billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Nov 28, 2017 10:06:51 GMT -5
"Because of quota" it's hoped that states would stop picking Republicans and Democrats... and instead pick PEOPLE, not PARTY. "Hoped" is a big word. So, let's say voters chose 45% republicans, 40% democrats and 15% other. How does it work? Do each of the three factions each have 1/3rd power? That is my understanding. Also a one third split if we got to the point in which the voters chose 15% Republicans, 10% Democrats, and 75% others.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 28, 2017 11:17:23 GMT -5
how did this end up being a thread about elections and parties?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 0:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2017 12:26:54 GMT -5
There is a process to amend the Constitution. You will need the votes to do this. The primary process isn't dictated by the constitution. I'm not sure if we are talking about the general. I don't like the primary system on either side. Too few states get to actually have a say in it. The way I understand it, the parties don't even have to follow the votes and just decide for themselves, super delegates etc. (sorry, I didn't realize you were talking about the primary only)
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 0:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2017 12:31:14 GMT -5
how did this end up being a thread about elections and parties? Because the chance of a thread staying on topic is actually quite low ?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 28, 2017 14:36:20 GMT -5
how did this end up being a thread about elections and parties? Because the chance of a thread staying on topic is actually quite low ? i was hoping for something more specific than that. was it Richard?
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,439
|
Post by thyme4change on Nov 28, 2017 14:37:56 GMT -5
The primary process isn't dictated by the constitution. I'm not sure if we are talking about the general. I don't like the primary system on either side. Too few states get to actually have a say in it. The way I understand it, the parties don't even have to follow the votes and just decide for themselves, super delegates etc. (sorry, I didn't realize you were talking about the primary only) I'm not sure what we were talking about. But my comments were about the primary, so not a complaint about the constitution - although I have complaints about the electoral college too, but it isn't worth it. The reality is the way we get to our final two candidates is flawed. In 2016, we had one candidate who the party hated, but the process over-rode them vs. the other candidate who the party loved, but was disliked by a large portion of the general population.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Nov 28, 2017 15:32:41 GMT -5
... ... In 2016, we had one candidate who the party hated, but the process over-rode them vs. the other candidate who the party loved, but was disliked by a large portion of the general population. I agree it is flawed however I have yet to see a proposal for a system that does not have its own major issues.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 28, 2017 16:53:55 GMT -5
... ... In 2016, we had one candidate who the party hated, but the process over-rode them vs. the other candidate who the party loved, but was disliked by a large portion of the general population. I agree it is flawed however I have yet to see a proposal for a system that does not have its own major issues. how about eliminating the primary system. see any issues with that?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Nov 28, 2017 17:31:30 GMT -5
I agree it is flawed however I have yet to see a proposal for a system that does not have its own major issues. how about eliminating the primary system. see any issues with that? So there is this need: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: ...
...
The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, ... I am open to hearing any plan for meeting that Constitutional requirement. Do you have one?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 28, 2017 18:06:07 GMT -5
how about eliminating the primary system. see any issues with that? So there is this need: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: ...
...
The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, ... I am open to hearing any plan for meeting that Constitutional requirement. Do you have one? that provision has nothing to do with primaries. did you get enough sleep last night?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Nov 28, 2017 18:26:29 GMT -5
So there is this need: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: ...
...
The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, ... I am open to hearing any plan for meeting that Constitutional requirement. Do you have one? that provision has nothing to do with primaries. did you get enough sleep last night? Yah. Sorry. Focused on the end result which is the only thing that must take place. There is no requirement for a general public election. There is no requirement for there to be individual presidential candidates. There is no requirement for there to be party nominees. There is no requirement for there to be primary elections. Not having the primary elections is something I would consider. Not having party nominees is something I would consider. Having no individual presidential candidates is something I would consider. Having no general public election is something I would consider. But the bottom line is I would like to read a full process that ends in each state appointing "a Number of Electors" to consider before considering dumping any or all of the steps in the current process.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 28, 2017 21:19:05 GMT -5
i'd like the presidential process to be shortened to (9) months, as well. what we do in the US is totally nuts. but, as i have said before, i don't really care that much any more. i don't have to put up with it. as soon as i save up enough from my tax break to buy a place outside the US, i am out of here.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 0:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2017 1:36:37 GMT -5
.. For ease of numbers, let's use the Senate (which has 100 members, not counting the VP who only votes in the case of ties): if (for example) there were 53 Republican Senators, 44 Democrat Senators, and 3 "Independent" Senators... the Republican's votes would each count for .6226415 votes. The Democrat's votes would count for .75 votes each. The Independent's votes would count for 11 votes each. The formula is simple, 33% (or, in the case of the Senate, which we are using for the preceding example, simply 33) divided by the number of Senators per group. As the years go by and the party numbers change, the percentages are adjusted appropriately. So with the current Senate, Republicans would have a third of the votes, Democrats a third, Senator King a sixth, and Senator Sanders a sixth. With the current members... yes.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 0:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2017 1:41:43 GMT -5
"Because of quota" it's hoped that states would stop picking Republicans and Democrats... and instead pick PEOPLE, not PARTY. Except under 1/3 rule, the Democrats and Republicans would have one third of the power even if the people elected only one of them somewhere/anywhere in the country. Not necessarily... Remember, the suggestion was "no party could have more than 33%"... It wasn't "The Democrats get 33%, and the Republicans get 33%, and the rest go to whomever...". If the Democrats got 22% and the Republicans got 19%, and the Green Party got 12%, and the Libertarians got 25% and the Reform Party got 9% and the "independents" (NOT AFFILIATED WITH any PARTY) got the rest... it would still work because "no party would have more than 33%".
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 0:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2017 1:44:48 GMT -5
Here's another idea: Take names and parties off of ballots. Instead have each politician list THREE verifiable "pros" (in their opinion) for why they should be voted for, and voters have to pick based on VERIFIED "pros". The "pro" can be anything that's provably factually true about themselves (like: Voted for {or against} {some well known thing}, Religion {if they think it more important that qualifications}, Member of {some organisation like Rotary Club}) Expanding that: Allow each balloted candidate to ALSO state ONE verifiable "con" (in their opinion) about each of their opponents (will appear on each opponent's ballot space, unattributed as to who provided it), for why they SHOULDN'T be voted for, on the ballot (like: [opposition 1] Voted against {or for} {some well known thing}, [opposition 2] Accused of sexual assault numerous times, [opposition 3] Uses Twitter too much, et cetera...) Okay but once @richardintn is no longer around, how can these be "VERIFIED" as fact and not just opinion? Funny. But to answer the question... the same way that they would be verified while @richardintn is still around... by them actually being recorded as provable facts, and someone on the voter-board/office-of-the-Registrar/whatever looking them up to see that they are, indeed, facts.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 0:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2017 13:17:17 GMT -5
Because the chance of a thread staying on topic is actually quite low ? i was hoping for something more specific than that. was it Richard? It was.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 1, 2017 14:25:22 GMT -5
so, the bullshit is now being hollered from the top of the hill. meanwhile, they are getting ready to vote for a $1T deficit. go team go!
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,439
|
Post by thyme4change on Dec 1, 2017 15:07:06 GMT -5
how about eliminating the primary system. see any issues with that? So there is this need: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: ...
...
The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, ... I am open to hearing any plan for meeting that Constitutional requirement. Do you have one? Changing from primary to general election, does the US constitution state that all electors from a state have to vote for the same candidate? Proportional delegations would solve my problem.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Dec 1, 2017 16:19:18 GMT -5
So there is this need: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: ...
...
The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, ... I am open to hearing any plan for meeting that Constitutional requirement. Do you have one? Changing from primary to general election, does the US constitution state that all electors from a state have to vote for the same candidate? Proportional delegations would solve my problem. Here are the applicable parts of US Constitution (highlighted parts I will refer: 2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
Note 8: Article 2 Section 1 Clause 3 has been superseded by Amendment XII.
[Article XII] (Amendment 12 - Election of President)
The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;—The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;—The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.14 —The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
4: The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States. It clearly states that lists include "... persons ...", a plural noun, so they are not required to all vote for the same person. It clearly states that state Legislatures are in control of the selection process, so a state legislature could set up a system for proportional appointing of the Electors from their state. There is no provision for the Federal government to dictate to the entirety of the states that they do so. State constitutions frequently have provisions for the selection process.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 2, 2017 14:53:53 GMT -5
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 2, 2017 14:55:43 GMT -5
So there is this need: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: ...
...
The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, ... I am open to hearing any plan for meeting that Constitutional requirement. Do you have one? Changing from primary to general election, does the US constitution state that all electors from a state have to vote for the same candidate? Proportional delegations would solve my problem. it wouldn't solve 100% of it, but it would solve enough of it to make it virtually impossible for the shenanegans that happened last year to happen again.
|
|
Rukh O'Rorke
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 10,086
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on Dec 2, 2017 15:03:12 GMT -5
a complex description of the mathematical properties of trickle down...it can work, according to this description, but it will take time.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 2, 2017 15:22:13 GMT -5
sure, it "works", in the sense that guns, booze, and nuclear weapons work. but at what cost?
"working" is not a good standard. "working better than other activity" is a better one.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,193
|
Post by tallguy on Dec 2, 2017 15:23:32 GMT -5
We've got the same article in a thread on Politics. I encourage everyone to read it. The last two sentences: And to your comment, I have said on more than one thread that either they believe in trickle-down in which case they are too stupid to remain in office, or they don't believe but promote it anyway, in which case they are too corrupt to remain in office. F*** all of them!
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Dec 2, 2017 15:43:58 GMT -5
We've got the same article in a thread on Politics. I encourage everyone to read it. The last two sentences: And to your comment, I have said on more than one thread that either they believe in trickle-down in which case they are too stupid to remain in office, or they don't believe but promote it anyway, in which case they are too corrupt to remain in office. F*** all of them! I don’t think they are stupid. I think they are corrupt and greedy. But they get voted in by morons who think they’ll ban abortion.
|
|
Rukh O'Rorke
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 10,086
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on Dec 2, 2017 15:53:04 GMT -5
sure, it "works", in the sense that guns, booze, and nuclear weapons work. but at what cost? "working" is not a good standard. "working better than other activity" is a better one. watch the video to see how it works....
|
|