|
Post by blackbarney on Nov 26, 2016 19:49:40 GMT -5
?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2016 21:32:24 GMT -5
Fidel Castro passed away on Black Friday, and Justin Trudeau's eulogy focused on the more positive aspects of his leadership. Most people are slamming Trudeau for only mentioning things like how Castro "made significant improvements to the education and healthcare of his island nation", but in hindsight I guess he's just not trying to pick fights with anyone. His angle focuses on the wellbeing of the people living in Cuba more than anything, and it's entirely fair to call that tunnel vision.
Trump's outlook on the issue is definitely more relatable. Castro was a dick. Nuff said.
|
|
|
Post by Broadband on Nov 27, 2016 8:03:21 GMT -5
|
|
pachiderm
True Bro
Chewing some serious leaves
Posts: 647
|
Post by pachiderm on Nov 27, 2016 8:36:03 GMT -5
I'm a tolerant progressive liberal and you can suck my dick
|
|
|
Post by blackbarney on Nov 27, 2016 9:26:35 GMT -5
Justin is also maintaining good diplomatic relations with Cuba. Trudeau is a sitting head of state, this is pretty normal stuff. Castro wasn’t Pol Pot or anything.
|
|
|
Post by Aphoristic on Nov 27, 2016 16:29:29 GMT -5
Trudeau is an idiot, but we've known that for a while now.
|
|
Will
True Bro
K/D below 1.0
Posts: 1,309
|
Post by Will on Nov 27, 2016 18:50:39 GMT -5
Nice hair, tho
|
|
pachiderm
True Bro
Chewing some serious leaves
Posts: 647
|
Post by pachiderm on Nov 28, 2016 8:39:40 GMT -5
|
|
qupie
True Bro
Posts: 12,400
|
Post by qupie on Nov 28, 2016 8:51:19 GMT -5
What the hell is this voting system. Are Americans actually content with the system? Isn't time to change some of this? Seems extremely complicated, expensive and weird to hold on to compared to way easier methods to me, but I am just watching from the side lines. How can 200 people still change the president elect for example? Why is this step even a thing if they are supposed to vote for the elect anyways?
|
|
markopolo
True Bro
Once a LMG Camper, Then a Voidlock, Now a Lexington 25-8-366 Runner
Posts: 5,567
|
Post by markopolo on Nov 28, 2016 11:27:43 GMT -5
It's also important to remember that Trudeau's dad, Pierre Elliot, was Prime Minister at the time of Castro and PET and Castro were friendly. Castro, iirc, was a pallbearer at PET's funeral.
So natch, Justin isn't going to throw shade. Canada and Cuba have always been cool. Their cigars are awesome and vacationing there is even better
|
|
|
Post by Aphoristic on Nov 28, 2016 12:43:04 GMT -5
What the hell is this voting system. Are Americans actually content with the system? Isn't time to change some of this? Seems extremely complicated, expensive and weird to hold on to compared to way easier methods to me, but I am just watching from the side lines. How can 200 people still change the president elect for example? Why is this step even a thing if they are supposed to vote for the elect anyways? Realistically, the only reason people like it is because it prevents a minority of large states from ruling over all of the smaller states. Population representation in our government is supposed to only be the House. The whole, "it gives the electors a chance to change an election" has never really come into play because we haven't elected a Hitler in our history.
|
|
pachiderm
True Bro
Chewing some serious leaves
Posts: 647
|
Post by pachiderm on Nov 28, 2016 17:14:57 GMT -5
What the hell is this voting system. Are Americans actually content with the system? Isn't time to change some of this? Seems extremely complicated, expensive and weird to hold on to compared to way easier methods to me, but I am just watching from the side lines. How can 200 people still change the president elect for example? Why is this step even a thing if they are supposed to vote for the elect anyways? If it were not possible for them to change their vote the electoral college would have no purpose. If they were all forced to vote for their pledged candidate it would be tantamount to telling anyone who doesn't live in a battleground state to go fu ck themselves. I mean we're basically doing that anyway since there's very little chance that they're going to flip, but if it were impossible for them to influence the outcome they would exist only to allow the possibility for a minority vote, spread out in key areas, to overcome the will of the majority. That's really what's happening now, but the electors have a chance to change that I guess.
|
|
|
Post by Pegasus Actual on Nov 29, 2016 4:16:12 GMT -5
So natch, Justin isn't going to throw shade. Canada and Cuba have always been cool. Their cigars are awesome and vacationing there is even better To be fair taking just about any vacation from Canada has got to feel good #sorryboutthelatitudebutatleastvancouverisnice
|
|
qupie
True Bro
Posts: 12,400
|
Post by qupie on Nov 29, 2016 5:40:59 GMT -5
The whole, "it gives the electors a chance to change an election" has never really come into play because we haven't elected a Hitler in our history. But how does one know they elected a Hitler... Seems like a pretty weird system to me. but I understand changing it now is pretty impossible.
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on Nov 29, 2016 6:03:08 GMT -5
What the hell is this voting system. Are Americans actually content with the system? Isn't time to change some of this? Seems extremely complicated, expensive and weird to hold on to compared to way easier methods to me, but I am just watching from the side lines. How can 200 people still change the president elect for example? Why is this step even a thing if they are supposed to vote for the elect anyways? Realistically, the only reason people like it is because it prevents a minority of large states from ruling over all of the smaller states. It makes people THINK it prevents a minority of larges states from ruling over the smaller states, but all you need is 11 states out of 50+DC to win. It doesn't happen because several of them are swing states and a few of them are deep blue or deep red. It's also theoretically possible to win the electoral vote if you get 50%+1 of the popular vote in the least populous states, only getting 22% of the popular vote. The voting system definitely needs to be updated, I mean, we still vote on Tuesdays because of a very old rule that was established because of Sabbath and because it took a day to travel to voting areas.
|
|
markopolo
True Bro
Once a LMG Camper, Then a Voidlock, Now a Lexington 25-8-366 Runner
Posts: 5,567
|
Post by markopolo on Nov 29, 2016 9:37:18 GMT -5
So natch, Justin isn't going to throw shade. Canada and Cuba have always been cool. Their cigars are awesome and vacationing there is even better To be fair taking just about any vacation from Canada has got to feel good #sorryboutthelatitudebutatleastvancouverisnice No.
|
|
eLantern
True Bro
"Oh, cruel fate, to be thusly boned! Ask not for whom the bone bones, it bones for thee!" - Bender
Posts: 10,761
|
Post by eLantern on Dec 2, 2016 16:39:37 GMT -5
What the hell is this voting system. Are Americans actually content with the system? Isn't time to change some of this? Seems extremely complicated, expensive and weird to hold on to compared to way easier methods to me, but I am just watching from the side lines. How can 200 people still change the president elect for example? Why is this step even a thing if they are supposed to vote for the elect anyways? If it were not possible for them to change their vote the electoral college would have no purpose. If they were all forced to vote for their pledged candidate it would be tantamount to telling anyone who doesn't live in a battleground state to go fu ck themselves. I mean we're basically doing that anyway since there's very little chance that they're going to flip, but if it were impossible for them to influence the outcome they would exist only to allow the possibility for a minority vote, spread out in key areas, to overcome the will of the majority. That's really what's happening now, but the electors have a chance to change that I guess. Not sure you fully understand how the electorates work within the electoral college. Each Political Party (or in some cases an Independent Presidential Candidate) has their own group or slate of electorates for each state. The winning candidate of a particular state (based on popular vote - aka pure democracy) will have his or her party's (or simply "their" - if they were an independent candidate) slate of electorates representing that particular state in the electoral college. By the way, the party or independent candidate simply won't have individuals serving within their electorate slate or group if they're not assured of their loyalty. If by chance (as minuscule as it may be) an electoral representative were to go rogue (by not voting for their candidate) then they'd surely get replaced for future elections and besides it'd be unlikely that one or even a few rogue votes could overturn a victory so it becomes even less likely that an electoral representative would risk going rogue. A state’s entitled allotment of electors equals the number of members in its Congressional delegation (one for each member in the House of Representatives) plus two for the state's Senators. This essentially grants a populous representation of the state's popular vote, but limits it's influence in order to prevent a possible tyranny of one single majority. In other words, this system helps allow individual majorities made up throughout the US by states and regions have more of a voice toward electing the most important political figure of the country (aka the President) over one single majority (the overall population). Without the Electoral College the country's voice in electing a President would be dominated by the views, concerns, and beliefs of the populations within CA, FL, IL, TX, and NY. This would create a type of mob-rule mentality and would lessen the voices of those living in the other 45 states that make up different regions of the US. History taught the founding fathers that a pure democracy implodes in upon itself time and time again because of the tyranny of the single majority which is what lead them to build a government based on checks and balances while also given ample voice to the individual states and regions that make up America.
|
|
|
Post by illram on Dec 2, 2016 17:21:05 GMT -5
It's like affirmative action, but for racists.
|
|
|
Post by Aphoristic on Dec 2, 2016 19:10:54 GMT -5
No.
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on Dec 2, 2016 19:17:09 GMT -5
Without the Electoral College the country's voice in electing a President would be dominated by the views, concerns, and beliefs of the populations within CA, FL, IL, TX, and NY. You know...except for the fact the minority can already rule WITH the electoral college. As I pointed out, the 11 most populated states add up 270 electoral votes, or conversely, with 50%+1 of the vote in any state, it's possible to get 270 electoral votes from the most disproportionately represented states with only 22% of the popular vote. So it's theoretically possible to get a mob rule with a minority vote. If only there were a branch of government that had an equal representation regardless of population, and also gave representation based on population and didn't use the electoral college who actually created the laws and had the power to overturn another branch with a majority vote. If ONLY THERE WAS SUCH A THING THAT EXISTED.
|
|
pachiderm
True Bro
Chewing some serious leaves
Posts: 647
|
Post by pachiderm on Dec 2, 2016 22:53:16 GMT -5
If it were not possible for them to change their vote the electoral college would have no purpose. If they were all forced to vote for their pledged candidate it would be tantamount to telling anyone who doesn't live in a battleground state to go fu ck themselves. I mean we're basically doing that anyway since there's very little chance that they're going to flip, but if it were impossible for them to influence the outcome they would exist only to allow the possibility for a minority vote, spread out in key areas, to overcome the will of the majority. That's really what's happening now, but the electors have a chance to change that I guess. Not sure you fully understand how the electorates work within the electoral college. Each Political Party (or in some cases an Independent Presidential Candidate) has their own group or slate of electorates for each state. The winning candidate of a particular state (based on popular vote - aka pure democracy) will have his or her party's (or simply "their" - if they were an independent candidate) slate of electorates representing that particular state in the electoral college. By the way, the party or independent candidate simply won't have individuals serving within their electorate slate or group if they're not assured of their loyalty. If by chance (as minuscule as it may be) an electoral representative were to go rogue (by not voting for their candidate) then they'd surely get replaced for future elections and besides it'd be unlikely that one or even a few rogue votes could overturn a victory so it becomes even less likely that an electoral representative would risk going rogue. A state’s entitled allotment of electors equals the number of members in its Congressional delegation (one for each member in the House of Representatives) plus two for the state's Senators. This essentially grants a populous representation of the state's popular vote, but limits it's influence in order to prevent a possible tyranny of one single majority. In other words, this system helps allow individual majorities made up throughout the US by states and regions have more of a voice toward electing the most important political figure of the country (aka the President) over one single majority (the overall population). Without the Electoral College the country's voice in electing a President would be dominated by the views, concerns, and beliefs of the populations within CA, FL, IL, TX, and NY. This would create a type of mob-rule mentality and would lessen the voices of those living in the other 45 states that make up different regions of the US. History taught the founding fathers that a pure democracy implodes in upon itself time and time again because of the tyranny of the single majority which is what lead them to build a government based on checks and balances while also given ample voice to the individual states and regions that make up America. I fail to see how anything you just said makes my assessment wrong. This system makes certain voters count more than others. A voter in Pennsylvania counts many times more than any voter in California who votes for a candidate after the state has already decided a winner. Any Hillary Clinton voter who voted in California beyond the number of voters needed to beat the Donald Trump voters in California wasted their vote. The point of the Electoral College is not to deny certain people their right to vote. That is a potential by-product of it, not its purpose. Its purpose is to prevent a majority of the people from electing someone who is not qualified for the office by creating a second layer of safety net against that possibility. The point isn't to let literally a minority of overall voters decide who wins without the safety net applying to that decision as well. If it is, the founding fathers are dumber than I thought. Tyranny of the minority is just as bad as tyranny of the majority. Considering the purpose is to deny the office to an unqualified populist, and considering that is what just fu cking happened, if the electoral college cannot change their votes they have no reason to exist.
|
|
Dumien
True Bro
Black Market Trader
No engrams. Only disappointment.
Posts: 3,292
|
Post by Dumien on Dec 3, 2016 8:16:05 GMT -5
One of the key purposes of the electoral college according to Madison was the prevention of "an interested and overbearing majority" from adversely affecting the rights of a minority. Dude didn't like what he called "factions" or their ability to emotionally, single-mindedly ignore the rights or needs of other groups of people.
If we didn't have an electoral college you, as a potential candidate, could just focus on the needs and wishes of the most densely populated areas. Who cares about miners or farmers? This ends up being favorable for a minority of "interests" since you don't need to cater to more than one type of location. All of a sudden we get a brand new type of tyranny of the minority... a minority of interests. Everything but big city interests will suffer as a result. Tyranny of the majority (population) is a very real potential problem no matter the system. The electoral college functions as a tool to even the odds for the smaller "factions." This fits Madison's idea of a federalist gov.
Hamilton is more pachi's speed. He wanted the college because of someone (maybe just like Trump) who possessed "...the little art of popularity," without proper ability, qualification, or character. The idea here is that there are alot of people that are uneducated, misinformed, susceptible to "wolves," an are incapable of making an informed decision (note the current idea of "post truth"). These electors are supposed to function as un-purchasable, educated, informed individuals that fully support the best interest of those they represent.
What that boils down to is the question of whether or not each individual electorate believes that those they represent A) Voted intelligently in their best interest and B) are not electing a person that is without ability, qualification, or character.
imo neither Hilary nor Trump would be president with Hamilton's conception.
Madison would probably be upset with both as well since they each represent such passionate, single minded followers, but side with Trump because within his conception pf the electorate system this was the exact sort of popular vote he was trying to stifle. Hilary failed to appeal to the quantity of interests she needed to, thus she pays the consequences.
I personally love the redundancy and safeguards our (impure) democracy has. However, I've never bought the idea that electorates are "unbuyable." Everyone has a price lol.
|
|
|
Post by blackbarney on Dec 4, 2016 8:49:54 GMT -5
And my price is kisses.
|
|
wings
True Bro
Posts: 3,776
|
Post by wings on Dec 4, 2016 10:55:27 GMT -5
Without the Electoral College the country's voice in electing a President would be dominated by the views, concerns, and beliefs of the populations within CA, FL, IL, TX, and NY. You know...except for the fact the minority can already rule WITH the electoral college. As I pointed out, the 11 most populated states add up 270 electoral votes, or conversely, with 50%+1 of the vote in any state, it's possible to get 270 electoral votes from the most disproportionately represented states with only 22% of the popular vote. So it's theoretically possible to get a mob rule with a minority vote. If only there were a branch of government that had an equal representation regardless of population, and also gave representation based on population and didn't use the electoral college who actually created the laws and had the power to overturn another branch with a majority vote. If ONLY THERE WAS SUCH A THING THAT EXISTED. Sounds like you'd be after what Norther Ireland uses for their devolved body, the Single Transferable Vote. That said, it is more heavily based on producing seats that are proportionate to votes cast, so I don't know how that would work in the United States.
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on Dec 4, 2016 18:04:04 GMT -5
You know...except for the fact the minority can already rule WITH the electoral college. As I pointed out, the 11 most populated states add up 270 electoral votes, or conversely, with 50%+1 of the vote in any state, it's possible to get 270 electoral votes from the most disproportionately represented states with only 22% of the popular vote. So it's theoretically possible to get a mob rule with a minority vote. If only there were a branch of government that had an equal representation regardless of population, and also gave representation based on population and didn't use the electoral college who actually created the laws and had the power to overturn another branch with a majority vote. If ONLY THERE WAS SUCH A THING THAT EXISTED. Sounds like you'd be after what Norther Ireland uses for their devolved body, the Single Transferable Vote. That said, it is more heavily based on producing seats that are proportionate to votes cast, so I don't know how that would work in the United States. I was more referring to Congress. Congress isn't beholden to the electoral college, has proportional and equal representation, can overturn presidential vetoes and arguably has more power than the president considering they actually make the laws.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2016 17:21:37 GMT -5
That... sounds great, but highly exploitable.
|
|
|
Post by blackbarney on Dec 6, 2016 8:31:35 GMT -5
He's not going to use the emergency text system to Tweet.
|
|
|
Post by bucket415 on Dec 6, 2016 11:08:10 GMT -5
Not sure you fully understand how the electorates work within the electoral college. Each Political Party (or in some cases an Independent Presidential Candidate) has their own group or slate of electorates for each state. The winning candidate of a particular state (based on popular vote - aka pure democracy) will have his or her party's (or simply "their" - if they were an independent candidate) slate of electorates representing that particular state in the electoral college. By the way, the party or independent candidate simply won't have individuals serving within their electorate slate or group if they're not assured of their loyalty. If by chance (as minuscule as it may be) an electoral representative were to go rogue (by not voting for their candidate) then they'd surely get replaced for future elections and besides it'd be unlikely that one or even a few rogue votes could overturn a victory so it becomes even less likely that an electoral representative would risk going rogue. A state’s entitled allotment of electors equals the number of members in its Congressional delegation (one for each member in the House of Representatives) plus two for the state's Senators. This essentially grants a populous representation of the state's popular vote, but limits it's influence in order to prevent a possible tyranny of one single majority. In other words, this system helps allow individual majorities made up throughout the US by states and regions have more of a voice toward electing the most important political figure of the country (aka the President) over one single majority (the overall population). Without the Electoral College the country's voice in electing a President would be dominated by the views, concerns, and beliefs of the populations within CA, FL, IL, TX, and NY. This would create a type of mob-rule mentality and would lessen the voices of those living in the other 45 states that make up different regions of the US. History taught the founding fathers that a pure democracy implodes in upon itself time and time again because of the tyranny of the single majority which is what lead them to build a government based on checks and balances while also given ample voice to the individual states and regions that make up America. I fail to see how anything you just said makes my assessment wrong. This system makes certain voters count more than others. A voter in Pennsylvania counts many times more than any voter in California who votes for a candidate after the state has already decided a winner. Any Hillary Clinton voter who voted in California beyond the number of voters needed to beat the Donald Trump voters in California wasted their vote. The point of the Electoral College is not to deny certain people their right to vote. That is a potential by-product of it, not its purpose. Its purpose is to prevent a majority of the people from electing someone who is not qualified for the office by creating a second layer of safety net against that possibility. The point isn't to let literally a minority of overall voters decide who wins without the safety net applying to that decision as well. If it is, the founding fathers are dumber than I thought. Tyranny of the minority is just as bad as tyranny of the majority. Considering the purpose is to deny the office to an unqualified populist, and considering that is what just fu cking happened, if the electoral college cannot change their votes they have no reason to exist. The highlighted text might be the dumbest thing I've read in regards to a popular vs electoral vote argument. No offense. Please explain this again. Based on your reasoning, all voters, on every matter possible, stop mattering after the point where they stop mattering (a one vote lead). But of course, there is no way to know when that point will be, or if it will ever be, until voting is over. Maybe you need to stop arguing against the electoral college and start arguing for the invention of a time machine.
|
|
|
Post by blackbarney on Dec 6, 2016 11:28:27 GMT -5
Yeah, that strikes me as clinically retarded also.
|
|
probaddie
True Bro
You're triggering my intelligence
Posts: 11,043
|
Post by probaddie on Dec 6, 2016 14:24:38 GMT -5
you guys honestly might be clinically retarded if thats the interpretation you got from his post like i have no idea how someone whos read this conversation manages to think hes talking about how people should decide who to vote for I've been reading this conversation and I've concluded that the conversation itself is clinically retarded. That's not a reflection of its participants, though, just politics generally.
|
|