Electoral College: Closer to being gone than you think
- Thread starter ichab
- Start date
Except she won the popular vote by almost 3 million. Besides many buisness people are just as courrupt as Politicans. And a creep is someone who boasts about grabbing peoples private parts.
It's not about setting qualifications or criteria, it's about the process. Elections are Darwinian, and the pressures applied determine what kind of candidates survive and are ultimately elected. The current process selects for politicians who are backed by the biggest and baddest special-interest groups (i.e. Right Wingnuts and Left Wingnuts) and who are really, really good at getting elected-- it does not select for competency or ethics or any other positive quality. This, by extension, creates binary cultural extremism where people are forced to choose sides, creating what is called the Culture War-- but which is really a Cult War. But if we have a system where people can rank the candidates, there will be a wider selection of options and people will be free to vote for more positive qualities, rather than just voting against the tribe that they hate.
Indeed, it was the intention of the Founding Fathers to create a society of well-educated people who govern themselves. We currently have neither of those things. In fact, very little has been done in the last 200+ years to move closer to that goal.
Yep. The people didn't chose Trump; the system did.
That said, I'll just repost myself from another part of the board:
The statement that Hillary would have won the Presidency in a popular election is really meaningless. You could say that Hillary would have won this election, if you changed how the votes were counted after they were cast, from EC to popular, but frankly when you put it like that, changing the rules after the election, it sounds hardly fair. The only way to know would have been to have an election where going in all the voters would have been informed what the rules were going to be in time to appreciate how it was now going to be different, not at all what happened in 2016.
That's me agreeing with another poster who was pointing out that eliminating the electoral college would likely change voting patterns. I also said: "If you took away the electoral college and went to a straight popular vote for President, then many peoples' assessment that their votes don't matter would no doubt change. It's entirely possible that participation would increase."
Sure that's taken for granted and I'm sure I've made a similar point myself in the various threads we've had about elections. There is no such thing as a perfect system each system has it's pros and cons. Under the popular system the smaller population US states might get overlooked as the most populas states are targeted in order to win the most votes.
Gotta differ with you there. If it were taken for granted, then there wouldn't be so many people walking around thinking that Hillary would have won in a popular election. If it were taken for granted, people would know that that's simply not known.
It's known that she could have won in a popular election, no question. But no one can say with any kind of credibility what the odds would have been, because such a system is so different than the way the landscape actually lies. Heck, Trump's victory itself under the way things are came as a shock to most people.
How charmingly eloquent.
If memory serves, they were both adults and it was also consenting.
As for Thump, are we sure he has any concept of consent or personal boundaries going by its past comments.
Well, I remember an article that said that TNG was "white America in space." Bill Maher not only put down Mars advocates but last night put down superhero movies. Trek shows technology helping the future--the unabomber came at things from the other point of view. There was an episode of Voyager that seemed to take the side of pilots in Vietnam--the one where Beltran's character was brainwashed by natives. Some trek novels are libertarian. Something for everyone I suppose...
I'm having a hard time following the bouncing ball, there.
Well, I had no trouble discerning that. I'm having a hard time finding a specific and relevant connection between Star Trek, the Unabomber, and Bill Maher, is the thing.
She wondered why right wingers like Trek. Well--space exploration might be seen as a male, penetrative act by some.
In the past, when Bush 41 was pro-space, Democrats became anti-space. And vice versa. There are some Bible thumpers who see space shows and space travel as a waste.
The point was that Trek appeals to all types of folks.
In the past, when Bush 41 was pro-space, Democrats became anti-space. And vice versa. There are some Bible thumpers who see space shows and space travel as a waste.
The point was that Trek appeals to all types of folks.
Was the Unabomber a Star Trek fan? Because I really don't see what he has to do with tea in China.
Perhaps, but he did so consensually which is why Monica is still trying to escape from the shame.
The fact is the last election gave us two less than ideal choices. It's not a binary good/bad equation here. But considering that Trump is probably going to get impeached if he doesn't start WWIII first, I'd say Hillary would have been the lesser of two evils.
I would agree with that, considering how blatant Trek's politics are, but at the same time, people see what they want to see in art, like an inkblot. In my experience the more right-winger Trek fans are DS9 fans because it was a war story and had more shades of gray.
Kirk is a JFK style liberal. Picard is more of a Phil Donahue liberal (outside of First Contact when he went berzerk).