Electorates apparently don't have to honor the popular vote.

[highfigh]

... and let's not forget, Romania, 'effin Romania, has faster internet service than the USA. Please explain that to me.

It's a helluva lot easier to install the infrastructure in a small country.

 

[highfigh]

I know you marked my post as dumb but what can I expect from one who lacks the stones to identify which country he's from. Did I sink one of your battleships?

BTW, I have German blood but they came here in the 1880, long before Germany went to hell.

Germany was running over other countries for hundreds of years before your (and my) ancestors came here- my paternal GF came to America in 1889 because Germany was conscripting all able-bodied men for yet another war. The city he came from is now in the middle of Poland, which has been a political football for hundreds of years.

On my maternal side, they came during one of the English Civil Wars (you've heard of Cromwell, right?) because they didn't like what was happening.

Most people come from hell, somewhere.

 

[Trell]

[

How many Americans have you met?

I've not shaken hand with each and every one of you, but I guess that is not what you mean. Over the decades I've met many Americans, including shaking hands with more than a few, as well as working along them. They were all very nice and competent, mostly, but those Americans where/are for the most part highly educated. It certainly is not a cross section of USA.

Btw, please explain the relevance of your question.

 

[Gmoney]

This Tread is turning into a dumpster fire.

 

[Ponzio]

It's a helluva lot easier to install the infrastructure in a small country.

So we just call it a day, neither Verizon or AT&T has the capabilities with the government as a partner to make this a reality?

Or is that a no-no?

It was OK for the government ... at a profit I might add ... to bail out GM in 2009 but not push a vital & strategic asset in our arsenal.

Don't worry once Verizon & AT&T get approval to put multi-tier pricing in place, it will be all systems go. Trust me I talked with Verizon engineers about this back in 2009 and he said, "of course we could do it, right now, but we don't want any partners, especially the government, we're just waiting for the regulations to change in our favor".

Capitalism 101.

 

[highfigh]

A republic with a constitution does not, by default, protect anyone from tyranny of the majority. The USSR and present day Russia, China, North Korea and Egypt - all are republics with constitutions. I wouldn't put much faith in any rights that might be enshrined in those constitutions.

Maintaining rights, responsibilities and a balanced democracy is no easy task. We probably couldn't get anyone to agree on the definition of "balanced".

Maybe it's because it's one of the oldest "modern" democracies, but I find the American electoral process about as Byzantine and convoluted as it could possibly be.

Assume you live in a province that, based on total population, is roughly equally liberal and conservative, but the districts are set up so that the one with a population whose values are diametrically opposed to yours has the highest population. Now, imagine seeing your province leaning pretty heavily toward your candidate with that one district's results remaining to be seen. Fast forward to the next morning, when you see that all of the results are in and the one highly populated district carried the candidate that you don't want. Do those voters represent the whole state's thinking? Absolutely not. Will you be happy with the results? I doubt it.

Here, it would be similar to Milwaukee and Madison leaning heavily Democrat, with help from Green Bay and the rest of the state leaning Conservative with pockets of both and some independents scattered around. I live in Milwaukee County, but not in the city, which means I have to put up with the idiots who want to piss away our tax dollars on stupid ventures like a trolley that was wanted by the Mayor (I don't know of anyone who thinks it will ever support itself) and throw money at the public school system without demanding better results. The City also has the most poverty, unemployment, drug abuse, crime, dilapidated buildings and murders- ALL of this costs the rest of the state dearly and those of us in nearby communities have been paying more because of proximity- crime travels. Milwaukee had some districts voting 98% for Obama and yet, that city hasn't had a Republican Mayor in 113 years- ALL of the bad in MKE during that time has occurred under the control of Democrats.

Trump won 2600 US counties, Clinton won 500, but she won the 100 most populated counties. Those counties DO NOT represent the rest of the country.

https://brilliantmaps.com/2016-county-election-map/

 

[Ponzio]

Great Britain was the first to abolish slavery, in 1833- that's quite a while after our forefathers wrote the Constitution. The last country to abolish it, Mauritania, waited until 1981. Ironic that Mauritania is in Africa.

Well that warms the cockles of my heart.

It's like bragging that we stopped beating our wife before the next door neighbor did. Why does that not fill me with pride?

Honestly I'm not trying to start an argument here with anyone or you. It just seems like we've lost our bearings.

 

[Trell]

It's a helluva lot easier to install the infrastructure in a small country.

Romania is about 1/3 the size of Texas, has 22+ millions inhabitants, and is helluva a lot poorer. In general the infrastructure is fairly bad, but internet connection and mobile coverage is great.

 

[Gmoney]

Assume you live in a province that, based on total population, is roughly equally liberal and conservative, but the districts are set up so that the one with a population whose values are diametrically opposed to yours has the highest population. Now, imagine seeing your province leaning pretty heavily toward your candidate with that one district's results remaining to be seen. Fast forward to the next morning, when you see that all of the results are in and the one highly populated district carried the candidate that you don't want. Do those voters represent the whole state's thinking? Absolutely not. Will you be happy with the results? I doubt it.

Here, it would be similar to Milwaukee and Madison leaning heavily Democrat, with help from Green Bay and the rest of the state leaning Conservative with pockets of both and some independents scattered around. I live in Milwaukee County, but not in the city, which means I have to put up with the idiots who want to piss away our tax dollars on stupid ventures like a trolley that was wanted by the Mayor (I don't know of anyone who thinks it will ever support itself) and throw money at the public school system without demanding better results. The City also has the most poverty, unemployment, drug abuse, crime, dilapidated buildings and murders- ALL of this costs the rest of the state dearly and those of us in nearby communities have been paying more because of proximity- crime travels. Milwaukee had some districts voting 98% for Obama and yet, that city hasn't had a Republican Mayor in 113 years- ALL of the bad in MKE during that time has occurred under the control of Democrats.

Trump won 2600 US counties, Clinton won 500, but she won the 100 most populated counties. Those counties DO NOT represent the rest of the country.

https://brilliantmaps.com/2016-county-election-map/

Well, when all one party does is hand out and the other one takes , what would anyone expect to happen? When there are No opportunities "jobs" , and all there is are social programs, not talking about hand outs. Government housing, than attach a s&h Green stamp program to feed the one's who can't or won't go look for work. Than one is going to do what ever they have to do to survive. You guy's say, Trump this Hillary that, what? I know the one's on this Thread know some political issues that's obvious or this thread wouldn't have been started. Fixing a broken system isn't going to happen under Trump's administration, or the next 2, or 3 that's to come. Here's the Big one, SS administration does Not have enough funds to continue to pay out entitlements fully passed 2034 maybe even sooner. Get ready, title benefits will be cut up to 28% or more. Let's just put that lil bill that's coming up on everyone else except the wealthy or corporations. Does anyone really believe that the matching funds that employers have to match for SSA that's taken out of their employees pay doesn't get passed on the consumer to cover? Doesn't look good for the next 10 years or so. But hey they'll just keep raising the debt ceiling. Pass the buck to the next ducks. Reality checks that no one will be able to cash in the near future.

 

[highfigh]

Romania is about 1/3 the size of Texas, has 22+ millions inhabitants, and is helluva a lot poorer. In general the infrastructure is fairly bad, but internet connection and mobile coverage is great.

I would imagine their infrastructure uses outdoor access points, rather than wiring to every home and business- makes a lot of sense, but if one node goes down, a lot more people are affected than if one subscriber loses their connection.

 

[highfigh]

[


I've not shaken hand with each and every one of you, but I guess that is not what you mean. Over the decades I've met many Americans, including shaking hands with more than a few, as well as working along them. They were all very nice and competent, mostly, but those Americans where/are for the most part highly educated. It certainly is not a cross section of USA.

Btw, please explain the relevance of your question.

You got the point- you haven't met a real cross-section of the population and until you do, you won't understand the frustration, annoyance and anger.

 

[GO-NAD!]

Assume you live in a province that, based on total population, is roughly equally liberal and conservative, but the districts are set up so that the one with a population whose values are diametrically opposed to yours has the highest population. Now, imagine seeing your province leaning pretty heavily toward your candidate with that one district's results remaining to be seen. Fast forward to the next morning, when you see that all of the results are in and the one highly populated district carried the candidate that you don't want. Do those voters represent the whole state's thinking? Absolutely not. Will you be happy with the results? I doubt it.

Here, it would be similar to Milwaukee and Madison leaning heavily Democrat, with help from Green Bay and the rest of the state leaning Conservative with pockets of both and some independents scattered around. I live in Milwaukee County, but not in the city, which means I have to put up with the idiots who want to piss away our tax dollars on stupid ventures like a trolley that was wanted by the Mayor (I don't know of anyone who thinks it will ever support itself) and throw money at the public school system without demanding better results. The City also has the most poverty, unemployment, drug abuse, crime, dilapidated buildings and murders- ALL of this costs the rest of the state dearly and those of us in nearby communities have been paying more because of proximity- crime travels. Milwaukee had some districts voting 98% for Obama and yet, that city hasn't had a Republican Mayor in 113 years- ALL of the bad in MKE during that time has occurred under the control of Democrats.

Trump won 2600 US counties, Clinton won 500, but she won the 100 most populated counties. Those counties DO NOT represent the rest of the country.

https://brilliantmaps.com/2016-county-election-map/

Oh, I have basic understanding of the motivation for setting the system up that way.

Although Canada has a Westminister parliamentary system, because of the presence of at least four parties in federal politics, aspects of the scenario you describe can be seen here. For example, we could have Conservatives (Tories), Liberals (Grits), New Democrats and the Greens all running candidates in a riding. Let's say the Tories win 35% of the votes in an election, and the other parties win an equal share of the remaining votes. Despite the fact that a majority of voters in the riding are centre-left/left leaning, the conservatives will take the seat. That can - and typically does - translate into a party winning the whole election with a minority of the votes.

What I meant about being Byzantine and convoluted, is the fact that individual states run federal elections, they all have there own rules, electors can ignore the popular vote when they cast there own for a presidential candidate...and don't get me started on Gerrymandering.

My observation wasn't really meant to be a criticism, just, as I said, an observation. One might consider the quirks of American politics to be features, rather than bugs.

 

[TankTop5]

Outstanding. The Constitution is upheld. If this gets to the USSC I suspect they will either refuse to hear the case or will uphold the appeal.

Nevada already stated they will all cast their votes for the candidate who has the most votes nationally in the presidential election, which goes totally against the concept of the electoral college as implemented by the authors of the constitution.

I such case, large, densely populated metropolitan areas will control the direction of the entire country. That's akin to two chickens and a pig voting to have ham and eggs for breakfast.

I doubt very many electors would not follow the popular vote in their states. But independent electors might use their judgement to keep a really inappropriate candidate out of the Presidency. I suppose I understand how you might be concerned about that, being a Trump supporter, but that's why the Electoral College was put into the Constitution.

Most people don't realize that the House of Representatives were the only directly elected offices in the Federal government, until 1913, when Senators were. The authors of the Constitution did not trust the electorate with the Presidency, the Senate, or the Federal Courts. Looking at the quality of the candidates from both parties in the House, I understand the trepidation. Of course, the previous method of electing senators, state legislatures appointed them, was probably not producing great statesmen either.

I’m going to skip reading the rest of the thread as these four responses have perfectly encapsulates the need for an electoral college and taking the issue any deeper is pure hyperbole and nonsense!

That said this is an amazing ruling that strikes down several states laws requiring the electors for that state to cast their vote with the national popular vote completely nullifying the votes of many individual states.

 

[highfigh]

Here's the Big one, SS administration does Not have enough funds to continue to pay out entitlements fully passed 2034 maybe even sooner. Get ready, title benefits will be cut up to 28% or more. Let's just put that lil bill that's coming up on everyone else except the wealthy or corporations. Does anyone really believe that the matching funds that employers have to match for SSA that's taken out of their employees pay doesn't get passed on the consumer to cover? Doesn't look good for the next 10 years or so. But hey they'll just keep raising the debt ceiling. Pass the buck to the next ducks. Reality checks that no one will be able to cash in the near future.

The cost to the employer to pay a matching amount for each employee is a real cost of doing business, so it WILL be recovered in the business' pricing of its goods and services- why should they be required to eat it, when it doesn't benefit the business? It actually costs them to pay it, since it incurs administrative expenses, whether through a person or a service that calculates, collates the info and makes the payment (writes the checks)- that all takes time and time is money. The wages are paid by the consumer, too- do you want the employer to eat that cost, too? That's ridiculous! Might as well say they should just give everything away, at that point.

 

[herbu]

Great idea, living in the past.

Our southern forefathers, below the Mason-Dixon Line, would be proud. They too protected their property, like your bicycle, but in their case it was slaves, and inevitably led to the Civil War, once it dawned on people that maybe owning another human might be morally problematic and reprehensible.

Giving women the vote? Nah, they don't need it. We don't want to clutter their little minds.
Voting? Only if you're a free man and a landowner.
Child labor? Sure, that's acceptable.

Give me a break.

You do realize that all of your examples were Democrat supported, nothing to do with The South? Right? Slavery, Women's vote, "free man and landowner" only voting, child labor... All issues supported by Democrats and overturned by Republicans. Democrats could use a little "living in the past" to remember actual history rather than their fabricated version.

 

[Trell]

The Federal government is not a democracy, it is a republic. The cities and states are democracies, some more than others.

The following opinion piece has some interesting background on things like what the Founding Fathers meant with democracy, as well as the historical origin of "This is a Republic, not a Democracy".

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/27/opinion/aoc-crenshaw-republicans-democracy.html

...​

In more modern terms, the founders feared “direct democracy” and accounted for its dangers with a system of “representative democracy.” Yes, this “republic” had counter-majoritarian aspects, like equal representation of states in the Senate, the presidential veto and the Supreme Court. But it was not designed for minority rule.​

​

Virtually everything was geared toward producing representative majorities that could govern on behalf of the country — to diminish “faction” in favor of consensus. And in the case of the Electoral College, the point wasn’t to stymie majorities but to provide a way to find a competent and popular chief executive in a large nation of parochial states.​

...​

These origins are important. If there’s substance behind “We’re a republic, not a democracy,” it’s not as a description of American government. There’s really no difference, in the present, between a “republic” and a “democracy”: Both connote systems of representation in which sovereignty and authority derive from the public at large.​

​

The point of the slogan isn’t to describe who we are, but to claim and co-opt the founding for right-wing politics — to naturalize political inequality and make it the proper order of things. What lies behind that quip, in other words, is an impulse against democratic representation. It is part and parcel of the drive to make American government a closed domain for a select, privileged few.​

 

[Irvrobinson]

The following opinion piece has some interesting background on things like what the Founding Fathers meant with democracy, as well as the historical origin of "This is a Republic, not a Democracy".

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/27/opinion/aoc-crenshaw-republicans-democracy.html

...​

In more modern terms, the founders feared “direct democracy” and accounted for its dangers with a system of “representative democracy.” Yes, this “republic” had counter-majoritarian aspects, like equal representation of states in the Senate, the presidential veto and the Supreme Court. But it was not designed for minority rule.​

​

Virtually everything was geared toward producing representative majorities that could govern on behalf of the country — to diminish “faction” in favor of consensus. And in the case of the Electoral College, the point wasn’t to stymie majorities but to provide a way to find a competent and popular chief executive in a large nation of parochial states.​

...​

These origins are important. If there’s substance behind “We’re a republic, not a democracy,” it’s not as a description of American government. There’s really no difference, in the present, between a “republic” and a “democracy”: Both connote systems of representation in which sovereignty and authority derive from the public at large.​

​

The point of the slogan isn’t to describe who we are, but to claim and co-opt the founding for right-wing politics — to naturalize political inequality and make it the proper order of things. What lies behind that quip, in other words, is an impulse against democratic representation. It is part and parcel of the drive to make American government a closed domain for a select, privileged few.​

Trell, you're free to express your big government and left-leaning opinions, but in this case you're twisting US history to fit your political views. The Electoral College was proposed for only one reason, to form the union. Colonies with lesser populations were not going to join the union if their positions would simply be overwhelmed by the more populous colonies to choose the President. It was also quite a controversial proposal to make such a powerful position as the US President a direct election office with the founders. Personally, I've never liked the Electoral College, and I wish it would go away. And every time a Democrat wins the Presidency the Republicans call for its elimination, and vice versa. Your statements about it allowing the domination of right-wing politics and making the federal government "a closed domain for the select, privileged few" demonstrates a profound lack of knowledge of US history, and also a very left-leaning agenda. You just happen to be observing US history at a time when there is significant backlash from the far right in the US (after they felt betrayed by the Obama administration). Personally, as someone who lives in the US, I see this situation getting worse, not better.

As for the NYT article you're referencing, Ocasio-Cortez is used as a lightning rod by both parties, depending on what her latest stupid statement is that supports their respective political agenda. Her twisting of the Electoral College into an instrument of racism is just another incident in a long string of comments exploiting racism as a means to expand her influence. I especially liked her recent comment that Millennials are the first generation to demonstrate against governments. What an ignorant fool she is. She and Trump are perfect for each other in that regard. In fact, I'm convinced that if not for Fox News she would serve out one term in the House in obscurity. To rally the Republican base Fox has turned her (and the other members of "The Squad") into celebrities. I'm of a mind that this manufactured celebrity will come back to bite the Republicans soon.

 

[Ponzio]

You do realize that all of your examples were Democrat supported, nothing to do with The South? Right? Slavery, Women's vote, "free man and landowner" only voting, child labor... All issues supported by Democrats and overturned by Republicans. Democrats could use a little "living in the past" to remember actual history rather than their fabricated version.

Yes and both parties did a complete 360° turn on policies by the time FDR was elected, with the exception of the racist Democrats in the South, and your point?

Isn't it amazing how those same Southern Democratic voters now vote Republican? I wonder why that is? Can you hear that Republican racist dog-whistles first employed by Nixon when he ran for president in '68? Southern Democrats surely did then ... and now.

This is why I'm a registered Independent, since both parties will do or say anything to get elected.

At one time in the near past Republicans were staunch defenders of the FBI, now they see a conspiracy by the FBI to do in their beloved leader. At one time Republicans were all for foreign wars to project power, now they're isolationists. At one time Republicans defended the national intelligence agencies like they were protecting their young, now they're the enemy. At one time the Republican party stood for conservative fiscal policy and was alarmed by the national debt, now they don't think twice about it. And on and on ...

This is why a centrist party is needed in this country, so something can get done around here besides people flapping their lips besides me and you.

 

[Trell]

Trell, you're free to express your big government and left-leaning opinions, but in this case you're twisting US history to fit your political views. The Electoral College was proposed for only one reason, to form the union. Colonies with lesser populations were not going to join the union if their positions would simply be overwhelmed by the more populous colonies to choose the President. It was also quite controversial proposal to make such a powerful position as the US President a direct election office with the founders. Personally, I've never liked the Electoral College, and I wish it would go away. And every time a Democrat wins the Presidency the Republicans call for its elimination, and vice versa. Your statements about it allowing the domination of right-wing politics and making the federal government "a closed domain for the select, privileged few" demonstrates a profound lack of knowledge of US history, and also a very left-leaning agenda. You just happen to be observing US history at a time when there is significant backlash from the far right in the US (after they felt betrayed by the Obama administration). Personally, as someone who lives in the US, I see this situation getting worse, not better.

As for the NYT article you're referencing, Ocasio-Cortez is used as a lightning rod by both parties, depending on what her latest stupid statement is that supports their respective political agenda. Her twisting of the Electoral College into an instrument of racism is just another incident in a long string of comments exploiting racism as means to expand her influence. I especially liked her recent comment that Millennials are the first generation to demonstrate against governments. What an ignorant fool she is. She and Trump are perfect for each other in that regard. In fact, I'm convinced that if not for Fox News she would serve out one term in the House in obscurity. To rally the Republican base Fox has turned her (and the other members of "The Squad") into celebrities. I'm of a mind that this manufactured celebrity will come back to bite the Republicans soon.

Thank you, and you're free to express your opinions as well. I do think that your are confusing me with the author of the op-ed as everything below the link is quotes from the op-ed, and I apologize if just indenting the quotes did not make that clear. In my post I wrote I quoted two parts that I found interesting, but I skipping the cause for the author to write the op-ed as to not have AOC directly mentioned, but not much I can do about the URL.

That said, the reason that I returned to this subject is the "This is a Republic, not a Democracy" and the disdain for democracy this suggests.

 

[Irvrobinson]

Thank you, and you're free to express your opinions as well. I do think that your are confusing me with the author of the op-ed as everything below the link is quotes from the op-ed, and I apologize if just indenting the quotes did not make that clear. In my post I wrote I quoted two parts that I found interesting, but I skipping the cause for the author to write the op-ed as to not have AOC directly mentioned, but not much I can do about the URL.

That said, the reason that I returned to this subject is the "This is a Republic, not a Democracy" and the disdain for democracy this suggests.

The article cannot be read without a paid subscription to the NYT web site, which I do not have, so it made your post more confusing.

And it is true, the US founders had, if not disdain, trepidation for direct democracy, like it or not.