They aren't rioting and smashing windows and beating people.
-
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!
Put There By The People
- Thread starter Rival
- Start date
How do you think this speaks against what I said?
Because I am talking specifically about those people who are out on the streets rioting and causing a ruckus over an elected President. Here in the UK we had a very similar polarising event which is going to change the entire course of our nation's future. The winning vote was only a fraction higher and those who lost didn't go off the deep end and start smashing things and beating up Leave voters. So why do those people in the US do it?
No - she has certain real powers.
"Changing the system" involves getting the support of two-thirds of the House, two-thirds of the Senate, and 38 states. It's a pretty high bar.
Are you suggesting that people who want change have to jump straight to this level of support without building up support to get to that point?
What *you* are talking about is irrelevant to my response to someone else's post.
I'm just saying that I don't think rioting is a great way of building support. It's not what mature, civilised people do.
She can't even dissolve Parliament. Her powers are null.
This is simply not true.
National Popular Vote
With no alterations to any constitution (states have them also) , the disenfranchisement of tens of millions of voters could be ended.
Tom
No, she has actual powers. She gives royal assent (or not) to legislation, she has the power to summon and prorogue parliament, she appoints the Prime Minister, she's shielded against prosecution, etc. etc.
What are The Queen’s powers?
The fact that Elizabeth generally goes along with Parliament's recommendations doesn't mean she lacks the legal authority to do otherwise, or to act on her own.
... as we'll probably find out if Charles ever becomes King.
I was referring to having the result reflect the actual will of the people... i.e. getting rid of the electoral college altogether.
I guess we have different ideas of 'authority'. This is fine. However, in my opinion, unless the Queen is an Absolute Monarch, she has no real authority, per se. It is also alleged that she supported the Leave campagin, but because she is not actually allowed to have a public political opinion, it makes it very hard to gauge what she does and does not do. I wish this country were either a Monarchy or a Republic instead of a half-n-half.
But those aren't mutually exclusive. We could keep the EC, but make the popular vote determine the outcome of the election.
Tom
I'm talking about legal power; what are you talking about?
So it's an all-or-nothing thing for you? Bizarre.
She *is* allowed to express political opinions; she chooses not to.
I wish my country was a republic, so I partly agree with you.
If you keep the electoral college, then there will still be discrepancies between the popular vote and the election outcome, even if every state allocates its votes proportionally.
It appears to not be proportional voting.
As I understand it, a state would look at the popular vote, & then commit all EC votes to the winning candidate.
This would possibly defeat the will of the voters of that state.
Fair?
Questionable.
The type of power a Monarch in this country has historically enjoyed. I suppose the word might be 'dictatorial'.
That is what, imo, a Monarch is.
"What Her Majesty cannot do is vote. Nor can she express any shading of political opinion in public. The Queen cannot sit in the House of Commons, although the building is royal property. She addresses the opening session of each Parliament, but she cannot write her own speech. The Queen cannot refuse to sign a bill of Parliament, and she cannot appear as a witness in court, or rent property from her subjects."
The Constitution - British Monarchist League
Ah - so instead of getting the support of 2/3 of the House and Senate and 3/4 of the states, they could skip the House and Senate and instead go for all 50 states and DC?
Amendments to state constitutions are also expressions of the will of voters of the state.
In what way is using the national popular vote to determine a national election outcome "questionable" ?
What's questionable is giving certain voters multiple times the voting power of other voters.
Tom
While correct, that sidesteps the issue that candidate A might win 60% of the states
votes, but the state might back candidate B 100%. So the will of some voters at one
point in time could defeat the will of voters at a later date.
Note....
I'm not saying this is any worse than the current system.
But don't expect it to be completely fair, or preventing post election gnashing of teeth.
No. Just a voting majority of EC delegates. There are already about 2/3 of the necessary votes. Unsurprisingly, the states most disenfranchised have mostly passed the legislation, the ones who benefit from the unfairness don't want it.
Tom