User avatar
einsteinboricua
Posts: 6751
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

Re: Should there be a Multi Party System in American Democracy?

Sun Nov 25, 2018 1:55 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Clinton’s vote margin was essentially won in California. Does anyone seriously want California voters decideding the Presidency? It is a FEDERAL system where the STATES get to decide matters. Read up on history, please.

It's interesting that California has to stomach having its power reduced to a fraction of what it's supposed to wield (relative to Wyoming), yet other smaller states can be allowed to exert their will on California.

For example: in the electoral college, California is about 10 votes shy of what it should get, relative to Wyoming (i.e. Wyoming is overrepresented while California is underrepresented). It takes the combined electoral college votes of MT (3), WY (3), ND (3), SD (3), AK (3), ID (4), UT (6), NE (5), AR(6), KS (6), MS (6), and OK (7) to match CA's 55 votes. But that also brings about the next problem with a "federal system": CA, with a population of about 1.5 times the combined population of these 12 states (as of the 2010 census), gets only 2 Senators whereas these 12 states supply 24 Senators. So somehow, CA is not allowed to determine the president and its 39M residents are isolated to its border (you know, because it's best if some Americans are considered Californians first and foremost), but has to sit back and allow these 24 Senators (combined with other states' delegation) to determine what CA is allowed to do or not do in the guise of federal laws.

This also brings us to the next issue with the electoral college. It's a very unlikely scenario, but to say that the electoral college allows for states to decide is a bit ludicrous. Cram everyone into California, leaving every other state with just 1 resident and the electoral college says CA decides the election (388 EC votes for CA vs 150 for the remaining states and DC). Keep making populous states even more populous and eventually it will be the more populous states that will decide the elections. TX continues gaining seats at the expense of smaller states (AL and WV are poised to lose a seat each, which will likely go to TX). For the first time in history, two states will have at least 40 EC votes, and if FL continues gaining seats it may very well be the third state to reach that magic number within the century at the expense of other states.

It doesn't bode well if all of them begin leaning one way. Under the current allocation, you can win the election with the 11 most populous states: CA, TX, FL, NY, PA, IL, OH, GA, NC, MI, and NJ. The only safe red states here are TX and GA; the blue states are CA, NY, IL, NJ, and PA and MI (if we consider 2016 to be an anomaly rather than a realignment). That leaves FL, OH, and NC as swing states. TX and GA show signs of purple with each election and it's only a matter of time before they begin swinging; MI and PA also show signs of being slightly more purple than blue. OH is the only purple state whose swing status is starting to be questioned whereas NC and FL continue the purple.
"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
 
seb146
Posts: 18440
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Should there be a Multi Party System in American Democracy?

Sun Nov 25, 2018 4:49 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
How do you think the Clintons left the WH claiming they were near bankrupt and went on to accumulate several hundred million? Every politician gets wealthy BECAUSE they can trade their power and influence for money. You can’t stop that until take away their power. We’ve given them the power and they got the money.


Mitch McConnell is still in power. He is a multi-millionaire. Now.

Clinton’s vote margin was essentially won in California. Does anyone seriously want California voters decideding the Presidency? It is a FEDERAL system where the STATES get to decide matters. Read up on history, please.


I was looking at the FEDERAL vote.

Go look at total votes cast for the entire country. More voted for Democrats both in November and in 2016. If we had a true popular vote, we would have Democrats in control.

But, by your example, you are fine with Ohio deciding who the president is for the whole country. Which is, essentially, what happened in 2016.

In 2000, Florida decided who should be president for the whole country.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 11697
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: Should there be a Multi Party System in American Democracy?

Sun Nov 25, 2018 9:47 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Also, Congress needs to return to its place as the government and the President back to be an administrator of the executive rather than most important person on the planet—silly.

GF


Why are you calling POTUS the most important person on the Planet when you won’t accept in the other post that what the US does affects everyone.

If what the US did didn’t affect anyone POTUS would just be another leader no more no less!
 
ltbewr
Posts: 13612
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

Re: Should there be a Multi Party System in American Democracy?

Sun Nov 25, 2018 11:20 am

3rd parties have very short half-lives or only exist in some local or regional areas. They can upset elections, including our Presidential ones if they take away votes from a candidate from one of the major parties. The 1968, 1992, 2000 and possibly the 2016 Presidential elections may have taken or split votes in key states from the loser.
The 1968 election was likely the most extreme example. The 3rd Party, the American Party Presidential candidate, the then racist thug Governor of Alabama, George Wallace, took popular and some electoral votes from the Democrat candidate in the Southeast USA that led to the Republican Richard Nixon to win. Wallace's campaign was a vile reaction by White voters to the imposition of the several Civil and Voting rights acts that ended official racial segregation and repression. Republicans would take over the White vote in the South in the 1970's.
What usually happens is that one of the 2 major parties will adopt some elements of the 3rd party and pretty much put it out of business. Election laws, especially as to funding along with dominance of the 2 major parties to keep 3rd party candidates from Debates, access to matching public campaign monies, poor placement on ballots, often too radical or weird to ever get much traction in campaigns.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 1709
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Should there be a Multi Party System in American Democracy?

Sun Nov 25, 2018 3:25 pm

seb146 wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
How do you think the Clintons left the WH claiming they were near bankrupt and went on to accumulate several hundred million? Every politician gets wealthy BECAUSE they can trade their power and influence for money. You can’t stop that until take away their power. We’ve given them the power and they got the money.


Mitch McConnell is still in power. He is a multi-millionaire. Now.

Clinton’s vote margin was essentially won in California. Does anyone seriously want California voters decideding the Presidency? It is a FEDERAL system where the STATES get to decide matters. Read up on history, please.


I was looking at the FEDERAL vote.

Go look at total votes cast for the entire country. More voted for Democrats both in November and in 2016. If we had a true popular vote, we would have Democrats in control.

But, by your example, you are fine with Ohio deciding who the president is for the whole country. Which is, essentially, what happened in 2016.

In 2000, Florida decided who should be president for the whole country.


The Constitution builds majorities in very specific ways. It’s NOT done by simple popular vote, the majorities are built state by state, the House represents the population of each state, not the popular will of entire nation. The fact that more votes NATIONWIDE were cast for either party is meaningless. Have you actually read it?

GF
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 1709
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Should there be a Multi Party System in American Democracy?

Sun Nov 25, 2018 3:30 pm

Kiwirob wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Also, Congress needs to return to its place as the government and the President back to be an administrator of the executive rather than most important person on the planet—silly.

GF


Why are you calling POTUS the most important person on the Planet when you won’t accept in the other post that what the US does affects everyone.

If what the US did didn’t affect anyone POTUS would just be another leader no more no less!


Because that’s what everybody including you think he is. The president should be the administrator of a small but necessary bureaucracy. I believe the US should NOT be at this state of influence, but it’s arrived here via two wars started in Europe, okay Asia in WW II. Then, we went on a power trip, at home and abroad, mostly out of self-defense that we wouldn’t have yet another round of world war. It was better to have peace at immense cost rather than another cataclysmic one. You benefit from this history as much as we do.

Perhaps a world without the US is something to contemplate. I’d rather that frankly.

GF
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 1709
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Should there be a Multi Party System in American Democracy?

Sun Nov 25, 2018 3:41 pm

einsteinboricua wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Clinton’s vote margin was essentially won in California. Does anyone seriously want California voters decideding the Presidency? It is a FEDERAL system where the STATES get to decide matters. Read up on history, please.

It's interesting that California has to stomach having its power reduced to a fraction of what it's supposed to wield (relative to Wyoming), yet other smaller states can be allowed to exert their will on California.

For example: in the electoral college, California is about 10 votes shy of what it should get, relative to Wyoming (i.e. Wyoming is overrepresented while California is underrepresented). It takes the combined electoral college votes of MT (3), WY (3), ND (3), SD (3), AK (3), ID (4), UT (6), NE (5), AR(6), KS (6), MS (6), and OK (7) to match CA's 55 votes. But that also brings about the next problem with a "federal system": CA, with a population of about 1.5 times the combined population of these 12 states (as of the 2010 census), gets only 2 Senators whereas these 12 states supply 24 Senators. So somehow, CA is not allowed to determine the president and its 39M residents are isolated to its border (you know, because it's best if some Americans are considered Californians first and foremost), but has to sit back and allow these 24 Senators (combined with other states' delegation) to determine what CA is allowed to do or not do in the guise of federal laws.

This also brings us to the next issue with the electoral college. It's a very unlikely scenario, but to say that the electoral college allows for states to decide is a bit ludicrous. Cram everyone into California, leaving every other state with just 1 resident and the electoral college says CA decides the election (388 EC votes for CA vs 150 for the remaining states and DC). Keep making populous states even more populous and eventually it will be the more populous states that will decide the elections. TX continues gaining seats at the expense of smaller states (AL and WV are poised to lose a seat each, which will likely go to TX). For the first time in history, two states will have at least 40 EC votes, and if FL continues gaining seats it may very well be the third state to reach that magic number within the century at the expense of other states.

It doesn't bode well if all of them begin leaning one way. Under the current allocation, you can win the election with the 11 most populous states: CA, TX, FL, NY, PA, IL, OH, GA, NC, MI, and NJ. The only safe red states here are TX and GA; the blue states are CA, NY, IL, NJ, and PA and MI (if we consider 2016 to be an anomaly rather than a realignment). That leaves FL, OH, and NC as swing states. TX and GA show signs of purple with each election and it's only a matter of time before they begin swinging; MI and PA also show signs of being slightly more purple than blue. OH is the only purple state whose swing status is starting to be questioned whereas NC and FL continue the purple.


You make an excellent argument for shrinking the Federal government and sending powers back to the states. It’s unconscionable and I’d argue unconstitutional to have ceded so much money and power to the the Feds. If you in Cali want single payer healthcare, electric cars, solar power, no drilling, fine, just don’t use the Federal government to force your ideas on Wyoming.

The system was designed that way and it work infinitely better to return. State power is “numerous and indefinite” said Madison while the Federal’s are “few and defined”.

GF
 
User avatar
einsteinboricua
Posts: 6751
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

Re: Should there be a Multi Party System in American Democracy?

Sun Nov 25, 2018 5:24 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
If you in Cali want single payer healthcare, electric cars, solar power, no drilling, fine, just don’t use the Federal government to force your ideas on Wyoming.

If you also agree that Wyoming shouldn't force its ideas on California through the Federal Government, then we have probably agreed on something. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 7025
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Should there be a Multi Party System in American Democracy?

Sun Nov 25, 2018 5:30 pm

UltimoTiger777 wrote:
America already has other parties.

It's just not enough people vote for them.


It's the district system. If you are not reasonably sure you can take 50%+, there is no reason to vote for other parties.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
seb146
Posts: 18440
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Should there be a Multi Party System in American Democracy?

Sun Nov 25, 2018 7:35 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
seb146 wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
How do you think the Clintons left the WH claiming they were near bankrupt and went on to accumulate several hundred million? Every politician gets wealthy BECAUSE they can trade their power and influence for money. You can’t stop that until take away their power. We’ve given them the power and they got the money.


Mitch McConnell is still in power. He is a multi-millionaire. Now.

Clinton’s vote margin was essentially won in California. Does anyone seriously want California voters decideding the Presidency? It is a FEDERAL system where the STATES get to decide matters. Read up on history, please.


I was looking at the FEDERAL vote.

Go look at total votes cast for the entire country. More voted for Democrats both in November and in 2016. If we had a true popular vote, we would have Democrats in control.

But, by your example, you are fine with Ohio deciding who the president is for the whole country. Which is, essentially, what happened in 2016.

In 2000, Florida decided who should be president for the whole country.


The Constitution builds majorities in very specific ways. It’s NOT done by simple popular vote, the majorities are built state by state, the House represents the population of each state, not the popular will of entire nation. The fact that more votes NATIONWIDE were cast for either party is meaningless. Have you actually read it?

GF


I get that you know everything about the Constitution and no one else knows anything. I got that from your condescending tone. I was talking about sheer numbers in different elections.

Also, YOU were the one who went on and on about "only California decides" and so on. I simply pointed out that Florida and Ohio have decided our president, despite what the majority AND other states wanted.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 1709
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Should there be a Multi Party System in American Democracy?

Sun Nov 25, 2018 8:23 pm

einsteinboricua wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
If you in Cali want single payer healthcare, electric cars, solar power, no drilling, fine, just don’t use the Federal government to force your ideas on Wyoming.

If you also agree that Wyoming shouldn't force its ideas on California through the Federal Government, then we have probably agreed on something. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.


We have a deal!

GF
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 1709
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Should there be a Multi Party System in American Democracy?

Sun Nov 25, 2018 8:26 pm

seb146 wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
seb146 wrote:

Mitch McConnell is still in power. He is a multi-millionaire. Now.



I was looking at the FEDERAL vote.

Go look at total votes cast for the entire country. More voted for Democrats both in November and in 2016. If we had a true popular vote, we would have Democrats in control.

But, by your example, you are fine with Ohio deciding who the president is for the whole country. Which is, essentially, what happened in 2016.

In 2000, Florida decided who should be president for the whole country.


The Constitution builds majorities in very specific ways. It’s NOT done by simple popular vote, the majorities are built state by state, the House represents the population of each state, not the popular will of entire nation. The fact that more votes NATIONWIDE were cast for either party is meaningless. Have you actually read it?

GF


I get that you know everything about the Constitution and no one else knows anything. I got that from your condescending tone. I was talking about sheer numbers in different elections.

Also, YOU were the one who went on and on about "only California decides" and so on. I simply pointed out that Florida and Ohio have decided our president, despite what the majority AND other states wanted.


You’re using sheer numbers to make a silly argument—the national vote totals are meaningless. By using the totals, you’re implying that somehow it isn’t fair or correct election.

GF
 
seb146
Posts: 18440
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Should there be a Multi Party System in American Democracy?

Sun Nov 25, 2018 9:33 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
seb146 wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:

The Constitution builds majorities in very specific ways. It’s NOT done by simple popular vote, the majorities are built state by state, the House represents the population of each state, not the popular will of entire nation. The fact that more votes NATIONWIDE were cast for either party is meaningless. Have you actually read it?

GF


I get that you know everything about the Constitution and no one else knows anything. I got that from your condescending tone. I was talking about sheer numbers in different elections.

Also, YOU were the one who went on and on about "only California decides" and so on. I simply pointed out that Florida and Ohio have decided our president, despite what the majority AND other states wanted.


You’re using sheer numbers to make a silly argument—the national vote totals are meaningless. By using the totals, you’re implying that somehow it isn’t fair or correct election.

GF


Elections are neither fair nor correct. A majority of Americans voted Democrat. REPUBLICANS purged voters without knowledge or information in REPUBLICAN states. Voter purges should happen, but not as close to elections as Republicans do, and not only Democrats should be purged from voter rolls.

Beyond that, a majority of Americans want affordable health care and affordable education. But, because politicians listen to money and not We The People, we have neither.

Get money out of politics (corporations ARE NOT PEOPLE) and see how things change.

EDIT:

A former aide to Jesse Helms is set to be confirmed by Republicans to a federal judge position

https://www.care2.com/causes/this-man-w ... 2Gro66Rv94

He disenfranchised thousands of Black North Carolina LEGAL voters and worked his behind off to make it harder for LEGAL Black North Carolina voters to vote.

Just backing up my first statement.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
seb146
Posts: 18440
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Should there be a Multi Party System in American Democracy?

Sun Nov 25, 2018 10:12 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
seb146 wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:

The Constitution builds majorities in very specific ways. It’s NOT done by simple popular vote, the majorities are built state by state, the House represents the population of each state, not the popular will of entire nation. The fact that more votes NATIONWIDE were cast for either party is meaningless. Have you actually read it?

GF


I get that you know everything about the Constitution and no one else knows anything. I got that from your condescending tone. I was talking about sheer numbers in different elections.

Also, YOU were the one who went on and on about "only California decides" and so on. I simply pointed out that Florida and Ohio have decided our president, despite what the majority AND other states wanted.


You’re using sheer numbers to make a silly argument—the national vote totals are meaningless. By using the totals, you’re implying that somehow it isn’t fair or correct election.

GF


If you want to look at state-by-state ballots, fine

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watc ... _fb_maddow
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
User avatar
Dieuwer
Posts: 529
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2017 6:27 pm

Re: Should there be a Multi Party System in American Democracy?

Sun Nov 25, 2018 10:31 pm

From a California point of view, would they be better off being their own country? No more Trump, no more Bush...Hell, they can elect Hillary or Nancy Pelosi to become the first president of the Country of California!
 
salttee
Posts: 2814
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: Should there be a Multi Party System in American Democracy?

Sun Nov 25, 2018 10:45 pm

Dieuwer wrote:
From a California point of view, would they be better off being their own country? No more Trump, no more Bush...Hell, they can elect Hillary or Nancy Pelosi to become the first president of the Country of California!
Jerry Brown is more likely.
But I don't think it would be a very good idea; we'd have a menacing neighbor on our border if we did that.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 1709
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Should there be a Multi Party System in American Democracy?

Sun Nov 25, 2018 10:51 pm

seb146 wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
seb146 wrote:

I get that you know everything about the Constitution and no one else knows anything. I got that from your condescending tone. I was talking about sheer numbers in different elections.

Also, YOU were the one who went on and on about "only California decides" and so on. I simply pointed out that Florida and Ohio have decided our president, despite what the majority AND other states wanted.


You’re using sheer numbers to make a silly argument—the national vote totals are meaningless. By using the totals, you’re implying that somehow it isn’t fair or correct election.

GF


If you want to look at state-by-state ballots, fine

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watc ... _fb_maddow


And just like federal elections, the only thing that counts is by districts of precincts. The state wide party vote does not equal the outcome by voting district. You want to make the outcomes equal party. For example, state wide elections in Illinois are determined by the vote in Chicago, is that fair to the rest of the state?

GF
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 1709
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Should there be a Multi Party System in American Democracy?

Sun Nov 25, 2018 10:53 pm

seb146 wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
seb146 wrote:

I get that you know everything about the Constitution and no one else knows anything. I got that from your condescending tone. I was talking about sheer numbers in different elections.

Also, YOU were the one who went on and on about "only California decides" and so on. I simply pointed out that Florida and Ohio have decided our president, despite what the majority AND other states wanted.


You’re using sheer numbers to make a silly argument—the national vote totals are meaningless. By using the totals, you’re implying that somehow it isn’t fair or correct election.

GF


Elections are neither fair nor correct. A majority of Americans voted Democrat. REPUBLICANS purged voters without knowledge or information in REPUBLICAN states. Voter purges should happen, but not as close to elections as Republicans do, and not only Democrats should be purged from voter rolls.

Beyond that, a majority of Americans want affordable health care and affordable education. But, because politicians listen to money and not We The People, we have neither.

Get money out of politics (corporations ARE NOT PEOPLE) and see how things change.

EDIT:

A former aide to Jesse Helms is set to be confirmed by Republicans to a federal judge position

https://www.care2.com/causes/this-man-w ... 2Gro66Rv94

He disenfranchised thousands of Black North Carolina LEGAL voters and worked his behind off to make it harder for LEGAL Black North Carolina voters to vote.

Just backing up my first statement.


You cite Care2 as a source and laugh at people using conservative sites? Hilarious. Why not just quote the campaign chairman?

GF
 
LittleFokker
Posts: 1020
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 10:25 pm

Re: Should there be a Multi Party System in American Democracy?

Sun Nov 25, 2018 11:27 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

And just like federal elections, the only thing that counts is by districts of precincts. The state wide party vote does not equal the outcome by voting district. You want to make the outcomes equal party. For example, state wide elections in Illinois are determined by the vote in Chicago, is that fair to the rest of the state?
GF


State representative districts are almost always (supposed to be) equally populated. Wisconsin is especially egregious...Dems win the popular vote with 54.3%, yet Republicans control
63% of seats. When each district is supposed to have a similar number of votes, the total popular vote and the party representation distribution should be fairly similar. The graphical disparity can be found here:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid ... ater&ifg=1

The US House reflects a correct proportionality (Dems won popular vote by 8.4%, control about 53% of seats).
"All human activities are doomed to failure." - Jean Paul Sartre
 
seb146
Posts: 18440
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Should there be a Multi Party System in American Democracy?

Sun Nov 25, 2018 11:31 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
seb146 wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:

You’re using sheer numbers to make a silly argument—the national vote totals are meaningless. By using the totals, you’re implying that somehow it isn’t fair or correct election.

GF


Elections are neither fair nor correct. A majority of Americans voted Democrat. REPUBLICANS purged voters without knowledge or information in REPUBLICAN states. Voter purges should happen, but not as close to elections as Republicans do, and not only Democrats should be purged from voter rolls.

Beyond that, a majority of Americans want affordable health care and affordable education. But, because politicians listen to money and not We The People, we have neither.

Get money out of politics (corporations ARE NOT PEOPLE) and see how things change.

EDIT:

A former aide to Jesse Helms is set to be confirmed by Republicans to a federal judge position

https://www.care2.com/causes/this-man-w ... 2Gro66Rv94

He disenfranchised thousands of Black North Carolina LEGAL voters and worked his behind off to make it harder for LEGAL Black North Carolina voters to vote.

Just backing up my first statement.


You cite Care2 as a source and laugh at people using conservative sites? Hilarious. Why not just quote the campaign chairman?

GF


I see.... That it is happening, all the hate and racism you don't care about but how dare I post a link from a partisan site? okay

https://indyweek.com/news/thomas-farr-j ... ationists/
https://www.thedailybeast.com/thomas-fa ... im-a-judge
http://time.com/5099446/donald-trump-ju ... omas-farr/
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... udgeship-/

Take your pick
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
User avatar
einsteinboricua
Posts: 6751
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

Re: Should there be a Multi Party System in American Democracy?

Sun Nov 25, 2018 11:42 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
For example, state wide elections in Illinois are determined by the vote in Chicago, is that fair to the rest of the state?

The same analogy can be said backwards: is it fair that all of rural IL dictates what Chicago can do?

Come on, GF. The whole "cities determine the outcome of elections" makes no sense. Texas has 3 of the top 10 largest cities in the nation (Houston (4), Dallas (9), San Antonio (7)), with Austin on track to soon take the #10 spot from San Jose, CA...I don't see Texas being dominated by what the voters in those cities request. If Chicago determines the statewide vote in IL, then surely the combination of Houston, San Antonio, and Dallas (with Austin and Fort Worth close behind) should determine which way Texas swings...and yet that's not what happens.

The concentration of people around a city shouldn't mean their vote is any less or more important that the Joe Average that wants his house in Nowheresville, IL., but as it happens, city dwellers are exposed to more ideas and are more open to embrace them (partly as a price for living there) so they vote opposite of Joe Average.
"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 1709
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Should there be a Multi Party System in American Democracy?

Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:48 am

Exactly, which is why I’m so opposed to majoritarian small-d democratic solutions imposed by ever-higher levels of government. Joe Farmstead shouldn’t impose his ways on Ms. City Slicker and Ms. City Slicker shouldn’t impose her new revelations on Joe Farmstead, no matter how transiently good they may appear. The larger and more centralized the program, the more brittle and failure-prone it will be the individual. By centralizing these programs, individual needs are ignored, innovation becomes bound up and expenses rise without commensurate improvements.

GF
 
MSPNWA
Posts: 2807
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 2:48 am

Re: Should there be a Multi Party System in American Democracy?

Mon Nov 26, 2018 2:58 am

LittleFokker wrote:
State representative districts are almost always (supposed to be) equally populated. Wisconsin is especially egregious...Dems win the popular vote with 54.3%, yet Republicans control
63% of seats. When each district is supposed to have a similar number of votes, the total popular vote and the party representation distribution should be fairly similar. The graphical disparity can be found here:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid ... ater&ifg=1

The US House reflects a correct proportionality (Dems won popular vote by 8.4%, control about 53% of seats).


Small samples sizes go both ways. WI's friends to the west saw the opposite in 2016. Democrats won 51% of the popular vote, yet took 5 of 8 House races (62.5%). Gerrymandering in favor of Democrats that needs to be fixed, right?
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4831
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

Re: Should there be a Multi Party System in American Democracy?

Mon Nov 26, 2018 3:07 am

Reading threads like these just makes it obvious to me...

Before changing the party system, the nomination process, the primary system, the electoral college or anything, the US needs an independent electoral commission at all levels of the electoral system.

It would be independent of any party, not controlled by the administration in power at any level, and would be ultimately responsible for all elections in the US.

It would eliminate gerrymandering, voter registration issues, vote counting issues and numerous other problems that currently infest the US electoral system.

We have one in the UK and it works brilliantly - no gerrymandering, no voter registration problems, no vote counting problems, no legal issues between candidates at the end of the process.
 
User avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8406
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

Re: Should there be a Multi Party System in American Democracy?

Mon Nov 26, 2018 3:21 am

moo wrote:
It would be independent of any party, not controlled by the administration in power at any level

Which is precisely why it will never happen :(
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4831
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

Re: Should there be a Multi Party System in American Democracy?

Mon Nov 26, 2018 3:26 am

DeltaMD90 wrote:
moo wrote:
It would be independent of any party, not controlled by the administration in power at any level

Which is precisely why it will never happen :(


Agreed.

Its interesting to be on the outside of the US system looking in - everyone I know sees it as horribly horribly broken and a terrible thing to have to contend with. Every time there is an election in the US, you hear more and more reports of what, in any other country, would be held up as massive corruption and yet in the US major elections seem to pass with these things going on and nothing done about it or the election results.

Take for example, and its a very mild example, the recent election of a governor - the candidate who won was the same person who oversaw the election process. How is that allowed?!
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 1709
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Should there be a Multi Party System in American Democracy?

Mon Nov 26, 2018 3:27 am

moo wrote:
Reading threads like these just makes it obvious to me...

Before changing the party system, the nomination process, the primary system, the electoral college or anything, the US needs an independent electoral commission at all levels of the electoral system.

It would be independent of any party, not controlled by the administration in power at any level, and would be ultimately responsible for all elections in the US.

It would eliminate gerrymandering, voter registration issues, vote counting issues and numerous other problems that currently infest the US electoral system.

We have one in the UK and it works brilliantly - no gerrymandering, no voter registration problems, no vote counting problems, no legal issues between candidates at the end of the process.


As if that would eliminate all agendas held by the members of said commission. Who’d pick the members and what agenda would the selectors have? Continued incumbency, perhaps. Public choice economics says this wouldn’t solve anything other than providing a cut-out thus allowing pols to have someone else do their dirty work.

GF
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4831
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

Re: Should there be a Multi Party System in American Democracy?

Mon Nov 26, 2018 3:35 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
moo wrote:
Reading threads like these just makes it obvious to me...

Before changing the party system, the nomination process, the primary system, the electoral college or anything, the US needs an independent electoral commission at all levels of the electoral system.

It would be independent of any party, not controlled by the administration in power at any level, and would be ultimately responsible for all elections in the US.

It would eliminate gerrymandering, voter registration issues, vote counting issues and numerous other problems that currently infest the US electoral system.

We have one in the UK and it works brilliantly - no gerrymandering, no voter registration problems, no vote counting problems, no legal issues between candidates at the end of the process.


As if that would eliminate all agendas held by the members of said commission. Who’d pick the members and what agenda would the selectors have? Continued incumbency, perhaps. Public choice economics says this wouldn’t solve anything other than providing a cut-out thus allowing pols to have someone else do their dirty work.

GF


How do you explain it working in other countries?

In the UK we have reasonable districts, easy access to polling stations, minimal technology involved in voting, voting by proxy, voting by postal vote, limits on spending and access to resources, minimal voter fraud, no issues with voter registration or de-registration etc etc etc.

And we still manage to elect 500 members of parliament in one night.

Or are you saying that the US system is irrevocably corrupt? If so, why bother even having a discussion.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 1709
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Should there be a Multi Party System in American Democracy?

Mon Nov 26, 2018 4:42 am

Corrupt, yes, irrevocably, maybe, maybe not. The US is rapidly moving, maybe already moved from being a high-trust country to a low-trust one. There’s very cynical views of government, parties, politicians, most government programs. Nothing in America is as respected as the NHS, for example. Whether justified or not, British, by and large, think pretty highly of it. I can’t think of anything like it here with the possible exception of the military. The press, the media, the politicians all have trust ratings below 20%.

BTW, I have a lot of respect for your elections


GF
 
User avatar
Dieuwer
Posts: 529
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2017 6:27 pm

Re: Should there be a Multi Party System in American Democracy?

Mon Nov 26, 2018 4:06 pm

salttee wrote:
Dieuwer wrote:
From a California point of view, would they be better off being their own country? No more Trump, no more Bush...Hell, they can elect Hillary or Nancy Pelosi to become the first president of the Country of California!


Jerry Brown is more likely.
But I don't think it would be a very good idea; we'd have a menacing neighbor on our border if we did that.


Meh. You worry to much.
It is very clear large parts of the country have nothing in common with other parts of the country. Case in point, I visited Seattle and Walla Walla last summer. The differences could not have been more stark. Both are located in Washington state, but these two towns might as well have been in two different countries.
 
User avatar
einsteinboricua
Posts: 6751
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

Re: Should there be a Multi Party System in American Democracy?

Mon Nov 26, 2018 5:05 pm

moo wrote:
How do you explain it working in other countries?

In the UK we have reasonable districts, easy access to polling stations, minimal technology involved in voting, voting by proxy, voting by postal vote, limits on spending and access to resources, minimal voter fraud, no issues with voter registration or de-registration etc etc etc.

And we still manage to elect 500 members of parliament in one night.

Or are you saying that the US system is irrevocably corrupt? If so, why bother even having a discussion.

Uh...I wouldn't necessarily use the UK as an example of a reasonable voting haven. Sure it does not pose the burdens that the GOP wants enacted on polling sites in the US, but need I point out that Parliament hasn't been representing the will of the people due to the FPTP system it has. In the 2015 elections the Tories got around 37% of the popular vote, yet got slightly above 50% of the seats (330 seats, a slim majority, but a majority nonetheless).

The counting is done faster because there's an average electorate of about 70k voters per constituency; with average turnout, you can expect less votes cast and faster reporting. Compare that to states that can have an average of 100k voters per district and who have to divide them into precincts to make them manageable.
"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
 
User avatar
DL717
Posts: 786
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 10:53 pm

Re: Should there be a Multi Party System in American Democracy?

Thu Nov 29, 2018 1:58 pm

seb146 wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
seb146 wrote:

Mitch McConnell is still in power. He is a multi-millionaire. Now.



I was looking at the FEDERAL vote.

Go look at total votes cast for the entire country. More voted for Democrats both in November and in 2016. If we had a true popular vote, we would have Democrats in control.

But, by your example, you are fine with Ohio deciding who the president is for the whole country. Which is, essentially, what happened in 2016.

In 2000, Florida decided who should be president for the whole country.


The Constitution builds majorities in very specific ways. It’s NOT done by simple popular vote, the majorities are built state by state, the House represents the population of each state, not the popular will of entire nation. The fact that more votes NATIONWIDE were cast for either party is meaningless. Have you actually read it?

GF


I get that you know everything about the Constitution and no one else knows anything. I got that from your condescending tone. I was talking about sheer numbers in different elections.

Also, YOU were the one who went on and on about "only California decides" and so on. I simply pointed out that Florida and Ohio have decided our president, despite what the majority AND other states wanted.


The “majority” does not matter in a Federal Election. This isn’t mob rule. It’s amazing to me that in this day and age, one does not understand the form of government they live under. We are a “union” of states, essentially individual countries tied together by a constitution. Your state has popular vote elections all over the place. Such a system does not belong at the Federal level, nor will it ever.
Everything is chits and giggles until you get old enough to giggle and then you chit.
 
User avatar
DL717
Posts: 786
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 10:53 pm

Re: Should there be a Multi Party System in American Democracy?

Thu Nov 29, 2018 2:05 pm

moo wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
moo wrote:
Reading threads like these just makes it obvious to me...

Before changing the party system, the nomination process, the primary system, the electoral college or anything, the US needs an independent electoral commission at all levels of the electoral system.

It would be independent of any party, not controlled by the administration in power at any level, and would be ultimately responsible for all elections in the US.

It would eliminate gerrymandering, voter registration issues, vote counting issues and numerous other problems that currently infest the US electoral system.

We have one in the UK and it works brilliantly - no gerrymandering, no voter registration problems, no vote counting problems, no legal issues between candidates at the end of the process.


As if that would eliminate all agendas held by the members of said commission. Who’d pick the members and what agenda would the selectors have? Continued incumbency, perhaps. Public choice economics says this wouldn’t solve anything other than providing a cut-out thus allowing pols to have someone else do their dirty work.

GF


How do you explain it working in other countries?

In the UK we have reasonable districts, easy access to polling stations, minimal technology involved in voting, voting by proxy, voting by postal vote, limits on spending and access to resources, minimal voter fraud, no issues with voter registration or de-registration etc etc etc.

And we still manage to elect 500 members of parliament in one night.

Or are you saying that the US system is irrevocably corrupt? If so, why bother even having a discussion.


Other countries are the size of one of our states. Each of our states is entitled to its own form of government, brought together by a union of said states. Look at the EU and how it is structured. The UK is currently the equivalent of a US state succeeding from the Union. That help you understand it better? Try this on. Each one of our governors is the equivalent of your PM.
Everything is chits and giggles until you get old enough to giggle and then you chit.
 
User avatar
DarkSnowyNight
Posts: 2086
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 7:59 pm

Re: Should there be a Multi Party System in American Democracy?

Thu Nov 29, 2018 4:17 pm

DL717 wrote:


Each of our states is entitled to its own form of government


Wrong.

Texas doesn't get to have a King. Florida doesn't get to use its own currency.

Figure these things out.

dl717 wrote:
The UK is currently the equivalent of a US state succeeding from the Union.


Not even on the same planet as correct. Only people who have never been outside of the United States think these things are analogous. Your deliberate failure to understand what the EU is (and the US for that matter) is... entertaining.


GalaxyFlyer wrote:

As if that would eliminate all agendas held by the members of said commission. Who’d pick the members and what agenda would the selectors have?

GF


It wouldn't. But it would almost certainly be better than what we now have.

Ideally, you'd have a commission that's essentially part time (there's not an election everyday anyway). Pull from various public sector agencies with perhaps a lifetime limit of two elections any member can serve on.

You're still going to run into agendas, but at least you're having a much better representation of the electorate and it's easier than allowing the parties to police themselves on these things ( a la Democratic primaries of 2016).

As it stands, we now have a system that advertises very publicly how much it doesn't represent the electorate.
Overall that's a very destabilizating factor for society at large.


I would agree that addressing these issues is far more important than pretending a "third party" (of which we already have many) would fix anything.
Much like a GE90, I'm a huge fan of Big Twins...
 
seb146
Posts: 18440
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Should there be a Multi Party System in American Democracy?

Thu Nov 29, 2018 11:59 pm

DL717 wrote:
seb146 wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:

The Constitution builds majorities in very specific ways. It’s NOT done by simple popular vote, the majorities are built state by state, the House represents the population of each state, not the popular will of entire nation. The fact that more votes NATIONWIDE were cast for either party is meaningless. Have you actually read it?

GF


I get that you know everything about the Constitution and no one else knows anything. I got that from your condescending tone. I was talking about sheer numbers in different elections.

Also, YOU were the one who went on and on about "only California decides" and so on. I simply pointed out that Florida and Ohio have decided our president, despite what the majority AND other states wanted.


The “majority” does not matter in a Federal Election. This isn’t mob rule. It’s amazing to me that in this day and age, one does not understand the form of government they live under. We are a “union” of states, essentially individual countries tied together by a constitution. Your state has popular vote elections all over the place. Such a system does not belong at the Federal level, nor will it ever.


Maybe it was another thread, but we have had this conversation very recently. I even posted charts and graphs that show individual states voting for a majority for Democrats, yet, they are overwhelmingly represented by Republicans. Florida and Wisconsin are the two big ones I remember. Those graphs and charts were showing elections for state seats, not federal.

But, yes, a majority of Americans in total, vote Democrat. This is not a country of We The People, but ruled by the minority, though each individual state.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
User avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8406
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

Re: Should there be a Multi Party System in American Democracy?

Fri Nov 30, 2018 12:30 am

seb146 wrote:

Maybe it was another thread, but we have had this conversation very recently. I even posted charts and graphs that show individual states voting for a majority for Democrats, yet, they are overwhelmingly represented by Republicans. Florida and Wisconsin are the two big ones I remember. Those graphs and charts were showing elections for state seats, not federal.

But, yes, a majority of Americans in total, vote Democrat. This is not a country of We The People, but ruled by the minority, though each individual state.

You are right about gerrymandering at the state level, there is some nuance but it does appear that many states are gerrymandered in favor of Republicans.

Your second statement is also correct. We aren't ruled by "we the people," and we are not a pure democracy. But as I've said before, that is not a bug but a feature. I wouldn't say it was intended for the presidential candidate with the higher popular vote to lose, rather, the electoral college was put in place to balance the power of more populous states.

Nothing nefarious there, that's just how it is. For the record, I'm for changing it to popular vote for the presidency, but until then, there is no GOP conspiracy at the national level to "gerrymander" the presidency (I'm not talking about voter ID laws or anything, just the actual nature of the electoral college)
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4831
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

Re: Should there be a Multi Party System in American Democracy?

Fri Nov 30, 2018 12:44 am

DL717 wrote:
moo wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:

As if that would eliminate all agendas held by the members of said commission. Who’d pick the members and what agenda would the selectors have? Continued incumbency, perhaps. Public choice economics says this wouldn’t solve anything other than providing a cut-out thus allowing pols to have someone else do their dirty work.

GF


How do you explain it working in other countries?

In the UK we have reasonable districts, easy access to polling stations, minimal technology involved in voting, voting by proxy, voting by postal vote, limits on spending and access to resources, minimal voter fraud, no issues with voter registration or de-registration etc etc etc.

And we still manage to elect 500 members of parliament in one night.

Or are you saying that the US system is irrevocably corrupt? If so, why bother even having a discussion.


Other countries are the size of one of our states. Each of our states is entitled to its own form of government, brought together by a union of said states. Look at the EU and how it is structured. The UK is currently the equivalent of a US state succeeding from the Union. That help you understand it better? Try this on. Each one of our governors is the equivalent of your PM.


And whats stopping you from having more counters and returning officers than us?

If the UK is the equivalent of one state, and we have ten thousand counters (a made up figure), why cant the US have 10 thousand per state?

The argument that "the US is bigger" isnt one that stands up to scrutiny - we don't count every vote in the UK in one giant pile, its done in districts by tens of thousands of people, and we manage to get it pretty much done in one night. Theres nothing stopping the US doing that either - apart from corruption.

The EU has regulations on member states electoral standards, so again that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. The fact that the US is so badly constructed isn't an argument *for* maintaining the current status quo, its an argument *against*.

How many of your states governors have nuclear weapons authority or ability to conduct foreign relations?
 
User avatar
DL717
Posts: 786
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 10:53 pm

Re: Should there be a Multi Party System in American Democracy?

Fri Nov 30, 2018 4:19 am

DarkSnowyNight wrote:
DL717 wrote:


Each of our states is entitled to its own form of government


Wrong.

Texas doesn't get to have a King. Florida doesn't get to use its own currency.

Figure these things out.

dl717 wrote:
The UK is currently the equivalent of a US state succeeding from the Union.


Not even on the same planet as correct. Only people who have never been outside of the United States think these things are analogous. Your deliberate failure to understand what the EU is (and the US for that matter) is... entertaining.


GalaxyFlyer wrote:

As if that would eliminate all agendas held by the members of said commission. Who’d pick the members and what agenda would the selectors have?

GF


It wouldn't. But it would almost certainly be better than what we now have.

Ideally, you'd have a commission that's essentially part time (there's not an election everyday anyway). Pull from various public sector agencies with perhaps a lifetime limit of two elections any member can serve on.

You're still going to run into agendas, but at least you're having a much better representation of the electorate and it's easier than allowing the parties to police themselves on these things ( a la Democratic primaries of 2016).

As it stands, we now have a system that advertises very publicly how much it doesn't represent the electorate.
Overall that's a very destabilizating factor for society at large.


I would agree that addressing these issues is far more important than pretending a "third party" (of which we already have many) would fix anything.


You get an F.

Each State has its own sovereignty which is protected by the way elections are conducted for Federal representation. One State can’t randomly impose its will on another State. Each State has its own President, it’s called a Governor. We opt to share a common currency for the purpose of interstate commerce. You don’t like the politics of your State? Find another one that fits. Everyone raises a big stink about Obamacare when they could have simply enacted such a system on their own and not impacted anyone else.
Last edited by DL717 on Fri Nov 30, 2018 4:48 am, edited 3 times in total.
Everything is chits and giggles until you get old enough to giggle and then you chit.
 
User avatar
DL717
Posts: 786
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 10:53 pm

Re: Should there be a Multi Party System in American Democracy?

Fri Nov 30, 2018 4:29 am

moo wrote:
DL717 wrote:
moo wrote:

How do you explain it working in other countries?

In the UK we have reasonable districts, easy access to polling stations, minimal technology involved in voting, voting by proxy, voting by postal vote, limits on spending and access to resources, minimal voter fraud, no issues with voter registration or de-registration etc etc etc.

And we still manage to elect 500 members of parliament in one night.

Or are you saying that the US system is irrevocably corrupt? If so, why bother even having a discussion.


Other countries are the size of one of our states. Each of our states is entitled to its own form of government, brought together by a union of said states. Look at the EU and how it is structured. The UK is currently the equivalent of a US state succeeding from the Union. That help you understand it better? Try this on. Each one of our governors is the equivalent of your PM.


And whats stopping you from having more counters and returning officers than us?

If the UK is the equivalent of one state, and we have ten thousand counters (a made up figure), why cant the US have 10 thousand per state?

The argument that "the US is bigger" isnt one that stands up to scrutiny - we don't count every vote in the UK in one giant pile, its done in districts by tens of thousands of people, and we manage to get it pretty much done in one night. Theres nothing stopping the US doing that either - apart from corruption.

The EU has regulations on member states electoral standards, so again that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. The fact that the US is so badly constructed isn't an argument *for* maintaining the current status quo, its an argument *against*.

How many of your states governors have nuclear weapons authority or ability to conduct foreign relations?


We have relegated that function to the Federal Government. That said we all pay taxes for those nukes so we all own them. It’s not about being “bigger”. It’s how we are structured by design. We aren’t badly constructed. Europe is.

We vote in districts of thousands of people to elect our State Government. We then elect a second group of representatives for the Federal Government. If a State wants to see its ideals at the national level it can do so in one of two ways. Have their elected representatives push for a Constitutional Amendment and get other State representatives to join in to make the Change or pass a law and challenge its Constitutionality in the courts.
Everything is chits and giggles until you get old enough to giggle and then you chit.
 
User avatar
DL717
Posts: 786
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 10:53 pm

Re: Should there be a Multi Party System in American Democracy?

Fri Nov 30, 2018 4:40 am

seb146 wrote:
DL717 wrote:
seb146 wrote:

I get that you know everything about the Constitution and no one else knows anything. I got that from your condescending tone. I was talking about sheer numbers in different elections.

Also, YOU were the one who went on and on about "only California decides" and so on. I simply pointed out that Florida and Ohio have decided our president, despite what the majority AND other states wanted.


The “majority” does not matter in a Federal Election. This isn’t mob rule. It’s amazing to me that in this day and age, one does not understand the form of government they live under. We are a “union” of states, essentially individual countries tied together by a constitution. Your state has popular vote elections all over the place. Such a system does not belong at the Federal level, nor will it ever.


Maybe it was another thread, but we have had this conversation very recently. I even posted charts and graphs that show individual states voting for a majority for Democrats, yet, they are overwhelmingly represented by Republicans. Florida and Wisconsin are the two big ones I remember. Those graphs and charts were showing elections for state seats, not federal.

But, yes, a majority of Americans in total, vote Democrat. This is not a country of We The People, but ruled by the minority, though each individual state.


Thats a function of the State structuring it’s own form of government. We aren’t intended to be run by the most populous States. We go your route and half the country doesn’t matter anymore. Thats tyranny of the majority.
Everything is chits and giggles until you get old enough to giggle and then you chit.
 
seb146
Posts: 18440
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Should there be a Multi Party System in American Democracy?

Fri Nov 30, 2018 9:45 am

DL717 wrote:
seb146 wrote:
DL717 wrote:

The “majority” does not matter in a Federal Election. This isn’t mob rule. It’s amazing to me that in this day and age, one does not understand the form of government they live under. We are a “union” of states, essentially individual countries tied together by a constitution. Your state has popular vote elections all over the place. Such a system does not belong at the Federal level, nor will it ever.


Maybe it was another thread, but we have had this conversation very recently. I even posted charts and graphs that show individual states voting for a majority for Democrats, yet, they are overwhelmingly represented by Republicans. Florida and Wisconsin are the two big ones I remember. Those graphs and charts were showing elections for state seats, not federal.

But, yes, a majority of Americans in total, vote Democrat. This is not a country of We The People, but ruled by the minority, though each individual state.


Thats a function of the State structuring it’s own form of government. We aren’t intended to be run by the most populous States. We go your route and half the country doesn’t matter anymore. Thats tyranny of the majority.


Tyranny of the MINORITY in the case of the 2000 presidential election and the 2016 presidential election.

I have already pointed out that a majority of individual states vote Democrat. But, because of Republican cheating, they are not in control. Like in Wisconsin, like in Florida, like in Michigan, like in North Carolina....

You keep going on and on about the individual states and so do I. What am I missing? Let me post this again

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watc ... _fb_maddow

and tell me what I am missing when we both talk about the individual states?
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
User avatar
DL717
Posts: 786
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 10:53 pm

Re: Should there be a Multi Party System in American Democracy?

Fri Nov 30, 2018 12:37 pm

seb146 wrote:
DL717 wrote:
seb146 wrote:

Maybe it was another thread, but we have had this conversation very recently. I even posted charts and graphs that show individual states voting for a majority for Democrats, yet, they are overwhelmingly represented by Republicans. Florida and Wisconsin are the two big ones I remember. Those graphs and charts were showing elections for state seats, not federal.

But, yes, a majority of Americans in total, vote Democrat. This is not a country of We The People, but ruled by the minority, though each individual state.


Thats a function of the State structuring it’s own form of government. We aren’t intended to be run by the most populous States. We go your route and half the country doesn’t matter anymore. Thats tyranny of the majority.


Tyranny of the MINORITY in the case of the 2000 presidential election and the 2016 presidential election.

I have already pointed out that a majority of individual states vote Democrat. But, because of Republican cheating, they are not in control. Like in Wisconsin, like in Florida, like in Michigan, like in North Carolina....

You keep going on and on about the individual states and so do I. What am I missing? Let me post this again

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watc ... _fb_maddow

and tell me what I am missing when we both talk about the individual states?


There is no such thing as tyranny of the minority.

Don’t add posts of articles by Madcow. She’s as nutty as Hannity. Expand your sources beyond the party parrots.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/democrats ... t-to-do-it
Everything is chits and giggles until you get old enough to giggle and then you chit.
 
User avatar
DarkSnowyNight
Posts: 2086
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 7:59 pm

Re: Should there be a Multi Party System in American Democracy?

Fri Nov 30, 2018 3:28 pm

DL717 wrote:

You get an F.


For Factually Accurate, yes, of course.

When your states can make treaties, declare wars (even on other states), set interest rates, refuse aid from the feds, create currency, enforce borders against other states or any number of other things reserved for actual nations to do, then you may re-attempt your claim.

When you try to assert that this is at all analogous to the EU and UK, you make it clear that you haven't studied these things. The UK and Europe at large are nations that have the aforementioned abilities. Arkansas does not. Nor will it. You should learn more about that.


US states are functionally provinces. Governors are not presidents, PMs, chancellors, or whatever else you feel the need to exaggerate them to. Conversely, real nations also do not call their heads of states Governors.

In important, populous states, they are even of far more secondary importance to significant mayors. You cannot be elected Governor of CA without the endorsement of LA's mayor, win lL without the consent of Chicago, etc. This does not make cities countries either though.

You didn't know that.
Much like a GE90, I'm a huge fan of Big Twins...
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 1709
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Should there be a Multi Party System in American Democracy?

Fri Nov 30, 2018 4:30 pm

Here’s a thought, try committing a felony in LA, be acquitted by a state court, then have the Feds charge you with the same crime, convict and give you 10 years in Federal prison. That happens commonly and is called “dual sovereignty”. States are sovereign entities. Governors have powers, the legislatures make laws for the state, functioning only in that state. Compacts among states require Congressional approval. You, like many, would love to see states legally disappear and exist only as signs at the borders, but it isn’t designed that way.

Collectivization and central power is the goal of all true left-wing control freaks, but I repeat myself.

GF
 
User avatar
DL717
Posts: 786
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 10:53 pm

Re: Should there be a Multi Party System in American Democracy?

Fri Nov 30, 2018 6:14 pm

DarkSnowyNight wrote:
DL717 wrote:

You get an F.


For Factually Accurate, yes, of course.

When your states can make treaties, declare wars (even on other states), set interest rates, refuse aid from the feds, create currency, enforce borders against other states or any number of other things reserved for actual nations to do, then you may re-attempt your claim.

When you try to assert that this is at all analogous to the EU and UK, you make it clear that you haven't studied these things. The UK and Europe at large are nations that have the aforementioned abilities. Arkansas does not. Nor will it. You should learn more about that.


US states are functionally provinces. Governors are not presidents, PMs, chancellors, or whatever else you feel the need to exaggerate them to. Conversely, real nations also do not call their heads of states Governors.

In important, populous states, they are even of far more secondary importance to significant mayors. You cannot be elected Governor of CA without the endorsement of LA's mayor, win lL without the consent of Chicago, etc. This does not make cities countries either though.

You didn't know that.


Yet another "F" for failure...

Ever heard of the (Insert State Here) National Guard? Its a thing. Complete with Guns, Planes and Tanks.

Keep digging the hole.
Everything is chits and giggles until you get old enough to giggle and then you chit.
 
seb146
Posts: 18440
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Should there be a Multi Party System in American Democracy?

Fri Nov 30, 2018 7:37 pm

DL717 wrote:
seb146 wrote:
DL717 wrote:

Thats a function of the State structuring it’s own form of government. We aren’t intended to be run by the most populous States. We go your route and half the country doesn’t matter anymore. Thats tyranny of the majority.


Tyranny of the MINORITY in the case of the 2000 presidential election and the 2016 presidential election.

I have already pointed out that a majority of individual states vote Democrat. But, because of Republican cheating, they are not in control. Like in Wisconsin, like in Florida, like in Michigan, like in North Carolina....

You keep going on and on about the individual states and so do I. What am I missing? Let me post this again

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watc ... _fb_maddow

and tell me what I am missing when we both talk about the individual states?


There is no such thing as tyranny of the minority.

Don’t add posts of articles by Madcow. She’s as nutty as Hannity. Expand your sources beyond the party parrots.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/democrats ... t-to-do-it


Thanks for posting an opinion piece. What is so wrong with using data from individual states to point out facts? Sure, Maddow is partisan. But she also uses facts.

It is not my fault that Fox, Breitbart, 4Chan, Sinclair, etc. didn't show any of this.

Go look at the raw data and tell me what I am missing. Don't attack Maddow to try to get out of it. You made a claim about the states, I made the same claim about the states and you still say I am wrong. Tell me what I am missing using facts instead of attacking the messenger and coming back with an opinion piece. Please and thank you.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
petertenthije
Posts: 3616
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2001 10:00 pm

Re: Should there be a Multi Party System in American Democracy?

Fri Nov 30, 2018 7:48 pm

DL717 wrote:
Ever heard of the (Insert State Here) National Guard? Its a thing. Complete with Guns, Planes and Tanks.

Sure it’s a thing, but it is not a state-owned military.

Let’s put it this way, say that the Texas governor decides it would be a good idea to invade Mexico. How far do you think the Texas national guard will come before DC tells them to return to their barracks? They’ll be called back before the troops get their first live ammo issued to them.

For the states the national guards are a well armed border patrol and emergency response organisation. For the federal government they are a cheap (because state funded) source of men and material.

That’s the difference between the USA national guards and the national militaries of the various EU nations.
Attamottamotta!
 
User avatar
DarkSnowyNight
Posts: 2086
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 7:59 pm

Re: Should there be a Multi Party System in American Democracy?

Fri Nov 30, 2018 8:02 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Here’s a thought, try committing a felony in LA, be acquitted by a state court, then have the Feds charge you with the same crime, convict and give you 10 years in Federal prison. That happens commonly and is called “dual sovereignty”.


Commonly... Is that a word for never where you're from? Because otherwise the context would be incorrect here.

In any case, you're actually conflating this with something completely different. Look up the term Lesser included charge.

What is actually a common occurence is to have one criminal event result in several individual charges.

Just as example, let's say we have a typical trump fan; the sort of man who enjoys beating his wife. And we'll say his luck ran out one night and the neighbors alerted the authorities. The charge he'd get from the state would be some level of assault and, depending on the jurisdiction, battery. We'll say now that he is indeed acquitted.

If within the statute of limitations, it comes to the fed's attention that his wife is a minority (um... somehow), they would have the option to charge and convict the same person, for the same event, but as a Hate Crime, and not a domestic.

You also don't need the state or feds to both show up for this. Either can charge you with both, at different times, on their own.

I can make more details, but you already see where I am going with this.

The bottom line is that just because you imagine something to be an end run around jeopardy limitations doesn't make it so.

What the feds charge and what a state does are actually two different crimes, even if it's the same event. And of course, this has nothing to do with sovereignty of any sort. If anyone tells you otherwise, you will be able to do yourself an enormous favor by never taking any legal advice from him.


In practice, this doesn't happen enough to worry about. I don't know why you think that's common, unless as I said, you have a different definition for the word. Or watch too much L&O.

The feds generally only get involved with these things when a state asks for that sort of help. I don't know if you like making felonies or not, but you shouldn't have much to worry about here.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
You, like many, would love to see states legally disappear and exist only as signs at the borders, but it isn’t designed that way.


Close, but again you're lacking a quality tobacco product. I'm not even a fan of nations.

We had a period in history where that worked out.
But a lot of our social and technical advancements have rendered the whole concept arcane. Nationalism only holds an appeal to people who like starting fights. The pretend nationalism of provincial regions is just... pitiful.

It's worth noting that most of what makes the single nation known as the United States a decent place has little, if anything, to do with our governance.

I should be a lot nicer about letting people just have their theories though. I'll give you that.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Collectivization and central power is the goal of all true left-wing control freaks, but I repeat myself.

GF


And the right wing are just playing a scrimmage game or something?

That's everyone's goal. Why else would they even show up?

Don't fool yourself. The right wing doesn't care about you or your rights either.

dl717 wrote:

Yet another "F" for failure...

Ever heard of the (Insert State Here) National Guard? Its a thing. Complete with Guns, Planes and Tanks.

Keep digging the hole.



Emote much?


Tilting at windmills and making things up won't improve your positioning here. The National Guard does not have the authority to war with other states. Also they are subservient to the military at large and can, and have been, called up by the federal govt to fight actual wars.

You are so willfully incorrect about this thing that if you were to charge money for your opinions, you could be successfully litigated against for malpractice. Even being devoid of the relevant licensing, as you clearly are.

You... also didn't know that.

As always, you're welcome to live in your fantasy world where things that aren't things somehow are things. If you refuse to learn anything, that's also fine.

I'm not offended if you wish to cling to your illusions.
Much like a GE90, I'm a huge fan of Big Twins...
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 1709
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Should there be a Multi Party System in American Democracy?

Fri Nov 30, 2018 8:46 pm

[quote][/quote]DarkSnowyNight,

Before commenting you might look up “dual sovereignty doctrine” and two SCOTUS decisions as settled law. You can be tried by two different sovereigns for the same crime and same facts. The SCOTUS held that the same crime and facts against two sovereigns are, in fact, TWO Ddifferent crimes. It happens and there is a case before the SCOTUS term on the same issue.

https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/2018/10/22/gamble-v-united-states-and-the-dual-sovereignty-doctrine/?slreturn=20181030153838

Also see, Abbate and Bartkus and Wheeler. Wheeler is interesting because it involved a tribal nation’s prosecution did not bar Federal prosecution for the same crime as dual sovereignty issue.

I was military technician having both a military and civilian “hats”. I could and did issue both military and civilian discipline on the same facts to an individual.

GF
 
User avatar
DarkSnowyNight
Posts: 2086
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 7:59 pm

Re: Should there be a Multi Party System in American Democracy?

Sat Dec 01, 2018 12:44 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
...



That does not contradict anything I've said. Especially where the example you have of UCMJ comes in. One event can easily trigger multiple charges. It doesn't require multiple jurisdictions either, although, as I have said, if the same event violates two different codes, you can expect to pay for both. In all of the cases you mention (and all like that there have ever been), the code/statute violations do have different numbers based on who's prosecuting at the moment. The fact that it is the same event is not relevant.

This is not controversial.



Of far greater import, it also adds nothing to the notion that american states are somehow equal to countries, as another poster quite foolishly suggested. That's the larger point. Semantics will not make South Carolina equal to Spain.
Much like a GE90, I'm a huge fan of Big Twins...

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: c933103, KLDC10, moo, par13del, prebennorholm and 51 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos