What do you think about Hillary Clinton? or Bill Clinton?

[Peeps]

The U.S. is not a democracy, it’s a republic. The States have rights.

 

[Peeps]

Do you really think the Clintons are gone?

I think Pres. Clinton is probably finished with running for any public office, and I sincerely hope that Secy. Clinton is finished.

But Chelsea is doing a good job of making herself popular with the women, and I think it’s very likely that she will eventually enter politics. Even though she’s very far to the left (if you read any women’s magazines), she comes across as more moderate than many Democrats, thanks to the sympathy of the press.

I just hope they don’t try to run her for President when she is so young and inexperienced. IMO, this was Pres. Obama’s biggest weakness–he simply didn’t have enough experience to know how to get along with people who didn’t agree with him. If they had given him another ten years of actually working as a Senator (instead of spending all his Senate time campaigning), I think he might have accomplished more during his eight years in office. He spent so much of his time butting heads with more experienced politicians.

Seriously, I don’t think the Clintons are history yet.

 

[ZMystiCat]

Yes , that last one is a bit confusing . I always thought that in a democracy the one who gets the most votes wins . Very odd .

One thing I found a bit humorous about the whole ordeal is that, during the election, the Democratic Party was criticized for their superdelegate system, which could have conceivably created the same scenario within the party. Basically, as Sanders fans feared, Sanders could win, but if he didn’t win by enough, the overwhelming support of the superdelegates for Clinton could push her ahead of Sanders despite the results from the constituents.

Of course, once the election results came in and it turned out that Clinton lost despite popular support for her, the Democrats lashed out at the idea that such a scenario could happen. No, they did not possess the necessary levels of self-awareness to realize what they were saying, but that basically dominated much of their post-election rage.

 

[guanophore]

I think Pres. Clinton is probably finished with running for any public office, and I sincerely hope that Secy. Clinton is finished.

This being the case, why waste any energy talking about it?

But Chelsea is doing a good job of making herself popular with the women, and I think it’s very likely that she will eventually enter politics.

I guess we will have to cross that bridge if we come to it…or burn it!

 

[usinner]

Described this well

 

[Rob2]

The U.S. is not a democracy, it’s a republic. The States have rights.

So it was alright that Hillary Clinton got 3 million more votes than Donald Trump in the 2016 Presidential Election because America is a republic .

So America is not a democracy but a republic . However , accepting that , is the American Republic democratic ?

Perhaps the system in the UK has similarities to the American system .

One could say that the UK is not a democracy . Rather it is a monarchy with a parliamentary democracy .

However , when the UK has a referendum such as it had regarding membership of the EU , the result is straightforward , though the result is not binding on Parliament . It was general vote by the electorate on a single political question which has been referred to them for a direct decision. The option gaining the most votes wins over the option with the fewer votes .

Is a referendum such as this not similar to an American presidential election in which the voters have a single political question , namely which of these do you choose tp be president ? I accept that , unlike a referendum , there may be more than one candidate , but the outcome would be straightforward . The one who got the most votes would win .

 

[ZMystiCat]

So it was alright that Hillary Clinton got 3 million more votes than Donald Trump in the 2016 Presidential Election because America is a republic .

It’s pretty hard to declare it right or wrong. The electoral college system was put in place for a couple reasons.

First, many of the U.S.'s founders didn’t trust the general population. They viewed the general population as easily manipulated either by a domestic tyrant or a foreign power. The electoral college was intended to provide a separation between this “easily manipulable” general populous and the challenge of selecting a President. Considering recent events, this seems to have been a failure.

Second, and much more importantly, it was a concession made to smaller states. A popular vote system heavily favors the larger states. For instance, states like California, Texas, and Florida could easily drown out any voice smaller states like Wyoming or Hawaii could have. While these larger states still ultimately have more say, the affect of the population difference is diminished.

Basically, the recent debate is just rehashing old ground. A large state, in this case California, is complaining that the vote of each individual citizens is diminished in comparison to the vote of each individual citizen in a smaller state (e.g. Wyoming). Of course, if the U.S. went pure democracy, smaller states would complain that their citizens’ voices and interests are drowned out by the larger states. Now you could have a system where every state has an equal number of electoral votes, but then the larger states would really start complaining. As a result, the current system was made as a compromise.

Now whether or not it is good is hard to say. The obvious complaint is that each individual vote is more or less powerful based on where someone lives. The major counterpoint, though, is that each state should be looking after the rights of its own citizens and that the federal government should be looking after the various interests across all the states. In other words, California’s government is responsible for making sure that their massive population is taken care of, and Montana’s government is responsible for making sure that their small population is taken care of. The federal government, however, shouldn’t focus solely on California at the expense of Montana.

Whether it is good or not, though, it is unlikely to change. Being part of the Constitution, it will require a 75% majority of states to change. As already mentioned, smaller states are unlikely to permit a pure democracy because it naturally works against them.

 

[dochawk]

Hawk, he wasn’t a wonderful guy. He was a kind of a ‘me’ person and I would guess he was raised that way.

Oh, don’t take anything I wrote as being positive about him as a person!

He and congress raided S. S.

From date 1, SS has beeb limited to holding its funds in a treasury bonds. It has all gone in, and is all there.

that ss is included as part of the budget is a completely separate fraud, but it’s nt because anything is missing.

and S. S. has been mislabeled as entitlements.

As the word is used for the federal budget, it is an entitlement. That basically means it can’t be removed.

Yes , that last one is a bit confusing . I always thought that in a democracy the one who gets the most votes wins . Very odd .

The United Staes is not, has never been, and by the grace of God never will be a democracy. It is a federation of republics and commonwealths.

It is by design that smaller states get a disproportionate voice in selection of the president. That, sometimes, a person with less popular votes sometimes wins is how it is supposed to work.

Also, there is no reason, outside of the reelections of Nixon, Reagan, and Obama, to think that the same person would have won the popular vote in any of the elections in the past half century if that had been what mattered. Just for example, it is wasteful for a republican presidential candidate to spend a dime in California. It would be cheaper for him to pick up a million votes there than a hundred thousand in a competitive state, but it would be a waste of resources. Similarly for democrats in deep red states.

To be clear: other than those three re-elections, there is no reason to believe that if the popular vote mattered, the same candidate would have won the popular vote in any presidential election of the last century.

Of course, once the election results came in and it turned out that Clinton lost despite popular support for her, the Democrats lashed out at the idea that such a scenario could happen.

ISTR that in the days before the election, there were actually pundits explaining that she could win the electoral vote even if she lost the popular vote.

There was only one major statistician taking the possibility that she would lose seriously in the week before the election (and he gave her a 2/3 chance of winning).

hawk, with a ph.d. in statistics and economics, who finds the statistics of it all more interesting than the economics (and, as a member of a small state, would support succession before giving up his equal senatorial representation by shifting to a popular vote for president!)

 

[Rob2]

Thanks @ZMystiCat for your explanation .

This electoral college , does it exist , and if it does do its members meet to vote ?

 

[usinner]

No this is not a demonacraticy it is a constitutional Republic country.

 

[usinner]

Yes that does explain it . nice reading!

 

[ZMystiCat]

Yes, and theoretically, the elector could choose to not vote for who they were chosen to vote for, provided no state law prevents this. In practice, it’s very, very rare for an elector to do this.