Prince Harry and Meghan

  • Thread starter Thread starter cmodrmac
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
PickyPicky said:
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).
Click to expand...
With the Electoral College, even small states like Delaware and Rhode Island wield some power and have a voice. However, one of the College’s cons, as seen by some, is that it gives the swing states too much power. Actually they have no more power than if they were not swing states, but the candidates do spend an inordinate amount of time in them. Both Trump and Clinton spent much time in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, for example. But that does not equate to power. Trump didn’t even bother to campaign in deeply blue California. He knew it was going to go for Mrs. Clinton no matter what. She could have been in solitary in Sing Sing and still won California.
 
I’m inclined to think that if Americans are not dissatisfied with the system they should be allowed to keep it, which I think is particularly generous of me.🙂

The arguments in its favour do not seem to me convincing, but strangely my views seem not to sway the matter.

Good evening to you, CL, I’m off to do some reading.
 
PickyPicky said:
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).
Click to expand...
No, but the swing states do become important.
 
PickyPicky said:
The arguments in its favour do not seem to me convincing, but strangely my views seem not to sway the matter.
Click to expand...
I think you have to live here to really understand its advantages. If it were not for the Electoral College, folks in states like Alaska, North and South Dakota, Kansas, etc. would have no voice at all. Minorities would have no one who cared about their needs and wants because the majority would elect a president. With the Electoral College, the owner of a small farm would have a vote just as important as that of a multimillionaire city dweller.

Hope you enjoy your reading. 🙂
 
PickyPicky said:
The arguments in its favour do not seem to me convincing, but strangely my views seem not to sway the matter.
Click to expand...
But you also don’t live in a Federation and you have a parliamentary system of government.

You don’t have a two party, federal system. So I can totally understand why it’s hard to envision it.

You also don’t have 5 different parliaments (1 for each England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland and then 1 for the United Kingdom). We have 51 legislatures, 51 executives, and 51 judicial systems (not including the ones we have for our territories). One for each of the 50 states and then one for the federal govt.

The United States form of government is more like the “United Federation of Planets” in Star Trek than we are to system of government in the United Kingdom (monarchy aside).

 
Last edited:
It’s not the Electoral College I have a problem with. That’s part of the Constitution. What isn’t part of the Constitution is the winner-take-all concept that 48 states follow. It ended up with Republican votes in California and Democratic votes in Texas, for examples, not counting at all. Mathematically Clinton could have won by 30M+ votes (some say 50M) and still have lost the electoral college. Should we let the current process continue till it hits that kind of extreme?
 
ConstantLearner said:
With the Electoral College, the owner of a small farm would have a vote just as important as that of a multimillionaire city dweller.
Click to expand...
Only within the same state. There is very little equity between the value of one vote from one state to another.
 
Last edited:
You don’t have to go that far to mark the difference and the reason for that difference. Canada is, like the United States, and unlike the UK, a federation. But unlike the US, we, like the UK, do not directly elect our head of government…there is no equivalent in either the UK or Canada to a US presidential election. Canadians elect our local provincial parliaments and our federal parliament, and Brits elect their parliament, and in both cases the head of government is determined by the party that wins the most seats. At least in Canada (and I assume in the UK as well), in each local riding (electoral district), the winner takes all, so rural areas and smaller Provinces still get a voice, as the leader of the party that wins the most ridings becomes premier / prime minister… completely different system, but I don’t think the concept of an electoral college should be that foreign to those of us used to the Westminster parliamentary system.
 
ConstantLearner said:
Actually they have no more power than if they were not swing states, but the candidates do spend an inordinate amount of time in them. Both Trump and Clinton spent much time in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, for example. But that does not equate to power. Trump didn’t even bother to campaign in deeply blue California.
Click to expand...
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.
 
phil19034 said:
The founding fathers knew of the problem with direct democracy, and that’s why they purposefully didn’t allow it.
Click to expand...
Wasn’t part of the reason that slaves were only given a fraction of a vote?
 
Last edited:
ProVobis said:
ncept that 48 states follow. It ended up with Republican votes in California and Democratic votes in Texas, for examples, not counting at all. Mathematically Clinton could have won by
Click to expand...
ProVobis said:
40.png
phil19034:
The founding fathers knew of the problem with direct democracy, and that’s why they purposefully didn’t allow it.
Click to expand...
Wasn’t part of the reason that slaves were only given a fraction of a vote?
Click to expand...
No. Slaves didn’t have a vote. The slave states wanted salves to count as people for the electronic college and for seats in the US House.

Free states objected because slaves were denied citizenship by the slave states, etc.

Eventually, a compromise was agreed to that counted slaves as 1/3 of a person.
 
Well, eventually those slaves became citizens with full rights as persons.
 
ProVobis said:
It’s not the Electoral College I have a problem with. That’s part of the Constitution. What isn’t part of the Constitution is the winner-take-all concept that 48 states follow. It ended up with Republican votes in California and Democratic votes in Texas, for examples, not counting at all. Mathematically Clinton could have won by 30M+ votes (some say 50M) and still have lost the electoral college. Should we let the current process continue till it hits that kind of extreme?
Click to expand...
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.


If all the votes would have been the same, and if all 50 states did it the way Maine and Nebraska do it, Romney would have beat Obama.

The winner takes all solution actually helps the Democrats in today’s political climate. Switching to Maine & Nebraska helps Republicans.

And going to a percentage of popular vote is not too much different from a straight out popular vote.
 
I do think the lyrics could have been a little more developed, but nonetheless, I’m sure Henry would have laughed…or caught all those boys heads off…maybe both. idk
 
twf said:
You don’t have to go that far to mark the difference and the reason for that difference. Canada is, like the United States, and unlike the UK, a federation. But unlike the US, we, like the UK, do not directly elect our head of government…there is no equivalent in either the UK or Canada to a US presidential election. Canadians elect our local provincial parliaments and our federal parliament, and Brits elect their parliament, and in both cases the head of government is determined by the party that wins the most seats. At least in Canada (and I assume in the UK as well), in each local riding (electoral district), the winner takes all, so rural areas and smaller Provinces still get a voice, as the leader of the party that wins the most ridings becomes premier / prime minister… completely different system, but I don’t think the concept of an electoral college should be that foreign to those of us used to the Westminster parliamentary system.
Click to expand...
Yes, Canada is a federation, but it’s not quite the same as the USA.

In the United States, the Constitutions grants the power to the States and the States allocate power the national government. And while not easy, the States can take power away from the federal (national) government.

In Canada, it’s the other way around.

http://faculty.marianopolis.edu/c.belanger/quebechistory/federal/compare.htm

Granted, Canada has become less centralized and the US more centralized, but you can see they are both coming from opposite starting points.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top