United states elections(part one); what are you gonna do?

[milon]

@mumblemumble, you're on thin ice.  You've received an official warning for off-topic posting and thread hijacking (yet again).  This thread is NOT about President Obama or his sexual preferences or his spouse's gender.  You will abide by the forum rules which are pre-requisite for membership here, or you will lose your forum membership.

@Everyone else: thank you all for staying basically on topic.  Political discussions can be extremely emotionally charged and opinionated.  Continue the good discussion if you can/desire.  If anyone feels they can't post constructively, refrain from posting.

I apologize for the interruption, and now return you all to the original discussion at hand.

[Kegereneku]

When i get a free moment, i shall respond. Im just putting this reply here as a place holder. Please check back within a day or so for this being edited into a proper response

Actually... I think the links you have provided to Mumble now tell me enough about your reasons to think that.

Maybe the breaking point is that the "founding father", despite their stated intents, may not have in fact achieved something that was a democracy or a system that actually/also protected from Tyranny. (reminder : Slavery was legal at the time)
It's clear that I don't iconize the founding father or consider them at the source of everything, but at least we have analyze what the E-C actually do in practice.
I'll be waiting for your edit or future answer.

[billycop32]

UPDATE: I've modified the initial post, please take a look!

[KillTyrant]

When i get a free moment, i shall respond. Im just putting this reply here as a place holder. Please check back within a day or so for this being edited into a proper response

Actually... I think the links you have provided to Mumble now tell me enough about your reasons to think that.

Maybe the breaking point is that the "founding father", despite their stated intents, may not have in fact achieved something that was a democracy or a system that actually/also protected from Tyranny. (reminder : Slavery was legal at the time)
It's clear that I don't iconize the founding father or consider them at the source of everything, but at least we have analyze what the E-C actually do in practice.
I'll be waiting for your edit or future answer.

I dont idolize the founders of the USA. I actively seek to avoid falling for the whole "cult of personality" bit. However, as a sort of aside from my answer I will say this. A person can accomplish great things despite their future failings. (ie I can celebrate Thomas Jefferson accomplished despite him owning people as that doesnt tarnish what his accomplishments were). With that aside done, I brought up the founding fathers as they were the reason the EC was implemented initially. The principal was to put a limiter on the will of the people because a large group of people that actively seek the same thing regardless of the validity of of said thing can be a very dangerous weapon in the hands of a cunning and crafty would-be tyrant (put not intended). Any system of power has room for corruption and/or misuse as humans are liable for being corrupt and misusing power for personal gain. There isnt a thing that can be done about that aside from giving power to unfeeling and unambitious automatons. While I dont agree with the plutocracy-lite the EC potentially brings to The Republic, I can at least understand why it exists. Whether its still needed or even accomplishes its set out goal is definitely up for debate. Im just curious what a viable alternative at this stage of the game would be.

[Kegereneku]

I find that the way you phrased "why it exist" assume the reasoning* was correct in the first place. It's illogical to be wary of EC increased risk of Plutocracy, yet, not make the parallel that it mean it fail at protecting against Tyrant**.

* : a large and diverse population isn't more likely to vote for a would-be-TrumTyrant, quite the contrary.
** : Unless one confuse it with the reasons that led to the "separation of power" (Legislative, Executive & Judicial) which is what actually prevent that whoever get president don't get to bypass everybody.

It's clear that it would be irresponsible to change the system "at this point of the (electoral campaign)" any change would have to be done after and accomplished well before the next election.

[KillTyrant]

I find that the way you phrased "why it exist" assume the reasoning* was correct in the first place. It's illogical to be wary of EC increased risk of Plutocracy, yet, not make the parallel that it mean it fail at protecting against Tyrant**.

* : a large and diverse population isn't more likely to vote for a would-be-TrumTyrant, quite the contrary.
** : Unless one confuse it with the reasons that led to the "separation of power" (Legislative, Executive & Judicial) which is what actually prevent that whoever get president don't get to bypass everybody.

It's clear that it would be irresponsible to change the system "at this point of the (electoral campaign)" any change would have to be done after and accomplished well before the next election.

You first point of conjecture can be easily side stepped by pointing to the many different ideologies that exist. From religious to political. These ideologies unite people from vastly different backgrounds to agree on a common goal even if they dont have a stance or agree with every action said group does.

The separation of power only works if the electorate enforce it via voting. You also have to take into consideration that these powers arent static. For instance, the judicial branch increases in power over time as more laws pass that later require supreme court interpretation.

Its not illogical to know the risks of something and still accept it. Its rather dishonest to suggest such a thing. Every system has inherent risks to it. I dont trust my peers to be properly informed to make choices that affect everyone. Social media and other instant platforms gives you a nice vantage point to look through the looking glass. Id be more than open to potentially better alternative but most alternatives presented are more akin to a direct democracy which can fall prey to mob rule. So you would need a system that allows everyones voice (through the vote) but at the same time can counter act the inherent risks of such a system.

[buttflexspireling]

  Basically, I'm looking for a candidate that can transform gyms into club casinos with the loser of the bet, of whatever club dues are charged, having to deliver mail for the day, help out at elderly homes or help collect trash. I mean, I'm not looking for the current system to be reformed into something more constructive.
  As such, I hope this nation doesn't become a complete welfare state with companies entirely dependent on government subsidies. Then we would be no better off than North Korea. If more people could pitch in and stop whining about it I think we could put a man on the moon again. That would be something.

[KillTyrant]

  Basically, I'm looking for a candidate that can transform gyms into club casinos with the loser of the bet, of whatever club dues are charged, having to deliver mail for the day, help out at elderly homes or help collect trash. I mean, I'm not looking for the current system to be reformed into something more constructive.

Ill be honest. This kinda looks like word salad.

As such, I hope this nation doesn't become a complete welfare state with companies entirely dependent on government subsidies. Then we would be no better off than North Korea. If more people could pitch in and stop whining about it I think we could put a man on the moon again. That would be something.

I agree that corporate welfare needs to be reigned in. That companies like walmart that not only uses corporate welfare as a means of helping itself but by using the government to help pay for its employees via food stamps and other social programs. Im not really 100% sure where I fall on the spectrum of minimum wage as I havent done enough of my own reading and research but obviously you dont want people being stuck at a job because they cant save enough. That said, the interest in space has waned since the 70's and NASA's budget has been slashed considerable over the last couple decades. If people petition their local gov't officials to vote for increased funding for NASA I think that will satisfy your "man on the moon" point. However, I think a more pressing issue (as much as i love astronomy) is the crumbling infrastructure of the USA. From water pipes that are still lined with lead as well a very large percentage of older homes having lead based paint. To the aging rail and highway/bridges. The USA is falling behind in alot of these important sectors that dont directly make money and cost ALOT to fix and maintain but it allows commerce and industry to flourish. As well as  easier movement of the populous.

Whining and griping are usually the first steps towards dealing with a problem. There is a balance requires between action and conciseness.

[Fluffy (l2032)]

Yeah... That US elections feel like Brazil. Everyone is a crook.

I would probably go for Trump, besides the radical vision, this projects may be stopped by other parties. And a country is a gigantic company, Trump know how to run one.

I would disagree on two counts; first a country is definitely not a gigantic company - a country, or it's government, has responsibility for the quality of life of all it's citizens. A company's first and foremost responsibility is feduciary, that is, make money for it's shareholders.

Second, that Trump knows how to run a country. Trump's business acumen isn't spotless, and he's not nearly as rich as he'd like you to believe. But more importantly, do you really want your country to be run as a business venture? Think that one through, please.

[milon]

Well said, Fluffly!

And I would add one more thing to a country's list of responsibilities - playing well with the other countries in the sandbox.  (Maybe this is just my opinion or wish or naivety, but it's important to me.)  I have no faith that Trump would do anything good for international relations.

[billycop32]

I have no faith that Trump would do anything good for international relations.

do we know if gary or jill would play nice? hilirary's policy in the past is appeasement, and that policy scares me more than trump's. (germany, pre WW2 anyone?)

[Juan el Demgrafo]

To shed some light regarding the Electoral College from my full two weeks of experience in AP Gov:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vQYGXiDVeZpdiWHFp4OhqwmhgOd2iwOGlLKeP165DUI/edit?usp=sharing
tl;dr: The Constitution was a practical political document meant to hurry up and get rid of the Articles of Confederation and replace them with a functional government.

[keylocke]

i just dropped in to say, these statements are awesome.

A Vote's Consequence and a Voter's Conscience
"Vote as if your ballot determines nothing whatsoever - except the shape of your own character."

"but if you vote for <insert 3rd party candidate here> then the person i don't like might win because <ill-concieved logic here>."

Or

"You're wasting your vote because they aren't going to win, so you should vote for <insert D or R candidate here> so the person i don't like wins."

Its not wasting your vote if you pick a candidate you would actually want in the office as compared to just voting for someone you think is the lesser of two evils. The lesser of two evils is how we got into this shit show in the first place.

[Kegereneku]

You first point of conjecture can be easily side stepped by pointing to the many different ideologies that exist. From religious to political. These ideologies unite people from vastly different backgrounds to agree on a common goal even if they dont have a stance or agree with every action said group does.

The separation of power only works if the electorate enforce it via voting. You also have to take into consideration that these powers arent static. For instance, the judicial branch increases in power over time as more laws pass that later require supreme court interpretation.

Its not illogical to know the risks of something and still accept it. Its rather dishonest to suggest such a thing. Every system has inherent risks to it. I dont trust my peers to be properly informed to make choices that affect everyone. Social media and other instant platforms gives you a nice vantage point to look through the looking glass. Id be more than open to potentially better alternative but most alternatives presented are more akin to a direct democracy which can fall prey to mob rule. So you would need a system that allows everyones voice (through the vote) but at the same time can counter act the inherent risks of such a system.

It's true that long existing ideological group (from party-wide to country-wide) do easily suffer from "mob mentality" but that's still more secure than one individual given the same voting power as the mobs but with not necessarily wiser, less susceptible to bias, corruption ...or willing to defend your quality of life rather than his own.
It's nice to believe in "wise & competent elitepeers who chose other wise people to lead dumb populace to greater place", but unless you built/enforce a system that you know will make sure they are wise and force them to defend the quality of life of their "peers", you are only letting a bunch of person rules you.

Of course, that's up to anybody to believe it's best for them or mankind, "The people want a king !"
Hell, I don't count the number of Science-fiction where a single-man made himself GOD through technology and rules over all of humanity in a way "portrayed as good".

However you are wrong about how "separation of power" work, the damn things work precisely because is not dependent on the number of voters (only the finesse of the decision suffer).
The concept also never existed as a 33% vs 33% vs 33 % balance of power like you phrased it. The Legislative branch don't get to enforce the laws it create, The Judicial branch don't get to make the law it enforce and the Executive don't get to (easily) rewrite the rules and make himself Emperor-God.
Thus the number of laws don't change any "balance of power", it only make change slower, which can actually be what you want to prevent a accidentally-elected dictator from destroying any recourse you have against him.

At least, it work as long as you don't defend how it's meant to work. This isn't because the system isn't perfect and corruption-proof that you should burn it all and let the "1%" write & apply (distinct power) their own laws.

To shed some light regarding the Electoral College from my full two weeks of experience in AP Gov:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vQYGXiDVeZpdiWHFp4OhqwmhgOd2iwOGlLKeP165DUI/edit?usp=sharing
tl;dr: The Constitution was a practical political document meant to hurry up and get rid of the Articles of Confederation and replace them with a functional government.

Look interesting, will be skimming through it.

[milon]

I won't lie - I'm feeling some anxiety right now.

It's interesting to me that roughly half of all Trump & Clinton voters feel unhappy about voting for that candidate. If people took a step back and looked at ALL candidates, I think we might have actually been looking at a president who wasn't Democratic or Republican. Too bad we're letting our votes be dictated by fear instead.