-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Jimmy Carter call US Elections 'Financially corrupt'
- Thread starter Wirey
- Start date
They're thought implant conduits....straight from the Illuminati!
Nope, but I saw 3 Bald Eagles today.
BSM1
What? Me worry?
Good catch. Must have been the two-tone configuration that threw me off.
Careful. You're talking about eliminating the only growth industry left in the United States besides child prostitution.
gnomon
Well-Known Member
Would be better if he provided evidence of something.
Let's face it. Beyond reforming the election process to a runoff cycle or something similar we are going to have the same thing over and over. The CU decision was nothing more than fodder for the left to ***** and moan over nothing. I say this as I recall Obama was heavily supported by the banking arms during the last election, notably Goldman Sachs, and that so far the CU decision has only opened the door for unlimited advertising.
First, someone must link with evidence the nature of this advertising and it's affects on elections before decrying the decision. But that requires people learning about the decision beforehand. I find it amusing that a case in which some barely known conservative organization attempting to run an ad about Hillary during the last election has thrown so much consternation among the public when they revealed a hypocrisy in the observance of the law when a known leftist openly declared that his ads were essentially violating known election laws.
Now somehow people have displaced the dangers of lobbying with the open ended market on campaigning by anyone as well as the removal rather crap laws against grass roots movements as a so called demise of democracy.
This just adds to my cynicism that we live in Bizzaro land.
Jeremy Mason
Well-Known Member
Financially corrupt? How about completely corrupt. The popular vote between Bush and Gore went to Gore. Our vote means squat in general elections.
Alceste
Vagabond
Good point! I'd like to see the politician market as a slice on a pie chart of America's GDP.
Alceste
Vagabond
I am not sure they can steal elections unless it's pretty close to begin with.
He's a decent guy....perhaps the best worst president we've had.
Alceste
Vagabond
gnomon
Well-Known Member
Pretty much.
His backtracking upon Nixon's drug war when his own advisors recommended such an action disses his own administration. Perhaps it was the Billy Bud beer ads.
$4,783,512.87 to save about $500 in electricity over the life of the equipment.
Brilliant! If I could print my own money, I could invest like that too.
Alceste
Vagabond
The equipment is still operational. Half of it is anyway. He can't have known that the first republican idiot to take power was going to rip them off and throw them away as a personal favour to the fossil fuel sector.
Jeremy Mason
Well-Known Member
I"m not so sure that keeps some people from trying to steal elections. Watergate demonstrated that willingness.
Nevertheless, my main point was criticizing the College Electoral voting process as describe here.
Electoral College (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Irrelevancy of national popular vote
This graphic demonstrates how the winner of the popular vote can still lose in a hypothetical electoral college system.
The elections of 1876, 1888, and 2000 produced an Electoral College winner who did not receive the plurality of the nationwide popular vote.[77] In 1824, there were six states in which electors were legislatively appointed, rather than popularly elected, so the true national popular vote is uncertain. When no candidate received a majority of electoral votes in 1824, the election was decided by the House of Representatives and so could be considered distinct from the latter three elections in which all of the states had popular selection of electors.[78]
Opponents of the Electoral College claim that such outcomes do not logically follow the normative concept of how a democratic system should function. One view is that the Electoral College violates the principle of political equality, since presidential elections are not decided by the one-person one-vote principle.[77] Outcomes of this sort are attributable to the federal nature of the system. From such a configuration, argue supporters of the Electoral College, candidates must build a popular base that is geographically broader and more diverse in voter interests. This feature is not a logical consequence of having intermediate elections of Presidents, but rather the winner-takes-all method of allocating each state's slate of electors. Allocation of electors in proportion to the state's popular vote could reduce this effect.
Scenarios exhibiting this outcome typically result when the winning candidate has won the requisite configuration of states (and thus their votes) by small margins, but the losing candidate captured large voter margins in the remaining states. In this case, the very large margins secured by the losing candidate in the other states would aggregate to well over 50 percent of the ballots cast nationally. Claims that the Electoral College suppresses the "popular will" are therefore open to debate.
A result of the present functionality of the Electoral College is that the national popular vote bears no legal or factual significance on determining the outcome of the election. Since the national popular vote is irrelevant, both voters and candidates are assumed to base their campaign strategies around the existence of the Electoral College; any close race has candidates campaigning to maximize electoral votes by capturing coveted swing states, not to maximize national popular vote totals.
The United States is the only country that elects a politically powerful president via an electoral college and the only one in which a candidate can become president without having obtained the highest number of votes in the sole or final round of popular voting.
George C. Edwards, 2011[77]
George C. Edwards, 2011[77]
States still love the electoral college system, since the ability to deliver 100% of their votes to a single candidate gives them more power.
People carp about this, but they don't actually support politicians who would change it.
People carp about this, but they don't actually support politicians who would change it.
Jeremy Mason
Well-Known Member
Oregon gave the college electoral vote the boot.
Oregon House votes to end the Electoral College | OregonLive.com
Woo hoo!