Put There By The People

[Revoltingest]

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

If one takes the view that we're a republic, & that states are to an extent separate
entities, then the proposed system might remove a sense of being represented.
If one candidate has a clear lead (which can be fictionalized for political purpose),
then even in a state where the result would be close or favor the underdog, people
might be discouraged from voting. Potential for polling & media mischief, eh?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

Under the current system in most states, candidate A gets 100% of the state's backing even with 51% of the support.

When you add these discrepancies up over the entire country, the majority of the voters' will can be defeated.

 

[Revoltingest]

Under the current system in most states, candidate A gets 100% of the state's backing even with 51% of the support.
When you add these discrepancies up over the entire country, the majority of the voters' will can be defeated.

Of course there are problems with the current system.
I'm just considering problems with the proposed replacement.
Why?
People shouldn't think of it as a perfect magic bullet.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The type of power a Monarch in this country has historically enjoyed. I suppose the word might be 'dictatorial'.

England had about 300 years of absolute monarchy (Aethelstan to the Magna Carta) and about 800 years of limited monarchy. On what planet does that equate with your country being "historically" an absolute monarchy?

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

That site has some goofy ideas about the Constitution. There's nothing but tradition stopping a British monarch from expressing political opinions.

And that stuff on there about the monarch not having the power to deny royal assent to legislation is flat-out wrong.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Of course there are problems with the current system.
I'm just considering problems with the proposed replacement.
Why?
People shouldn't think of it as a perfect magic bullet.

Of course not. And even if the method of choosing a President was "perfect", that wouldn't come close to addressing all of the issues with the American political system.

 

[Rival]

England had about 300 years of absolute monarchy (Aethelstan to the Magna Carta) and about 800 years of limited monarchy. On what planet does that equate with your country being "historically" an absolute monarchy?

It was hardly as limited as it is now. And also, Magna Carta was virtually ignored for years and years after it was created.

That site has some goofy ideas about the Constitution. There's nothing but tradition stopping a British monarch from expressing political opinions.

And that stuff on there about the monarch not having the power to deny royal assent to legislation is flat-out wrong.

Proof?

 

[Rival]

The Monarch and Parliament

When it comes to politics, the Monarch is 'neutral'

The Monarch doesn’t get involved in running the government. Nor do they publicly say what they think about political issues. This is why people sometimes say the Monarch is 'above politics'.

@9-10ths_Penguin

 

[Kirran]

I'm not sure it's fair to say it's an overreaction in every case. While it may not be a constructive response, if you're an illegal immigrant, or who you have family who are illegal immigrants, or you're same-sex attracted, etc, you have legitimate reasons to be very scared. If you overturn a bin or chuck a brick through a window, it's understandable.

 

[Rival]

I'm not sure it's fair to say it's an overreaction in every case. While it may not be a constructive response, if you're an illegal immigrant, or who you have family who are illegal immigrants, or you're same-sex attracted, etc, you have legitimate reasons to be very scared. If you overturn a bin or chuck a brick through a window, it's understandable.

No it isn't; it's childish and, as you said, unconstructive.

 

[Kirran]

No it isn't; it's childish and, as you said, unconstructive.

I think it's unconstructive, yes, but to call it an overreaction doesn't seem fair. You might say it is an inappropriate reaction, but I don't think the level of reaction is excessive, merely its type.

 

[Rival]

I think it's unconstructive, yes, but to call it an overreaction doesn't seem fair. You might say it is an inappropriate reaction, but I don't think the level of reaction is excessive, merely its type.

Perhaps my use of the word 'overreaction' is causing confusion. However, this type of behaviour does seem nigh normal in the U.S. when it comes to politics, so maybe for them it is a normal reaction? I'm not sure. All I know is that this behaviour is very foreign to me and makes no sense.

 

[Kirran]

Perhaps my use of the word 'overreaction' is causing confusion. However, this type of behaviour does seem to be nigh normal in the U.S. when it comes to politics, so maybe for them it is a normal reaction? I'm not sure. All I know is that this behaviour is very foreign to me and makes no sense.

Hey, I don't get why half the country want to be able to keep guns in their bedside tables either.

But to be honest, I don't think their democracy is as matured as the British one. There's much more polarisation. But Trump is weird. And I can get how a lot of people are very genuinely scared at his accession to the presidency, and angry at him and the people who got him in. So I can see why it would manifest like this in these few cases.

 

[idav]

The tears of liberal/progressive whiners bring happiness to my heart.

Like I said, ain't the progressives that are gonna get hurt. Suit yourselves.

 

[Kirran]

Like I said, ain't the progressives that are gonna get hurt. Suit yourselves.

In many cases it is, actually. If they're queer, and/or immigrants, and/or Muslims for example.

 

[Revoltingest]

In many cases it is, actually. If they're queer, and/or immigrants, and/or Muslims for example.

What actual policies will hurt them?

 

[Kirran]

What actual policies will hurt them?

I can't tell you anyway, as you know! But given the things the dude has said he's gonna do, and the stances he's set down, I don't think it's unreasonable to think that policies will lean more towards those views than they have done thus far.

Also, his election legitimises certain divisive voices.

Why didn't you vote for Gary, dude?

 

[columbus]

What actual policies will hurt them?

Putting a Mike Pence/Roy Moore type justice on the Supreme Court. Trump has promised someone like that.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

I can't tell you anyway, as you know! But given the things the dude has said he's gonna do, and the stances he's set down, I don't think it's unreasonable to think that policies will lean more towards those views than they have done thus far.

His expressed views have changed over the course of the campaign,
so we don't really know which of them will actually become policy.
And as with Bernie & Hillary, some promises are politically or legally
impossible to become law. This is why I'd rather focus upon what
happens...not what is imagined.

Also, his election legitimises certain divisive voices.

Hillary's election would've done the same, but targeting different voices.

There are certainly things wrong with Trump, & also areas where I disagree with him.
But one cannot simply give reasons why one candidate is bad.
When picking between 2, one must compare them...all there pluses & minuses.

Why didn't you vote for Gary, dude?

A couple reasons.....
- He was guaranteed to lose.
- It looked possible that my vote could prevent the greater evil (Hillary) from winning.
(In MI, it's rare that there's ever a chance of a Democrat losing.)

 

[Revoltingest]

Putting a Mike Pence/Roy Moore type justice on the Supreme Court. Trump has promised someone like that.
Tom

Without any nominees yet, this is speculative fear.
So when the likes of Madonna talk of bombing the White
House, I say this is Chicken Little type over-reaction.

 

[idav]

In many cases it is, actually. If they're queer, and/or immigrants, and/or Muslims for example.

I don't know trump can actually accomplish much as far as his outlandish claims, and other things we are already doing. Maybe I'm probably more optimistic cause I'm in a blue state and county. What individual states are able to pull off seem more opressive. Like a red state I heard passed a bill saying only biological parents can sign birth certificates, silly things like that.