makes you think that she is not coming out and ask for the rioters to stop , but how could she when her main sponsor also sponsoring the riots .
The Trump Presidency | Biden Inaugurated
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
She has done her part with the concession speech, let her rest now.
I think one day symbolic protest was needed but anything longer or violent is stupid and defeats the very purpose of it.
Looks like the first stage of grief to me.
Is the electoral college any worse than FPTP?
Lol, somehow turning this around to be the fault of Sanders, after they stole the primaries is a bit rich.
I never said Hillary is the worst politician in the world, but being who she is and somehow losing the race against fecking Trump is nothing but a monumental failure
The economies and other key aspects of different states are so wildly different that the electoral college system is absolutely necessary. Obviously.
California, Texas and New York would be totally dictating the political landscape at the expense of just about everywhere else.
California, Texas and New York would be totally dictating the political landscape at the expense of just about everywhere else.
So how does a system which helps elect a single person to be in charge of these "wildly different economies and other aspects" of individual states account for all those differences?
Yeah, as if he isn't bad enough, the worrying part is the amount of stupid and/or dangerous people hes appointed. Hes already appointed Myron Ebell as head of EPA which means the Paris treaty is out the window.
There is even rumors about him appointing Palin and Newt Gingrich as well.
NEWT FECKING GINGRICH
It doesn't, but it is fairer than the alternative.
The alternative, which elects the president who gets the most votes? Please explain why this is fairer? You did say it's obvious.
Is that even a surprise? He was always going to be one of the front runners for SoS.
the electoral college violates the one person one vote principle
Because most votes don't represent all the states equally. Like someone said above, electing based on most votes is basically asking CA, NY and all who they want as president, completely neglecting the rural population. The country is divided into 50 states for a reason, it isn't a single group of people and all different states need to be heard, equally.
Do you mean in comparison to a parliamentary system like the UK? I think the equivalent system would be giving all the seats in, for example, Wales or London to one party, depending on who won a majority in that region overall, rather than assigning the seats one by one. You'd end up with a system even more focused on winning voters in swing regions.
Suprise? No, but having him in any kind of position of actual political power is shocking.
He started with a couple of hundred million, yes it does make things easy
When was the last time a Republican ever bother to campaign in 'rural' states like Kansas, Wyoming, Montana? Hell, did they even bother with Missouri or Indiana, former swing states, since they turned solid red?
The Electoral College was designed to specifically keep power in the upper caste of rich, learned white men, and a check against the fervour of the mob - democracy, if you will. The presidency was designed to be chosen on excellency among peers, not popularity with the people.
The Electoral College was designed to specifically keep power in the upper caste of rich, learned white men, and a check against the fervour of the mob - democracy, if you will. The presidency was designed to be chosen on excellency among peers, not popularity with the people.
Because it is obvious. America is too big a place for California, New York and Texas to be dictating the entire political landscape.
It isn't. The current system gives disproportionate representation for states with very little contribution.
The 'they wouldn't bother with smaller states' argument is total bullshit, since the vast majority of states get ignored in the current system. And included among them are the three most populous, with the largest contribution to the union.
No, they don't. States aren't people. The 600,000 people of Wyoming don't need to be heard equally as much as the 39,000,000 people of California.
That is unconstitutional.
Obviously they are different systems, but the criticism of it people are making at the moment as far as I can see is it is "undemocratic" because one candidate can win the "popular vote" but still lose overall, as happened here. But the same is true with FPTP: you can win more votes overall but still lose. Either that is acceptable or it isnt. Seems like the losing sides in both countries want to change to something more representative, for the same reasons.
No, it isn't and who cares if it is?
Here's 2012
Backtracking a bit to the EC discussion, I think the biggest problem with the electoral vote isn't the rural areas have more of a say proportionatelly. This is, after all, what happens in plenty of parliamentary democracies, where smaller and more isolated circles end up being a bit more represented than their population numbers would warrant proportionately, because the alternative would be them not being represented at all.
The thing I don't understand about the EC is the "all or nothing" stuff. Is there any reason why it should bee like this? Looks so daft to me. They are not representing their people at all, they are all representing a majority which can be as little as a few hundred votes in a state with millions of people. If they were attributed proportionatelly this idiocy of swing states would end and people like the democrats of Texas or the Republicans of NY would feel their vote actually mattered again.
The thing I don't understand about the EC is the "all or nothing" stuff. Is there any reason why it should bee like this? Looks so daft to me. They are not representing their people at all, they are all representing a majority which can be as little as a few hundred votes in a state with millions of people. If they were attributed proportionatelly this idiocy of swing states would end and people like the democrats of Texas or the Republicans of NY would feel their vote actually mattered again.
How?
How is giving bigger weightage to one state over another not unconstitutional?
If you did full PR, it potentially makes a strategy like "we will dump all our waste in Wyoming" more feasible. Is this fair?
No, they don't. States aren't people. The 600,000 people of Wyoming don't need to be heard equally as much as the 39,000,000 people of California.
The United States is a union of many independent states who choose to sacrifice some of their sovereignty in exchange for the benefits of being in a union. Constitutionally, they are all equal in this union.
Direct democracy itself has issues. It can be susceptible to misinformation and fear, and people may not understand the issues. There are logistics involved in voting. This is partly why all countries have different degrees of representative democracy - effectively, just as I, a software developer, do not know anything about running a restaurant, someone else who has knows and has the desire to become a politician is usually going to do a better job at governing or representing.
I know it's easy to say "more democracy is better, innit!" but in truth, true democracy is really, really hard. There is a reason why the Founding Fathers of the United States had to grapple with the many dilemmas of creating a new government structure from scratch. For example, they agreed that a two-chamber approach - itself undemocratic - was a good way to temper the passions of the people, who may vote on the heat of the moment, and that that was the better way of doing things. They agreed that separation of powers was important, and this is also undemocratic, because it means judges can overrule the people on occasion.
It's pretty fundamental to the Constitution - Article II. Basically it describes the Executive branch and includes how its head - the President - is elected - and the Electoral College is in there.
It's not possible to do one-man-one-vote for the President without amending the Constitution.
Because it's not. The constitution doesn't dictate how many electoral votes each state should have. To my knowledge anyway.
Okay here is my prediction for the Trump presidency.
It will pretty much be like the Bush Jr. presidency. A bit worse maybe but not by much. He is not going to be the next Hitler but he will probably throw back a the little social progress that has been made over the last 8 years by a fair bit.
Trump won't keep too many of his promises of his campaign, he has never cared about what he said a few days ago so why should he start now? I'm pretty sure that whenever he is reminded that he promised his voters this and that but he currently is not keeping that promise, he will just answer "I never said that" and the press will leave it at that unchallenged like they have always done.
It will pretty much be like the Bush Jr. presidency. A bit worse maybe but not by much. He is not going to be the next Hitler but he will probably throw back a the little social progress that has been made over the last 8 years by a fair bit.
Trump won't keep too many of his promises of his campaign, he has never cared about what he said a few days ago so why should he start now? I'm pretty sure that whenever he is reminded that he promised his voters this and that but he currently is not keeping that promise, he will just answer "I never said that" and the press will leave it at that unchallenged like they have always done.
I agree with your prediction. He's got the job now and he's not stupid. He let a bit too much of his private persona show at his rallies, and people liked that. But he'll be one who doesn't do what he said he'd do.
I'm not taking the piss but many who know him have said otherwise.
And his overall record in business certainly says otherwise!
What are the actual charges to those acusations? I get that the mysoginist chorus are because of the recording of him in a gathering with friends talking shit, and accusations of groping and kissing models. That I understand.
Why fascist? Why racist? Why bad businessman?
And don't say because he is, or look at his campaing. Give me some exacts, please.
Well, they can support him. Unfortunately these idiots can have their say, as we live in a democracy. Did Trump accepted or acknowledged that?
To me the main reason I fear that he is a fascist is that he takes the populist notions from both the left and right without any consideration for the ideology that underpins him. He takes these populist notions (Left = Free trade sucks, right=Immigrants suck) and simply says them to bask in the glory of having said them... without offering any thought as to why he supports one or the other, how he would change things etc.
The fact that he is an unknown quantity is currently a positive. Think about it...
So stupid that he has his own plane, a sane family, a multi billion $ business and.....spent half the money of his main rival to not only win the nomination of a major political party, but to win the Presidency of the free world!
Riiiiiight
Ps on a side note - in democracy you win some and lose some. Imagine the horror of the conservatives when Obama got elected, standing for everything they were against. But life moved on. But recently, it seems the losers are acting like spoilt brats if I may say so.
Being smart enough to get in (selling skills) does not make him smart enough to run anything properly, which requires different levels of inspection, careful thought, diplomacy and vision. I don't see much evidence of that. We had better hope he appoints some smart people and becomes little more than a mouthpiece. And that he learns some responsibility for what he says.
- Status