kilns wrote: » I have to laugh when ever I hear the USA declared as the greatest democracy in the world
Quin_Dub wrote: » The flip side to your argument is - "if you're going to keep the Electoral college , then why have the USA , why not just have 50 independent nation states?" It's not about getting rid of it , it's about modernising it to make it more fit for purpose. Each State still needs to have it's input into the decision , but there has to be some allowance for the will of the overall Majority. Maybe adjust the number of total EC votes and add a "bounty" for the popular vote - 50 EC votes for winning the Popular vote. Or even , just ratify the compact and distribute the EC votes according to votes gained rather then winner takes all. It's probably a bit of both of those to be honest. If "every vote counted" you wouldn't have this bizarre focus on a handful of states with each side almost completely ignoring voters in the "wrong" states. If closing the gap in California from 60:40 to 55:45 or whatever meant an extra 10 EC votes then the GOP would put in the effort there , also more GOP voters would come out to vote as their vote might matter this time. Same for Democrat voters in heavy Red states..
Blueshoe wrote: » Ireland must be right up there. You can get into the dail on the 8th, 9th etc count. What is that about
notobtuse wrote: » There is currently a push within California to split it into three or six separate states because of the mob rule style democracy and its corresponding idiotic legislation, and that mob rule mentality has made it almost unbearable for most of Californians living outside a few select areas.
Quin_Dub wrote: » I guess this is another example of American Exceptionalism. What you describe above is a refusal to accept majority rule and a refusal to accept compromise. Which isn't Democracy. Again - If that's what people want , then why persist with the United States at all given that it seems you have so little in common with each other?
notobtuse wrote: » Wrong, again. In 1776 Delaware had a population of 59,094 and Rhode Island 68,825. At the time Virginia had a population 747,610, Pennsylvania at 434,373, and Massachusetts at 378,787. The US is a coalition of sovereign states, and that’s why it's called the United States of America, and the states serve as the legal foundation. The system was set up so that one state would not override the interests of the others, and no state would be completely excluded. And since any state might make the difference in an election because of the electoral vote every candidate must consider each state’s interests. Think about it, if you still have the states and a all a candidate would have to do is campaign in a half dozen highly populated states and promise them the world having all the rest of the states pay for it and win the election by popular vote. The Founding Fathers created a republic form of government based on representation and a federal system based on sovereign states. Is it undemocratic? You betcha, and it intended to be that way. The founders did not create a direct democracy for a good reason as it would have prevented us from emerging as a stable union. It has worked out for us rather well, I'd say. Why change a good thing. No use having another civil war.
kilns wrote: » It’s called proportional representation although not perfect it’s why Ireland is not a two party duopoly sh1tshow like the US
Quin_Dub wrote: » I guess this is another example of American Irish Exceptionalism
2u2me wrote: » Better to have our 3 party **** show is it? 37-37-35 To quote quin dub
notobtuse wrote: » Wrong, again. In 1776 Delaware had a population of 59,094 and Rhode Island 68,825. At the time Virginia had a population 747,610, Pennsylvania at 434,373, and Massachusetts at 378,787.
The US is a coalition of sovereign states, and that’s why it's called the United States of America, and the states serve as the legal foundation. The system was set up so that one state would not override the interests of the others, and no state would be completely excluded. And since any state might make the difference in an election because of the electoral vote every candidate must consider each state’s interests. Think about it, if you still have the states and a all a candidate would have to do is campaign in a half dozen highly populated states and promise them the world having all the rest of the states pay for it and win the election by popular vote. The Founding Fathers created a republic form of government based on representation and a federal system based on sovereign states. Is it undemocratic? You betcha, and it intended to be that way. The founders did not create a direct democracy for a good reason as it would have prevented us from emerging as a stable union. It has worked out for us rather well, I'd say. Why change a good thing. No use having another civil war.
Brian? wrote: » Cheers for the completely unnecessary civics lesson. None of that contradicts what I said. The system is simply too skewed when the population disparity between states reaches where it is now. Do you think the electoral college is fair?
notobtuse wrote: » Seemed you needed on. Yes, for the United States of America.
kilns wrote: » He would it’s the only way a republican president can be elected
Blueshoe wrote: » Anyone putting betting money on Biden? Seems a shoe in as Trump getting slated for doing a bad job since day 1. Free money. Odds shortening all the time.
Brian? wrote: » Jesus, you really don't get the PR system do you? It's far more representative to elect people by PR than it is first past the post. A party that gets 51% of the vote in a PR system us going to get about 51% of the seats in parliament.
notobtuse wrote: » You're for Biden, right? If I were you I'd bet everything you own on Biden. Good luck with that.
Blueshoe wrote: » We can have a bet between us if you want. Payable via revolut or PayPal if you prefer.
notobtuse wrote: » Seemed you needed one. Yes, for the United States of America.
Blueshoe wrote: » I get it but I don't like it. Is that allowed?
notobtuse wrote: » Remember Reagan?
kilns wrote: » I love the New York Times response from the lawyer representing Sean Hannity (shares lawyer with Trump) asking to retract articles and apologize for reporting in a 12 page letter about his comments on the Coronavirus. They wrote a short letter back saying NO ha ha
kilns wrote: » I do and unfortunately his era is long long forgotten. The republicans are a totally different animal now
notobtuse wrote: » They better hope they're flush with cash to pay all those attorney fees for a long drawn out court battle. How long till they start begging for money to pay for legal fees or be forced to let some of their esteemed biased journalists go?
Carfacemandog wrote: » Raegan turned out to be an absolutely terrible president, and the irony is so many of the woes both sides of the political aisle complain about can be traced back to him, from neoliberalism, to trickle down economics, to exploding deficits and debt, to cementing racism as a cornerstone of the American right (even Nixon didn't court the religious right like Reagan did, a movement founded not over abortion but over having to share the private schools they flocked to post civil we rights with *shock* black kids), to dividing the nation wherever possible, to huge wage disparities, to openly breaking international law, and that's just the start of it. Reagan wasn't only an awful president, he was an awful piece of **** generally.
