Prince Harry and Meghan

  • Thread starter Thread starter cmodrmac
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Elected monarchies have existed in various forms. The Monarchy of the Vatican City State is an elected monarchy.
If the hereditary monarchy must eventually go, why must the only alternative be a republic? I would be OK with an elected monarchy as long as it remained an apolitical office and it was for life (or a significantly long term)… candidates would be forbidden from belong to political parties.
 
Probably not from the same place Trump got his biggest electoral margin win since Reagan information.
 
Last edited:
so accepting all this arithmetic as “true”

what percentage of the popular vote did the dragon queen hillary get? 19.25% (?) mostly from her landslide victories in a few large Catholic blue US states 😦

DTrump clearly won the electoral vote; and that is how national elections are decided in USA

like it or lump it 😉
 
Last edited:
Seriously? You do not believe the number of popular votes?


https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/popular-vote/



I am taking the well known number of popular votes / the number of citizens for a pure statistic of how many Americans were willing to go and say that “I want Donald Trump to be President”.

The bottom line number.

The stats will change when you factor in those who are incarcerated or did not register or other things, but, fewer than 20% of Americans voted for Donald Trump.
 
4.3m more in California, but nearly 3m more nationwide: the greatest margin ever achieved by a losing candidate, I’m told.

The electoral college in the US is an odd idea — you can see its original purpose, and there is nothing in theory against indirect election if the college applies some extra wisdom or special representation to the decision, but the US college seems simply to exist to warp the outcome. Does anyone among you US-ians think it has outlived its usefulness?
 
PickyPicky said:
4.3m more in California, but nearly 3m more nationwide: the greatest margin ever achieved by a losing candidate, I’m told.

The electoral college in the US is an odd idea — you can see its original purpose, and there is nothing in theory against indirect election if the college applies some extra wisdom or special representation to the decision, but the US college seems simply to exist to warp the outcome. Does anyone among you US-ians think it has outlived its usefulness?
Click to expand...
Outlived its usefulness? No. It is still very much needed today. Perhaps you don’t understand exactly how it works or why it exists? Many Americans don’t understand
why it is necessary either, but it is.
 
They only understand it if their candidate or team wins. They care little about the handicaps (such as in golf or bowling) or some lazy winner-take-all concepts that enabled them to win.

If there is one thing I don’t understand is why certain citizens such as those living in U.S. territories aren’t allowed to vote in national elections. Yes, I know, it ALL DEPENDS ON WHERE YOU LIVE. Crazy.
 
Last edited:
ProVobis said:
They only understand it if their candidate or team wins. They care little about the handicaps (such as in golf or bowling) or some lazy winner-take-all concepts that enabled them to win.
Click to expand...
Trump was not my candidate. I loathe him. Clinton was not my choice, either. I didn’t vote and decided to simply make the best of whoever won.

If the US didn’t have the Electoral College, then the needs and wants of some would be catered to to, while the needs and wants of others would be ignored. After all, no one would need minority groups to win. Why give a hoot what they want or need? This was shown very clearly in the 2016 election. Trump won “little” state after “little” state, while Mrs. Clinton won the large states, i.e., California and New York. Trump’s win illustrates that the “little” man or minorities can and do elect presidents. Their voices matter.

Trump also won states in the so-called “Rust Belt” that have traditionally voted for Democratic candidates. He won the presidency because he was able to persuade a diverse group of Americans that he was the best candidate to see to their needs. He was able to convince both urban and rural voters, rich and poor, and some who usually vote for the other major party. Mrs. Clinton could only convince the wealthy and the very liberal. So which candidate represents the whole, diverse group of Americans better? Clearly, Trump. At least in theory.
 
Last edited:
PickyPicky said:
The electoral college in the US is an odd idea — you can see its original purpose, and there is nothing in theory against indirect election if the college applies some extra wisdom or special representation to the decision, but the US college seems simply to exist to warp the outcome. Does anyone among you US-ians think it has outlived its usefulness?
Click to expand...
No, the Electoral College is very important and is genius. The reason is because the United States is not 1 unitary state. We are a federation of 50 states.

Without the electoral college, the Urban and Suburban areas will rule the country and rural interests will be ignored. The electoral college balances this out with the winner takes all system and by granting larger states more electrical votes than small states.

But it gives rural America a voice.

The founding fathers knew of the problem with direct democracy, and that’s why they purposefully didn’t allow it. The Electoral College was created so states like Delaware and New Jersey (which was small then) didn’t feel they were ruled by Virginia and Pennsylvania (the original big states)

Also, it’s important to know that when the nation was founded, the public did not vote for the president. The electors were elected by the state legislators, not the public. The founding fathers knew that majority rule could become mob rule, which is why the system was built to protect (to a degree) the minority view.

The Electoral College is just one of the checks and balances against the majority that the constitution created. Other things include 2/3rds votes in the Congress, etc.

In theory, without the Electoral college, the larger political party would win almost every single presidential election, and the United States would change from a two party system to a “Dominant Party System” (which is basically a one party system in practice) Dominant-party system - Wikipedia

So that’s why the Electoral College is important.
 
Last edited:
Well (and I admit I am very ignorant of American politics) it seems to me it actually gives a voice to a relatively small number of swing states, where in fact candidates concentrate their efforts (or are daft if they don’t).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top