whir wrote:Sorry but no, the agrarian society where wealthy politicians lived required a system that guaranteed their power quotas against the growing masses from the cities and that's why the electoral collage was instituted not because some mythical envisions of social justice.
Sorry, but no.
The US was never an agrarian society. Agriculture maybe dominant in parts of the original colonies, but agriculture was never the defining feature of the original colonies, let alone modern US. Not only that, there are different types of farming. Back then, most farms were subsistence level, meaning they grew just enough food crop for a family to survive. You do not get wealthy by subsistence level farming. On the other hand, do you eat cotton ? No. If you have a cotton farm, you are supporting the textile industry and you buy your food from food crop farmers and ranchers. Textile means trade, locally and to foreign countries. This is a different subject anyway.
The electoral college was never meant for any form of social justice. Not sure where you got that idea from. In fact, the words 'electoral college' are not in the US Constitution. The 12th Amendment simply stated 'Electors'. The idea was to make all states, current (at that time) and future, have equal standing in times of Presidential elections. After all, the President is one man who make decisions that will affect millions. Therefore, it is important that the candidate be exposed to as much diversity of Americans as possible.
There is a difference between justice and fairness.
Justice is about what is deserving.
Fairness is about the absence of conditions that could produce biases.
High population in one state relative to the neighboring states is one condition that would bias a candidate towards the state with the higher population. This is about political fairness, not social justice.
Nice to know just spending a really large amount of money cannot win you an election in the US.
Not that Trump is a budget bargain basement special kinda guy...
But the wicked witch of the west couldn't buy this one...
Funny... last I heard she was blaming some FBI guy for losing the election... imagine the FBI not keeping quiet about her illegal actions until the election... have they no shame?
Honestly I didn't like any of the choices America had but I really think they got the lessor of two evils and perhaps with this result they might consider what they can do to make running for the position of president more transparent and allow people who are not supported by billionaires to get the chance for the job... because your billionaires seem to not care who runs the country as long as they cut taxes for the super rich...
It is well known that concentrations of population, which usually equals to concentrations of wealth, equals to potential and exercise of political power.
The American founding fathers long ago recognized that truth. They knew that as the country and its people expands, limits unknown, there will inevitable disparity of concentrations of population and wealth. If any state and/or territory feels that it is being ignored in the political process, the odds of dissension increases and unity proportionately threatened. What the electoral college does is to make each state equally relevant, forcing Presidential contenders, or at least their proxies, to face the voters in each state.
Look at the map above.
What do city dwellers know of farming or mining ? On the other hand, what do farmers know of semiconductor manufacturing ? And what do farmers and city slickers know of open water fishing ?
If the electoral college does not exist and the President is chosen via direct democracy, instead of the current representative method, have no doubt that the contenders will focus their energies on a few populous states, giving them disproportionate political sway in the Congress and in the Executive branches.
If we have to scorn the popular vote of presidency, then there is also no reason for electoral college. Why should not let the Parliament Members vote the President ? The MP are regional representative after all, and they are designed to specialize in discussing and voting for important issues of the country.
Moreover, as the electors are morally/legally (depends on each state) obliged to vote for the winning party of the state, they morally/legally do not have the right to have their own opinion in voting, then why not abolish the electoral college and instead automatically add the "vote points" for the winning party ?
Furthermore, factions like EVN http://www.evni.vn/Default.aspx?tabid=36&&language=en-US or VNPT http://eng.vnpt-hanoi.com.vn/ will support the popular vote and scorn regional electoral vote. These factions have massive supporter and strong influence on economy, but their manpower are broadly scattered. In each regions, their members are usually minority and they may achieve zero vote in electoral system. But in popular vote system, they can mobilize huge supporters to achieve one or two representatives in the government.
Boris Rozhin made a good comment about the aftermath of this election. "The light was suddenly turned on in a dirty kitchen and the cockroaches scatter in all directions".
higurashihougi wrote:If we have to scorn the popular vote of presidency, then there is also no reason for electoral college. Why should not let the Parliament Members vote the President ? The MP are regional representative after all, and they are designed to specialize in discussing and voting for important issues of the country.
Moreover, as the electors are morally/legally (depends on each state) obliged to vote for the winning party of the state, they morally/legally do not have the right to have their own opinion in voting, then why not abolish the electoral college and instead automatically add the "vote points" for the winning party ?
Furthermore, factions like EVN http://www.evni.vn/Default.aspx?tabid=36&&language=en-US or VNPT http://eng.vnpt-hanoi.com.vn/ will support the popular vote and scorn regional electoral vote. These factions have massive supporter and strong influence on economy, but their manpower are broadly scattered. In each regions, their members are usually minority and they may achieve zero vote in electoral system. But in popular vote system, they can mobilize huge supporters to achieve one or two representatives in the government.
When I read how you called the electoral college the 'cancer' of US democracy, I knew immediately you did not perform due diligence before you post. You spoke as if the US founding fathers inserted that mechanism for no reasons. Now, you characterize the electoral college as a hate against popular sentiments. I have no doubt that until a few days ago, you did not know anything about the electoral college at all. You spoke out of your rectum instead of the more important part of your body -- the brain.
We do not have any 'scorn' for popular votes. The fact that the electors' votes comes after and depends upon popular votes means popular votes are the foundation of the entire process. So what 'scorn' are you talking about ?
Parliament ? No, the US have the institutional peer of a parliament and it is called the US Congress. Image wise, the two institutions are similar, but politically they are quite different. For starter, the US Congress is bicameral, meaning two halves or branches or 'Houses', while a parliament can be either bicameral or unicameral. Single chamber -- unicameralism -- legislature is a common feature in communist states, such as Viet Nam. The reason why the US founding fathers did not want the legislature to elect the President is because of two reasons. First, the body count is too small. Second, because the body count is too small, it would increase the odds of corruption where members of the voting bloc could be beholden to the whoever won the Presidency.
The Electoral College is a democratic process device designed to buffer raw sentiments. You criticized as if the American public know nothing about it when in fact in every Presidential election cycle this body is brought up for debate, and in every cycle, those against have been out-reasoned by those who supports that body. If the EC is as much the 'cancer' as you expressed, it would have been rendered a historical artifact a long time ago by way of a Constitutional amendment and we would not have this debate today.
Khepesh wrote:Boris Rozhin made a good comment about the aftermath of this election. "The light was suddenly turned on in a dirty kitchen and the cockroaches scatter in all directions".
Excellent analogy and very true. I'm sure more than one cockroach is looking at the noose hanging from the street lamp with trepidation.
higurashihougi wrote:The problem is if we consider the number of popular voters, Trump had less popular vote. Less people voted for Trump. But more electors voted for him and that made him win.
I do not say that I prefer who over who. For me both are in the same boat, representatives of US "big government of oligarchs". But I consider the US's electoral college system as a cancer of US politics.
And here is why you are wrong...
It is well known that concentrations of population, which usually equals to concentrations of wealth, equals to potential and exercise of political power.
The American founding fathers long ago recognized that truth. They knew that as the country and its people expands, limits unknown, there will inevitable disparity of concentrations of population and wealth. If any state and/or territory feels that it is being ignored in the political process, the odds of dissension increases and unity proportionately threatened. What the electoral college does is to make each state equally relevant, forcing Presidential contenders, or at least their proxies, to face the voters in each state.
Look at the map above.
What do city dwellers know of farming or mining ? On the other hand, what do farmers know of semiconductor manufacturing ? And what do farmers and city slickers know of open water fishing ?
If the electoral college does not exist and the President is chosen via direct democracy, instead of the current representative method, have no doubt that the contenders will focus their energies on a few populous states, giving them disproportionate political sway in the Congress and in the Executive branches.
Whole thing finally makes sense.
This is without a doubt best explanation of electoral college I have ever seen. It should be on White House website.
Thanks for posting this, I will be keeping this post for future reference and explanation for people who I talk to.
We do not have any 'scorn' for popular votes. The fact that the electors' votes comes after and depends upon popular votes means popular votes are the foundation of the entire process. So what 'scorn' are you talking about ?
They win full vote in one region, even if they many not have the dominant support in that region. A good example of scorning the popular vote.
They win the election although the mechanical number of national voters is less than the other. The coefficient of national popular vote is considered as zero. Another good example of scorning the popular vote.
And more, why need an EC when the electors, legally or morally, do not have the right to vote on his own but only verify the majority of one state. Why not automatically add 38 vote points to Trump in Texas instead of sending 38 humans to vote when you already know that they only vote for Trump due to his majority ?
For starter, the US Congress is bicameral, meaning two halves or branches or 'Houses', while a parliament can be either bicameral or unicameral.
The US Congress IS a parliament, it is one kind of parliaments. There are unicameral parliaments and there are bicameral parliaments, and US Congress is the second type.
First, the body count is too small. Second, because the body count is too small, it would increase the odds of corruption where members of the voting bloc could be beholden to the whoever won the Presidency.
How many electors are there and how many representatives in the US Parliaments both Houses ?
voting bloc could be beholden to the whoever won the Presidency.
And so you create the EC who have not right to vote on their own but only verify the majority in each state ? And so why create EC, why not automatically add the vote points for winning party ?
And by the way the parliaments are meant to be professional voters for important issues of the country, and each MP are meant to be regional representative by regional majority, but you don't trust them... and you also don't trust the national majority... so who do you want to put your trust in ? A seasonal commitee whose function is only voting once in 4 years. And even it doesn't have the right to have its own vote ?
You criticized as if the American public know nothing about it when in fact in every Presidential election cycle this body is brought up for debate, and in every cycle, those against have been out-reasoned by those who supports that body. If the EC is as much the 'cancer' as you expressed, it would have been rendered a historical artifact a long time ago by way of a Constitutional amendment and we would not have this debate today.
The reason why EC has not been rendered a historical artifact because the US is not run by the elected government but by the shadow government behind it. FED, Soros, etc etc. US Government can be a rabid dog as they can, as the real boss is not it, that's why EC persists, and that is also why the controversy of who making war still perists.
"...as if the American public know nothing..." nearly half of them know nothing about their own biological origin, so I really doubt that how many of them are allowed to know the essence of their government ?
What do city dwellers know of farming or mining ? On the other hand, what do farmers know of semiconductor manufacturing ? And what do farmers and city slickers know of open water fishing ?
Not all fishermen, farmers, miners, industrial workers are state-based or province-based distributed. Factions like EVN (electric) or VNPT (telecommunication) are nationally scattered. You see them in all provinces, all states, but they are usually the minority in each regions. Using regional vote, they lose. Using popular vote, they may have the chance to send one or two representative into the government.
Actually this issue can be fixed in a party system where each party is the true representative of one trade or one group of related trades. But the GOP and the Dem... does they ? You already know that many people consider GOP and Dem are not two parties, but two branches of the Oligarchy Party.
Last edited by higurashihougi on Mon Nov 14, 2016 8:49 am; edited 1 time in total
higurashihougi wrote:The reason why EC has not been rendered a historical artifact because the US is not run by the elected government but by the shadow government behind it. FED, Soros, etc etc.
Actually...The US government is run by Martians. No need to continue this discussion with you.
As one might expect, the rhetoric has changed now that Trump has won. This is a summary of the main points of his first TV interview.
As CBS' Lesley Stahl summarized the interview, "what we discovered in Mr. Trump’s first television interview as president-elect, was that some of his signature issues at the heart of his campaign were not meant to be taken literally, but as opening bids for negotiation.
Before we get into the nuances of Trump's interview whose full transcript is presented at the end of this post, for those pressed for time here are the key highlights from Trump's interview:
Trump says he will talk with FBI Director Comey before deciding whether to ask his resignation, says "I respect him a lot" Trump, on pledge to appoint special prosecutor to investigate Clintons, says "I don't want to hurt them. They're good people" Trump says he is "fine" with same-sex marriage; says He Does Not Intend To Overturn Supreme Court Ruling on Gay Marriage Trump confirms he will forego salary as president Trump tells protesters: "don't be afraid" Trump condemns harassment of minorities Trump vows to name pro-life, pro-gun rights Supreme Court justices
Among many things discussed, Trump told Stahl that Clinton’s phone call conceding the election was “lovely” and acknowledged that making the phone call was likely “tougher for her than it would have been for me,” according to previews of the interview released by CBS. Trump said “she couldn’t have been nicer. She just said, ‘Congratulations, Donald, well done,'” Trump told Stahl. “And I said, ‘I want to thank you very much. You were a great competitor.’ She is very strong and very smart.”
Trump’s tone in the interview contrasted his attacks on the campaign trail, in which he nicknamed Clinton “Crooked Hillary” and encouraged chants to “Lock her up!” during his rallies.
Trump also told Stahl that former president Bill Clinton called him the following day and “couldn’t have been more gracious.” “He said it was an amazing run – one of the most amazing he’s ever seen,” Trump said. “He was very, very, really, very nice.”
During the campaign, Trump had tried to use Bill Clinton’s infidelities as a way to attack and embarrass Hillary Clinton. For the second presidential debate, Trump had sought to intimidate his competitor by inviting women who had accused the former president of sexual abuse to sit in the Trump family box. Debate officials quashed the idea.
In the interview with Stahl, Trump did not rule out calling both of the Clintons for advice during his term. “I mean, this is a very talented family,” he said. “Certainly, I would certainly think about that.”
Ironically, Trump was also asked if he would appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Hillary's private server as he suggested he would during the second debtate.
“I’m going to think about it....I don't want to hurt them," he said in the “60 Minutes” interview. “Um, I feel that I want to focus on jobs, I want to focus on healthcare, I want to focus on the border and immigration and doing a really great immigration bill. We want to have a great immigration bill. And I want to focus on -- all of these other things that we’ve been talking about.”
The whole thing is at http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-13/donald-trumps-first-interview-winning-election-key-highlights-and-full-transcript
President-elect Donald Trump accepted congratulations on his White House win from Vladimir Putin on Monday and told the Russian leader he looked forward to a "strong and enduring" relationship with Russia and its people.
A statement from Trump's transition team said the two leaders discussed "a range of issues including the threats and challenges facing the United States and Russia, strategic economic issues and the historical U.S.-Russia relationship that dates back over 200 years."
The Kremlin said the two leaders "agreed to assess the current very poor state of Russian-American relations, but also spoke in favor of active joint work to their normalization ... in the direction of constructive cooperation on a wide range of issues," according to a statement.
"[They] underlined, in particular, the importance of creating a solid foundation of bilateral ties through the development of their trade and economic component," the statement said.
Trump famously praised Putin as a strong leader during the presidential campaign, enduring some criticism from Republicans and Democrats alike in the process. He has spoken of the need to work with Russia against terrorists, and his comments about renegotiating NATO have been applauded by Moscow.
Relations between the United States and Russia have deteriorated over the last decade, with the U.S. government under President Obama fiercely critical of Russia's annexing of the formerly Ukrainian territory of Crimea in 2014.
The Trump transition team readout was notable for its overall positive tone. Readouts of Obama's meetings with Putin often highlighted areas of disagreement between the two sides.
The Kremlin's statement said Putin and Trump would continue to talk by phone and work toward meeting in person. It said both leaders discussed the need for joint efforts to fight terrorism and extremism, as well as ending the crisis in Syria.
Putin said during the call he was willing to build a dialogue with the new administration on "principles of equality, mutual respect and non-interference in the internal affairs of each other," according to the statement.
He also called for a return to "pragmatic, mutually beneficial cooperation, which would meet the interests of both countries, stability and security throughout the world."
I tell people ,and they don't believe me ,that United States Government and leaders are not as fool and dumb as people judge them. The are close to geniuses in manipulation of people and deceiving the world.
Unfortunately , i think the honeymoon between US and Russia will not last a lot under trump . If anyone remembers how Obama before elections and after elections he spoke about "creating bridges" with other nations.. to "talk to them". That it was wrong to invade IRAQ. and so and so and so. And that there will be a CHANGE and no more wars.
and all was great and honeymoon the first 2-3 years..
here take a look just 2 years after obama was in power.. All was great between US and Russia ,Obama invited medvedev to eat a burger in America
The clinton all smiles and reset button with Lavrov about the same time.
And Obama and Clinton were all doing the right thing , to talk to other nations and speaking about removing the troops of IRAQ ,ending the wars which they did but temporarily .
take a look Kerry dinner with Assad in Syria just a year earlier before the civil war began.
here Obama creating peaceful relations with even Venezuela..
Since Obama was a candidate to the Presidential race , he seemed to me like an Actor but no idea why.. and today is more than confirmed he is a really good actor ,a master in fake.
Hillary is an hypocrite and liar and not good in acting ,but she still try. A major delegation of democrats /US senate traveled suspiciously to Syria to talk to Assad for "restoring relations". What they were all doing there ,was trying to lure Assad into becoming a puppet of US gov. and naturally he refused.
Then came the Arab Spring from nowhere taking Russia with its pants down ,a real major Failure of Russia intelligence ,since it was a NATO proxy war in reality with many muslin nations. And today looking back,, i can see how the whole thing ,was a SETUP to distract Russia into thinking Obama and CLinton were seeking really to restore relations with Russia. So the whole honeymoon ,dinners ,how coincidence Kerry and wife with Assad and wife dinner like friends just months before the revolution?
The whole "Reset of relations" was a smoke wall ,a distraction ,to caught with their pants down Russia not only in Syria but in Ukraine too. into what they were really doing behind the scenes. US political parties policies are not made by the President but by the Elite above them. people that is never elected or known as shadow Government. . So they behaved really nicely for 2.5 years to fool Russia and Syria into not preparing themselves ,for the mass scale proxy wars that were going to hit Russia hard in the next years.
Moving forward , Trump .. have been doing Exactly the same things of Obama Speaking about "ending wars" and focus in Business etc. saying the right things. And even the whole Mainstream media against Him.. but suddenly as soon trump wins all things change and all US media is more tolerant to him and even asking people to lineup behind trump.
Now come the scary thing.
The people Trump is surrounding itself to become part of its government are the biggest warmongers you could imagine..
like John Bolton ,a warmonger Liberal from Bush , that wrote books about Never surrender.. and basically was all about how to counter Russia and China and that just months ago ,he was speaking that Obama should not have any kind of retreat in Syria or any kind of negotiation that will made it look that Russia presence in Syria is legitimate. also he doesn't like United Nations ,neither likes the idea of US being attached to any international laws.
I tell you the entire US politics is rotten to the core ,it stinks like SHIT. and if they managed to twist the hands of Trump to allow him to run in the name of the Republican warmonger and they now have TRump in their pockets. Then very likely things will continue ,in the same way with US more proxy wars against Russia and China and its allies. other members from Trump trust team ,have called for the bombing of IRAN.. etc..
So trump will have really evil people as advisors or secretary of defense. My theory is.. either.. 1)Trump is fooling everyone into his claims of better relations with Russia. 2) Trump have been forced to take war mongers on his government to get the support of the republican party 3) or trump is trying to play the same games of deception on its own republican party. By hiring people popular to the republicans ,to make it look Trump will continue with hostilities against Russia .
Take a look at the people who have praised John Bolton ,which everyone predict will be the next secretary of defense.
1)Praised by John Mcain.. 2)Praised a lot by Mitt Rommey 3)Praised by grin newwts (spelling) one that was promoting the bombing of IRAN.
So if you ask me i think Trump is sincere when it comes to seeking good relations with Russia ,BUT ,i think he is hoping and a little naive to think he will be allowed to do it and that he will be able to influence so corrupt and criminal people to his side. Even the vicePresident of Trump , Pence, during trump own campaign he sabotage Trump policies by telling in an interview that they will bomb assad. This means that if Trump deviates from the Globalist policies, that he could be impeached or killed by the Senate to get Pence in power and return US to Obama policies.
magnumcromagnon wrote:Looks like we've all been had! I knew I was right to be skeptical.........if something is too good to be true, it is!
Trump’s Worrisome Neo-Con «Brain Trust»
Meh, having hope for any U.S election is just a waist of time if you ask me, i just wanted to see the reactions if he won. I wonder if he'll get a noble prize.
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
