidate, can’t see Warren or Sanders supporters swinging to him at the convention. If Biden doesn’t secure the nomination on the first ballot I think he is going to be screwed.
Brokered Convention? Come on that kind of stuff has long gone away. It will be decided long before they get to Wisconsin. Conventions are just theatrics now.
The D structure, with its lack of winner take all features, does have some potential for this to happen
Funny you would use tRUMP to tell me I was wrong.
A vote for anyone but Clinton was a tRUMP vote.
A vote for anyone but Clinton was a tRUMP vote.
I can think of about 3 million people that felt like their vote didn't count for anything at all.
I can think of about 3 million people that felt like their vote didn't count for anything at all.
Of course they counted.I can think of about 3 million people that felt like their vote didn't count for anything at all.
If 3 million people don’t understand the difference between a representative republic and a direct democracy they need to go take an 8th grade civics class
Why don't we do the same in state elections if it's such great way to elect somebody? If someone gets more votes they should win, PERIOD!!!
If you're comfortable with 13 counties determining EVERY election, you're an idiot.
Pay attention, I'm NOT for that, just as I'm NOT for the EC, a couple of thousand, people deciding who holds the highest office in the land! I said if it's so good for the whole country why ain't it good for states too. I think it's dumbest thing ever invented!
Each state has their own way of doing elections including the primary/caucus process. This is a country of STATES united. This is not a country of one state! Why have states if there is no individuality? EVERY state gets a proportional say in who the President is.
The individuality would still exist on all taxation and regulatory matters which sit on a state level, such as the core of the education system, criminal justice system, property zoning/rights systems, etc.
And the primary/caucus process has nothing to do with state vs. federal law when we're talking about the Presidency; it's all about how the political parties select their candidates. The Rs and the Ds could say "we only award delegates for primaries which take place in the first week of March via paper ballots" if they wanted to.
I was answering 3Rs question about why we elect a President differently than state offices.
States CAN agree to make it a nationwide popular vote but why would they if they want to keep their individuality as a state.
Because the people of that state don't feel that is a useful basis for determining the Presidency in 2019
If you have to have the EC then give the EC votes proportionally to candidates, NOT all for the one that might win by only a few votes. This system does NOT represent the will of the people when a candidate gets every vote from a state even it's very evenly split. The EC votes should also be split by the numbers the candidates receive. Not to mention that states that hold a caucus rather than a regular election are not representing the will of all of their people. Not a very high percentage of people go to the caucuses but they have the say for the entire state. If people don't show up to vote in a regular election where they're given many hours of the day to do so, in private then so be it, but a caucus does not give the same chance to cast a ballot without going to group session for hours.
Fail to see why it wouldn't be in 2019 when it has been for 240 years. The individual states aren't going to give up their rights as states.
I think it should be hard to change the general rules of how a country works, but I don't make a magical assumption that people 240 years ago were 100% right and we should simply do what we have always done on everything. I also prefer to respect the underlying values/principles as opposed to the rules they chose based upon them.
The principle is that states can individually decide how to award their EV. If the people of a state decide that means something other than 100% of the EVs go to a candidate, that is already their right (see NE and ME.) Why is not reasonable for the people to say we want to give our votes to the national winner, because we feel that is in the best interest of our state?
The people that made these rules 240 years did a magnificent job doing so and trying to cover everything. I'm sure they had an eye on the future when they did it, but they NEVER visioned things to be like they are now. See well armed militia as an example. If they had thought that a person like trump would ever hold this office they would have covered a a lot of things that aren't covered now. If people cared more about their country then their pocketbook he would have been gone a long time ago.
I like the cherry picked "well armed militia" which I believe you intended to be "well regulated militia", while leaving out the entire second part of the Amendment "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Take away their representation and you're looking at a LOT of states seceding.
Count of senators per state is the one thing that is not able to be changed.
It is not very democratic, though, and a weakness of the US political system relative to other countries.
The United States is a Constitutional republic, not a direct democracy...so I mean there's that.
Who has argued that each state can't decide how their EVs are counted? I am fine with whatever NY decides to do there but don't tell them what they must do in that regard.
There is a simple procedure in place to Amend our Constitution and it has been used many times.
If you don’t like the way our Constitution is then put in the effort to change it
This.
And to say the founders didn't intend for less populated states to have as many Senators as the most populated is just wrong. THAT is exactly why they did the Senate that way! The House is the body designed to reflect population.
Giving 2 senators to 1 M people and 2 senators to 20 M people is a failing of the Republic given the way our country because more Federal/nationalized.
As I said above, this piece cannot be amended
Now, states could opt to split, but that isn't terribly feasible
Yes, it reflected the world of the 1780s. that's not really the world of 2019 in my eyes.
I think it's totally reasonable to disagree, but we have become much more integrated than we were 230+ years ago. The Federal government is much more powerful than the states are. Our parliamentary body should have a voting makeup that reflects this.
In theory. All it would take is the states tell the Feds "No, we're doing it our way." The federal government's power only exists because the states and the people allow it.
Consent of the governed.
I agree this is factually true, but you have to acknowledge the general trend is for people to want the government to do more, not less, and there's a long term trend towards this which has been supported by voters (cue Veer2Eternity comments about what R voters actually want.)
There's also a century and a half of extreme stability...the US is a fully evolved republic, and it's not really at risk of breaking up/collapsing.
Some people.
Correct it's at little risk of breaking up, but you start fixing things so small states have no real representation you'll see that change.
Most people. There's no meaningful constituency of voters that wants a smaller government. Different, to be sure. But smaller?
This is a major misconception about American politics. The average person wants the Federal government to do stuff to fix what they perceive as problems. For all the negative commentary and paeans to Reagan...look at who is the sitting R President. What is this mythical voter bloc in the R party that actually wants a materially smaller government? They want mo gubmit, just one focused on other things, like keeping minorities out, keeping people employed in coal jobs, or buying more and more bombs.
There are lots of very socially liberal people, and lots of very socially conservative people. The amount of people who substantively vote to shrink the Federal government by 20% or something like that is insanely small. The average person is a big government voter when it comes to spending and control
Similar threads
