Questions for our American friends

[diamelsx]

Originally Posted by palo5

Are Americans generally satisfied with this, or does it just depend who you are?

You can look at the turnout numbers or the approval numbers and have your answer. Also take this little tip at 71% of young voters want a third party.

[charliels531]

Originally Posted by palo5

Well, for better or for worse, the US does not have a democracy, because of the electoral college, and for many law-bending or -breaking reasons besides

Are Americans generally satisfied with this, or does it just depend who you are?

Diamelsx is spot-on. We have had five presidents who were the result of the electoral college, all of whom ranged from non-entities to disasters, and one who was elected by the House of Representatives, who turned out to be pretty good. That was in 1824.

The problem with getting rid of it is the supermajority requirements to amend the Constitution. The only time there is a lot of public support to abolish the electoral college is when a disaster like Trump gets appointed by it, and usually the Congress is closely divided. The only time in the last century that there was significant support was the late 1950s, and JFK stopped the movement.

The reason that reform is being talked about now is twofold: As the country has become more polarized, two of those five occasions have been in the last five elections; and the proposed "remedy" to have significant support has been to distribute electoral votes proportionately under state law. Unfortunately the states who have agreed to do so when a majority of states choose that option are Democratic states. Republican states (mostly Southern) are sticking with the winner-takes-all pattern, so if the system were adopted as now configured, we would always have a Republican president.

Regarding the third party idea, there are some major problems. A careful and detailed study of the Constitution makes it clear that, despite the professed intentions of the authors, many of the provisions operate well only with two political parties. For example, the House of Representatives was designed from the beginning to be so numerous, and elected so often, that there had to be some sort of party discipline to maintain a working majority. Whenever a friend of mine starts to discuss a multi-party system, I point to the peculiar obscenity of the current British House of Commons in which the Ulster Unionist bigots are the tail that waves Theresa May's head.

Moreover, the current third parties in the U.S. tend to be as crackpot as the Ulster Unionists, and utterly without any desire to work to assemble a majority anywhere. For example, in my lifetime I have met two people who ran for the U.S. presidency as members of the Green Party. I have yet to meet a single precinct officer of the Green Party. All chiefs, no Indians.

[diamelsx]

Originally Posted by Decadence

I'm continually amazed by the lemmings-like attitude of many people concerning the President. What I read here sounds like it came right from the CNN teleprompter.

It's important, especially for our friends overseas, to understand something. What you see in the media in terms of attitudes is NOT indicative of the majority of American opinion. There's an entire country between New York City and L.A. whose values and opinions aren't reflected in the attitudes and priorities of the establishment media. CNN, in America, is a joke. It's by far the lowest rated, least-watched cable news provider. I've seen ratings data where the Cartoon Network had more viewers than CNN.

I can agree with this in some respects.

Originally Posted by Decadence

The average person on the street does not share the media's eternal, daily outrage and disdain for everything Trump. In their daily lives, most Americans aren't worried about the "conditions" facing illegals on the border.. aren't upset that our President told the rest of NATO it's time they paid their fair share... don't care that Trump told May her Brexit strategy could've been better. They have lives to lead. Politics are mostly a nuisance. People don't have the emotional capital to be batshit crazy with Trump outrage month after month after month. The protesters (some paid) you see here are insignificant in number, but garner a lot of sympathetic coverage from a sycophantic media.

Some of this I can agree with.

Originally Posted by Decadence

1992, Bill Clinton used the campaign slogan "it's the economy, stupid". It worked for him, and it's now working for Trump. The economy is booming. Manufacturing and construction are going crazy. Unemployment among minorities has never been at a lower level. Consumer confidence is through the roof. Trump's approval rating is 4 points higher than Obama's was at the same point in his presidency... even tho Obama had an endlessly fawning media, Trump has an endlessly hostile media. But the media doesn't vote (other than as individuals), now do they?

if you're saying that the economy is doing great because of the stock market then I say you're making the same mistake Obama did. I mean yeah the stock market is continuing Obama's gains but also at the same time wages has dropped for the second straight quarter, despite the tax cuts and the vast majority of people are wage earners not stockholders.

Originally Posted by Decadence

To be honest, I initially didn't expect much out of Trump's presidency but I truly think that those who are expecting a "blue wave" in November that'll pave the way for Trump's impeachment are going to be sadly disappointed (again)... especially if people look at their 401k/IRA account before voting.

I'm going to agree that the Blue Wave is less likely because the Democratic party leadership is more concerned with suppressing the progressives than they are actually fighting the Republicans. remember Trump won because the party and Clinton herself turned their backs on literally half of their Party and expected to win. Where disagreement between us arises is you see a rising stock market as a good thing while I see it as a source for voter resentment as a matter of fact I'm willing to bet that most Republicans are not going to try to run on the rise in stock market being that most Americans don't own stock and they're going to have to look at their shrinking pay stubs instead.

[Arturo2nd]

This article has me thinking that the current form of the United States government cannot survive. You can't have 70 senators elected from sparsely populated and marginal economies holding the vast majority of the country hostage. The electoral college will mean more presidents elected by a minority of the voters, having no popular mandate, and pushing widely unpopular policies. The nation will not respect courts, imposed by these presidents and senators, and widely perceived to be unfair, biased, and out of touch with society.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.b10dc0766bd9

Ethnic difference will also play here as the Southwest (Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Texas) will be at least 60% Hispanic by then. How does the nation remain intact in the face of these ethnic and political divisions? Are California and Texas going to continue allowing a racist minority in the red states to cripple their economies? Do the Southern states sabotage their economic growth by refusing Hispanic workers?

Another question is where are all these people in Florida living with 3/4th of the current state under water by the end of this century?

[palo5]

Originally Posted by Brian249x

Another question is where are all these people in Florida living with 3/4th of the current state under water by the end of this century?

That is truly frightening, actually. They can't even throw money at the problem, because sea-defenses (levees, walls etc) won't work if the water can get through the porous rock below

Do they have any plans for this?

[Arturo2nd]

Originally Posted by palo5

That is truly frightening, actually. They can't even throw money at the problem, because sea-defenses (levees, walls etc) won't work if the water can get through the porous rock below

Do they have any plans for this?

Many of the state's most prominent politicians are Republicans. Their current strategy is to pretend it is not happening.

http://wlrn.org/post/south-florida-d...yre-optimistic

http://sealevel.climatecentral.org/n...the-rising-sea

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/real-est...425-story.html

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/opinion/...503-story.html

[charliels531]

Originally Posted by palo5

That is truly frightening, actually. They can't even throw money at the problem, because sea-defenses (levees, walls etc) won't work if the water can get through the porous rock below

Do they have any plans for this?

No. The current governor, running for the U.S. Senate, issued an executive order prohibiting state employees from discussing the problem.

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/sta...e12983720.html

[Decadence]

Originally Posted by charliels531

Thank you. A lot of the myths we live by are total fiction. For example, Decadance's rant ignores one indisputable fact: Trump has never had the support of a plurality, let alone a majority of the American people. So long as we continue to select our presidents along the same lines as the Holy Roman Empire selected its emperors, we will continue to get fools like Bush and mentally ill slobs like Trump.

Yeah.. that pesky electoral college. Fortunately, our founding fathers were smart enough to guard against mob rule. In that regard, Trump beat Clinton in the only tally that matters: 304-227... no matter how many names you call him. Maybe the democrats did a shitty job in picking their candidate. Maybe she did a shitty job campaigning. Maybe the DNC shouldn't have colluded with Hillary to steal the nomination from Bernie Sanders. But then it's always easiest to place blame elsewhere.

A county by county breakdown of the 2016 election (darker colors = larger margins; blue = Clinton, Red = Trump)




Looks are deceiving, aren't they?

Originally Posted by palo5

Well, for better or for worse, the US does not have a democracy, because of the electoral college, and for many law-bending or -breaking reasons besides

Are Americans generally satisfied with this, or does it just depend who you are?

Most Americans are happy with this setup and it has, IMO served us well.

For me, it's good to know that the election of a president will be decided based on input from all states. Congressional races are statewide, and decided by whoever gets the most votes wins. It's only the presidential election that is decided this way.

Without the electoral college, the Presidential race would be decided by the 20 biggest metropolitan areas in the country (see the above map). Simple mob rule. With the college, each state has the number of votes related to their presence in congress. Each state has 2 senators, regardless of size. Each state has representatives in the house based on their population. Total electoral votes = members of both houses of Congress. That's what makes America a representative republic rather than a straight democracy. Again, our founders were way smarter than anything going today.

The thing that the left is always bitching about is that the popular vote should matter more. Take California. Not surprising, Hillary got nearly 4.5 million more votes in California than Trump did. Her popular vote count overall was less than 3 million more than Trump. No matter if she beat Trump by 5 votes or 5 million, she still only gets California's 54 electoral votes. Somehow, that's not fair.

The only time this issue comes up is when the election doesn't turn out the way it was supposed to. We're supposed to put more credence in exit polls than the actual vote totals if a democrat loses.

Originally Posted by diamelsx

if you're saying that the economy is doing great because of the stock market then I say you're making the same mistake Obama did. I mean yeah the stock market is continuing Obama's gains but also at the same time wages has dropped for the second straight quarter, despite the tax cuts and the vast majority of people are wage earners not stockholders.

While the market is a beneficiary of the robust economy, it's not the cause.

Where I see the signs is the Federal Reserve.. who has signaled it's going to continue to raise interest rates. The economy has to be running at a fast enough rate to justify these increases without it backfiring.

We've seen robust job gains, low unemployment, rising after tax incomes and rising consumer sentiment among households that has increased consumer spending. Similarly, investment by businesses has continued to grow at a healthy rate.

Inflation is at about 2% for the first time in years, which is where the Fed likes it. Unemployment is around 4%, which is where most people consider "full employment". Wages are rising, but not fast enough to spark concerns of inflation.

In a recent Q&A session, Fed Chairman Jerome Powell referenced examples like those above and painted a largely positive picture of the economy which he said is expanding at an increasing pace and is being boosted by aggressive fiscal policy. Powell was first nominated to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors by President Obama in 2011 and name chairman by President Trump earlier this year.

So the market is a sign, but not a direct cause, IMO.

[palo5]

Originally Posted by Decadence

Most Americans are happy with this setup and it has, IMO served us well.

So... when your vote is given to someone else, or isn't even counted, that's ok is it?

No argument, it's your call

[SanteeFats]

Originally Posted by palo5

So... when your vote is given to someone else, or isn't even counted, that's ok is it?

No argument, it's your call

ALL votes are Supposed to be counted even write ins. Are they??? I don't know. I wrote in Kasich knowing it would not make a difference in the out come. Why?? My motto is if you don't vote don't bitch and if enough people do the same it might just serve as a warning to the assholes who do win.