Friendly reminder: The U.S. is a REPRESENTATIVE Democracy, NOT a direct democracy

a reply to: kalisdad

They will never allow it unless we can somehow change the electoral rules per state

Any suggestions to that end?

I have one. Figure out how to not appear so odd and gain more voters.

a reply to: Phage

Although it is possible for an Elector to cast his or her vote for someone other than for the popular vote winner in their state, this is quite rare in modern times. As a result, Electoral Votes for a state tend to be "all or nothing". Maine and Nebraska have taken a slightly different approach in recent years. These states allocate two Electoral Votes to the popular vote winner, and then one each to the popular vote winner in each Congressional district (2 in Maine, 3 in Nebraska) in their state. This creates multiple popular vote contests in these states, which could lead to a split Electoral Vote. The popular vote winner of a state must win* at least one of the districts. That is why (in our website and App maps) you cannot assign all the district Electoral Votes to the losing party in the state. Note that since these rules were adapted, Maine has never split its Electoral Votes. However, in 2008, Nebraska did for the first time, as Barack Obama won the 2nd Congressional District (Omaha and its suburbs), gaining a Democratic Electoral Vote in Nebraska for the first time since 1964. == State legislatures decide how to allocate Electoral College votes. There have been occasional efforts to change allocation methods over the years.

www.270towin.com...

Now if we can just get the other 48 states to follow suit, then maybe we'll have ourselves a fairer system

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: kalisdad

They will never allow it unless we can somehow change the electoral rules per state

Any suggestions to that end?

I have one. Figure out how to not appear so odd and gain more voters.

Thats the point though. With the current two party system and the winner takes all electorate, no third party voter ever sees any results.(Which is why after years of being an (I) in the senate, Mr. Sanders suddenly switch to a (D) for the 2016 presidential nomination) Once we start seeing proportional electorates in the national media, it'll give more power to the third party voters. While it might take a generation to gain strength, eventually there will be more and more 3rd parties winning national elections because we'll see first hand that each election cycle our votes are making a difference

Off topic, I'm happy to be that odd, creepy dude that very few people can agree with. And I'll never change my ways to appease the masses

a reply to: kalisdad

While it might take a generation to gain strength, eventually there will be more and more 3rd parties winning national elections because we'll see first hand that each election cycle our votes are making a difference
.

I think the first step to credibility would be in demonstrating the viability of the party in local and state elections. Independent of the college.

a reply to: Phage

All hail Vermin Supreme for President lol

Gotta love that boot!

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Azureblue
Thank you for the correction, but why is direct democracy so bad in your view (I hope I have interpreted that correctly.) Personally I favor a popularly elected govt but one strictly controlled by referendums on all all major decisions. Just imagine a world where 'we the people' were the only Upper House or Senate their was and the govt was required to have a referendum:

Besides the issues that you get majority rule over who can vote, lets use your examples:
- Sending troops to a war zone. What makes you think the average person can understand the intricacies of war? People are very bad at understanding long term strategy, if they take a loss they want to pull out and if they win they want to go further in. A loss or two would make us pull out of a war zone, and then public sentiment would shift and we would try to go back in. It's a recipe for disaster, you can't run the military off of public sentiment.

-Making international agreements law. What does the average person know of international law and copyright law, as well as how to intersect the two? The average person has an attention span of seconds, do you really think that's enough to cover the details of things like using a persons name or image in a digital product? (these questions haven't even been solved domestically yet)

-Before the ACA was established... it was extremely popular, it would have passed by much greater margins if it were up to public opinion. The difference is that it would have also then been repealed based on public opinion with nothing set up to replace it.

-Before something like the Federal Reserve could be created. What's the problem with the Federal Reserve? Are you against central banking?

In addition, all referendum decisions would automatically have a sunset clause in them which would mean unless such mandates are renewed every so many years, they would automatically expire and become invalid. This would give we the people the opportunity to 'undo' a previous approval after having experienced the approved decision.

As it is, nothing in politics is ever permanent, that's done so that renewals/repeals can be periodically leveraged by parties.

Seems to me you believe govt knows best and so for the reasons you give, it appears to me that you would agree with a proposition that says 'we the people' should never have a vote at the best of times 'because we dont understand the intricacies of xxxxx ,"

I take it you will exclude yourself from this years presidential vote for the reasons you just gave. It also seems to me that it follows that you will never vote again ........ unless of course you regard your self as one of the few that should be permitted to vote - but hay, your not one of those sorts of people are you...... are you?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Azureblue

Just imagine a world where 'we the people' were the only Upper House or Senate their was and the govt was required to have a referendum:

Just imagine a world where a majority makes all the laws. Including those about who is allowed to vote.

Yes...., that's exactly what I propose. I cannot imagine any one would seriously propose that a minority would make such a decision?

I just cannot believe its sane in today's world, for just a few hundred to govern the millions.

The Powers That Should Not be love this current arrangement. For the elite it is and has always has been, a relatively simple task to influence, corrupt, debase, intimidate and control just a few hundred people than it is to intimidate, threaten, corrupt and control millions of people. This current situation where the elite only have to deal with a few hundred people suits their interests extremely well. Apart from abolishing the concept of democracy and appointing themselves government, they would not want the current situation to change.

Having xyz millions of people being 'governed' by just a few hundred people may have been appropriate for a bygone era such as before telephones and the internet but today ??

Recognise too that current system has not worked out too well and seems to be relatively easy to overthrow from the inside out... what, it seems to have taken 20-30 years?. The unknown and the untried are not automatically better just because we don't know, appreciate or have experienced the downside of the unknown.

This is why there are two parties.

a reply to: Azureblue

Not a chance do I trust the average person to know better especially when 60% of our country thinks the world is 6,000 years old.

Our current system is failing and it is not because we have veered toward a Democracy from a Republic.
The biggest issue is corruption and politicians for sell to the highest bidders.
It does not matter what system we have until that is addressed

I outlined how all of it works including state by state here 4 years ago if anyone cares to dig it up.

Its not a vote any citizen is making youre polling its basically a nationwide poll, popular poll or vote as its often misrepresented. The popular poll has lost the election twice against the electoral vote system in our history. It would take a 2/3 majority of states to force the feds to make an amendment to oust the electoral college.

The parties in control choose the electors, 3rd party has zero change in the current system, its why Ron P joined the Rep and its why Bernie had to become a Dem. Otherwise they like us when running would have zero representation in the process... even if support was there. Both parties have delegates that are supposed to take the popular poll count to the elector and the elector is given a slip with the party seal on it and and they ceremoniously walk up and drop it in yay theres the so called vote. the parties choose the delegates the party chooses the electors and the delegates tell all of the electors how to vote and we get a poll.

The reason why this process seems to take so long in counting polls every 4 years is to make the popular poll match somewhat the electoral vote so people dont scream foul or what happened... not knowing how the damned thing operates. Its called an indirect vote but that simply means the delegates chosen by the parties are supposed to represent the peoples vote by handing the elector the idiots job already chosen and dropping it into the box like yay it doesnt represent the people.

Of course the delegates are voting right now by pledging to canditates... and supers are able to swing either way... before the debates even occured Hillary had over 200 delgate pledges and Bernie had a hell of a lot of catching up to do... going in with nada one. People have already been talking like Hillary has cinched the nomination for the Dems, and of course Bernie and Ron Paul etc know its rigged... by campaign financiers so more power him showing just how rigged it is vowing to carry it all the way through... hes already won the majority of state counts though delegates vary by state and seeing how Hillary already had so many going in? Thats quite a game of catch up or dancing the rig to make it look like theres a contest... yet there is since hes not bowing out having the actual popular lead the delagates are supposed to go by unless superdelgates basically many delgates didnt even show up so they were given straw polls that straw poll is drawn by the straw voters... i was one takes a bow. But if the straw voters dont vote then they draw them like one state did short end or long end of the literal stick wins that delegate vote.

Yeah I know it sounds complicated and stupid and it is that way for a reason... the stock market mainly, as not knowing and obsficution of the process keeps it stable... otherwise people knowing and hedging their bets can cause it to crash with insider trading etc. thats why we are so chained to wall street and the federal reserve.

Of course all of this isnt in the thread I made four years ago but thats how it works... my straw since the delgate in my county was worth every single vote in it. Fair? Well I dont give a flying fig the party whomever can do the job to represent what the people want for that county for that state for the country is whom gets my support period. One one person represented my counties philosophy for life and politics. Of course that was for the party I had to register for as Im usually an independent, many counties and states do no allow independent votes even if ones a delegate, thats been a major hurdle for many people as not all systems allow anything but rep or dem in them... fair no not really but as an independent delagate the parties dont know who to pander to so bipartisianship actually takes place.

So the best thing we can do in this country to stop the pander and divide is to all register as indy and they will be forced to take an interest in what We The People actually want.

Cheers... and im not ignorant of the system, i had both civics and us history for about 6 years in school and i didnt take any of those in college at the three I went too, enough was enough at that point. My high school actually required a US History exam to graduate a big monster of a thing and I got 2nd or 3rd highest grade being the constantly bored slacker due to no challenge, never did homework cause I had work at home never studied and still graduated as a whos who among american high school students, college different those mattered first one 3.78 second one 3.75 third 3.98

I honestly dont think the us citizenry are as stupid as commonly percieved... Ive seen the Obama phone actually work from a dude sleeping in the park worried about alligators and snakes, taked to him a few times in encouragment next thing I knew job happy and about to get a place to live, I said damn next thing I know youll have a lady and a family and Ill never see you again went to shake his hand and dude slapped it away and hugged me and I said no man that was all you. So yeah stuff people complain about are sometimes just that... it was nice to see homeless stand up off the bottom use that phone to get job interviews no residence how someone gonna call you? No income how are you gonna have a phone? It worked saw it with my own eyes.

Anyway... im glad to see people getting educated about the system interested in the system so it can be something everyone wants because thats what its there for us... but seeing how its meant to represent all. Ill go ahead and say US we we make this country together as individuals despite all the differences and divides, its what made us who we are up to this day, still a lot of work ahead... thats why im glad people are interested and taking note of the whole process and getting involved in it only way to have representation and a future.

Happy Thurday ATS

originally posted by: Phage
I would propose that the internet does not actually aid the cause.
It is not so much access to information that has ever been the problem. Overly simplified, the problem is twofold.
1) Putting forth the effort to obtain information. Yes, the internet a a great facilitator to that. But not required.
2) Applying critical thinking to that information. The internet does not facilitate that.

I don't see how it can't aid learning. Simply by adding new ways and opportunities to learn some people will take advantage if the new ways are easier. What would encourage more to learn though is if adult learning were turned into entertainment the way Sesame Street is, except aimed at adults.

I don't think critical thinking can be fixed, not only is it tough to teach, but political rhetoric is designed to work off of emotion not logic. Even if everyone could think critically, they wouldn't because the forum isn't designed to do that.

originally posted by: Azureblue
Seems to me you believe govt knows best and so for the reasons you give, it appears to me that you would agree with a proposition that says 'we the people' should never have a vote at the best of times 'because we dont understand the intricacies of xxxxx ,"

I take it you will exclude yourself from this years presidential vote for the reasons you just gave. It also seems to me that it follows that you will never vote again ........ unless of course you regard your self as one of the few that should be permitted to vote - but hay, your not one of those sorts of people are you...... are you?

It's not that they know best, but that a group of experts in their field often know better than an individual.

As for if I'll exclude myself from this years presidential vote? I don't know, maybe. There are many items I don't vote on because I'm not convinced my point of view is correct. It's easier to vote on individual issues on ballots than candidates though. When it comes to candidates, the vast majority of what they say is a lie, what they can pass is more up to Congress than them, and what they do pass may not even be what they ran on. There's no solid information on which to base a vote.

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
a reply to: onequestion

The US is a republic last time I checked.

Cheers - Dave

The U.S. is a democracy and a republic.

The Roman Republic & Empire were examples of non-democratic, oligarchical republics. And for much of its history, so was the Venetian Republic. For their times, they were certainly more pleasant to be in than many absolute hereditary monarchies or dynasties, but they weren't democratic like the USA is.

originally posted by: jacobe001
Our current system is failing and it is not because we have veered toward a Democracy from a Republic.
The biggest issue is corruption and politicians for sell to the highest bidders.
It does not matter what system we have until that is addressed

Correct it is moving from a democratic republic (FDR) to an oligarchical republic.

originally posted by: kalisdad
a reply to: Aazadan

For me, the biggest problem with the Electoral College system is that they have a winner takes all mentality. By far, IMO, a proportional systems or even the congressional district method is more in line with the actual general popular vote.

The fact that 49% of the people vote for candidate B, but candidate A gets 100% of the electoral vote is bogus IMO.

Make it simple and proportion it to the popular vote or per district in all 50 states. As it is now only two state use the congressional district method.

Fix this mess

There is an advantage to the current system: a winner has to be popular among a number of states. In a purely per-person election, there could have been a situation where one candidate has 97% of the vote in some states, and little in others and still win.

In the current system, such candidates would not have been able to run successfully and you get more moderate candidates.

That would be a disasterous outcome. From the beginning, it was clear what the EC was trying to prevent: a factional Southern candidate.

These days, there are many forms of superior preference voting systems, for instance, en.wikipedia.org...
which would be superior still, and would also preclude a truly factional and divisive candidate from winning.

Multiple-party challenges would be feasible and would function less as a spoiler, e.g. the Nader effect.

a reply to: Aazadan

I know it seems Phage and I have been at odds at some things and its good and healthy, doesnt mean I dislike im it means we challenge eachother to do what critically think.

So did you critically think in your post? Narp

The internet can be used to learn and study... that doesnt mean people do was the point its a lot of viral was that dress blue or white so much so critical thinkers actually got in the game to shut it all up... light angles yadda yaddda yadda which means basically nothing really important and should be glossed over as click bait.

So there was an example of that critical thinking, im not in college and some dismiss me because i dont care abiut spelling editing is not my job and it takes time i dont have... but the meaning is there and hey if its difficult to follow but interested perhaps it will slow that glossing and make you do what digest and actually think.

tadar... yeah punctuation choose your own pace i type super fast as one long run on sentence so pause where you like... again forces critical tinking and no glossing.

but but and yes theres kim and her ass again and no i dont mean her husband. whoa how subliminal is that? How about since she is married its not yours to be looking at like the odd new thread saying how HOT a canditates wife is... you do know what mail order brides are dont you? Obviously no American woman would keep him with ohh you use the bathroom gross. all stepfords wives and that business... trump is a trope and spouts a lot of tripe to stay what popular in the news... attention whowere? Yes thats a nod to jersey that pronounces whore that way.

anyhoo its life live it and love it cause some day youre gonna leave it... and its too short to spend so much time hating for what people imagine comes afterp, thats the here and now... since i picked up that mic keeping keep dropped can you hear me... not saying now cause thats comericalism and that co lied. 3g 4g faster than sprint? hell sprint developed the protocol so hows it faster than sprint? duh they paid sprint to be able to say so wink wink.

So thats called critical thinking, now be my guest to criticize instead of doing what phage and myself has suggested people do... everyone wore that damned dress at some point so congratulations by default all people that debated it by the transitive property are drag queens if male or gasp women that havent worn one in a long time did.

yes its comedy and satire if you let it be and not take it too seriously and its fun... unless youre not happy then who wants that kind of company... me me me indeed be your own boss, by using your own mind to analyse whats in it.

If you want to blame drugs for thhis post then nictotine, caffene and some bacon are responsible for this mornings fuel to keep going even though its after 5 est but yet morning? time is relative morning to me since im my own boss.

and yes perhaps tldr would have been a good thing at this point.

sionara

originally posted by: BigBrotherDarkness
So did you critically think in your post? Narp

No. My ideas are not well reasoned, like most people I tend to only consider most of my ideas from a single point of view. How can something be well reasoned and well thought out when doing so?

tadar... yeah punctuation choose your own pace i type super fast as one long run on sentence so pause where you like... again forces critical tinking and no glossing.

It's completely off topic but I also have this problem. I type extremely fast, as in around 200 WPM, I type extremely close to the speeds of the fastest typers in the world. I type faster than people speak, I type faster than most people read (seriously, I used to type papers for people, I can read and type a page faster than someone can read it to me), and I type faster than I think so I tend to write ideas out as they pop into my mind without any time to think them over. I do reread what I write, but grammar has never been my strong point (and I tend to ramble at night when I'm tired, which is when I do the majority of my writing on forums).

I however would argue that typing a run on sentence doesn't do you any favors on the thinking front. Having ideas is one thing, but 90% of any idea is in articulating it to others. What's the point in having the greatest idea in the world if you can't communicate it in an effective enough way for your readers to understand it?

a reply to: Aazadan

indeed your point of view... closing ones eyes to others point of view actually offers no growth of ones reason... as thats like a cow or other rumanate throughly chewing on cud while it has a four chambered stomach to throughly digest such "food" so ruminating on ones own diet and not allowing any diversity to challenge ones thought, is simply stagnation, or cognitive dissonance of anything new.

Psychology actuall has labels for such things... but id rather not make those distinctions as people do have the ability to change and actually phoenix into something new from those old ashes or labels or pidgeon holed states of stereotypical being. Plus it could be concidered an Ad Hominymn or however thats spelled or defamation of ones character... wich is not conducive to understanding or growth or well the denial of ones chosen ignorance or poison.

But hey hair of the dog that that bit ya just means repeating the past and not moving forward and evolving in most cases once it has ingrained into such as a habitual mode of being. So if adverse to change obviously your choice to keep chewing or biting on hot spots to keep making your point for whatever conceptual youve latched onto that itches the mind to well chew ruminate or bite on.

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
a reply to: onequestion

The US is a republic last time I checked.

Cheers - Dave

The U.S. is a democracy and a republic.

The Roman Republic & Empire were examples of non-democratic, oligarchical republics. And for much of its history, so was the Venetian Republic. For their times, they were certainly more pleasant to be in than many absolute hereditary monarchies or dynasties, but they weren't democratic like the USA is.

I think it has been demonstrated time and time again that the US is an oligarchy. You have serfs and the elite, one set of laws for the serfs and two sets of rules for the elites and serfs. You have tail wag dog and all you need is a TV show called agendas of the rich and psychopathic.

Cheers - Dave