The Political Discussion Thread

[Annoyed]

Yes but the USA seems to be the only country where voter suppression is even considered and legal.

Has anyone explained why you have that on here?

Why is that legal?

I assume you'e talking about the EC.

It isn't voter supression. Actually, in large part, it exists to ensure that the voters in smaller, less populous states are not suppressed.

[Gatefan1976]

Perhaps the issue is that we conservatives see what direction the progressives want to go and we think it's the wrong direction?


Sorry, wrong answer. The EC was created so that the small states would have an equal voice in government, and out of a fear on the part of the founding fathers that a tyrant could manipulate a direct popular vote; they wanted a buffer.

In fact, they were forced to adopt it because during the formation period, the smaller states wouldn't go along unless there was a mechanism to ensure they had an equal voice with the large states. And that is quite proper.

I'm in a large, populous state. Why should my state's voice drown out a smaller state's voice, such as Montana's? Would you want to be Montana?

The only reason the EC is being discussed today is that in performing its function, the Democrats lost and like any sore loser, they're whining about it.

Someone needs to read more about the EC.

[Annoyed]

Someone needs to read more about the EC.

I agree. But it's not me.

Granted, it's difficult to find a report that hasn't been distorted by the left wing media because they hate Trump, but there are a few places you can read about it.

PS* Maybe you don't see it, because you yourself are so far to the left, anti-Trump and all that, but the media in this country really is heavily biased.

It actually took a few minutes to find something that hadn't bee rewritten due to opposition to Trump.

https://www.historycentral.com/elect...collgewhy.html

by Marc Schulman

The Electoral College was created for two reasons. The first purpose was to create a buffer between the population and the selection of a President. The second as part of the structure of the government that gave extra power to the smaller states.

The first reason that the founders created the Electoral College is hard to understand today. The founding fathers were afraid of direct election to the Presidency. They feared a tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come to power. Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers:

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief.

(See All of the Federalist 68)

Hamilton and the other founders believed that the electors would be able to ensure that only a qualified person becomes President. They thought that with the Electoral College no one would be able to manipulate the citizenry. It would act as a check on an electorate that might be duped. Hamilton and the other founders did not trust the population to make the right choice. The founders also believed that the Electoral College had the advantage of being a group that met only once and thus could not be manipulated over time by foreign governments or others.

The Electoral College is also part of compromises made at the convention to satisfy the small states. Under the system of the Electoral College, each state had the same number of electoral votes as they have a representative in Congress. Thus no state could have less than 3. The result of this system is that in this election the state of Wyoming cast about 210,000 votes, and thus each elector represented 70,000 votes, while in California approximately 9,700,000 votes were cast for 54 votes, thus representing 179,000 votes per electorate. This creates an unfair advantage to voters in the small states whose votes count more than those people living in medium and large states.

One aspect of the electoral system that is not mandated in the constitution is the fact that the winner takes all the votes in the state. Therefore it makes no difference if you win a state by 50.1% or by 80% of the vote you receive the same number of electoral votes. This can be a recipe for one individual to win some states by large pluralities and lose others by small number of votes, and thus this is an easy scenario for one candidate winning the popular vote while another winning the electoral vote. This winner take all methods used in picking electors has been decided by the states themselves. This trend took place over the course of the 19th century.

While there are clear problems with the Electoral College and there are some advantages to it, changing it is very unlikely. It would take a constitutional amendment ratified by 3/4 of states to change the system. It is hard to imagine the smaller states agreeing. One way of modifying the system is to eliminate the winner take all part of it. The method that the states vote for the electoral college is not mandated by the constitution but is decided by the states. Two states do not use the winner take all system, Maine and Nebraska. It would be difficult but not impossible to get other states to change their systems. Unfortunately, the party that has the advantage in the state is unlikely to agree to a unilateral change. There are ongoing attempts to change the system, but few expect them to be successful any time soon.

[Annoyed]

Yep. Democrats, you just let the Kindergartner keep shooting her ignorant mouth off.

The Republicans are going to get every last mile out of her stupidity.

GOP leader on 2020: We need a 'referendum on socialism'

[Gatefan1976]

I agree. But it's not me.

Granted, it's difficult to find a report that hasn't been distorted by the left wing media because they hate Trump, but there are a few places you can read about it.

PS* Maybe you don't see it, because you yourself are so far to the left, anti-Trump and all that, but the media in this country really is heavily biased.

It actually took a few minutes to find something that hadn't bee rewritten due to opposition to Trump.

https://www.historycentral.com/elect...collgewhy.html

Hilarious.
you ignore the prime reason to support what you want.

[Annoyed]

Hilarious.
you ignore the prime reason to support what you want.

Nevertheless, it is one of the reasons it exists.

Since it's not going away anytime soon, maybe the Democrats ought to stop catering to the coastal liberals?

[Womble]

Yep. Democrats, you just let the Kindergartner keep shooting her ignorant mouth off.

The Republicans are going to get every last mile out of her stupidity.

GOP leader on 2020: We need a 'referendum on socialism'

Careful what you wish for. The Democrats might ride the wave of anti-Trump frustration and, once successful, declare that it was in fact a referendum on socialism. Wouldn't that suck?




In other news, I am irritated with the Israeli elections. Both the process and the outcome.

The center-left camp turned the elections into an approval referendum on Binyamin Netanyahu, and forgot to field a comprehensible explanation of just what it is they would do differently. It became a popularity contest, pitting awkward political newbie Benny Gantz against an experienced, media-savvy and already-popular incumbent.

Something really ugly is happening in response though. The left-wing voters, frustrated with the defeat, are talking about a revenge of sorts against the population of Israel's south, the ones living next to Gaza, which overwhelmingly voted in support of Netanyahu. They are talking about no longer donating to charity for the poor in the south, no longer being concerned about their complaints on rockets from Gaza etc. Some people on my Facebook friends list posted a lot of mean-spirited nonsense in that vein so I kind of lashed out in a post of my own, Womble style, and apparently it's not just me who is bothered.

[Annoyed]

Careful what you wish for. The Democrats might ride the wave of anti-Trump frustration and, once successful, declare that it was in fact a referendum on socialism. Wouldn't that suck?

What the kindergartner and her ilk fail to recognize is that there is a deep anti-socialist sentiment in much of this country, and while she's doing well with the young & foolish, it's gonna create a huge backlash in a far larger group of voters.

[Chaka-Z0]

What the kindergartner and her ilk fail to recognize is that there is a deep anti-socialist sentiment in much of this country, and while she's doing well with the young & foolish, it's gonna create a huge backlash in a far larger group of voters.

Explain why less people voted for Trump than the Snake then. I mean if MORE people voted for Clinton, it is quite telling don't you think?

Either way, seems like Biden is ahead. Sad though, I'd love to see the Comb run for pres.

[Annoyed]

Explain why less people voted for Trump than the Snake then. I mean if MORE people voted for Clinton, it is quite telling don't you think?

Either way, seems like Biden is ahead. Sad though, I'd love to see the Comb run for pres.

Hillary wasn't pushing an outright socialist agenda.

[Chaka-Z0]

Hillary wasn't pushing an outright socialist agenda.

Does it matter? There's only two choices. So it's not a choice.

FYI: you said so yourself, Bernie might have had a shot. He was quite popular back then if I recall.

[Annoyed]

Does it matter? There's only two choices. So it's not a choice.

FYI: you said so yourself, Bernie might have had a shot. He was quite popular back then if I recall.

He was definitely "socialist lite" by a large margin in comparison the current crop of idiots.

[aretood2]

In other news, I am irritated with the Israeli elections. Both the process and the outcome.

The center-left camp turned the elections into an approval referendum on Binyamin Netanyahu, and forgot to field a comprehensible explanation of just what it is they would do differently. It became a popularity contest, pitting awkward political newbie Benny Gantz against an experienced, media-savvy and already-popular incumbent.

Something really ugly is happening in response though. The left-wing voters, frustrated with the defeat, are talking about a revenge of sorts against the population of Israel's south, the ones living next to Gaza, which overwhelmingly voted in support of Netanyahu. They are talking about no longer donating to charity for the poor in the south, no longer being concerned about their complaints on rockets from Gaza etc. Some people on my Facebook friends list posted a lot of mean-spirited nonsense in that vein so I kind of lashed out in a post of my own, Womble style, and apparently it's not just me who is bothered.

Sounds like all talk to me. Is this really something you foresee actually happening to a significant degree?

[Coco Pops]

Wow calling her a Kindergartner shows a level of disrespect and contempt.. Biased much?

Meanwhile should I laugh here or cry?

https://shareblue.com/trump-george-w...F-mxjzY5kUamEg

[Womble]

Sounds like all talk to me. Is this really something you foresee actually happening to a significant degree?

I don't like the very fact that it's happening and I don't want that hate in my Facebook feed. Normalizing this sort of vindictiveness is just wrong, so I spoke out.

Netanyahu CAN form a "traditional" alliance of right wing + religious parties provided Avigdor Liberman's Israel Our Home agrees to collaborate with religious parties. It's not a given, however. Liberman's electorate is largely Russian-speaking Jews like me who are wary of religious parties and right now they are particularly furious in the wake of some messy scandals on the subject of religion vs. state.

The other possibility in the air - not very likely but one can dream - is a center-right unity government. Likud, Blue and White, Liberman's Israel Our Home and Moshe Kahlon's "Kulanu" (I voted for the latter) could form a massive 80 seats majority, resulting in rock-solid government with two strong anti-clerical players (Lapid and Liberman) capable of decisively dismantling the religious parties' influence. The problems with that plan are twofold: Benny Gantz is determined to not sit with Netanyahu in the same government, and his partner Yair Lapid promised to not support Netanyahu should be he indicted on bribery charges. Unity government would mean both of them backtracking on their public promises.