What's new
By:
Filters

Hillary Going For Broke

Stoked said:
I agree that the electoral college needs to go. As for the whole tyranny arguement agaisnt it. I do not see that as any more likely than when we have now. Abolishing it and going to popular vote is the only way you truly make every vote count. That way a Republican in Massachusets and a Democrat in Utah have a reason to vote for president. It actually means something.
Click to expand...

Right. Maine has electoral college votes but they split them up. Utah and most states are winner take all. So, if we got rid of winner take all it would solve your problem.

Let's say fascism comes into vogue once every 400 years. Sure an electoral system seems silly for 39 out of 40 decades, but in that one decade it may be the thing that slows down the movement long enough for people to come to their senses.

Everything needs it's checks and balances even the ballot box.
 
heyhey said:
Right. Maine has electoral college votes but they split them up. Utah and most states are winner take all. So, if we got rid of winner take all it would solve your problem.

Let's say fascism comes into vogue once every 400 years. Sure an electoral system seems silly for 39 out of 40 decades, but in that one decade it may be the thing that slows down the movement long enough for people to come to their senses.

Everything needs it's checks and balances even the ballot box.
Click to expand...

There are already measures in place to control that. The constitution and bill of rights. There are certain things that you simply cannot vote in or out.

Even splitting them up by district it still makes some votes worthless. For example: A democrat in St George UT or a republican in Chicago, IL. Their votes still have no meaning on the presidential race. It would reduce that more than the current system sure but it is a half way measure.
 
Stoked said:
There are already measures in place to control that. The constitution and bill of rights. There are certain things that you simply cannot vote in or out.
Click to expand...

The constitution and the bill of rights are only as strong as the people demand. Check out lincoln's suspension of habeus corpus, McCarthyism, or George W. Bushes two terms. While the electors did not prevent these events they also were not part of an election campaign. I do think that a moussolini type figure would have a harder time with an electoral college than without.
Hitler and his Nazi's were supported by by about 40 % of the population and won election effectively through the spoiler effect. The other parties all opposed the nazi's. If they had an electoral system those electors(about 60%) could have chosen the runner up as opposed to a losing candidate. Further more in areas that had lower support the nazi party may not have been able to get say 10% of the electors even if they had 15% of the vote.

Even splitting them up by district it still makes some votes worthless. For example: A democrat in St George UT or a republican in Chicago, IL. Their votes still have no meaning on the presidential race. It would reduce that more than the current system sure but it is a half way measure.
Click to expand...

I totally Agree, which is why I would advocate for splitting electors by percentage of the vote in a given state.
 
So I've been watching and re-watching some historical DVD productions, as well as listening to Mark Levin. James Madison is largely responsible for our present Constitution, and he was pretty much an ardent ideologue for democracy, in terms of wanting government to belong to the general populace. His opposition consisted of some folks representing small states who realized that unless they could keep most of the marbles in the States' hands, their State would become powerless. This is what has happened in a very large sense now.

The compromise that was accepted was to have States send the Senators to Washington that represented and protected the State interests generally, but to have the Congress popularly elected to represent the people of their districts. In the Executive Branch, the Electoral College represented some influence from both of these sources of power. . . . Senators and Congressmen combined. . . . but it gave the balance of power to the Congressional representatives. I'm not sure of the facts on this point though as I think most states have constitutional measures binding the electoral college votes to the popular vote, even Maine. Before the Amendment that stipulated Senators be popularly elected I think that the combined Senate and Congress comprised the electoral college, so the Senators voting on that occasion were not popularly elected, but selected according to each State's constitutional rules for selection. . . .appointed by a governor or legislator.

I think the problems discussed above by various posters wanting to achieve the Madison ideal. . . . government power/office holders belonging to the people. . . . are best served by giving more power to the States. Hey, you can move to another State pretty easy if the one you're in is intolerably disposed to things you can't abide. With everything but the most essential national importance belonging to the States, you actually get two votes. One at the ballot box, and one with your feet.

Utah was founded by folks voting with their feet, and even today there is a large contingent of recent "feet voters". And wow, look at all the businessmen voting with their feet today, leaving California and going to Nevada, Texas, and even Utah.
 
heyhey said:
then support this
https://www.fairvote.org/instant-runoff-voting


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqblOq8BmgM
Click to expand...



I love this little production. . . not sure I totally agree with it, but I've sometimes thought the European parliamentary way is better. . . . . though even that is corrupted in practice. At least all the parties get to scramble after the election to build a "majority" government, and if the government goes "rotten" in some important way, a new election can be called for pretty quickly.

So far I've stayed with the electoral college and still see the sense in having Senators immune to the popular vote so they can focus on the critical state interests. Mark Levine discusses the impact of "popular" Senators as having devastating impacts on State government, State budgets, State power. Look at Obamacare, for example, and how it impacts State budgets. . . .

Most people actually don't understand all the impacts Federal legislation, Executive Orders, Federal bureaucracies, and Federal courts are having on state governments. There needs to be someone in Washington who can have an impact, a "push-back" on these matters. States actually need more power.
 
I don't know how you do this, but you need to only allow people who have a stake in the country the right to vote. There is a reason why the founders made it so you had to own property to vote. It wasn't because they hated people, but because if you don't have a stake in the country, you don't care how it turns out. You just care about "what can you do for me." I don't know what the answer would be, and it would be tough, but maybe requiring a W-2, or 1099 to vote.

That way, if you want to have a say, you have to have a stake in the country.

Also, the republican party is screwed. They don't stand for anything useful (and standing for abortion and against same sex marriage is just dumb. You can't change the abortion laws, and the ones you do pass will just be taken to court and overturned) and all they do is bitch. Until that party gets unified and gets a real leader, they are going to lose a lot of elections. Or until they can get their southern brethren with no formal education who get voted in as a party candidates to keep their mouths shut.
 
I'm going to vote for the person who says that "god" called them to run. Whether its Bush, Romney, or Newt, just having that inspiration makes the difference to me...
 
And whoever rejects intellectual nonsense. We don't need any more libtard eggheads from Ivy League schools who think that they know everything.

Were Ben Franklin, James Madison, and Al Jefferson highly educated intellectuals? Hell no! That's what we rejected! Freaking talk talk talk do nothing liberals in Great Britain. But what we lacked in intellect and material goods, we made up for in courage, moral superiority, and hard work.

I'll take someone like Michelle Bachmann any day over some smart egghead.
 
The Thriller said:
I'm going to vote for the person who says that "god" called them to run. Whether its Bush, Romney, or Newt, just having that inspiration makes the difference to me...
Click to expand...

You kinda scare me,thriller.

Sent from my VS950 4G using JazzFanz mobile app
 
The Thriller said:
And whoever rejects intellectual nonsense. We don't need any more libtard eggheads from Ivy League schools who think that they know everything.

Were Ben Franklin, James Madison, and Al Jefferson highly educated intellectuals? Hell no! That's what we rejected! Freaking talk talk talk do nothing liberals in Great Britain. But what we lacked in intellect and material goods, we made up for in courage, moral superiority, and hard work.

I'll take someone like Michelle Bachmann any day over some smart egghead.
Click to expand...

They were largely renaissance men. The politicians now only know and understand politics, maybe law, and precious few of them, business.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I957 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
We really do need more 3rd parties, and Independents to run.

Also, if the right would swing more to the Libertarian side, and away from the Tea Party they would be going in a good direction.
 
Revolution 9 said:
We really do need more 3rd parties, and Independents to run.

Also, if the right would swing more to the Libertarian side, and away from the Tea Party they would be going in a good direction.
Click to expand...

Aren't they the same? I always figured the Libertarian movement was hijacked and absorbed by the tea party. Differences? I'm not seeing much. To me, it seems like the same thing. Science sucks, religion rocks, small government for stuff I don't like and big government for stuff I do like.

IMO, the best thing the right could do is move left.

When you look at things, the right has so far abandoned rational thought and has broken the gauge towards the right that it has done 2 things:

#1 It has forced the left to move closer right.
#2 It has forced themselves to abandon positions that they once carried with pride. This has allowed the left to take up these positions and actually appear decent. Meanwhile, it has forced the right to either backtrack and agree with the left or to take positions even farther off to the right.

Examples? Well, one example is the ACA. In the 90s, the ACA was a GOP idea. It was the free market solution. Since then, the right has moved off the cliff to the right. While the GOP is living in the lala land of tort reform and vouchers for everyone, it has allowed the left to take up positions (formerly owned by the GOP) and actually appear rational and moderate.

Cap'n'Trade is another one. The GOP has since abandoned this. They now seem to endorse that any regulation or anything "environmental" is socialist and illegal. In fact, many are still denying man influenced global warming. I read a letter in the DesNews a few weeks ago claiming the CO2 isn't a toxin. Ummmmm... Maybe this letter writer should place a plastic bag over his head and see what happens... Or take a basic astronomy class and learn about Venus.

In fact, when you look at it, the left is a lot farther right today than it was 20-30 years ago. Meanwhile... The GOP has sped off into near anarchist mode. Ronald Reagan would be seen as a RINO today. Or worse, a liberal flip flopping Socialist Democrat.

What would be good for the GOP is if they finally "compromised" and "came left." By compromising and losing in the short-term, they could finally dig into the Democrats' base in women, Latinos, and independent voters. Just coming left and stopping the hemorrhage of pissing off these voters would help.

In reaction, the left would then seek to re-energize its' own liberal base and drive itself off the cliff on the left side (much like what the right has done to itself).

In the long-term, the GOP must move against this "No-Compromise" tea party schtick. Short-term defeats of compromise and moving left will yield long-term gains.

Unfortunately, as you can see by some members of the GOP arguing to shut down the government, this isn't happening. Mitt Romney and Mike Lee even had a lil spat a few days ago. With a GOP owned (Congrats to Gerrymanders) House, this vision of compromise isn't going to happen anytime soon.
 
Last edited:
Scorpjazz said:
Man, what a disgustingly horrible person she is.
Click to expand...

Hillary or Flick??? Flick is a caricature composite of all the evils a politically ambitious person can have, I think. . . .

Human Beings are generally mixtures of good and evil, and in most cases have more good than evil. Not my point here to hate Hillary.

She is obviously intelligent, and very aware of self-interest. . . . and could be capable of a high level of professional service as a politician or statesman. The question therefore devolves into a discussion of what has gone wrong. I expect that some might wish to "push back" on the negatives to point out some things that haven't gone wrong or even maybe are right with her.

In another thread I discussed "sociopathy" in general. I am not sure it should really be viewed as a psychiatric "disease" and have a place in the professional handbook as a diagnosis. I think it is way too common for that, but more importantly, is essentially a choice of operating parameters people can either discard, replace, or modify somehow if they just want to.

Politicians could "just say no" to influence, money, party, and any other factor in the political equation, and just do what is right for us judged by some principle or another.
 
The Thriller said:
I'm going to vote for the person who says that "god" called them to run. Whether its Bush, Romney, or Newt, just having that inspiration makes the difference to me...
Click to expand...

One of several funny comments in here, showing some sort of frustration with others but being laughed at, I think. Laughter is essential to human sanity. If we can't laugh, we are not in a frame of mind that can be resilient enough to stay healthy.

I find laughing at myself is the best medicine. . . . .
 
The Thriller said:
And whoever rejects intellectual nonsense. We don't need any more libtard eggheads from Ivy League schools who think that they know everything.

Were Ben Franklin, James Madison, and Al Jefferson highly educated intellectuals? Hell no! That's what we rejected! Freaking talk talk talk do nothing liberals in Great Britain. But what we lacked in intellect and material goods, we made up for in courage, moral superiority, and hard work.

I'll take someone like Michelle Bachmann any day over some smart egghead.
Click to expand...

Well, "Al Jefferson"? Funny how "Althis" or "Althat" persists in this forum. . . Alfense does have a lot of value as a coping mechanism for Jazz fans.

JFK while hosting the contemporary crop of Nobel laureates told them he was proud to host the greatest assembly of intellect, civic, art, and science talents that had ever dined at the White House, with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.

Our founders were generally from a prosperous family which provided their children home tutors with an emphasis on classical education.. . . including Greek and Latin and reading in the Roman and Grecian histories which began with ideas of human rights and liberties and solid values, and which went wrong in prosperous times when people departed from those values. They tried to address the reasons why those civilizations failed, by building in some mechanisms meant to balance power and prevent corruption and concentration of power in the hands of anyone. . . . .
 
Last edited:
Revolution 9 said:
We really do need more 3rd parties, and Independents to run.

Also, if the right would swing more to the Libertarian side, and away from the Tea Party they would be going in a good direction.
Click to expand...

The problem with "Parties" is partisanship displaces statesmanship and other forms of intelligent action. . . .

The problem with the Republican Party, as well as the Democratic Party, today. . . . is the inordinate "ownership" of both by cartel, which is to say fascist, interests. Rhetoric is just that. . . . a sort of false flag designed to split the people and keep the levers of power in the hands of the "interests".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top