Prince Harry and Meghan

  • Thread starter Thread starter cmodrmac
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hmm true. It’s an interesting comparison… as you say while starting at different points the end result has been in opposite directions. I feel the provincial BC government is more important to my life than the federal government. I care more about who is premier than who is prime minister.
 
ProVobis said:
With most of the campaigning done on Facebook, Twitter, and other social media, does it really matter how many times the candidate visits your area? This is 2018, not 1960.
Click to expand...
I’m well aware of the year. Are you well aware that both candidates were traveling and giving speeches daily? There really was little difference between the 2016 election campaign and Abraham Lincoln’s presidential campaign. Most voters don’t bother with useless sites like FB and Twitter. They don’t have the time or the inclination. Do you think a Kansas farmer who works sunup to sundown goes in and checks FB and Twitter? They don’t. Many don’t even have Internet access. Neither do the urban poor, and these people are the people the EC protects so their vote counts, too. All Twitter is doing is getting Trump in trouble because he can’t say he didn’t say something when he wrote it on Twitter so maybe that little site does have some purpose. Your post sounds like you’ve been listening to too much:“news chatter” about Twitter. Many Americans have no interest in the news, either, unless it impacts their own life.

From an Internet search: A new study by the Pew Internet and American Life Project found that 30 percent of respondents didn’t have a broadband connection at home, and 20 percent had no home internet access at all.Aug 26, 2013

I’m sure the candidates were well aware of the lack of Internet access to half of Americans. Sometimes they would visit three or four cities in one day, and except for a short break taken by Mrs. Clinton, they traveled and campaigned every single day.

No candidate, ever, is going to be able to motivate people to get out and vote, let alone for him or her, without appearing in person and generating some enthusiasm. That can’t be done from the Internet.

If I voted for Clinton (I didn’t vote for anyone, finding them all unacceptable) and the person in the next booth voted for Trump, an argument could be made that neither of our votes counted since we cancelled each other out, but such is not the case.
 
Last edited:
phil19034 said:
In the United States, the Constitutions grants the power to the States and the States allocates power the national government. And while not easy, the States can take power away from the federal (national) government.
Click to expand...
I don’t think people who live outside the US understand this concept. If they did, they would see the necessity of the EC in protecting the “little guy,” the poor urban voter or the Midwestern farmer or factory worker or even the Oregon logger so his or her vote counts, too. And yes, I agree, you are right about it being only within that particular state.
 
Last edited:
phil19034 said:
I used to object to the winner-take-all concept. I used to think that Maine and Nebraska had the right idea. Now, I’m not so sure.
Click to expand...
If all the states switched to a Maine and Nebraska concept, we’d have a plethora of candidates as well.

The Electoral College guarantees certainty to the outcome of the presidential election. If the election were based on popular vote, it would be possible for a candidate to receive the highest number of popular votes without actually obtaining a majority. [11] This happened with President Nixon in 1968 and President Clinton in 1992, when both men won the most electoral votes while receiving just 43% of the popular vote. [11] The existence of the Electoral College precluded calls for recounts or demands for run-off elections. The electoral process can also create a larger mandate to give the president more credibility; for example, President Obama received 51.3% of the popular vote in 2012 but 61.7% of the electoral votes. [14] In 227 years, the winner of the popular vote has lost the electoral vote only five times. [2] This proves the system is working.


I love the EC. I would not want to live in a state like Maine or Nebraska. I did live in Maine for a time, I went to college there for six years. So glad to be back in California!
 
Ah, Herman’s Hermits – my lost youth! Although I’m not actually as old as that song: it’s well over a hundred years old, the music hall signature tune of the great Harry Champion. That accounts for the somewhat underdeveloped lyrics, I think. 😁
 
ProVobis said:
Good points. I guess one of the things in favor of winner-take-all is an instant tally of Electoral votes. But I doubt if the methods of tallying votes were the most discussed issues of our forefathers. Or maybe they were.
Click to expand...
Winner takes all is not what the founding fathers created. That came later.

The founding fathers’ original version the Electoral College was that the State Leglistures elected the electors and that the electors voted for the President using the the information they had.

The founders created a more republican system. We have slowly created a more democratic system over the years.
 
Last edited:
Yes, on this we agree. Though I still want my local government to provide health care coverage ;)…
 
twf said:
Yes, on this we agree. Though I still want my local government to provide health care coverage ;)…
Click to expand...
I would like that only if I could choose my own doctor. If I couldn’t, then I just want reasonable insurance premiums.
 
ProVobis said:
Useless? FB had one of the biggest IPOs ever and alone has over 1 billion ACTIVE members. (ACTIVE = having logged on within the last 30 days)
Click to expand...
The Nazi Party had many members, too. Number of members doesn’t make it useful. I concede Twitter can be useful for government agencies, etc. getting information out fast.
 
Currently he is fifth in line, after Prince Charles, Prince William, Prince George and Princess Charlotte. And he wouldn’t lose his place in succession.
 
That’s not as bad as having it federalized.

People are funny that way----they’ll watch their cash flow more carefully at the state level than at the federal level.

I guess when you know that New York and Toronto won’t come to the rescue everytime, it changes things.
 
Each Province administers its own health care system, but the funding is a mix of federal and provincial. I would agree that maximizing local control is generally a good thing for this sort of service. I also would like to see a more fleshed out two-tier system so that those who are able to pay out of pocket can do so and not use up provincial resources.Sure, most people will go for the “free” option, but those who are fed up with waiting lines and have the money should be able to free up resources for those who can’t afford to pay…its the waiting lines that would act as motivation.
I consider myself a centrist:).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top