To the Republic


Off-Topic Discussions

101 to 150 of 472 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Millions could lose medicaid coverage under Trump plan

Paul Ryan announced that as part of repealing Obamacare, he plans to phase out medicare and replace it with private insurance for retirees

Trump:Ya know, you shouldn't have made that SNL skit about me.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:

You do realize he doesn't have any power right now.

Obama is still president.

Interestingly enough, most of what I read there, happened yesterday, happened the day before that, happened a week before that...etc. I've faced some types of discrimination over the past five years that puts most of what was written down there to shame. I think some may be trying to sensationalize it at this point, but as Trump has NO POWER at this point, even if he is the president elect (meaning he is NOT the president yet) it really reflects more on those locations those people live and the atmosphere there than whether Trump has done something, or whether Obama has any control over it either.

It probably is a GOOD thing that such actions are FINALLY being acknowledged that they are occurring...when they weren't acknowledged when they happened a week ago or two weeks ago as much..

True, Obama is still president and Trump has no legal authority. However, he has done something. He's won the election on openly racist and bigoted rhetoric. Is it any wonder that racists and bigots feel empowered and more of them go and do what they've wanted to do all along?

From taunts on up to assaults. We'll see more of it all, even before Trump takes office. When he does, then it may start mattering what he actually does, until then it's all influence and rhetoric. Most of which is bad.


Whose name are they throwing around? there is a level of responsibility when people are doing things in your name.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
GreyWolfLord wrote:

You do realize he doesn't have any power right now.

Obama is still president.

Interestingly enough, most of what I read there, happened yesterday, happened the day before that, happened a week before that...etc. I've faced some types of discrimination over the past five years that puts most of what was written down there to shame. I think some may be trying to sensationalize it at this point, but as Trump has NO POWER at this point, even if he is the president elect (meaning he is NOT the president yet) it really reflects more on those locations those people live and the atmosphere there than whether Trump has done something, or whether Obama has any control over it either.

It probably is a GOOD thing that such actions are FINALLY being acknowledged that they are occurring...when they weren't acknowledged when they happened a week ago or two weeks ago as much...

But it has LITTLE to do with whether we live in a Republic or why the Republic is a good thing.

One of the things about our Republic is that it is built around checks and balances. That is true for the electoral votes and Congress, but is also true of our government itself.

One of those issues was LGBT in which we got to see how a pure population representation would go, and how a republic works.

In California we have a classic example of popular democracy in action when they voted to not allow Gay Marriage at the ballot (In California which is one of the liberal bastions nationally speaking...of all places).

If left only to popular democracy and popular representation...it would be a very different place today.

However, in the US government we have those who enact the laws (Congress) those who enforce and enact the laws (the Executive) and those who determine the constitutionality and legality of those laws, or interpret the law/constitution (the judicial).

Most States are also based around this check and balance system in their government.

California has the judicial...and many should be VERY thankful for this type...

In France we do have the separation of powers and no electoral college ;-)


Terquem wrote:

My daughter brought some clarity to me last night (she is currently living in Cambodia on a Fulbright Scholarship)when she told me

We cannot expect to survive in a constant state of opposition - it is time to stop pointing at the other group and screaming, you are the wrong headed ones, the dangerous ones, the ones who are going to ruin the country. We need to approach those who are different from us with inquisitive and compassionate minds. We need to understand why they think the way they do, what makes their world make sense to them. When people feel like they have no power, any promise that appears to give them some power, whether it is saving the environment, or stopping crime, if it is a promise that will give them back some power they feel they've lost, or was taken from them, then they will embrace that promise, no matter how unrealistic the promise might be. Get to the core of the problem, empowerment. Why do so many, on both sides, feel they have no power and only through an imagined political process will that power be restored to them. The government is not the only factor in the conditions that have lead so many to feel disempowered. Corporations, small businesses, educators, activists, all of us have a role in shaping our political and social environment. Reach out to open a dialog with everyone around you to discover what power we can take back, what power we need, what power will lead to a state where we are not in constant opposition. It might just be that the beginning of that power, is the power of acceptance of things that we might not now understand but have the capacity to embrace once we do.

This is a nice sentiment. However, there's a significant problem with it. What do you do when you find out that the reason some people feel they lack power is because others are gaining power? I said it here before: When a group is accustomed to being in power, equality feels like oppression. So, the only way that some will feel empowered is by having power taken away from others.

It could be argued that power itself is a selfish thing, in that it only becomes apparent when it is unequal. When all have power it seems as if none do.


Scythia wrote:
Terquem wrote:

My daughter brought some clarity to me last night (she is currently living in Cambodia on a Fulbright Scholarship)when she told me

We cannot expect to survive in a constant state of opposition - it is time to stop pointing at the other group and screaming, you are the wrong headed ones, the dangerous ones, the ones who are going to ruin the country. We need to approach those who are different from us with inquisitive and compassionate minds. We need to understand why they think the way they do, what makes their world make sense to them. When people feel like they have no power, any promise that appears to give them some power, whether it is saving the environment, or stopping crime, if it is a promise that will give them back some power they feel they've lost, or was taken from them, then they will embrace that promise, no matter how unrealistic the promise might be. Get to the core of the problem, empowerment. Why do so many, on both sides, feel they have no power and only through an imagined political process will that power be restored to them. The government is not the only factor in the conditions that have lead so many to feel disempowered. Corporations, small businesses, educators, activists, all of us have a role in shaping our political and social environment. Reach out to open a dialog with everyone around you to discover what power we can take back, what power we need, what power will lead to a state where we are not in constant opposition. It might just be that the beginning of that power, is the power of acceptance of things that we might not now understand but have the capacity to embrace once we do.

This is a nice sentiment. However, there's a significant problem with it. What do you do when you find out that the reason some people feel they lack power is because others are gaining power? I said it here before: When a group is accustomed to being in power, equality feels like oppression. So, the only way that some will feel empowered is by having power taken...

She never told it me that it would be easy. You are correct, and all I can say, because I am really not smart enough to figure out the right answer, is that we just, I suppose, need to address what is causing those feelings of loss of power, what can be done to help [people feel that even though you might not now, ever, have everything your think you deserve, or anything like what other people might have, or even what you believe you are supposed to have, that hating other people, or wanting other people to have less than they have unless they are willing to give it up, is not the thing that will make you happy.

You see, there will always be the 1% and they will always have a whole lot more than others have. My thought is that as long as we, all of us, the 1% and the 99% agree that when you give what you can afford to give and still keep your life in a way that satisfies your needs and some of your wants, then all of us should, hopefully be alright. We, all of us, can help those who are suffering, somehow, someway.

But if you think taking anything from someone when they do not want to give it up, will solve your problems, you are just fundamentally, wrong.


The Raven Black wrote:
In France we do have the separation of powers and no electoral college ;-)

I'm not as familiar with the French government as the US, and of course I love the US...but the French government has some astounding and great things about it (from what I have read about it).

France is also a republic, but in a different way than the US. It has direct voting, but it also seems to have an electorate, but not one that is as expansive in it's ability to control the election or the populations choices.

France is remarkable as in many ways it was inspired by the US, but at the same time, inspired by other ideas to try to make a government that represented the people. It's had several republics and constitutions as it refines it's government for freedom like the refiners fire. In many ways, it has stood for freedom and democracy just as much as the US has since WWII and could be seen as one of the major beacons to the world.

France has a Parliament (Parlement français) which is also divided into two houses, the Senate (Sénat) and the National Assembly ((Assemblée nationale).

Where as the National Assembly is elected by popular vote (From what I understand) the Senate is still selected by electoral vote.

The vote can go several ways and is more inclusive than the American system in regards to different and varied political views.

Some of the more significant differences I see in regards to the French Republic to the US is that the Executive is divided and hence in many ways is balanced against itself. It has the President who in theory selects the executive and the Prime Minister who in theory leads it and the Ministers. This dual control creates a separation of powers within the executive and also acts to balance itself out in ways the US does not have in it's executive.

The French Executive also has more direct control over it's financial abilities than the US Executive, and though I'm not positive on the process, from what I think I understand is that the President also can directly appoint three justices for it's High court's judiciary, where as the Senate also has this power for 3 and the National Assembly has that power for 3. I don't think they need approval for the 3 that they appoint (I could be wrong, as I said my knowledge is not excellent on the French Republic) which would resolve some of the problems the US is currently facing with it's Supreme Court Justice Nominations (if one considers it a problem).

Which also means it has, like the US, the separation of powers in the French Republic...where you have the Executive (and it is even further balanced in and of itself), the Judiciary, and the Legislative (which is also very similar to the US in it's own checks and Balances).

It's an excellent form of Government, even if it's not an exact replica or made in the exact form of the US's government.

Silver Crusade

Sharoth wrote:

I just hope we do not have a repeat of this.

Edit - IMHO it should be required reading. ~sighs~ Time to pull it out and reread it.

I've also read Shirer's book, cover to cover. All 1486 pages, not counting the index. The paper is browning but I still have my copy. If anyone truly believes some of what is being said by the irresponsible talking heads I suggest you read it. Even better, visit a Holocaust museum. There's one about two blocks from my office - it has a display in the lobby showing true evil done to populations over the last centry.

Our political system is by its nature designed to prevent the dictatorship some people (on the news) are suggesting. As the original poster said, to the Republic.

Also, I personally find calling any person a Nazi or a Hitler as offensive as using the n-bomb. Many adults my age and older feel that way. Unless you're actually talking about someone who comitted crimes against humanity, please stop.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Terquem wrote:

She never told it me that it would be easy. You are correct, and all I can say, because I am really not smart enough to figure out the right answer, is that we just, I suppose, need to address what is causing those feelings of loss of power, what can be done to help [people feel that even though you might not now, ever, have everything your think you deserve, or anything like what other people might have, or even what you believe you are supposed to have, that hating other people, or wanting other people to have less than they have unless they are willing to give it up, is not the thing that will make you happy.

You see, there will always be the 1% and they will always have a whole lot more than others have. My thought is that as long as we, all of us, the 1% and the 99% agree that when you give what you can afford to give and still keep your life in a way that satisfies your needs and some of your wants, then all of us should, hopefully be alright. We, all of us, can help those who are suffering, somehow, someway.

But if you think taking anything from someone when they do not want to give it up, will solve your problems, you are just fundamentally, wrong.

Except of course that we don't all agree to that. The 1% certainly don't agree that they should give away what they could afford to give and still keep their lives in a way that satisfies their needs and some of their wants. Many throughout society are willing to put a lot of effort into making sure that people not like them don't have the same rights, much less as much prosperity or opportunity.

In some cases, not uncommon throughout history, "taking anything from someone when they do not want to give it up" is the only solution to problems. When holds the wealth and power unjustly and uses it to keep others from even reaching the point of satisfying their needs, much less their wants, there is little else to do.

As you say, there will always be the 1% (or more accurately, but less poetically, the 0.1% or the 0.001%), but how much of the wealth and power lies in their hands can be changed. We know that. We've seen it. It was slashed drastically in the wake of the depression and the New Deal and has recently been growing dramatically again. That matters. We built the middle class and now we're losing it.

And when as Scythia said, what a group has is power over others and they've had it long enough that it feels like the way things are and should be, taking that power away feels like a huge loss and threat. Equality feels like oppression.
You couldn't free the slaves without depriving whites of their property. In the Civil Rights days, you couldn't raise blacks up to an equal level without depriving some whites of their privileges. You can't treat women as equal to men without depriving men of advantages.

To wrap it back around, the turning point to so much in our recent history was that when we started to extend the social benefits and social contract to minorities, far too many whites turned against it. It's still going on. That's still the struggle.

Dark Archive

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
baron arem heshvaun wrote:

As a transplanted New Yorker, and a naturalized American, step son to a currently serving California state congressman, both of us who could not bare to have the idea of Trump entering the Office of the Presidency, the last months have been a whirlwind.

The last 48 hours nearly impossible to take in. I am still in near shock.

The past two days must be how it feels like when after a long running campaign, all Wayne Reynolds Iconics die in the final scene and fail to stop the BBG.

watching Rogue one is of the utmost importance now.

Save the rebellion. Save the dream.

Interestingly enough this Rogue One trailer, focusing on a strong female leader, quietly debuted the 2 days before the Election.

Although Freehold I must take exception to you comparing Trumps cadre of yes men and women to The Empire.

That's a very wrong parallel.

Trump and his brood are more akin to Jabba's crime organization. Maybe with just a little less class.

And while Trump and Jabba have similar views of how to treat women, there is the notable difference that the Hutt is sporting a better shade of orange and has larger hands.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:

Much as I didn't like the results of the last election it shows why the electoral college is still needed.

You can view it as a popular vs. land type of idea. A majority of the US voted for Trump if you view it land wise. The majority of the landmass of the US, or those in the US voted in their majority to have Donald Trump. A small section of the US, but one that has the majority of the population voted for Clinton.

If it were a popular vote, you would have exactly WHAT the founding fathers feared, where a small portion of the nation (land wise) is dictating everything to the rest of the nation.

I know this was a while ago, but I just have to point out: many of the Founding Fathers were major landowners in their states and wanted to make sure that they would have a significant say in how they ran their lives/land/businesses.

Really, why SHOULD it matter what the majority of the (empty of human inhabitants) landmass of the United States decides rather than what the majority of living human beings who have hopes, fears, and dreams decides?

Again, small states get representation (and as we've seen, overrepresentation by population) in the Congress. In a winner-take-all situation like the presidency, I'd prefer we bow to the will of the PEOPLE, not the will of the LAND.


baron arem heshvaun wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
baron arem heshvaun wrote:

As a transplanted New Yorker, and a naturalized American, step son to a currently serving California state congressman, both of us who could not bare to have the idea of Trump entering the Office of the Presidency, the last months have been a whirlwind.

The last 48 hours nearly impossible to take in. I am still in near shock.

The past two days must be how it feels like when after a long running campaign, all Wayne Reynolds Iconics die in the final scene and fail to stop the BBG.

watching Rogue one is of the utmost importance now.

Save the rebellion. Save the dream.

Interestingly enough this Rogue One trailer, focusing on a strong female leader, quietly debuted the 2 days before the Election.

Although Freehold I must take exception to you comparing Trumps cadre of yes men and women to The Empire.

That's a very wrong parallel.

Trump and his brood are more akin to Jabba's crime organization. Maybe with just a little less class.

And while Trump and Jabba have similar views of how to treat women, there is the notable difference that the Hutt is sporting a better shade of orange and has larger hands.

I had to download SWToR and play my old Sith Inquisitor after this.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
baron arem heshvaun wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
baron arem heshvaun wrote:

As a transplanted New Yorker, and a naturalized American, step son to a currently serving California state congressman, both of us who could not bare to have the idea of Trump entering the Office of the Presidency, the last months have been a whirlwind.

The last 48 hours nearly impossible to take in. I am still in near shock.

The past two days must be how it feels like when after a long running campaign, all Wayne Reynolds Iconics die in the final scene and fail to stop the BBG.

watching Rogue one is of the utmost importance now.

Save the rebellion. Save the dream.

Interestingly enough this Rogue One trailer, focusing on a strong female leader, quietly debuted the 2 days before the Election.

Although Freehold I must take exception to you comparing Trumps cadre of yes men and women to The Empire.

That's a very wrong parallel.

Trump and his brood are more akin to Jabba's crime organization. Maybe with just a little less class.

And while Trump and Jabba have similar views of how to treat women, there is the notable difference that the Hutt is sporting a better shade of orange and has larger hands.

so...

The Black Orange Sun?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
The Norv wrote:


I know this was a while ago, but I just have to point out: many of the Founding Fathers were major landowners in their states and wanted to make sure that they would have a significant say in how they ran their lives/land/businesses.

Really, why SHOULD it matter what the majority of the (empty of human inhabitants) landmass of the United States decides rather than what the majority of living human beings who have hopes, fears, and dreams decides?

Because the hopes, fears and dreams of the masses living in cities in California, Illinois and New York are not the hopes, fears and dreams of people living in rural Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Iowa.

Those people living in those empty landmasses will never have any effect on who will be President without the electoral college. But this time, in this situation, their voice was heard.

Quote:
Again, small states get representation (and as we've seen, overrepresentation by population) in the Congress. In a winner-take-all situation like the presidency, I'd prefer we bow to the will of the PEOPLE, not the will of the LAND.

Yes, they do get representation in Congress, but with the electoral college, they also get some opportunities for a President who reflects and represents their views as well.

That is how it should be.


One thing that strikes me in regards to having an electoral college instead of a popular vote is that a majority of the actual voters, the electors, can still have a majority.

Many nations which have a popular vote have it so that a third party can have a part or portion of government if they win.

In the US, it is a binary system, so it's an all or nothing effort.

Because of that, it has to be a majority win (50.00001%...aka....simplified as 51% or more for one candidate).

Despite what people wish, in many elections over the past 40 years, there has NOT been a majority win by any candidate. In fact, many times it has been below a majority of the popular vote for any candidate.

The electoral college takes care of this in a binary system, in that, even if a candidate does NOT win the majority vote, it is made to protect the minority. In that essence, even if you have 51% of the population vote against you, you can still win with 49% or less of the population voting for you.

If there is no majority it goes to Congress to decide the president. This would be a very common incident if it was based around a popular vote, unless we decided to disenfranchise the popular vote and instead simply go for the highest percentage of the popular vote.

As opposed to an electoral system, without a system that was not binary, this could actually be a very BAD idea in that it disempowers more people than an electoral system.

Many that argue for a popular vote (Republicans in the past, others now), it is because they want the person with the highest percentage of the popular vote, instead of a majority, to win.

However, this would work against most of them at some point or another in making them far more powerless than an electoral system does now.

In many ways, it's because they want to extend power at that moment, in their favor, rather than think of the ramifications or effects such a move could unintentionally cause to them and others down the line in the future.

With the electoral system, one STILL needs to win the majority (so, for example, when the actual vote happens in December, if for some reason neither candidate gets the majority of the electors votes, it would go to Congress instead, where it goes to an even more representative type vote in the House).

Furthermore, the results of an electoral system occurs far quicker than a popular vote. In the electoral, if the winner is clear, they do not have to count absentee ballots (which works against conservatives as those tend to sway around 2/3 with the military absentees...something that many conservatives who are pro popular vote tend to point out), but this would cease to be true if it were based around a popular vote. Every absentee ballot would need to be counted, something that can take time and extend whether we know who won the vote or not by quite a while(Even without all the absentee ballots being counted, some recounts and votes are still being counted in some states currently for the last election for example, the counting of absentee ballots would extend that time period).

Overall, I think the electoral is a wonderful system for our republic (though many have criticized it from the start), and that it still works as intended (making it so that the minority has a voice, or an action against tyranny) and as such is one of the most enduring structures of the US government for over 200 years.


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
GreyWolfLord wrote:
. In the electoral, if the winner is clear, they do not have to count absentee ballots

Where did you get that idea?

Before an election can be certified, EVERY BALLOT must be counted.

It is true that they are often not counted before the election is "called" by the news media and that the incomplete results are often used by the candidates to decide whether to 'claim' the election or 'concede', but it is absolutely not true that absentee ballots do not have to be counted.

Even now, Clinton's total vote continues to go up because ballots are still being counted. But those are still 'informal' totals, not "official results".

We'll get the "official results" before the electors meet. They won't be voting based on incomplete counts. Every vote is counted, even absentee, even if there appears to be a landslide in favor of one candidate

If you don't believe me and Google, call your county clerk and ask them if they have to count the absentee ballots if it's clear someone has already won.


CrystalSeas wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:
. In the electoral, if the winner is clear, they do not have to count absentee ballots

Where did you get that idea?

Before an election can be certified, EVERY BALLOT must be counted.

It is true that they are often not counted before the election is "called" by the news media and that the incomplete results are often used by the candidates to decide whether to 'claim' the election or 'concede', but it is absolutely not true that absentee ballots do not have to be counted.

Even now, Clinton's total vote continues to go up because ballots are still being counted. But those are still 'informal' totals, not "official results".

We'll get the "official results" before the electors meet. They won't be voting based on incomplete counts. Every vote is counted, even absentee, even if there appears to be a landslide in favor of one candidate

If you don't believe me and Google, call your county clerk and ask them if they have to count the absentee ballots if it's clear someone has already won.

You don't have to count it in situations where, for your area, the absentee ballots would not overcome what the results already show.

For example, if you have a winner by 2000 votes, but you only have 1999 absentee ballots, they do not need to be counted. This caused some anger and disruption among some republicans in the Bush/Gore election as the many military members votes were not counted in Florida. The individual districts can determine to count them on their own or not, but it is not a requirement from what I can tell from how many angry letters and requests for paperwork from me during that time were received. (not that there was a dang thing I could actually do about it).

One thing about majority, is that in a binary system, you NEED 51% or higher of the vote. If one based it simply off the highest percentage...

One could win an election with 1% or less of the popular vote simply because they had a higher percentage of the popular vote than anyone else.

This is why, for a binary system, a person cannot win with a minority percentage, it has to be a majority (51% or higher) to avoid such contradictions as themselves.

In a non-binary system (as found in many other government in the world) where different parties get different percentages, it can work, but in a binary system such as the US, it needs to be a majority, whether in the electoral college, or a popular vote.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
GreyWolfLord wrote:


You don't have to count it in situations where, for your area, the absentee ballots would not overcome what the results already show.

No. Not at all true.

There is no jurisdiction in this country where it is legal to not count absentee votes, no matter what informal numbers show.

Again, that is media-speak, not legal election laws. Please, do some legal research because you're spreading mis-information.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Wei,

I'm sorry but it's a required food supplement for me in space travel.
I mean would you ask E.T. to not have Reeces Pieces?

Grey,

Good to know you don't mind me keeping the beer away. I might import that ale or whiskey though.

Finally,

Did anyone else keep thinking "Seriously when can I wake up?" this week or was it just me?


CrystalSeas wrote:


Again, that is media-speak, not legal election laws. Please, do some legal research because you're spreading mis-information.

Again, you keep making that accusation but you don't back it up

"handwave* you're wrong . Do some research Is not an answer. You can make that claim for anyone on anything.


I know I'm usually wrong Skol.


CrystalSeas wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:


You don't have to count it in situations where, for your area, the absentee ballots would not overcome what the results already show.

No. Not at all true.

There is no jurisdiction in this country where it is legal to not count absentee votes, no matter what informal numbers show.

Again, that is media-speak, not legal election laws. Please, do some legal research because you're spreading mis-information.

You're probably right. I know when people complained to the office I was in, there wasn't a thing we could do for them. We did NOT ACT on their letters because there wasn't anything TO DO.

In that light, whether it was because of state ideas, or that you are correct, they're ballots were counted even if thought they were not, we did not do anything in regards to the letters except disregard them.

In a popular election though, it still takes longer to count (for whatever reasons) then it normally does in electoral elections (probably because in electoral election, the electors are already chosen and there are a LOT LESS of them then in a popular vote).

A binary system does not tend to do very well with a direct popular vote in some ways due to the problems with large populations (the larger the population, the more divided). It works MUCH better in a non-binary (such as in parliaments where a representation for a party is dependant on how many voted on them, and hence you can have multiple major parties in one government, unlike the US's two major parties).

In a non-binary, someone can get 1% of the vote and gets that representation.

In a winner take all, you need a majority (51%...aka...the 50.000001% etc) to win the election. While this is easy to do with the electoral, it's not so easy to do with the population of the US as a whole (as we've seen, in many elections over the past 40 years, none of the candidates get a majority, and in fact a majority vote against them in the popular vote or for another candidate).

If we simply went with who won the highest percentage, though unlikely, it could result in someone who won with 1% or less of the vote (and hence 99% of the public votes against them) and still wins because no other candidate beats them in any higher percent.

In the electoral, you still need a majority, but only the majority of the electors (which is why some hate it, and some try to dissuade others from voting by claiming their vote does not count...ONLY the electors votes count...which is true, but deceptive).

In theory, the electors are supposed to represent the public for who they vote for. That is normally the case, but not always (there have been electors that voted against what their districts or states had determined they vote for).

In reality, the elections that people think is a done deal in November, is not actually done until the electors have voted.

It's a grand system, but one that people on both sides (conservatives and liberals) have disagreed with in the past and the present. Many feel that they should turn to a complete popular vote, but most of the time it is because at that current point in time, they feel it would be advantageous to them, without seeing the flaws of that type of system in a binary voting public, or that it would also work against them for the same reasons it works for them in the future.


CrystalSeas wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:


You don't have to count it in situations where, for your area, the absentee ballots would not overcome what the results already show.

No. Not at all true.

There is no jurisdiction in this country where it is legal to not count absentee votes, no matter what informal numbers show.

This is absolutely not true. While some states may have something more strict, in general the law requires that absentee votes must be counted, unless and until they no longer have any possibility to sway the outcome.

So if one candidate is ahead in a state by 20,000 votes, and there are 19,500 absentee votes yet to be counted...those 19,500 votes are not counted and added to the Presidential total. It won't matter.

I know for a fact that in 2000, when Al Gore lost to Bush 43 in the electoral college but was ahead in the popular vote by 500,000, there were two million uncounted absentee ballots in California alone. It didn't matter, because Al Gore was ahead by more than 2 million votes in CA. He had locked up those delegates.

The ironic thing is that historically, absentee ballots break 2 to 1 for Republican, so if someone had insisted on counting those 2 million absentee ballots for the Presidential election, Gore's lead would have likely evaporated.

So it isn't even true that Hillary Clinton "won" the popular vote. Instead she is leading the popular vote with millions of votes that were set aside and not counted, and if they had to be counted we may or may not yet know who won the popular vote.


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Again, you keep making that accusation but you don't back it up

Well, I could send you pages of laws and state election board regulations. But, instead, I suggest you make one call to your own county clerk's office and ask them whether it's allowed in your state.

There is no state in the US where it is legal to disregard a ballot except for a few clearly spelled out reasons (illegally marked, ie voted for more than one person for an office, etc).

The rules for counting absentee ballots do not have exceptions for "so many other ballots have already been counted that these votes are irrelevant"


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
NPC Dave wrote:
I know for a fact that in 2000, when Al Gore lost to Bush 43 in the electoral college but was ahead in the popular vote by 500,000, there were two million uncounted absentee ballots in California alone.

Those ballots were all counted by Dec 5, 2000

Aides to Jones said they expect most of the absentee and provisional ballots to be counted in the next week. Legally, counties have until Dec. 5 to present final tallies.


I don't know the rules in all the states, but California moved to close this gap in a proposition in 2001 and voted upon in 2002 called Proposition 43.

In it, they mandate that all votes count as long as they are done legally.

This includes absentee votes.

Many saw it as an effort to stop the same thing from happening in California as happened in Florida.

Whether this idea is true for all states, I don't know presently. In many ways, it could be that the traditional way of absentee which is accepted by many is no longer in effect and all states have taken a similar approach.

Every Vote counts in California proposition 43

I believe it passed by 71.6% and added to the California Constitution.

I've been away from that area of legality for too long to say whether this type of measure was taken up by all other states, or which other states took it up, or whether it was strictly a California thing.

Whether it is or isn't doesn't really change the idea of why and how the electoral college works better in the US than a popular vote, nor the idea of how great our Republic. However, I might have been wrong on my original thoughts in regards to how absentee votes are counted today.

What is pertinent is that people are voting for their representation (they are voting for an elector)and not specifically for the president...which is interesting to speculate about in and of itself. Of course, normally electors vote how the public wants...but once in a while, you get an exception. It's another facet where the electoral college comes into magnification on why it's there and what it is supposed to do.


CrystalSeas wrote:


Well, I could send you pages of laws and state election board regulations. But, instead, I suggest you make one call to your own county clerk's office and ask them whether it's allowed in your state.

A wiki article or something to that effect would be fine.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

How about this

Are absentee ballots counted?

from these folks Vote.org


NPC dave wrote:
So it isn't even true that Hillary Clinton "won" the popular vote. Instead she is leading the popular vote with millions of votes that were set aside and not counted, and if they had to be counted we may or may not yet know who won the popular vote.

Given that the biggest chunk of the votes are in california she's most likely adding to her already sizable lead. I think every vote would have to be for trump for her to not remain winner of the popular vote.


Someone said a bit ago that the electoral college didn't have an antidemocratic component

"It was equally desirable, that the immediate election [of the President] should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. 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 investigations."
-- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 68


So I've had a black cloud over my head since the 9th. I think that maybe the fact that the president elect isn't a politician may be a saving grace. He won't have the knowledge to get the things he wants done as quickly as he wants. Plus I feel a lot of what he said was bluster. He is already going back on quite a few things he said. I think we will see him pull back from a lot of what he promised. If it was a politician you would expect them to take these promises more seriously or rather would of thought more about what he could reasonably deliver before promising. I mean what are they going to do call him a liar? HA! As everyone else just stares at them and says "no you think?"

Maybe the weight of the role will make him realize the lifes that are at stake and that people are more important then his ego. Maybe his ego will keep him from doing anything to stupid. he will say to himself " well i don't want history to remember me as the guy who did X"

I did some self-analysis and to my surprise realized I'm going through the stages of grief over an election. I am not an emotional person usually quite detached in fact. blows my mind but I think I can go back and show you when I posted as I was going through the anger stage and now i'm at bargaining/denial stage it would seem. I'm kind of hoping my order is scrambled a bit and depression was what I felt at the beginning.

Foreign policy is a big worry I feel. seems people think america is all there is but we depend on the rest of the world too.

As far as the protesters I support peaceful protests but Violence should not enter into it. Imagine if the situation were reversed. If Hillary won and people were out protesting for trump what would you think of them? At the same time if they had a stronger reaction to the results then I did I can imagine feeling like going out and trying to do what you can about it. Just no violence please.

This is just my thoughts hopes and conjecture It felt better to type them out and share.

The Exchange

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Vidmaster7 wrote:
He won't have the knowledge to get the things he wants done as quickly as he wants.

Hm I think Trump knows enough about presidential executive orders to possibly use them to get a lot of those things done he promised. Probably some of them might be overruled by Supreme Court. But those 3 million immigrants he just declared to be criminals. That's totaly in his power to do and he obviously knows that.

Quote:
Foreign policy is a big worry I feel. seems people think america is all there is but we depend on the rest of the world too.

My main worry is that if the U.S. takes a more isolationist stance it will lead to a major reorganisation in the rest of the world and I'm not sure that this can be done in a peaceful way. But even if it can be done (let's say Europe finally coming to it's senses and replacing the U.S.A. as the major peacekeeping force on the planet, which would be better for the planet anyways), who says that a government led by Trump will like those changes and don't decide to fight them because they would make it so much more difficult to put 'America first'?


Now I was under the impression that it was people that are criminals that already have criminal records from what I got out of it. Although one would hope its people with severe criminal records and not this guy double parked and ran a red light. I think 3 million was just a random number he made up. Did I misinterpret that somewhere?

If it does turn out to be a ploy just to get rid of all immigrants then there will be a fight. Is it even possible to pass something like that?


GreyWolfLord wrote:


A binary system does not tend to do very well with a direct popular vote in some ways due to the problems with large populations (the larger the population, the more divided). It works MUCH better in a non-binary (such as in parliaments where a representation for a party is dependant on how many voted on them, and hence you can have multiple major parties in one government, unlike the US's two major parties).

In a non-binary, someone can get 1% of the vote and gets that representation.

In a winner take all, you need a majority (51%...aka...the 50.000001% etc) to win the election. While this is easy to do with the electoral, it's not so easy to do with the population of the US as a whole (as we've seen, in many elections over the past 40 years, none of the candidates get a majority, and in fact a majority vote against them in the popular vote or for another candidate).

If we simply went with who won the highest percentage, though unlikely, it could result in someone who won with 1% or less of the vote (and hence 99% of the public votes against them) and still wins because no other candidate beats them in any higher percent.

So what? Even in the electoral system, you could posit some wildly unlikely hypothetical case where in an election with 100s of somehow all viable candidates, someone won enough states to get an absolute majority of electoral college votes with 1% of the popular vote. Why would that be fine, but not a similar, also basically impossible case without the electoral college?

Just give it to whoever gets the highest percentage - just like we do when determining who won each state. Or like we do for practically every other election out there - Congresscritters, governors, state & local officials. None of them have "must win 50%+1 majorities".


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Vidmaster7 wrote:

Now I was under the impression that it was people that are criminals that already have criminal records from what I got out of it. Although one would hope its people with severe criminal records and not this guy double parked and ran a red light. I think 3 million was just a random number he made up. Did I misinterpret that somewhere?

If it does turn out to be a ploy just to get rid of all immigrants then there will be a fight. Is it even possible to pass something like that?

I don't have very high expectations. This is what has been happening for the past few years:

Deporting US Citizens By Mistake

Yes, it is possible to pass something like that. You don't have "civil liberties" if you're not a citizen. You don't even have the right to an attorney during your deportation hearing

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Up here in Canada we seldom have our Prime Minister picked by the majority of voters, it happens, but more often then not he or she wins with 40% of the popular vote. We usually have 4 parties at the national level though, two major parties that have formed the government, the liberals and conservatives, a national socialist party that has formed the official opposition in the past, the NDP, and usually a regional party that exists mainly in Quebec, the Bloc. Last election we saw Trudeau winning a majority with just less then 40% of the popular vote.

Personally I like minority government situations, it feels like nobody is going to do anything too extreme because the ruling party needs the support of at least one other group to pass anything.

However our system is being reviewed at the moment and we may be moving to a more European proportional system rather then first past the post. The major fear with that is that you will have more regional parties as it's very easy to form a party at the provincial level or even city level, and win enough of the local vote to get into government then it is to maintain a national party. This could lead to a very fractured country but I suspect it would mean higher election turn outs.

We have the same problems you guys in the states have, there are liberal and conservative strongholds, and if you're not voting for the incumbent you're pretty much wasting your time. We've never had a voter turn out quite as low as the Americans but it has been trending lower over the years, our lowest turn out in Canadian history was back in 2008, ahead of Obama's historic win, where we had 58.8%, which I believe may still have been higher then one of the highest US turn outs of the past 20 or 30 years.

What's the man difference? Well we have great access to voting up here in Canada, I've voted in every single election since I was old enough to vote and I've never had more then a 10 minute wait to vote. Usually I'm in and done in under 5 minutes. The biggest hassle came under Harper where we actually had to have some form of ID to prove we were who we said we were. Just about anything with a picture is accepted though, and we can vouch for someone living at the same address, and they'll also accept bills, like the water bill, made out to you with the same address. It's very easy to vote. Even prisoners are allowed to vote. The other thing is we don't vote directly for our Prime minister, we vote for our member of parliament, and whichever party has the most seats gets to form the government. This means we're usually voting for someone we like at the local level rather then who's leading at the national level. It's not always the case, last election Trudeau picked up 60 new seats, including my ridding, and I'd never even heard of my MP before the election.

The other main difference is that our ballots are usually much simpler, often all we're voting for is the candidate for a single level of government. If it's a federal election, we're voting for our MP, provincial we're voting for our MLA, and municipal we're voting for mayor and city councilor. We don't have ballot initiatives, rarely have referendums and so our ballots are very simple. There's no need to study multiple initiatives, candidates on different levels, and for this reason voting is less of a hassle and is quicker.

If there's anything Americans can learn form the Canadian system is debatable, our systems are pretty different, but I do think voter suppression on the level we see in the US is pretty unique in the West. I mean it happens, but not on the level we see in the states, and having government officials bragging about it seem very unsavory. If there's anything threatening the Republic I'd have to say it's that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster wrote:
As far as the protesters I support peaceful protests but Violence should not enter into it. Imagine if the situation were reversed. If Hillary won and people were out protesting for trump what would you think of them?

If hillary had lost the popular vote I'd understand.

With hillary winning the popular vote there is nothing to complain about. The reasons for voting trump over hillary are inanely irrational. Unless everyone protesting is a millionaire looking forward to their taxes going down there is NO reason to vote for trump, at all. In this entire race no one has been able to articulate an argument for trump that wasn't completely inane, absolutely false, or at lease equally applicable to the other side.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

Here's what I expect for the next few years:

Trump is a sociopathic narcissist, so his campaign promises mean absolutely bupkiss. He'll use the presidency as his own personal playground to engage his narcissism and fill his bank accounts with as much taxpayer money as possible.

With the current political setup, we'll see:

The end of Net Neutrality, so using the internet will suck.
Severe curtailing of abortion(not an outright ban, the Republicans stand to lose too many one-issue voters if they actually eliminated abortion).
A return to abstinence-only sex ed, which demonstrably doesn't work. Or possibly eliminate sex education entirely.
A gutting of funding for education and science, except corporate R&D.
Hugely increased corporation power - expect large companies to be able to screw over normal people with impunity.
Massive civil liberties violations, which will be backed up by SCOTUS using some twisted interpretations.
More police abuse of power.
Life will get measurably worse for nearly everyone unless they're rich. And somehow all the stuff that goes wrong will somehow get blamed on liberals.

Depending on how crazy the Supreme Court gets, we may see the effective dismantling of the 1st amendment. A national religion, limited press access unless they "play ball," restrictions on "unpatriotic speech," that sort of thing.

All this is based on the stated Republican platform. This is what they've said they want to do.


NPC Dave wrote:
CrystalSeas wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:


You don't have to count it in situations where, for your area, the absentee ballots would not overcome what the results already show.

No. Not at all true.

There is no jurisdiction in this country where it is legal to not count absentee votes, no matter what informal numbers show.

This is absolutely not true. While some states may have something more strict, in general the law requires that absentee votes must be counted, unless and until they no longer have any possibility to sway the outcome.

So if one candidate is ahead in a state by 20,000 votes, and there are 19,500 absentee votes yet to be counted...those 19,500 votes are not counted and added to the Presidential total. It won't matter.

I know for a fact that in 2000, when Al Gore lost to Bush 43 in the electoral college but was ahead in the popular vote by 500,000, there were two million uncounted absentee ballots in California alone. It didn't matter, because Al Gore was ahead by more than 2 million votes in CA. He had locked up those delegates.

The ironic thing is that historically, absentee ballots break 2 to 1 for Republican, so if someone had insisted on counting those 2 million absentee ballots for the Presidential election, Gore's lead would have likely evaporated.

So it isn't even true that Hillary Clinton "won" the popular vote. Instead she is leading the popular vote with millions of votes that were set aside and not counted, and if they had to be counted we may or may not yet know who won the popular vote.

Just curious, can you link me a state statue that says absentee ballots don't have to be counted if there aren't enough to sway the election?


I liked it better when 1st place got the presidency and 2nd place got the VP. Could you imagine a Hillary presidency with Trump as VP?


GreyWolfLord wrote:


Because of that, it has to be a majority win (50.00001%...aka....simplified as 51% or more for one candidate).

Despite what people wish, in many elections over the past 40 years, there has NOT been a majority win by any candidate. In fact, many times it has been below a majority of the popular vote for any candidate.

Please list the presidents you think won less than 50% of the vote.


Captain Battletoad wrote:
I liked it better when 1st place got the presidency and 2nd place got the VP. Could you imagine a Hillary presidency with Trump as VP?

But then we'd end up with a Pence/Warren duel.


Irontruth wrote:
Captain Battletoad wrote:
I liked it better when 1st place got the presidency and 2nd place got the VP. Could you imagine a Hillary presidency with Trump as VP?
But then we'd end up with a Pence/Warren duel.

I'm not seeing the downside.


"We are all just prisoners here, of our own device..."


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Captain Battletoad wrote:
I liked it better when 1st place got the presidency and 2nd place got the VP. Could you imagine a Hillary presidency with Trump as VP?

That's actually the other way the 'grumbling' could be addressed about the Electoral College!

Winner of the Electoral College = President

Winner of the Popular Vote (in the event of a difference) = Vice President

In the event the President-elect wins both, then the opponent with the most votes gets the Vice Presidency.

That's an AMAZING way to keep the checks and balances in!

Good thinking!

EDIT: It would also make the Vice Presidency MEAN something, and if both candidates HONESTLY are expecting to run this country, well, one of them will have to grin and bear it. It'd also make for cleaner conventions, and this effort to race to the bottom for someone that won't 'threaten' but will 'look good' as VP!

EDIT2: Sort of like how the All-Star game for some sports leagues sets the venue for the ultimate game of their prospective championships, even!

101 to 150 of 472 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / To the Republic All Messageboards