I Wonder Why This Number Is Rising So...
Politics2 mins ago
The State Of American Politics
52 Answers
What a farce this Trump presidency is becoming. The American public must be so disheartened.
http://
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Zacs-Master. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Oh and TTT, while I'm thinking about it, I don't have to look too far to find a recent example of when the tables in the US were turned, or at least appeared to be, and Trump supporters called foul. In 2012, it looked like Obama might have been re-elected president despite getting fewer votes than his opponent (Mitt Romney). In other words, precisely the same situation as actually happened when Trump won last year. When it looked like this was the case, well, people wondered aloud if this showed how broken the US system was, and the electoral college is actually "a disaster for a democracy."
What a misguided, spoiled brat, who can't accept the democratic will of the people. He needs to get over it.
https:/
What a misguided, spoiled brat, who can't accept the democratic will of the people. He needs to get over it.
https:/
"The only reason people like you aren't complaining this time is that *you* got the result you wanted;" - not true JIM, do a search I have never complained about the results in the US or our own system. You have to go a long way back in the UK to find an election win with more than 50% of the vote. Even Saint Tony in 1997 or TGL in her landslides, did not achieve that. I have never complained, I like the FPTP system here and the US version of it. I have never seen the relevance of percentages when the system UK/US is not based on percentages. Yes occasional anomolies are thrown up but on balance it's a better system than any other proposed, mainly PR derivations.
UK politics are not at their best because of disagreement, rather than a head of state acting controversially. Disagreement is ok in a democracy as long as all involved act honourably. Sadly not always the case, and many happy to find excuses for the dishonourable acts as long as it helps achieve what they want.
Having difficulty recalling a situation in the UK when the individual or issue polling the most votes didn't get elected/enacted. For example, when the whole of the UK voted on a whole UK issue, the votes in the UK all counted equally, and we found the courage to initiate taking back control of our nation. We didn't, for example, count City of London, and Scottish votes at double everyone else's.
Having difficulty recalling a situation in the UK when the individual or issue polling the most votes didn't get elected/enacted. For example, when the whole of the UK voted on a whole UK issue, the votes in the UK all counted equally, and we found the courage to initiate taking back control of our nation. We didn't, for example, count City of London, and Scottish votes at double everyone else's.
OK, I'll accept that you are more consistent than I gave you credit for. My apologies; still, I think given the Trump quote above, I can be forgiven for making the point in general even if it's unfair to direct it at you personally.
I'm not here talking about the 50%+1 threshold precisely; I just checked, and as far as I can see it was only reached twice since January 1900 (October that year, and 1931). It doesn't bother me particularly as that's probably not achievable if there are more than two parties. What I really get annoyed about is when the "winning party" by the popular vote measure doesn't win by the seats in Parliament measure. This has happened in the UK in several elections (again, since 1900, which is an arbitrary cut-off but I can't be bothered to look at all of them): the first election in 1910; 1929; 1951; February 1974. There's also been several cases where the third party did awfully despite getting a lot of support: 1983, 2005, 2010 (Lib Dems) and 2015 (UKIP) being the worst examples of this in recent times.
Look, I can sit here all day and happily (and I mean happily) pore over the statistics of recent elections in the US and UK, and explain how badly one party could do in the popular vote and still win -- or how well and still lose -- but none of it really means anything if you can't accept the basic premise, which is that any system of government ought to represent the people who elect it. But in the US it does not: it is not, as Lincoln had it, "of the people, by the people and for the people", but it is of, by and for the states. In the UK, government also does not truly represent the people; it represents the MPs.
In practice, the system in both the UK and US tends to work out "close enough" that the fundamental flaws are generally well-hidden. The circumstance in which a US president can be elected on less than a quarter of the popular vote are extreme, of course, requiring a majority of one vote in forty states, and exactly zero votes in the other ten. This will never happen; the margins of "failure" of the system to elect the people's winner are usually very small.
If you don't accept the fundamental premise, then nothing else I can say will matter. What will it take to change? I suspect a result so drastically awful that it exposes the frailties of the system once and for all. A Corbyn victory, perhaps, despite having a clear and obvious minority of the popular vote?
I'm not here talking about the 50%+1 threshold precisely; I just checked, and as far as I can see it was only reached twice since January 1900 (October that year, and 1931). It doesn't bother me particularly as that's probably not achievable if there are more than two parties. What I really get annoyed about is when the "winning party" by the popular vote measure doesn't win by the seats in Parliament measure. This has happened in the UK in several elections (again, since 1900, which is an arbitrary cut-off but I can't be bothered to look at all of them): the first election in 1910; 1929; 1951; February 1974. There's also been several cases where the third party did awfully despite getting a lot of support: 1983, 2005, 2010 (Lib Dems) and 2015 (UKIP) being the worst examples of this in recent times.
Look, I can sit here all day and happily (and I mean happily) pore over the statistics of recent elections in the US and UK, and explain how badly one party could do in the popular vote and still win -- or how well and still lose -- but none of it really means anything if you can't accept the basic premise, which is that any system of government ought to represent the people who elect it. But in the US it does not: it is not, as Lincoln had it, "of the people, by the people and for the people", but it is of, by and for the states. In the UK, government also does not truly represent the people; it represents the MPs.
In practice, the system in both the UK and US tends to work out "close enough" that the fundamental flaws are generally well-hidden. The circumstance in which a US president can be elected on less than a quarter of the popular vote are extreme, of course, requiring a majority of one vote in forty states, and exactly zero votes in the other ten. This will never happen; the margins of "failure" of the system to elect the people's winner are usually very small.
If you don't accept the fundamental premise, then nothing else I can say will matter. What will it take to change? I suspect a result so drastically awful that it exposes the frailties of the system once and for all. A Corbyn victory, perhaps, despite having a clear and obvious minority of the popular vote?
"It is unfortunate parties get involved at all."
Perhaps, but it's also probably necessary. Parties arrived on the scene organically, because people need to work together to get anything done, and they naturally gravitate towards people who are more likely to agree with them than not.
All that happens if you remove parties from the system is that they'll have to arrive back again.
Perhaps, but it's also probably necessary. Parties arrived on the scene organically, because people need to work together to get anything done, and they naturally gravitate towards people who are more likely to agree with them than not.
All that happens if you remove parties from the system is that they'll have to arrive back again.
"If you don't accept the fundamental premise" - oddly enough I do accept that. Sadly though it has never worked in practice. It could work in the US presidential elections simply scrap the whole college fiasco and just add up the votes. In the UK though we'd be sentenced to perpetual minority governments unless we completely replace the whole constituency system with some as yet undiscovered system that does reflect the final percentages, any ideas?
Well I'm pleased that you accept the principle, then. I'm not sure I share your pessimism that it's "never worked in practice" -- depends on what you count as "working", I suppose. I'm more inclined to think it's a case of "better the devil you know".
As for the US system, I doubt that will change any time soon. Government being "for the states" is acknowledged openly, and States' rights are too important, at least to the people who matter, for that to change to a simple vote-count. Funnily enough, it was the rights of States that got in the way of Trump's "Muslim Ban", at least at first.
As for the US system, I doubt that will change any time soon. Government being "for the states" is acknowledged openly, and States' rights are too important, at least to the people who matter, for that to change to a simple vote-count. Funnily enough, it was the rights of States that got in the way of Trump's "Muslim Ban", at least at first.
The college system was put in by the founding fathers to prevent small areas of high density ruling outright and ignoring the great swathes of more rural America. It is even more needed now than ever before.
But that is by-the by. If it was so bad why haven't the democrats changed it when in power?
Back to the OP, I dont think the Americans whoo voted The Donald in are disheartened at all. Why should they be he is trying to put in place all he promised and still in the early stages of his Presidency. If the Democrats had really wanted to win they should have found a candidate other than Hillary, she was just too toxic.
But that is by-the by. If it was so bad why haven't the democrats changed it when in power?
Back to the OP, I dont think the Americans whoo voted The Donald in are disheartened at all. Why should they be he is trying to put in place all he promised and still in the early stages of his Presidency. If the Democrats had really wanted to win they should have found a candidate other than Hillary, she was just too toxic.
YMB....you may be right about Hilary, but she did get more votes, but not enough to allow the EC system to be beaten.
But I am puzzled by your other comments. Trumps Presidency has been a disaster so far. He hasn't made much progress with all his pre-election promises, not least of all bringing in an alternative to Obama Care. Because of the amateurish way that he acted, the Courts have been able to run rings around him.
I have watched American politics since the late 60's and I can't recall anything like what has been happening since the start of this year.
But I am puzzled by your other comments. Trumps Presidency has been a disaster so far. He hasn't made much progress with all his pre-election promises, not least of all bringing in an alternative to Obama Care. Because of the amateurish way that he acted, the Courts have been able to run rings around him.
I have watched American politics since the late 60's and I can't recall anything like what has been happening since the start of this year.
The Founding Fathers seem to be remarkable visionaries... or, they were just products of their time, reacting to the parlous state of British politics in the 18th Century?
Honestly the worst thing about American politics is that so many people are too convinced that the Founding Fathers were right about everything.
Honestly the worst thing about American politics is that so many people are too convinced that the Founding Fathers were right about everything.
But dont you see, most Americans will interpret that as the Judges are ruling the country not the President, which does seem to be the case. Mr Trump will be able to stand up and say 'I tried but they stopped me'. I suspect he is compiling a bit list already to reply at the net presidential election which cmbined with all the groundless attacks by the liberal MSM will not sit well with many of the public.
The left are in danger of playing right into his hands.
The left are in danger of playing right into his hands.
No, they were not visionaries it was the case at the time too with a few small cities and the rest spread all over.
I do agree with your point on the founding fathers being right about everything. It does seem odd, but as i said above, the Democrats didnt seem to be in a hurry to change anything. Probably because, like the NHS in this country, though drastic change is needed to go into the future the subject is just too toxic for politicians.
I do agree with your point on the founding fathers being right about everything. It does seem odd, but as i said above, the Democrats didnt seem to be in a hurry to change anything. Probably because, like the NHS in this country, though drastic change is needed to go into the future the subject is just too toxic for politicians.
"But dont you see, most Americans will interpret that as the Judges are ruling the country not the President, which does seem to be the case. Mr Trump will be able to stand up and say 'I tried but they stopped me'..."
On the subject of Founding Fathers, they had something to say about that, too. The Supreme Court and other Federal courts are meant to act as a check to the President's power by enforcing the constitution. Which is exactly what they've been doing. So maybe you are right, they do have a point.
On the subject of Founding Fathers, they had something to say about that, too. The Supreme Court and other Federal courts are meant to act as a check to the President's power by enforcing the constitution. Which is exactly what they've been doing. So maybe you are right, they do have a point.
"It does seem odd, but as i said above, the Democrats didnt seem to be in a hurry to change anything."
This is true. Both parties are to blame. The Democrats are unlucky this time. Problem is that, again, the US system is designed to stop such drastic Constitutional changes from happening without a high level of consensus. Majority of the House, 60% of the senate, two-thirds of the states, probably supermajorities in all of *their* legislatures, and so on. And after all that I think the President can veto the thing with a snap of his fingers.
And, since any change to the electoral college inevitably means taking power away from the States (and giving it to the people, but the people don't get a say in all of this of course!), then does it matter if Clinton tried to force such a change through? She'd fail.
As a rough guide, it took about 130 years just to persuade the states that maybe the people should vote for Senate members, rather than the states.
It's not going to change until you desanctify the Constitution, but that is not going to happen sadly.
This is true. Both parties are to blame. The Democrats are unlucky this time. Problem is that, again, the US system is designed to stop such drastic Constitutional changes from happening without a high level of consensus. Majority of the House, 60% of the senate, two-thirds of the states, probably supermajorities in all of *their* legislatures, and so on. And after all that I think the President can veto the thing with a snap of his fingers.
And, since any change to the electoral college inevitably means taking power away from the States (and giving it to the people, but the people don't get a say in all of this of course!), then does it matter if Clinton tried to force such a change through? She'd fail.
As a rough guide, it took about 130 years just to persuade the states that maybe the people should vote for Senate members, rather than the states.
It's not going to change until you desanctify the Constitution, but that is not going to happen sadly.
