07 Dec 16
Originally posted by ZahlanziOne can make a reasonable argument that the electoral college system was designed specifically to give the EC the power to keep somebody like Trump out of office.
http://www.hamiltonelectors.com/
it seems these electors chaps can vote however the hell they want
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector
I ask again:
How is this still a thing?
07 Dec 16
Originally posted by sh76yes, like let the citizens play with voting, but if they don't play properly, the grownups decide in their place
One can make a reasonable argument that the electoral college system was designed specifically to give the EC the power to keep somebody like Trump out of office.
you call that reasonable. funny
08 Dec 16
Originally posted by ZahlanziAre you opposed to the idea of checks and balances? It's not like this is some new idea, or an exotic foreign concept.
yes, like let the citizens play with voting, but if they don't play properly, the grownups decide in their place
you call that reasonable. funny
08 Dec 16
Originally posted by ZahlanziDon't get your panties in a twist over it.
yes, like let the citizens play with voting, but if they don't play properly, the grownups decide in their place
you call that reasonable. funny
It never happens.
Even with an obvious sociopath like Trump threatening to turn America into a hellhole, the electors will go ahead and vote as their state did.
Originally posted by lemon limeChecks and balances??
Are you opposed to the idea of checks and balances? It's not like this is some new idea, or an exotic foreign concept.
The Republicans outright refused to even hold hearings on Merrick Garland.
They stole Obama's right to pick the next SC justice and gave it to Trump.
Don't even talk to me about "checks and balances".
08 Dec 16
Originally posted by Suzianne"Don't get your panties in a twist over it.
Don't get your panties in a twist over it.
It never happens.
Even with an obvious sociopath like Trump threatening to turn America into a hellhole, the electors will go ahead and vote as their state did.
It never happens."
yes, and don't worry about the electoral system possibly leading to a candidate losing despite winning the popular vote (otherwise know as the vote in most countries). That never happens.
If it never happens, why have the rule in place? Could it be that the loophole was put there by mistake? They forgot to fix it ?
Or could it be that some people want it there?
08 Dec 16
Originally posted by ZahlanziMost countries have separate electorates, you don't have a single nationwide mass mob 'popular' vote for the prime minister or president. You supposedly vote for the best person for your electorate.
"Don't get your panties in a twist over it.
It never happens."
yes, and don't worry about the electoral system possibly leading to a candidate losing despite winning the popular vote (otherwise know as the vote in most countries). That never happens.
If it never happens, why have the rule in place? Could it be that the loophole was put there by mistake? They forgot to fix it ?
Or could it be that some people want it there?
08 Dec 16
Originally posted by ZahlanziIn both the US and Zambia, the president must have been born in the country (or at least born a citizen). Zambia also added the clause that his parents must have been born in the country (but they couldn't enforce it).
yes, like let the citizens play with voting, but if they don't play properly, the grownups decide in their place
you call that reasonable. funny
So, if the people voted for someone not born in the country would you support the vote or the ridiculous constitutional clause?
08 Dec 16
Originally posted by ZahlanziActually checks and balances are usually there to stifle democracy. Sometimes allowing the people to decide is not such a good thing - as the world now knows to its cost.
you have checks and balances to preserve democracy not invalidate it, what the hell are you talking about?
08 Dec 16
Originally posted by twhitehead"Actually checks and balances are usually there to stifle democracy."
Actually checks and balances are usually there to stifle democracy. Sometimes allowing the people to decide is not such a good thing - as the world now knows to its cost.
don't want to get into what "usually" means or what it means to stifle democracy.
i was talking about the checks meant to prevent one branch of government from wielding too much power and to allow the branches to control each other. that supports democracy not stifles it.
"Sometimes allowing the people to decide is not such a good thing"
and who gets to decide? the right people? who are they?
"as the world now knows to its cost"
it's better to pay that cost after willingly choosing it rather than having someone else impose another outcome, no matter how benevolent and competent that someone is.
i respect jon stewart for example but i wouldn't have him decide on behalf of the world who the president of the US is.
08 Dec 16
Originally posted by twhiteheadno idea where this is going. if the constitutional rule is that someone not born in that country can't be president, who do you get that someone on the ballot? Write in? If you write in a fictional character should that vote be supported?
In both the US and Zambia, the president must have been born in the country (or at least born a citizen). Zambia also added the clause that his parents must have been born in the country (but they couldn't enforce it).
So, if the people voted for someone not born in the country would you support the vote or the ridiculous constitutional clause?
so no, i don't support illegal stuff. if a law is stupid you must fight to change it, not break it. which is why i made this thread to show another reason the electorate system is stupid and anti-democracy and should be changed, not to suggest they must elect Clinton.
08 Dec 16
1 edit
Originally posted by ZahlanziYou're asking me what I'm taking about?
you have checks and balances to preserve democracy not invalidate it, what the hell are you talking about?
I read this link that you posted in your OP:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector
Did you read it?
08 Dec 16
Originally posted by lemon limethat's what i am confused about. checks and balances are in place so that one state power doesn't become tyrannical, doesn't jeopardizes democracy. so that the executive branch doesn't legislate. so that courts stay independent.
You're asking [b]me what I'm taking about?
I read this link that you posted in your OP:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector
Did you read it?[/b]
these electors are allowed to decide in opposition to the will of the people. that is anti-democratic. they are no more democratic than a dictator is.
that's why you make no sense when you ask me about checks and balances.