The Iowa cacacas

Discussion of current events
Jim the Moron
Posts: 1822
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 9:51 pm

Re: Trump the winner = America the loser.

Post by Jim the Moron » Sun Feb 09, 2020 5:29 am

Sertorio wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 2:39 am
neverfail wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 2:20 pm
Don't gloat!

It is truly sad for the United States itself if the Democrats Party proves itself so bereft of leadership talent; so disabled by its internal machinations; as to be incapable of fielding a candidate with enough credibility to take on, and hopefully depose, Trump.
They have Tulsi Gabbard, but they seem to be afraid of her. Too smart and too honest for them, I suppose...

Back in the pre-Cambrian there were Dems who had the best interests of America at heart. Think DP Moynihan and Scoop Jackson. Subsequently the left lost its way. Rep Gabbard is a revival of that tradition - get out of foreign adventures, support Israel, etc. Yep - the war-mongering swamp creatures fear her.

User avatar
Doc
Posts: 4221
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:09 pm
Location: Cradle To Grave

Re: Trump the winner = America the loser.

Post by Doc » Sun Feb 09, 2020 12:56 pm

Jim the Moron wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 5:29 am
Sertorio wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 2:39 am
neverfail wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 2:20 pm
Don't gloat!

It is truly sad for the United States itself if the Democrats Party proves itself so bereft of leadership talent; so disabled by its internal machinations; as to be incapable of fielding a candidate with enough credibility to take on, and hopefully depose, Trump.
They have Tulsi Gabbard, but they seem to be afraid of her. Too smart and too honest for them, I suppose...

Back in the pre-Cambrian there were Dems who had the best interests of America at heart. Think DP Moynihan and Scoop Jackson. Subsequently the left lost its way. Rep Gabbard is a revival of that tradition - get out of foreign adventures, support Israel, etc. Yep - the war-mongering swamp creatures fear her.
Very good comparison.
“"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros

User avatar
Doc
Posts: 4221
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:09 pm
Location: Cradle To Grave

Re: The Iowa cacacas

Post by Doc » Sun Feb 09, 2020 1:03 pm

Milo wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 11:50 pm
Doc wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 10:37 pm
neverfail wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 9:56 pm
Doc wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 3:36 pm
neverfail wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 2:43 pm
Here is a guide for Australians trying (like me) to wrap their minds around the process by which the United States chooses its candidates for election to President:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-03/ ... d/11920812

There has to be a better way.
Here is a better one

Beside the point Doc.

We are talking about two different matters. I was lamenting the shambolic procedure used by your two big political parties to choose their respective candidates to run for President (so open to tampering and shady manipulation). Your proffered video did not address that but instead comprised a solemn sermon by a pretty face on what happens after the voting public have cast their ballots (with the reverent, unstated presumption lingering in the background that the founders of your US constitution were the wisest and holiest of men).

I live in a democracy with a parliamentary system that permits multiple parties to vie for a place in Parliament on election day - so my curiosity is aroused as to why only TWO candidates representing just TWO political parties (always the same two) stand for election for President in the US. Why not three, six or even a dozen to give the voting public a real choice? Patently clear to me that there must be a cartel of political power in your country when only two parties can field candidates with any chance of success.

If other countries can thrive with freely and fairly elected government then why does the USA need such a convoluted system?
The founding fathers did not anticipate political parties.

As for the primary system I would point out two things

1) The Democrats say they don't want the electoral system because it is "Unfair" that the majority does not pick the president by popular vote while rigging thier own primary system with unelected super delegates.

2) What could be less democratic the the EU legislature? They are unelected as is the EU president.
Yes, only the Democrats rig their party nomination processes. The Republicans are pure and noble!
Sure the attempt by Mitt Romney's father and the rest of the East Coast Republican establishment to destroy Reagan's presidency before it began is famous
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_Repu ... erald_Ford

But on the other hand, I can't recall any republicans trying to rig the election by tearing up the constitution via getting rid of the electoral college. Partuicularly while they were actively rigging the selection process in their own party.
“"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros

neverfail
Posts: 4951
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: The Iowa cacacas

Post by neverfail » Sun Feb 09, 2020 2:58 pm

Thanks for reply Doc.
neverfail wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 9:56 pm


Beside the point Doc.

We are talking about two different matters. I was lamenting the shambolic procedure used by your two big political parties to choose their respective candidates to run for President (so open to tampering and shady manipulation). Your proffered video did not address that but instead comprised a solemn sermon by a pretty face on what happens after the voting public have cast their ballots (with the reverent, unstated presumption lingering in the background that the founders of your US constitution were the wisest and holiest of men).

I live in a democracy with a parliamentary system that permits multiple parties to vie for a place in Parliament on election day - so my curiosity is aroused as to why only TWO candidates representing just TWO political parties (always the same two) stand for election for President in the US. Why not three, six or even a dozen to give the voting public a real choice? Patently clear to me that there must be a cartel of political power in your country when only two parties can field candidates with any chance of success.

If other countries can thrive with freely and fairly elected government then why does the USA need such a convoluted system?
Doc wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 10:37 pm
The founding fathers did not anticipate political parties.
Good point! Since the founders of your constitution did not have the powers of prophecy they can be forgiven that omission. Yet the USA has had organised political parties for a long time since and they are not going to go away soon. So it is not time for your constitution to be reformed/amended in response?


Doc wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 10:37 pm
As for the primary system I would point out two things

1) The Democrats say they don't want the electoral system because it is "Unfair" that the majority does not pick the president by popular vote while rigging thier own primary system with unelected super delegates.
Hypocrites!

The Democrats would have more moral authority were they to reform their own Party inner workings first.
Doc wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 10:37 pm
2) What could be less democratic the the EU legislature? They are unelected as is the EU president.
I do not know where you got the impression from that the EU legislature is unelected from Doc:
The European Parliament (EP) shares the legislative and budgetary authority of the Union with the Council of the European Union (of relevant national government ministers). Its 751 members are elected every five years by universal suffrage and sit according to political allegiance.

en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Institutions_of_the_European_Union
In any case, what does this have to do with the issue at hand - how America selects its candidates for President?

User avatar
Milo
Posts: 2494
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 10:14 pm

Re: The Iowa cacacas

Post by Milo » Sun Feb 09, 2020 2:59 pm

Doc wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 1:03 pm
Milo wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 11:50 pm
Doc wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 10:37 pm
neverfail wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 9:56 pm
Doc wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 3:36 pm
neverfail wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 2:43 pm
Here is a guide for Australians trying (like me) to wrap their minds around the process by which the United States chooses its candidates for election to President:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-03/ ... d/11920812

There has to be a better way.
Here is a better one

Beside the point Doc.

We are talking about two different matters. I was lamenting the shambolic procedure used by your two big political parties to choose their respective candidates to run for President (so open to tampering and shady manipulation). Your proffered video did not address that but instead comprised a solemn sermon by a pretty face on what happens after the voting public have cast their ballots (with the reverent, unstated presumption lingering in the background that the founders of your US constitution were the wisest and holiest of men).

I live in a democracy with a parliamentary system that permits multiple parties to vie for a place in Parliament on election day - so my curiosity is aroused as to why only TWO candidates representing just TWO political parties (always the same two) stand for election for President in the US. Why not three, six or even a dozen to give the voting public a real choice? Patently clear to me that there must be a cartel of political power in your country when only two parties can field candidates with any chance of success.

If other countries can thrive with freely and fairly elected government then why does the USA need such a convoluted system?
The founding fathers did not anticipate political parties.

As for the primary system I would point out two things

1) The Democrats say they don't want the electoral system because it is "Unfair" that the majority does not pick the president by popular vote while rigging thier own primary system with unelected super delegates.

2) What could be less democratic the the EU legislature? They are unelected as is the EU president.
Yes, only the Democrats rig their party nomination processes. The Republicans are pure and noble!
Sure the attempt by Mitt Romney's father and the rest of the East Coast Republican establishment to destroy Reagan's presidency before it began is famous
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_Repu ... erald_Ford

But on the other hand, I can't recall any republicans trying to rig the election by tearing up the constitution via getting rid of the electoral college. Partuicularly while they were actively rigging the selection process in their own party.
When did they get rid of the electoral college?

User avatar
Doc
Posts: 4221
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:09 pm
Location: Cradle To Grave

Re: The Iowa cacacas

Post by Doc » Sun Feb 09, 2020 5:49 pm

Milo wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 2:59 pm
Doc wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 1:03 pm
Milo wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 11:50 pm
Doc wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 10:37 pm
neverfail wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 9:56 pm
Doc wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 3:36 pm


Here is a better one

Beside the point Doc.

We are talking about two different matters. I was lamenting the shambolic procedure used by your two big political parties to choose their respective candidates to run for President (so open to tampering and shady manipulation). Your proffered video did not address that but instead comprised a solemn sermon by a pretty face on what happens after the voting public have cast their ballots (with the reverent, unstated presumption lingering in the background that the founders of your US constitution were the wisest and holiest of men).

I live in a democracy with a parliamentary system that permits multiple parties to vie for a place in Parliament on election day - so my curiosity is aroused as to why only TWO candidates representing just TWO political parties (always the same two) stand for election for President in the US. Why not three, six or even a dozen to give the voting public a real choice? Patently clear to me that there must be a cartel of political power in your country when only two parties can field candidates with any chance of success.

If other countries can thrive with freely and fairly elected government then why does the USA need such a convoluted system?
The founding fathers did not anticipate political parties.

As for the primary system I would point out two things

1) The Democrats say they don't want the electoral system because it is "Unfair" that the majority does not pick the president by popular vote while rigging thier own primary system with unelected super delegates.

2) What could be less democratic the the EU legislature? They are unelected as is the EU president.
Yes, only the Democrats rig their party nomination processes. The Republicans are pure and noble!
Sure the attempt by Mitt Romney's father and the rest of the East Coast Republican establishment to destroy Reagan's presidency before it began is famous
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_Repu ... erald_Ford

But on the other hand, I can't recall any republicans trying to rig the election by tearing up the constitution via getting rid of the electoral college. Partuicularly while they were actively rigging the selection process in their own party.
When did they get rid of the electoral college?
Please go back and read my last paragraph again.
“"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros

User avatar
Milo
Posts: 2494
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 10:14 pm

Re: The Iowa cacacas

Post by Milo » Sun Feb 09, 2020 9:27 pm

Doc wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 5:49 pm
Milo wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 2:59 pm
Doc wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 1:03 pm
Milo wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 11:50 pm
Doc wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 10:37 pm
neverfail wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 9:56 pm


Beside the point Doc.

We are talking about two different matters. I was lamenting the shambolic procedure used by your two big political parties to choose their respective candidates to run for President (so open to tampering and shady manipulation). Your proffered video did not address that but instead comprised a solemn sermon by a pretty face on what happens after the voting public have cast their ballots (with the reverent, unstated presumption lingering in the background that the founders of your US constitution were the wisest and holiest of men).

I live in a democracy with a parliamentary system that permits multiple parties to vie for a place in Parliament on election day - so my curiosity is aroused as to why only TWO candidates representing just TWO political parties (always the same two) stand for election for President in the US. Why not three, six or even a dozen to give the voting public a real choice? Patently clear to me that there must be a cartel of political power in your country when only two parties can field candidates with any chance of success.

If other countries can thrive with freely and fairly elected government then why does the USA need such a convoluted system?
The founding fathers did not anticipate political parties.

As for the primary system I would point out two things

1) The Democrats say they don't want the electoral system because it is "Unfair" that the majority does not pick the president by popular vote while rigging thier own primary system with unelected super delegates.

2) What could be less democratic the the EU legislature? They are unelected as is the EU president.
Yes, only the Democrats rig their party nomination processes. The Republicans are pure and noble!
Sure the attempt by Mitt Romney's father and the rest of the East Coast Republican establishment to destroy Reagan's presidency before it began is famous
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_Repu ... erald_Ford

But on the other hand, I can't recall any republicans trying to rig the election by tearing up the constitution via getting rid of the electoral college. Partuicularly while they were actively rigging the selection process in their own party.
When did they get rid of the electoral college?
Please go back and read my last paragraph again.
So they didn't get rid of the electoral college? So they just tore up the Constitution then?

neverfail
Posts: 4951
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: The Iowa cacacas

Post by neverfail » Mon Feb 10, 2020 1:49 am

Milo wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 2:59 pm
When did they get rid of the electoral college?
They did not! They only complained about it.

neverfail
Posts: 4951
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: Why did the USA adopt the electoral college system of choosing a president in the first place?

Post by neverfail » Mon Feb 10, 2020 2:17 am

Quite a bit of horse trading went on when the Continental Congress reconvened at Philodelphia in 1789 to hammer out a constitution for the proposed US Federal republic.
https://www.history.com/news/electoral- ... convention


Slavery and the Three-Fifths Compromise
But determining exactly how many electors to assign to each state was another sticking point. Here the divide was between slave-owning and non-slave-owning states. It was the same issue that plagued the distribution of seats in the House of Representatives: should or shouldn’t the Founders include slaves in counting a state’s population?

In 1787, roughly 40 percent of people living in the Southern states were black slaves, who couldn’t vote. James Madison from Virginia—where slaves accounted for 60 percent of the population—knew that either a direct presidential election, or one with electors divvied up according to free white residents only, wouldn’t fly in the South.

“The right of suffrage was much more diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern than the Southern States,” said Madison, “and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes.”
The result was the controversial “three-fifths compromise,” in which black slaves would be counted as three-fifths of a person for the purpose of allocating representatives and electors and calculating federal taxes. The compromise ensured that Southern states would ratify the Constitution and gave Virginia, home to more than 200,000 slaves, a quarter (12) of the total electoral votes required to win the presidency (46).
There you have it! If this system of selecting Presidents had not been adopted the southern states would have refused to join.

It constituted a gigantic gerrymander favouring the south.

You need not wonder why 11 of the 13 presidents the US had from the drafting of the constitution until the outbreak of civil war in 1861 were from the southern states - with the greatest number and all but one of the early ones coming from Virginia. The adoption of the electoral college system along with other concessions made to southern interests effectively delivered political power over the entire republic into the hands of the southern, slave owning plantocracy.

Can anyone still defend this arcane system knowing the real reason why it was introduced?

User avatar
Doc
Posts: 4221
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:09 pm
Location: Cradle To Grave

Re: The Iowa cacacas

Post by Doc » Mon Feb 10, 2020 2:54 am

Milo wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 9:27 pm
Doc wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 5:49 pm
Milo wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 2:59 pm
Doc wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 1:03 pm
Milo wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 11:50 pm
Doc wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 10:37 pm


The founding fathers did not anticipate political parties.

As for the primary system I would point out two things

1) The Democrats say they don't want the electoral system because it is "Unfair" that the majority does not pick the president by popular vote while rigging thier own primary system with unelected super delegates.

2) What could be less democratic the the EU legislature? They are unelected as is the EU president.
Yes, only the Democrats rig their party nomination processes. The Republicans are pure and noble!
Sure the attempt by Mitt Romney's father and the rest of the East Coast Republican establishment to destroy Reagan's presidency before it began is famous
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_Repu ... erald_Ford

But on the other hand, I can't recall any republicans trying to rig the election by tearing up the constitution via getting rid of the electoral college. Partuicularly while they were actively rigging the selection process in their own party.
When did they get rid of the electoral college?
Please go back and read my last paragraph again.
So they didn't get rid of the electoral college? So they just tore up the Constitution then?
They are trying their best.
“"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros

Post Reply