Forums

Not a Done Deal until the Coll ege v otes

Not a Done Deal until the Coll ege v otes

Mollom is defeating my posts re E. Colle ge v otes

DTsea | 10. November 2016

you dont understand US elections.

hillary has conceded so it is OVER.

Ross1 | 10. November 2016

Not how it reads here, scroll on past the comments for full article
the-legal-electoral-colle ge-map-scenario-that-could-still-make-hillary-clinton-president-in-2016/

UnshodBob | 10. November 2016

I think @Ross is right that there is a *possibility* that in the Electoral College vote that some electors might be "unfaithful" or whatever they call it, and vote for Hillary instead of Donald, even though they swore to vote faithfully for their state's winner. It would take about 42 of them to do it. I don't think it'll happen. But I didn't think he'd win so many electoral votes, either. It would probably be an unprecedented occurrence. (Let's see if Mollom allows this)

UnshodBob | 10. November 2016

Here's the link: http://www.inquisitr.com/3701291/the-legal-electoral-college-map-scenari...

Good article. Explains a lot. This was an interesting line from the article:

Alexander Hamilton reportedly thought that the electors would be able to correct mistakes of the voters and to ensure that “[t]he office of the president will never fall to the lot of any man who is not an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.”

kevin | 10. November 2016

Hamilton did not presume that voters would select presidential candidates, but wise electors:

"Alexander Hamilton described the framers' view of how electors would be chosen, “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 [tasks].”[29] The founders assumed this would take place district by district. That plan was carried out by many states until the 1880s. "

From the Wikipedia.

The evolution of political parties (almost immediately) messed it all up.

Ross1 | 10. November 2016

Thank you all.

Anything Can Happen

Ross1 | 10. November 2016

To understand US elections, there is a link from Huffington Post on elec toral colle ge

wot iz ze electrical collage..
Mollomed solly!

RedShift | 10. November 2016

Ross,

They have to replace this archaic system that allows popular vote to be overridden. It has been happening more and more frequently as we become a 50/50 nation. This obviously seems like a 'sour grapes' comment since my candidate lost, but it applies equally to both parties. Think about it. In a truly democratic system, all votes should be equal. This system makes some votes more important than the others, in effect.

UnshodBob | 10. November 2016
brando | 10. November 2016

reminder; The US is the only place I know of that the politicians pick the voters. And the voters are stupid enough to think they choose [vote] the politicians. It is known as gerrymandering. Yet another method the politicians are able to correct the mistakes of voters.

Ross1 | 10. November 2016

Bob, thanks. That is what I cannot post! :)
Enlightened article, but bearing in mind the HuffPost bias, it is pretty fair.

J.T. | 11. November 2016

@RedShift Think about it. In a truly democratic system, all votes should be equal. This system makes some votes more important than the others, in effect.

If you make the system run on popular vote, the cities will have a disproportionate influence over the entire country. The rural communities will be left out of the process.

Of course, many will try and implement a system that would have guaranteed a victory for their candidate even though those same people have probably been disenfranchised by gerrymandering in the past.

The way to fix it is not to throw out the electoral college but to throw out the "winner take all" part of the system. NY gets 29 electoral votes based on 27 congresspeople and 2 Senators. If the system allocated one electoral college vote for each congressional district and added two at-large electors it would be a much fairer representation of the will of the people.

To make the point clearer, it didn't matter who I voted for on Tuesday, the Democratic candidate, no matter who, was going to carry the state and all 29 electoral college votes. But, if it was proportioned to each district Long Island and Upstate NY would have been more fairly represented.

Unfortunately for those licking their wounds at Hillary's defeat, this would not have helped you in NY. But Hillary might have won some votes in Dallas, Houston, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Charlotte, Cleveland, Cincinnati . . . you get the idea.

We want the President, whoever it is, to be the choice of the the country, not just that part of the country with the most dense population. And this isn't even that hard to do. Maine and Nebraska already have proportionate allocation. It's a states thing, no change to the constitution needed.

Efontana | 11. November 2016

Even though we are proud of how gridlocked Washington is (small rudder on a large boat), the system is set up to Avalanche power so something does get done. The key term is "single member districts." This means we get a collection of people that represent the majority in each voting region. Small voices are filtered out.

The state's interest is to have power in Washington. The winner take all allocation of electoral votes is an echo of the single member district, and assures each state's best chance for effective power (like minded cooperation) in Washington.

It is a representative government.

dsvick | 11. November 2016

Screw it .. .stupid mollom ... I'm writing an email .....

SCCRENDO | 11. November 2016

I approve of the electoral college. Unfortunately Hillary and Al Gore ended up on the wrong side as the would have benefited from one man one vote. It is democratic. Just a different way of being represented. That the way the president is elected differs from the way both houses are elected is part of our checks and balances. Also the way congressional and Senate representation are weighted help with checks and balances. That is also why lifetime Supreme Court Justices are important. If everything was completely one man one vote we would more likely end up with monopolies. That would mean less gridlock but more chance extremely partisan legislation coming through.

lilbean | 11. November 2016

Thank you for that explanation, @sccrendo.

J.T. | 11. November 2016

Up until 1914 we didn't even vote for our Senators. They were appointed by each state legislature. There are a lot of protections in the Constitution against an uneducated electorate choosing our government. The Electoral College is a part of that. The fact that we don't vote on laws but vote for people to represent us to vote on laws is another. We are a republic not a democracy.

The idea was to send to Congress people who shared our values and represented our interests. It wasn't to send someone to Congress to vote the way we would want them to.

Edmund Burke, a member of Parliament back in the Revolutionary years said, "An elected official owes his constituency not only his industry but also his judgement, and he fails them if he sacrifices his judgement for theirs."

Jefferson, Hamilton and Madison greatly respected Edmund Burke. We trust our officials to vote for our interests because they have better information that the electorate. So, if you send smart, dedicated people to Congress you get better laws. Well, that's the theory.

SCCRENDO | 11. November 2016

@JT. Thank you for a more eloquent explanation. I think those original ideas were excellent

J.T. | 11. November 2016

@SCCRENDO Thanks. I've seen Hamilton, twice. :-)

Captain_Zap | 11. November 2016

The Troubling Reason the Electoral College Exists
http://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/

J.T. | 11. November 2016

Thanks CZ.

It still astounds me that we ever got it off the ground considering the disparity and obstacles we faced.

vperl | 11. November 2016

290 votes and counting.

Seems the anti American crowd is still hanging in there.

Get over it, SNOWFLAKEs

Your side lost

Gee Whiz. Anyone ever read the US Constitution, and really studied it ?

Take a few classes in Constitutional Law. America is a land of laws, not Anarchy .

Mel. | 11. November 2016

J. T. And SCCRENDO.
Really nice when you guys agree. Your explanations were great

J.T. | 11. November 2016

@Mel. SCCRENDO's not so bad as long as long as you don't disagree with him on AGW, the causes of AGW, the response to AGW, the sacrifice for AGW, the timeline of AGW, racial inequality, the income gap, education, labor, saturated fats, exercise, red meat, big Pharma and the Koch brothers.

:-)

RedShift | 11. November 2016

So, like I was saying. An archaic system. We don't have slaves anymore, at least not in the US of A.
While I understand both explanations, can't say I agree. Fundamentally, some votes have less 'weight' than others. Can't say I agree with that.

Also, if this we're reversed and Trump was sitting on the majority popular votes, imagine the grace and calm with which he would have conceded this election!

McLary | 11. November 2016

Youtube GLG9g7BcjKs

UnshodBob | 11. November 2016
McLary | 11. November 2016

Thanks Bob. Not sure if that guy was off the cuff or scripted, but I enjoyed his rant.

UnshodBob | 11. November 2016

He sure likes the F word. Maybe it's fitting.

SCCRENDO | 11. November 2016

@Mel. JT is a smart guy. Although we have philosophical and political differences we can have an intelligent discussion and I respect him. My issue is with the uninformed, ideological folk that express ignorant opinions that are totally factless. I have the ability to understand both viewpoints and am flexible enough to change my views when presented with different viewpoints. I do not waste much time stressing over factless ignorant diatribes. May stop for a minute to mock. So I guess I also mock the disabled. Mel you are able to hold an intellectual conversation but occasionally lose it and revert to spontaneous factless statements

J.T. | 11. November 2016

Protests I understand, but I understand them more when they have an achievable goal:
End the Vietnam war
Civil rights
Pro choice
Gay rights
Many others

But what is the goal of the Trump protests?
Whining
Outrage
Sore losers
Making life difficult for those who are trying to get to work

I understand the frustration, but this is like the rioting after your sports team lost. They're not gong to change the score.

SUN 2 DRV | 11. November 2016

Outrage
Sharing a common experience and emotion
Networking to take more action next time
Getting others to pay attention and get involved

Here it's been thousands of high school students demonstrating, and I think it's an awesome example both to other students to get involved and to the adults that the younger generation will work to make things better and not just sit back and take things for granted next time.

But yes, it is a lot like preaching to the choir, especially in Nor Cal where 80% of the voters voted for Hillary.

lilbean | 11. November 2016

Wow to the video!

vp09 | 11. November 2016

Red Shift, your argument is that we should get rid of the United States Senate as well. Am I correct?
Vern

RedShift | 11. November 2016

I am not saying anything about the senate. All I am saying is that these kinds of results become more and more inevitable, for both parties for the foreseeable future. Sooner or later, this will result in lengthy drawn out legal challenges from the winner of the popular vote but loser of the electoral college.

Looking at the intent with which they were conceived, I am not sure the reasons are applicable to today.

RedShift | 11. November 2016

@JT

I do agree that protests should stop. Not getting anything of value there.

DTsea | 11. November 2016

The reason we have the electoral college is to ensure that there IS AN OUTCOME. In other words, it magnifies small differences in the vote to an unambiguous result.

Secondarily, back to the founding of the Republic, the more rural states wanted to counterbalance the power of the urban centers. That's why the House is apportioned on population, and the Senate is two for each state. The Electoral College assigns votes to each state based on House + Senate. So California gets a lot of votes, but small population states like Wyoming or Alaska get a little extra weight.

It's not really that different than parliamentary democracy. The president is selected by a single-purpose Parliament (the Electoral College) that represents the vote of each state according to rules settled on BY EACH STATE (some are winner take all, some split delegates). Not that different than a Prime Minister in the UK- if no party has a majority, a coalition forms to select the government. Similarly, in the US, if there were no candidate getting 270 electoral votes, the electoral college ensures that there will be a peaceful transition of power.

The Electoral College ensures also that the candidates have to campaign EVERYWHERE, not just New York, Texas, California, and Florida, in order to win. That's a good thing.

J.T. | 11. November 2016

@DTsea The Electoral College ensures also that the candidates have to campaign EVERYWHERE, not just New York, Texas, California, and Florida, in order to win. That's a good thing.

Excellent point.

vp09 | 11. November 2016

Thanks for a civil and informative discussion.

I'm not saying I want to abolish the U.S. Senate, and I'm ignorant as to how participatory democracy or parliamentary democracy operates in Germany or Britain, and I do know that at least one state in our country has a unicameral, not a bicameral legislature, so I think we ought to be open to discussing change.

RedShift | 11. November 2016

I'm learning quite a bit as well. Thanks for all this information.

bigd | 11. November 2016

SCCRENDO -- Although I don't agree with you on some topics, I have developed greater respect for you after your message here. Proud to say you are a fellow American (although you may not want my support) lol. If BOTH sides had your reasoning skills we would be a better country!

SCCRENDO | 11. November 2016

@bigd. Thank you. I apprecaiate it. Believe it or not I think carefully about all my positions. I have had moments around 30 years ago when I was a fiscal conservative. I have had a very broad life experience and deal with people from all walks of life in my practice. I am an unashamed liberal. But I do not just follow party lines. For example I am actually against legalized marijuana. I voted against it the first time it came up. However I did vote for it this time. I am concerned about the youth being strung out on the stuff and businesses making ridiculous profits. I do not believe prohibition works and am concerned about the percentage of our population rotting in jails over drug offenses. So I think it should be legalized but government run and taxed heavily with the money going towards drug rehab programs etc.

As I said I respect conservative opinions when well thought out. But if we are going to debate issues we need to have good data to back it up. I prefer an academic debate and hate fighting in the gutter. However when someone wants to drag the discussion into the gutter I will join them.

The main issue I have encountered on these boards have been on the AGW sites. Many arrive with the express purpose of trolling. They usually try redirect the whole discussion or just repeat standard sound bytes without understanding their positions. A year ago I was someone who had mainly heard the liberal viewpoint without looking at the subject at length. I saw long discussions on this so I decided it was time to educate myself. Once I understood all the issues i then encountered some interesting potentially plausible counter arguments. I went back and reviewed the counter arguments and it was obvious that both sides could not be right. So then i went and looked at the flaws in the arguments and have now formulated my opinion that AGW is a severe threat to mankind and needs to be addressed.

So where do I stand now. I think Bernie Saunders and Elizabeth Warren are correct. However I threw my full support behind Hillary in the mistaken belief that she was the most electable. For Trump to be elected i thought was impossible. Now i have to address a new reality. As my new president i need to give him a chance. I think he has stirred up so much hatred that he has to address those he has wronged and show he means it. He has made some positive steps by stepping back on some of his rhetoric. I have grave concerns though particularly with whom he seems to picking for his team. The main concern to liberals is how much damage can he cause. I will repost a legal opinion from the LA times.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-executive-power-20161110...

@JT. What is the purpose of the protests? Some is frustration. But we have the right to protest provided it is peaceful. It is not to overturn the election. Al Gore could have possibly had a case but Hillary doesn't. She lost and she conceded. Its about letting Donald Trump know that his rhetoric was a disgrace and the onus is on him to unite the country by apologizing and reaching out to those who he has offended. It is also to let him know that if he tries to implement some of his racist policies, continues to deny climate change and efforts at amelioration, appoints right wing partisan supreme court justices, attempts to repeal Obamacare without an alternative to those that lose insurance and tries to impede gay marriage and a women's right to chose he will not get our support and protests will continue.

Ross1 | 11. November 2016

Let us discuss the original title.
The positive about protests...and I have never done it on the street, is that the Elec Coll reps may come up with a vote which reflects the majority. It is also of interest to us foreigners because the American influence affects the whole world but we do not get to vote.
It is by no means a given that Trump will be POTUS. Not yet. Dec 19 isnt it?

SCCRENDO | 11. November 2016

@vp09. Britain has a Parliamentary system. Their lower house is elected in districts like us. The party with the most seats picks their leader who becomes Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is just one of the candidates. It would be like the Republicans winning congress and then electing Paul Ryan to be prime minister. The upper house is the house of Lords who I believe are appointed. So it used to be all the rich folk who could veto the decisions of the lower house. South Africa had a similar system. I cannot remember how we did our Senate. The Prime Minister was the boss and the State President was a figurehead. Under the British Commonwealth he was appointed by the queen. Israel has an interesting process. Everyone votes for a party. Depending on how may votes they get the party gets to nominate that many members of Parliament. Because nobody ever gets a majority the party with the most seats appoints the Prime Minister and he tries to cobble together a ruling coalition of parties. Often because of minor disputes a vote of no confidence is called. The ruling party loses and a new election is called. In Italy for examp,e at one point they used to change government more often than once a year

SCCRENDO | 11. November 2016

Ross I think I answered that in y response to JT

"@JT. What is the purpose of the protests? Some is frustration. But we have the right to protest provided it is peaceful. It is not to overturn the election. Al Gore could have possibly had a case but Hillary doesn't. She lost and she conceded. Its about letting Donald Trump know that his rhetoric was a disgrace and the onus is on him to unite the country by apologizing and reaching out to those who he has offended. It is also to let him know that if he tries to implement some of his racist policies, continues to deny climate change and efforts at amelioration, appoints right wing partisan supreme court justices, attempts to repeal Obamacare without an alternative to those that lose insurance and tries to impede gay marriage and a women's right to chose he will not get our support and protests will continue."

compchat | 12. November 2016

@SCCRENDO

Obviously you know little about Medical Marijuana. It is not a gateway drug and it is very difficult for people to become "addicted" to Marijuana. Sure they'll develop a tolerance but withdrawl symptoms are generally quite mild. No one robs a bank to pay for their Marijuana. They may over-eat or take a nap but rob a bank or commit violent crime to get "drug" money doesn't happen. Opioids are FAR worse in every way. Heroin is a huge problem and it is being imported from Mexico by the Drug cartels. Majority of cannabis is home grown (in California) and other west coast states.

Why should Donald Trump apologize. He won the Presidency fair and square. Perhaps Clinton should apologize for her anti-semetic remarks and taking money from Saudi Arabia.

He has no "racist policies". That's just a big huge liberal lie !. You can't find one post or clip that contains racial remarks. Yes he said some people illegaly crossing our borders are rapists. That's probably true. He didn't say all or most. Just crossing our border illegaly is a criminal act. In futurepeople who attempt to enter our country illegaly will be detered, caught, sent back and if serial offenders sent to jail.

If you don't like immigration policy work to change it. Don't march in the streets, loot, riot and destroy property. Don't throw rocks/bottles at the police and don't destroy immigrant likes by destroying their businesses and property. The whole marching thing is so counter active.

It does anger me when I see people marching in the streets, destroying property, assulting police and carrying the Mexican flag (not American flag) and screaming Viva Mexico. Oh and they also deface and burn the American flag. They might as well spit in the faces of American citizens.

These marchers actually contributed to Donald Trump's success. What you saw is a rebellion against the status quo. The Democratic party is in shambles. It's their own fault. BTW many of these anti-trump marches are planned and executed by college students and paid professional thugs. College students will march to anything "liberal" or counter-establishment. They are like a heard of cows following the leader and would walk off a cliff if not stopped.

In any case I am going to take you to task about the slanderous assertion you made claiming that President Trump has "racist polices". And don't try quoting something he said 20 years ago. I'm sure you have quite a few skeletons in your closet that you wouldn't want disclosed to your patients. Something you did, perhaps, while still a YUTE ?

McLary | 12. November 2016

Ross

You are misinterpreting the numbers for Clinton in California, for example, as being meaningful, as to winning the popular vote. If you eliminated the 2 or 3 states that Clinton won the most votes in, you would find that the vast majority of voters did support Trump in the popular vote, in the other 47 states. Your point of view implies that some states results should be given more weight than others, or some voters should have more say than others.

Trump won. Suck it up buttercup.

J.T. | 12. November 2016

@SCCRENDO I agree about the frustration and I'm sure a lot of it is "misery loves company." But as soon as it turns to property damage and personal injury the protestors lose their credibility and their protests can be dismissed as thuggery. When that happens any influence they might have had on future policies is out the window.

Mel. | 12. November 2016

Sun,
You really think kids should be told to demonstrate, instead of learning how to read?
Are you a teacher?

lilbean | 12. November 2016

I noticed things started going downhill after the Pledge of Allegiance was taken out of schools. What are they teaching students these days?

Pages