GT40s.com Paddock Politics Thread

[Larry L.]

Look at what we have now...a POTUS who failed to get a majority of the votes cast and who most of THE MEDIA holds in "high disregard".

...and what group of people as a whole is more despised by the ordinary citizens of this country than they (aside from politicians, lawyers, used car salesmen and telemarketers...and the media probably trumps them as well)? Their far left agenda-driven BIAS has been demonstrated/proven r-e-p-e-a-t-e-d-l-y. Any agenda-less person needs to research no further back than this past election to very that as fact.

Surely we can (and should) do better with a popular vote process, REGARDLESS OF THE INTENTIONS OF OUR FOUNDING FATHERS(!!!)...There is no need to stick with a system that ignores the wishes of OVER half of the voting population...

As has been mentioned before, The Founders were both individually and collectively some of, if not THEE best minds ever assembled in this or any other country. The system of government they designed has worked well for 240 years or so. 'Twould be wise not to start unraveling its basic tenets. Especially one that ensures, to the degree it can, that the majority of states wouldn't be governed by a minority of same simply because the minority number of states had a bigger total population. IOW, The Founders wanted the whole country to be governed by laws the majority of states agreed to...not by the opinion du jour dictated by a handful of states.
:chug:

 

[Rod]

Sorry, am I missing something here? I thought the US election has been run and Trump is President elect, is he not?

I am getting the feeling that some people think, well, he's not REALLY the President because.. lalilalilali.

We had the same with the Scottish & EU Referendum's here. How big or small a margin of victory do you want to argue over? For example, is a one vote majority NOT a victory?

A similar stunt is pulled after a General Election here when it is argued that more people voted AGAINST the winning party, mainly because we have a multi party system. With our 'first past the post' system that often appears to be the case, but the winners will have a majority of elected MP's. All Govts in the UK going back over 100 years have been elected the same way so it's equal for everyone, but still we have the whiners who don't want to accept the result. I would have to say that it seems to be a trait of left wing parties in all cases I have mentioned.

Let's just get on with it I say. We live in critical times and there is not much time to lose...

If I've missed the thrust of the conversation, then I sincerely apologise but I've never been a particularly bright person..

Current Popular Vote Count:

Clinton 61,782,000
Trump 60,834,000

But Trump won the Electoral College, so he's our President-elect. With many votes still left to count in many cities at/around the coasts, the variance will grow.

While many will argue that people in Kansas or Iowa or New Hampshire would get ignored, if the US went to popular vote, certainly California was ignored in this election. And Trump lost CA by over 3,000,000 votes, so the argument is that people in CA just didn't go to the polls here, because they felt their vote wouldn't count. Heck, I almost decided not to vote, just like Doug because what's the point? Trump has virtually no chance of winning CA.

In fact, the one time that I remember Trump coming to CA for a campaign event, he had to jump some barbed wire or some type of fence or barrier to get from the freeway to the hotel in (Hyatt) Burlingame, because protesters were blocking his transportation on the freeway.

 

[Doug S.]

.....the majority of states wouldn't be governed by a minority of same simply because the minority number of states had a bigger total population. IOW, The Founders wanted the whole country to be governed by laws...not by the opinion du jour dictated by a handful of states.
:chug:

You sound pretty certain about that, Larry...for someone who was not around to gauge what the interest of the Founding Fathers was.

IMHO, the Founding Fathers "invented" (more like dreamed up) the Electoral College because it was the only way to get any idea of the representative percentages of votes cast for each candidate. Keep in mind that they did not have ANY form of long-distance technology at the time the FF were doing their thing....so, even though there was no way to determine the winner of a Presidential election on voting day, there WAS a way to determine how many people voted for which candidate once the Electoral College was assembled.

I believe (and just as strongly as you believe otherwise) that the Founding Fathers just wanted the desires of the voters in their representative areas to have their voice heard, do not believe for a moment that the Founding Fathers invoked a process which is so obviously flawed in order to satisfy some sort of "big state vs. little state" inequities.

Now, if you have some proof-positive that they did, I'd read it and take it under advisement regarding my views...but it would have to be quite definitive, and not just somebody's opinion (including yours, my :chug: friend!).

Cheers!

Doug

 

[Larry L.]

You sound pretty certain about that, Larry...for someone who was not around to gauge what the interest of the Founding Fathers was.

...and you WERE???

Now, if you have some proof-positive that they did...

Likewise, if you have some proof-positive they didn't...

 

[Scott Calabro]

Wow!

Where were all you "repeal the 12A" guys before the election?

It really sucks to lose doesn't it?

Hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha :laugh:

We live in a Constitutional Republic, not a straight democracy.

For crying out loud take a class on our form of government.

At the rate you guys are going the next thing you'll complain that we are a union of 50 states (57 according to BHO) and want to abolish those too and move to a single federal authority!

 

[Rod]

The movement has started for CA, WA, OR and states in the Northeast to join Canada. I'm a little unclear on how NV got an invitation. :laugh:

 

[Doug S.]

...and you WERE???

Likewise, if you have some proof-positive they didn't...

I was not...nor were you. Proving in SOME manner what the FF's DID mean would be a whole lot more convincing than proving they didn't do something, which would be difficult because there are SO MANY things that people don't do...nice try at diversion, though (to quote you, Larry!).

The burden of proof is on you... :stunned:

Scott, I've been advocating a repeal of the Electoral College for some time and regardless of which political party wins, adhering to the procedures of the Electoral College. I still believe it is an antiquated and unnecessary process.

There IS a movement afoot to abolish the Electoral College...just because you don't want that to be true does not make it false. I don't expect the Conservative movement to adopt the quest, though, because take a look at the past two popular votes that were overturned by the Electoral College...both candidates were the ones chosen by the Conservatives/Republicans. I guess it's hard to argue with success, even when the race is stolen by an antiquated (note that I did not claim "rigged", as would have the conservative candidate had he not been able to steal the win) election system.

Cheers!

Doug

 

[Larry L.]

I was not...nor were you. Proving in SOME manner what the FF's DID mean would be a whole lot more convincing than proving they didn't do something, which would be difficult because there are SO MANY things that people don't do...nice try at diversion, though (to quote you, Larry!).

WHAT "diversion"? That label clearly belongs on the obfuscation-filled gobbledygook I've quoted above...good grief! :stunned:

The burden of proof is on you...

...solely because you say so, I take it?

You've made your case. I've made mine. The reader(s) can decide whose view measures up to/matches real world reality.

I'll simply flat-out predict it'll be a cold day in hades when 2/3rds of the states vote to abolish the 'College (for the exact reasons I've previously outlined).

 

[Randy V]

The movement has started for CA, WA, OR and states in the Northeast to join Canada. I'm a little unclear on how NV got an invitation. :laugh:

Baloney...

 

[Doug S.]

The burden of proof is on you... :stunned:

Doug

...solely because you say so, I take it?

Well, of course, Larry...that is the way things work when you make unsupportable claims. Here, I'll illustrate:

During one or more of our political discussions, you make an unsupportable claim, say....for example, that you have some sort of extra-special understanding of the motivations of our Founding Fathers as regards the Electoral College. Realizing that your claim is just that, a claim, I call "Bullshirt" and challenge you to offer some proof, ANY proof, that your claim to know their reasoning is believable. You can't...end of story.

Now, if you'd throw in a few IMHOs (or even an IMO or two) it would be easier to cut you some slack...we're all entitled to opinions, but when you claim (or even imply) that you have some sort of unexplainable knowledge regarding the intentions of the FF's, well, when you're the one making the claims and they are challenged, it's up to you to support your claims.

Now, admittedly, history was not my favorite subject when I was in school, but my memory regarding my civics classes is that the reason the SENATE is set up as it is, with the smallest of states (or even "districts" such as DC) having the very same number of votes as the largest of states is exactly the reason you attribute to the organization of the Electoral College...to keep the populous states from running roughshod over the desires of the less populous states. I do not recall the Electoral College being set up as it is for that reason.

So...that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Now, on the other hand, if you have some information (for example, personal writings of one of the founding fathers with that information included) THAT would be the proof I ask you to provide.

If you can't, looks like it's a classical case of knowledge talks, bullshirt walks.

I'm certainly open to considering any proof you can offer, though...in fact, I'm anxious to see if there's something I missed in Mr. Fred Staker's social studies classes. He was the most incredible teacher I've ever known.

Cheers!!!

Doug

 

[Jeff Young]

The Electoral College came about because the FOunders wanted a buffer between the people and the President. They wanted the electors to have teh ability to reject someone compeltely unqualfied who was elected by the people.

Like, say...lol...

And no, I do not think the EC should do anything other than install Trump as President.

WITHIN the concept of the EC, to say the FOunders had a single intent as Larry is advocating is stupid.

Northern states wanted the number of electoral votes to exclude slaves.

Southern states wanted the number of electoral votes to be calcuated by including slaves.

Compromise: slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person. For our UK friends, no, I'm not kidding.

Big states wanted electoral votes calcualed solely on population.

Small states wanted electroral votes to be equally distributed between teh states.

Compromise: EC votes are calculated by teh number of members of teh House (by population) PLUS 2 for each state for each Senator (a set number).

Some of you guys show an appalling lack of understanding of our history and our constitutional history.

 

[Doug S.]

So...the larger states STILL manage to dictate the results of the election, since their electoral college "allotment" includes the number of representatives as well as senators for each state and the states with the higher population get more votes than, say, Kansas, with its sparse population. You're right, Jeff...I had never heard that.

So much for the EC keeping the populous states from dictating the results of an election, huh?

Cheers!

Doug

 

[Rod]

So...the larger states STILL manage to dictate the results of the election, since their electoral college "allotment" includes the number of representatives as well as senators for each state and the states with the higher population get more votes than, say, Kansas, with its sparse population. You're right, Jeff...I had never heard that.

So much for the EC keeping the populous states from dictating the results of an election, huh?

Cheers!

Doug

IMO, the election hinges on just a few states now, such as OH, PA, IA, NH, etc. The only time candidates campaign in every state is during the primaries, so every state has a chance to vote for their nominees. The EC just dampens voting since voters in CA, NY, MA, etc. know which way the state will go in terms of R or D.

If a few more states pass the "National Vote" legislation, then we'll get there without having to repeal the 12A.

1,044,000 difference in favor of Clinton as of now and keeps growing.

 

[40 Bud]

You all can argue the reasons the founding fathers wanted a system such as the electoral college but the attached map of the vote by congressional district might help some understand. Blue = democrat, Red = republican. Enjoy.

 

[Jeff Young]

I forget. Do "acres and acres of unoccupied land" have a vote in the election?

 

[Mike]

Are you going to take me up on that wager? Do you drink... wait stupid question. A box of your favorite wine to a 6pack of my favorite IPA that your president Trump is elected to a 2nd term overwhelmingly.

 

[Doug S.]

A box of your favorite wine to a 6pack of my favorite IPA that your president Trump is elected to a 2nd term overwhelmingly.

I wouldn't take that bet, Mike...we here in the US have a disturbing tendency to re-elect our POTUS for a second term...except for perhaps the most trustworthy and compassionate president we've had in a long time, Jimmy Carter :stunned: .

I fully expect Trump to be re-elected, just because it seems that it's what we do over here on this side of the pond. Doesn't mean that the POTUS has been a good one, or even that he tried, we just seem to HAVE TO re-elect them :veryangry:

Now, if you wanted to bet that Trump would win a Nobel prize like our present POTUS has, I'd gladly take that bet...but we both know the answer, Trump is nowhere the leader B.O. has been and never will be, no matter how many times we re-elect him.

Cheers!

Doug

 

[Doug S.]

You all can argue the reasons the founding fathers wanted a system such as the electoral college but the attached map of the vote by congressional district might help some understand. Blue = democrat, Red = republican. Enjoy.

And yet with all those red states...the opposition candidate has more votes than the candidate the Electoral College is going to appoint to be our leader, and the disparity is growing daily.

Sometimes it seems rather unbelievable that the reality of the situation is so untenable. We should be use to this bozo by now, he's all over the airwaves.

"Not my President"...correct, but oh, well...the pendulum will eventually swing back the other way, it always does. Seems people love to hate politicians, no matter how good (or BAD) they are.

Geez.....go figger.... :stunned:

Doug

 

[Larry L.]

1,044,000 difference in favor of Clinton as of now and keeps growing.

"What difference at this point does it make?" BOTH candidates sought to win the Electoral College vote total. THAT was the prize....and Trump won it - 306 to 232. Period. End of story. Both candidates would have followed completely different campaign strategies had the goal been to win the popular vote...so who knows what the vote totals would have been for either candidate in that case?

Continually checking to see what Billary's popular vote tally may be at the moment is akin to continually looking at that ooone wrong number on your other wise jackpot-winning lotto ticket and expecting that to somehow change the fact somebody else's ticket won.

 

[Doug S.]

Larry, IMHO this whole fiasco just illustrates how useless the EC is...but I did get a chuckle out of your analogy!

...and I do concede that the campaign strategy would have been different...but maybe not! If the EC vote is based on a combination of the number of senators each state has (the same!) as well as some factor related to the population of that state (changes every 10 years with the census!) then the candidates might as well just ignore every state except those with high populations. Isn't that EXACTLY the very situation you were mentioning was eliminated by the EC?

This mess gets messier and messier every time we turn around :thumbsdown:

Cheers!

Doug