Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Here's the thing though, unless we get rid of congress and the senate, each state does and will have a say. They are supposed to represent their own districts/states. The commander in chief represents the country as a whole, not individual states. It makes no sense that some states voters have more say in the president's election than others (either because of being a swing state or because of population density) when the president makes decisions on a national level. Absolutely none. Large cities should have more sway in a macro sense than small towns or rural areas because more people live there. My individual vote would count just as much as someone living in those cities.

That's what I should say. The states are very well represented in government by the senate. There's no reason to allow the president to be elected by the states instead of the people.

America, forgive me for saying this, but you guys need the United Nations to enter your country and restore order to these elections

The outbreak of violence at the Trump rally, requires election monitors, and a peace-keeping force to ensure that these disgraceful scenes don't happen again.

Jokes aside, I hope the disturbances were a one off, and nobody gets hurt in the future at one of these rallies.

I think it is important that we dispatch some drones and bombers, arm moderates in the region and topple the current regime.

Then we can have properly democratic elections ASAP and ensure stability for the region.

Here is a a really good video that explains the problem with the Electoral College:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Obama Explains what's going on in the Republican party and how we ended up with Trump:



Yep. That pretty much sums it up.

 Da Boss wrote:
I think it is important that we dispatch some drones and bombers, arm moderates in the region and topple the current regime.

Then we can have properly democratic elections ASAP and ensure stability for the region.

Where are the moderate rebels in the USA?

The UK parliament is voting to have MI6 train 50,000 moderate Americans within 12 months, at a cost of 500 million pounds!

Until that happens, we urgently need British troops on the streets of Boston to restore order, and the Royal Navy needs to blockade the Chesapeake to cut off the supply lines for the more extreme American rebels.

I suspect that Saudi Arabia is funding the Democrats and Iran is secretly funding the Republicans.

Ok I think we can get back to the topic now, enough with the lolposts. This thread is bloated enough as is, I think we can all agree

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
40% of voters in Oklahoma don't mean jack under the EC. The state is red and everybody knows it and there is zero reason for any presidential candidate to care for this state. If the EC was gone our votes could make a difference and suddenly this state matters.

This goes for pretty much every single state that isn't a swing state. The EC means that a handful of states actually matter, and that's it.

It'd be the same story with straight line votes d...

Big cities only matters then.

How does that work? Even if you win 100% of the top ten largest cities in america, that's 25m. There are over 300m people in America. And the idea of anyone winning 100% of any of those cities is ridiculous.

Not only that, in a IRV system, only votes cast matter. That means you would have to get both 100% of the people out to vote, and out to vote for you.


Edit: I think your problem is that you keep thinking in terms of winning states. Under this system, where a vote was cast should have no baring on how much it's 'worth', it wouldn't matter at all.


And while I'm changing the constitution, I'd probably push for real, effective, anti-gerrymandering laws, funding for a massive, country-wide voter registration push, as well as making election day a national holiday.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Jokes aside, I hope the disturbances were a one off, and nobody gets hurt in the future at one of these rallies.

Sadly at Trump rallies in particular, these disturbances are not one off. They are getting worse with seemingly every rally. I don't think anyone has been seriously injured, yet, but I suspect that or worse is coming eventually.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Jokes aside, I hope the disturbances were a one off, and nobody gets hurt in the future at one of these rallies.

Sadly at Trump rallies in particular, these disturbances are not one off. They are getting worse with seemingly every rally. I don't think anyone has been seriously injured, yet, but I suspect that or worse is coming eventually.

I was reading about the late 1960s in the USA and how the Democrat convention in 1968 ended up turning into a riot!

Hopefully, things won't end up as bad as that.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That's what I should say. The states are very well represented in government by the senate. There's no reason to allow the president to be elected by the states instead of the people.

Except... that's not true.

The 17th Amendment provided direct elections for the Senators.

Pre-17th Amendment, the Senators were elected by their State's legislature.

I'd argue that if the 17th amendment didn't exist, then things like Obamacare would look different or not even passed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
40% of voters in Oklahoma don't mean jack under the EC. The state is red and everybody knows it and there is zero reason for any presidential candidate to care for this state. If the EC was gone our votes could make a difference and suddenly this state matters.

This goes for pretty much every single state that isn't a swing state. The EC means that a handful of states actually matter, and that's it.

It'd be the same story with straight line votes d...

Big cities only matters then.

How does that work? Even if you win 100% of the top ten largest cities in america, that's 25m. There are over 300m people in America. And the idea of anyone winning 100% of any of those cities is ridiculous.

Not only that, in a IRV system, only votes cast matter. That means you would have to get both 100% of the people out to vote, and out to vote for you.


Edit: I think your problem is that you keep thinking in terms of winning states. Under this system, where a vote was cast should have no baring on how much it's 'worth', it wouldn't matter at all.


And while I'm changing the constitution, I'd probably push for real, effective, anti-gerrymandering laws, funding for a massive, country-wide voter registration push, as well as making election day a national holiday.

65 million voted for Obama last election.... well over a quarter needed of *only* those top-10 cities.

But, ya know, we're just pissing in the wind here as we both know the EC isn't going to change anytime soon.

 whembly wrote:

The 17th Amendment provided direct elections for the Senators.

For people residing in the relevant State.

 whembly wrote:

I'd argue that if the 17th amendment didn't exist, then things like Obamacare would look different or not even passed.

That's probable, but it certainly wouldn't be due to moral high ground. Do not lionize the American past, that way lies madness.

 whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That's what I should say. The states are very well represented in government by the senate. There's no reason to allow the president to be elected by the states instead of the people.

Except... that's not true.

The 17th Amendment provided direct elections for the Senators.

Pre-17th Amendment, the Senators were elected by their State's legislature.

...

Senators are elected per state, not by proportional representation of the whole. There are two senators for each state.

So now we've had someone try to rush the stage at a Trump rally, I'm officially convinced that this level of aggression and violence is only going to escalate.

I dont usually post about this stuff but is this guy serious?

He said his own fans "were taunted, they were harassed by these other people, these other people by the way, some represented Bernie, our communist friend."

As an Irishman and European, I thought Bush mark 1 and 2 were very scary but this guy is utterly, utterly terrifying. And no, Im not some sort of leftist, ultra EU supporting introvert.

Please America, deport this guy.....no just out of the US, preferably offworld (into the Sun)
Im scared gak-less of his policies.

If he gets elected I'd say their would be a solid chance to either see an assassination attempt or an impeachment before he makes it through 4 years.

What I want to know is when he inevitability fails his "people" will they have the courage to admit they were wrong.

What I want to know is when he inevitability fails his "people" will they have the courage to admit they were wrong.

This is what absolutely fascinates me as an ultra outsider.

Who......... are his "people"? Who could believe his rhetoric and viewpoint? Genuinely Im agog .SCARY

 whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That's what I should say. The states are very well represented in government by the senate. There's no reason to allow the president to be elected by the states instead of the people.

Except... that's not true.

The 17th Amendment provided direct elections for the Senators.

Pre-17th Amendment, the Senators were elected by their State's legislature.

I'd argue that if the 17th amendment didn't exist, then things like Obamacare would look different or not even passed.

So you wish state governments (with all their problems) to have the power instead of the people?

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
40% of voters in Oklahoma don't mean jack under the EC. The state is red and everybody knows it and there is zero reason for any presidential candidate to care for this state. If the EC was gone our votes could make a difference and suddenly this state matters.

This goes for pretty much every single state that isn't a swing state. The EC means that a handful of states actually matter, and that's it.

It'd be the same story with straight line votes d...

Big cities only matters then.

How does that work? Even if you win 100% of the top ten largest cities in america, that's 25m. There are over 300m people in America. And the idea of anyone winning 100% of any of those cities is ridiculous.

Not only that, in a IRV system, only votes cast matter. That means you would have to get both 100% of the people out to vote, and out to vote for you.


Edit: I think your problem is that you keep thinking in terms of winning states. Under this system, where a vote was cast should have no baring on how much it's 'worth', it wouldn't matter at all.


And while I'm changing the constitution, I'd probably push for real, effective, anti-gerrymandering laws, funding for a massive, country-wide voter registration push, as well as making election day a national holiday.

65 million voted for Obama last election.... well over a quarter needed of *only* those top-10 cities.

Only if you get 100% of the people out to vote, and out to vote for you.
Also, consider the fact that, with all,votes having meaning, there will be a lot more votes being cast, and with the suggested national voter registration push and national holiday voting day, that would mean a lot more voters that way as well.

Also, are you,suggesting that you should be able to be elected without having a majority of the votes.

And another point, all cities from 10 downward have less than 1m people.

But, ya know, we're just pissing in the wind here as we both know the EC isn't going to change anytime soon.

No. I believe that we both can, and will change this. It is a fundamental flaw in our election system that causes misrepresentation.

 Ratius wrote:

What I want to know is when he inevitability fails his "people" will they have the courage to admit they were wrong.

This is what absolutely fascinates me as an ultra outsider.

Who......... are his "people"? Who could believe his rhetoric and viewpoint? Genuinely Im agog .SCARY

Well from my small sample size of a hundred or so people I personally know. The groups neatly fall into people who still feel the need to follow what their father says (even when having been dead for 30 years), people who are actual facists (as in the admit it but they prefer alt-right), actual racists (not the kind the do it in the open but the ones that do it behind closed doors), conspiracy theorists, right wing propaganda gobblers (kind of all of them actually) and people that fear muslims, communists and books (lol jk on the last one).

You travel in interesting circles...

 Ratius wrote:
This is what absolutely fascinates me as an ultra outsider.

Who......... are his "people"? Who could believe his rhetoric and viewpoint? Genuinely Im agog .SCARY

 Nostromodamus wrote:
You travel in interesting circles...

It can be odd when someone tells you that they are pro fascism I can honestly say.

Sun, 13/Mar/2016 04:04:44 AM Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition

Nostromodamus wrote:
You travel in interesting circles...



It can be odd when someone tells you that they are pro fascism I can honestly say.
Crimson
Post Sun, 13/Mar/2016 03:16:30 AM Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition

Ratius wrote:
This is what absolutely fascinates me as an ultra outsider.

Who......... are his "people"? Who could believe his rhetoric and viewpoint? Genuinely Im agog .SCARY

I Bow out.....
OMG lol and all hat


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Can I negavote you until you dont exist?

Ohhhh right.......maybe not. Go away Sir.

 curran12 wrote:
So now we've had someone try to rush the stage at a Trump rally, I'm officially convinced that this level of aggression and violence is only going to escalate.

This really bothers me. Donald Trump is a dumpster fire of a human being, but the answer to terrible speech shouldn't be trying to suppress him, or attack him, or deport him (as much as I enjoy the petition for NASA to fly him into space and leave him there).

More to the point, this sort of stuff helps to feed into his narrative; that he's expressing a popular viewpoint and various elites are trying to suppress him. It's better to just let him say whatever he wants because someone as willing to say terrible things as he is will eventually burn off his own supporters unassisted*.

What he says is bad, attempts to prevent him from saying it is worse... in my opinion.

*said the mainstream GOP for 6 months running, I know

Remember people, posts need words as well as images. Else they're spam. Keep it in mind. They also need to be, well, coherent words.

 Ouze wrote:

 curran12 wrote:
So now we've had someone try to rush the stage at a Trump rally, I'm officially convinced that this level of aggression and violence is only going to escalate.

This really bothers me. Donald Trump is a dumpster fire of a human being, but the answer to terrible speech shouldn't be trying to suppress him, or attack him, or deport him (as much as I enjoy the petition for NASA to fly him into space and leave him there).

More to the point, this sort of stuff helps to feed into his narrative; that he's expressing a popular viewpoint and various elites are trying to suppress him. It's better to just let him say whatever he wants because someone as willing to say terrible things as he is will eventually burn off his own supporters unassisted*.

What he says is bad, attempts to prevent him from saying it is worse... in my opinion.

*said the mainstream GOP for 6 months running, I know

You are right I feel. His people firmly believe if others don't like what he is saying then he must be saying the right stuff. You have to wrap a lot of tin foil around many of his folks.

European reaction to Trump's success so far in the '16 primaries reminds me an awful lot of European reaction to Bush's success in the '04 election, right down to the same sort of "Who could possibly be voting for him?!" rhetoric.

No-one was particularly against Bush in 2000, but we found him pretty horrifying by 2004. He had got us involved in Afghanistan and let that go to gak, and then started the hugely unpopular Iraq campaign.

This pissed away all the sympathy and support generated by the 911 attacks. The US's world PR rating plummeted during Bush's presidency.

To be fair, our own government (UK) was wholly to blame for supporting Bush. He probably wouldn't have gone into Iraq, or stayed in Afghanistan, without Blair's enthusiastic help.

I'm just hoping for more sad-sack college kids taking webcam selfies while holding signs saying, "Sorry world, I didn't vote for him," again. I loved that gak.

Seaward wrote:
I'm just hoping for more sad-sack college kids taking webcam selfies while holding signs saying, "Sorry world, I didn't vote for him," again. I loved that gak.

Instead, we'll probably have a bunch selfies of angry white dudes hold their guns with a Confederate flag hanging from wall in the background holding signs saying, "feth you Muslims, we voted for him!"