Author Topic: we do not run a democracy, lets get that straight  (Read 5853 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: we do not run a democracy, lets get that straight
« Reply #120 on: August 11, 2019, 09:18:51 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 39173
  • Tommy Points: -27342
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
The Electoral College is no longer necessary to protect state rights. This is no longer a union of separate states, as was the case in the 18th century. We are a nation of people living in different districts called states. We as a country have evolved and the way we elect a president needs to evolve with it.

I reject this entirely.

Now, more than ever, it is imperative to protect the rights, individuality, and interests of the states and the residents thereof.  As the coastal, urban states continue to grow ever more populated, the potential for a true tyranny of the majority is dangerously close to becoming a reality.

You're basically telling an entire subgroup of our society they don't matter to you and couldn't care less what they want or need.  Middle America won't accept being ruled over by the urban coasts.  Radically changing our current system will render the voices of nearly half the states meaningless.  That will only lead to even worse problems than we currently have.  You're advocating for exactly that which our government was set up to prevent from happening.

I do think the President has outsized influence within the system currently, as a byproduct of our Congress being entirely ineffectual, but the solution most certainly is not to scrap a system that has worked pretty darn well for ~ 250 years. The system, in terms of how a President is elected, is still working exactly as it was intended to. What you are advocating for is exactly what they wanted to prevent, and for good reason.  A country this large and diverse cannot function when the majority has free reign to subjugate the minority.

No it really isn't.  The electoral college was intended to be a last buffer against the election of a tyrant or man supremely unqualified to be the president. It was a failsafe in case the population as a whole got it wrong. It wasn't intended to elect a guy who lost the popular vote. Avoiding the tyranny of the majority is certainly important, but thats what the senate is for. It exists so that the smaller and/or poorer states still have a significant voice. Right now we have a situation where 45% of the population can elect the President and a majority in the senate and then steal a majority in the supreme court in effect controlling 2.5/3  branches of our government. Democrats won the popular vote in all three of the most recent races, President, Senate and House, yet control just one. You know whats worse than the tyranny of the majority, a tyranny of the minority which is what we have now. Its especially glaring because that 45% that elected trump and the senate is in effect further controlled by an even smaller sliver of the country (the far right) that hold a set of ideals that a majority, in some case a clear majority, do not agree with.

And it does not get more tyrannical than when a popularly elected president is denied his nomination to the Supreme Court. I dont know why anyone would not find this troubling.

Tyrannical? Thatís how checks and balances work.  It can suck, but itís how ďadvice and consentĒ works.

Really?  McConnell denied a hearing and a vote to Obamaís Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland. Barely an hour after Justice Antonin Scalia died in February 2016, McConnell issued a statement vowing to block any Obama replacement ― an unprecedented level of obstruction aimed at a sitting president.

McConnell will go down in history as Trump's wing man and be known as the Leader who showed the country how "advice and consent" works.

I donít love it, but itís the Senateís prerogative.  Just like voting down qualified candidates (Bork) and filibustering other judicial nominees are acceptable, so is delaying a confirmation vote.
Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: we do not run a democracy, lets get that straight
« Reply #121 on: August 11, 2019, 09:34:47 PM »

Offline keevsnick

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1862
  • Tommy Points: 170
The Electoral College is no longer necessary to protect state rights. This is no longer a union of separate states, as was the case in the 18th century. We are a nation of people living in different districts called states. We as a country have evolved and the way we elect a president needs to evolve with it.

I reject this entirely.

Now, more than ever, it is imperative to protect the rights, individuality, and interests of the states and the residents thereof.  As the coastal, urban states continue to grow ever more populated, the potential for a true tyranny of the majority is dangerously close to becoming a reality.

You're basically telling an entire subgroup of our society they don't matter to you and couldn't care less what they want or need.  Middle America won't accept being ruled over by the urban coasts.  Radically changing our current system will render the voices of nearly half the states meaningless.  That will only lead to even worse problems than we currently have.  You're advocating for exactly that which our government was set up to prevent from happening.

I do think the President has outsized influence within the system currently, as a byproduct of our Congress being entirely ineffectual, but the solution most certainly is not to scrap a system that has worked pretty darn well for ~ 250 years. The system, in terms of how a President is elected, is still working exactly as it was intended to. What you are advocating for is exactly what they wanted to prevent, and for good reason.  A country this large and diverse cannot function when the majority has free reign to subjugate the minority.

No it really isn't.  The electoral college was intended to be a last buffer against the election of a tyrant or man supremely unqualified to be the president. It was a failsafe in case the population as a whole got it wrong. It wasn't intended to elect a guy who lost the popular vote. Avoiding the tyranny of the majority is certainly important, but thats what the senate is for. It exists so that the smaller and/or poorer states still have a significant voice. Right now we have a situation where 45% of the population can elect the President and a majority in the senate and then steal a majority in the supreme court in effect controlling 2.5/3  branches of our government. Democrats won the popular vote in all three of the most recent races, President, Senate and House, yet control just one. You know whats worse than the tyranny of the majority, a tyranny of the minority which is what we have now. Its especially glaring because that 45% that elected trump and the senate is in effect further controlled by an even smaller sliver of the country (the far right) that hold a set of ideals that a majority, in some case a clear majority, do not agree with.

And it does not get more tyrannical than when a popularly elected president is denied his nomination to the Supreme Court. I dont know why anyone would not find this troubling.

Tyrannical? Thatís how checks and balances work.  It can suck, but itís how ďadvice and consentĒ works.

Really?  McConnell denied a hearing and a vote to Obamaís Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland. Barely an hour after Justice Antonin Scalia died in February 2016, McConnell issued a statement vowing to block any Obama replacement ― an unprecedented level of obstruction aimed at a sitting president.

McConnell will go down in history as Trump's wing man and be known as the Leader who showed the country how "advice and consent" works.

I donít love it, but itís the Senateís prerogative.  Just like voting down qualified candidates (Bork) and filibustering other judicial nominees are acceptable, so is delaying a confirmation vote.

Just because something is technically possible, doesn't mean it is "acceptable." The president puts forth a nomination, thats his job. The senates is to "advise and consent." So do you job, consider the nominee and if you then want to vote against him for political reasons then okay. You can do that. The idea that "the people should get to decide" is nice, except if the framers of the constitution wanted the people to decide they would have simply done that. And the people didn't decide because against the next justice was nominated by a guy who didn't win the popular vote and confirmed by a Republican senate that despite having  the majority received fewer votes than the democratic minority. Now that guy makes decision for the next thirty years. None of that makes any sense.

Re: we do not run a democracy, lets get that straight
« Reply #122 on: August 11, 2019, 10:25:53 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 39173
  • Tommy Points: -27342
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
The Electoral College is no longer necessary to protect state rights. This is no longer a union of separate states, as was the case in the 18th century. We are a nation of people living in different districts called states. We as a country have evolved and the way we elect a president needs to evolve with it.

I reject this entirely.

Now, more than ever, it is imperative to protect the rights, individuality, and interests of the states and the residents thereof.  As the coastal, urban states continue to grow ever more populated, the potential for a true tyranny of the majority is dangerously close to becoming a reality.

You're basically telling an entire subgroup of our society they don't matter to you and couldn't care less what they want or need.  Middle America won't accept being ruled over by the urban coasts.  Radically changing our current system will render the voices of nearly half the states meaningless.  That will only lead to even worse problems than we currently have.  You're advocating for exactly that which our government was set up to prevent from happening.

I do think the President has outsized influence within the system currently, as a byproduct of our Congress being entirely ineffectual, but the solution most certainly is not to scrap a system that has worked pretty darn well for ~ 250 years. The system, in terms of how a President is elected, is still working exactly as it was intended to. What you are advocating for is exactly what they wanted to prevent, and for good reason.  A country this large and diverse cannot function when the majority has free reign to subjugate the minority.

No it really isn't.  The electoral college was intended to be a last buffer against the election of a tyrant or man supremely unqualified to be the president. It was a failsafe in case the population as a whole got it wrong. It wasn't intended to elect a guy who lost the popular vote. Avoiding the tyranny of the majority is certainly important, but thats what the senate is for. It exists so that the smaller and/or poorer states still have a significant voice. Right now we have a situation where 45% of the population can elect the President and a majority in the senate and then steal a majority in the supreme court in effect controlling 2.5/3  branches of our government. Democrats won the popular vote in all three of the most recent races, President, Senate and House, yet control just one. You know whats worse than the tyranny of the majority, a tyranny of the minority which is what we have now. Its especially glaring because that 45% that elected trump and the senate is in effect further controlled by an even smaller sliver of the country (the far right) that hold a set of ideals that a majority, in some case a clear majority, do not agree with.

And it does not get more tyrannical than when a popularly elected president is denied his nomination to the Supreme Court. I dont know why anyone would not find this troubling.

Tyrannical? Thatís how checks and balances work.  It can suck, but itís how ďadvice and consentĒ works.

Really?  McConnell denied a hearing and a vote to Obamaís Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland. Barely an hour after Justice Antonin Scalia died in February 2016, McConnell issued a statement vowing to block any Obama replacement ― an unprecedented level of obstruction aimed at a sitting president.

McConnell will go down in history as Trump's wing man and be known as the Leader who showed the country how "advice and consent" works.

I donít love it, but itís the Senateís prerogative.  Just like voting down qualified candidates (Bork) and filibustering other judicial nominees are acceptable, so is delaying a confirmation vote.

Just because something is technically possible, doesn't mean it is "acceptable." The president puts forth a nomination, thats his job. The senates is to "advise and consent." So do you job, consider the nominee and if you then want to vote against him for political reasons then okay. You can do that. The idea that "the people should get to decide" is nice, except if the framers of the constitution wanted the people to decide they would have simply done that. And the people didn't decide because against the next justice was nominated by a guy who didn't win the popular vote and confirmed by a Republican senate that despite having  the majority received fewer votes than the democratic minority. Now that guy makes decision for the next thirty years. None of that makes any sense.

Why is delaying a vote ó a move that only works with a Senate majority ó unacceptable, but filibustering (requiring only 41% of the Senate) was considered an acceptable tactic?

Iím fine with all nominees getting an up or down vote, but thatís not how Dems wanted to play it with their filibusters under GWB. Blocking Garland was the logical extension of that.
Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: we do not run a democracy, lets get that straight
« Reply #123 on: August 12, 2019, 10:46:45 AM »

Offline keevsnick

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1862
  • Tommy Points: 170
The Electoral College is no longer necessary to protect state rights. This is no longer a union of separate states, as was the case in the 18th century. We are a nation of people living in different districts called states. We as a country have evolved and the way we elect a president needs to evolve with it.

I reject this entirely.

Now, more than ever, it is imperative to protect the rights, individuality, and interests of the states and the residents thereof.  As the coastal, urban states continue to grow ever more populated, the potential for a true tyranny of the majority is dangerously close to becoming a reality.

You're basically telling an entire subgroup of our society they don't matter to you and couldn't care less what they want or need.  Middle America won't accept being ruled over by the urban coasts.  Radically changing our current system will render the voices of nearly half the states meaningless.  That will only lead to even worse problems than we currently have.  You're advocating for exactly that which our government was set up to prevent from happening.

I do think the President has outsized influence within the system currently, as a byproduct of our Congress being entirely ineffectual, but the solution most certainly is not to scrap a system that has worked pretty darn well for ~ 250 years. The system, in terms of how a President is elected, is still working exactly as it was intended to. What you are advocating for is exactly what they wanted to prevent, and for good reason.  A country this large and diverse cannot function when the majority has free reign to subjugate the minority.

No it really isn't.  The electoral college was intended to be a last buffer against the election of a tyrant or man supremely unqualified to be the president. It was a failsafe in case the population as a whole got it wrong. It wasn't intended to elect a guy who lost the popular vote. Avoiding the tyranny of the majority is certainly important, but thats what the senate is for. It exists so that the smaller and/or poorer states still have a significant voice. Right now we have a situation where 45% of the population can elect the President and a majority in the senate and then steal a majority in the supreme court in effect controlling 2.5/3  branches of our government. Democrats won the popular vote in all three of the most recent races, President, Senate and House, yet control just one. You know whats worse than the tyranny of the majority, a tyranny of the minority which is what we have now. Its especially glaring because that 45% that elected trump and the senate is in effect further controlled by an even smaller sliver of the country (the far right) that hold a set of ideals that a majority, in some case a clear majority, do not agree with.

And it does not get more tyrannical than when a popularly elected president is denied his nomination to the Supreme Court. I dont know why anyone would not find this troubling.

Tyrannical? Thatís how checks and balances work.  It can suck, but itís how ďadvice and consentĒ works.

Really?  McConnell denied a hearing and a vote to Obamaís Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland. Barely an hour after Justice Antonin Scalia died in February 2016, McConnell issued a statement vowing to block any Obama replacement ― an unprecedented level of obstruction aimed at a sitting president.

McConnell will go down in history as Trump's wing man and be known as the Leader who showed the country how "advice and consent" works.

I donít love it, but itís the Senateís prerogative.  Just like voting down qualified candidates (Bork) and filibustering other judicial nominees are acceptable, so is delaying a confirmation vote.

Just because something is technically possible, doesn't mean it is "acceptable." The president puts forth a nomination, thats his job. The senates is to "advise and consent." So do you job, consider the nominee and if you then want to vote against him for political reasons then okay. You can do that. The idea that "the people should get to decide" is nice, except if the framers of the constitution wanted the people to decide they would have simply done that. And the people didn't decide because against the next justice was nominated by a guy who didn't win the popular vote and confirmed by a Republican senate that despite having  the majority received fewer votes than the democratic minority. Now that guy makes decision for the next thirty years. None of that makes any sense.

Why is delaying a vote ó a move that only works with a Senate majority ó unacceptable, but filibustering (requiring only 41% of the Senate) was considered an acceptable tactic?

Iím fine with all nominees getting an up or down vote, but thatís not how Dems wanted to play it with their filibusters under GWB. Blocking Garland was the logical extension of that.

I dont think either is acceptable, thats why I'm not on here whining about how senate republicans have somehow cheated the democrats by removing the supreme court filibuster. It wasn't kay for the democratc to filibuster GWB candidates. Less obstruction to me is better. I do think it is incredibly hypercritical to refuse a vote on Garland, then go ahead and do away with the filibuster to approve Gorsich. Which is something the democrats have not done.

Its also worth noting that the two are fundamentally different. A filibuster is a tactic prescribed by our legal system, all involved are on record with a stance either supporting the filibuster or opposing it. What McConnel did doesn't require a majority of the Senate, it requires McConnel to refuse to do anything. Its even possible a majority would have confirmed Garland, it doesn't matter since the majority party leadership sets the agenda. Refusing to hear a candidate is an outright refusal to do their jobs.

So my answer is the two things are difference, refusing to hear the candidate is worse but I still don't like or support use of the filibuster. Yet what the republican did was cowardice. They just didn't wnat to be on record opposing a qualified candidate nominated by the president as prescribed by the constitution.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2019, 11:02:37 AM by keevsnick »

Re: we do not run a democracy, lets get that straight
« Reply #124 on: August 12, 2019, 12:14:03 PM »

Offline KGs Knee

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11535
  • Tommy Points: 1352
I can't deny that how the R's handled Garland's nomination was dirty pool at best. Not voting on him was very wrong of them.

Re: we do not run a democracy, lets get that straight
« Reply #125 on: August 12, 2019, 12:20:46 PM »

Offline bcgenuis

  • Brad Stevens
  • Posts: 268
  • Tommy Points: 28
I think the Electoral College works fine.  Overall the Supreme Court does, too.

The problems in our political system are largely related to money and the two-party system.



Perfectly explained. TP

While not perfect. Come to think of it, I can't think of a perfect system off-hand, our system mostly gets it right. (sorry... I meant correct) :-)


My solution, GET RID OF THE WINNER TAKES ALL concept in the Electoral College.

This puts each states votes in play.  Right now a Republican cannot win CA, but if you remove the winner take all concept, a Republican may spend time there to lessen the amount of votes the Democrat winner will receive.

In the past Texas was a solid Red state, if you remove the winner take all concept, some of those votes are removed from the Republican column and placed in the Democrat column. 

Same idea for Florida, NY etc...

This would lead to the citizens votes having more meaning. There are many Democrats in Republican leaning states that feel that their vote is meaningless and vice versa, for example, Northern California vs. Southern California.

Time to allocate EC vote based upon the % of the actual votes. And you can allocate the 2 senate votes to the winner, as a bonus.

It will make the race to 270 a lot more interesting.


Re: we do not run a democracy, lets get that straight
« Reply #126 on: August 12, 2019, 12:30:48 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 39173
  • Tommy Points: -27342
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
I think the Electoral College works fine.  Overall the Supreme Court does, too.

The problems in our political system are largely related to money and the two-party system.



Perfectly explained. TP

While not perfect. Come to think of it, I can't think of a perfect system off-hand, our system mostly gets it right. (sorry... I meant correct) :-)


My solution, GET RID OF THE WINNER TAKES ALL concept in the Electoral College.

This puts each states votes in play.  Right now a Republican cannot win CA, but if you remove the winner take all concept, a Republican may spend time there to lessen the amount of votes the Democrat winner will receive.

In the past Texas was a solid Red state, if you remove the winner take all concept, some of those votes are removed from the Republican column and placed in the Democrat column. 

Same idea for Florida, NY etc...

This would lead to the citizens votes having more meaning. There are many Democrats in Republican leaning states that feel that their vote is meaningless and vice versa, for example, Northern California vs. Southern California.

Time to allocate EC vote based upon the % of the actual votes. And you can allocate the 2 senate votes to the winner, as a bonus.

It will make the race to 270 a lot more interesting.

I donít know which party would benefit, but I agree. Itís the Maine / Nebraska model, and I wish other states would adopt it.
Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: we do not run a democracy, lets get that straight
« Reply #127 on: August 12, 2019, 12:46:53 PM »

Offline bcgenuis

  • Brad Stevens
  • Posts: 268
  • Tommy Points: 28
I think the Electoral College works fine.  Overall the Supreme Court does, too.

The problems in our political system are largely related to money and the two-party system.



Perfectly explained. TP

While not perfect. Come to think of it, I can't think of a perfect system off-hand, our system mostly gets it right. (sorry... I meant correct) :-)


My solution, GET RID OF THE WINNER TAKES ALL concept in the Electoral College.

This puts each states votes in play.  Right now a Republican cannot win CA, but if you remove the winner take all concept, a Republican may spend time there to lessen the amount of votes the Democrat winner will receive.

In the past Texas was a solid Red state, if you remove the winner take all concept, some of those votes are removed from the Republican column and placed in the Democrat column. 

Same idea for Florida, NY etc...

This would lead to the citizens votes having more meaning. There are many Democrats in Republican leaning states that feel that their vote is meaningless and vice versa, for example, Northern California vs. Southern California.

Time to allocate EC vote based upon the % of the actual votes. And you can allocate the 2 senate votes to the winner, as a bonus.

It will make the race to 270 a lot more interesting.

I donít know which party would benefit, but I agree. Itís the Maine / Nebraska model, and I wish other states would adopt it.

It would be interesting to see what the outcome of the past elections, say since Bush/Gore, would've been under this method.

Re: we do not run a democracy, lets get that straight
« Reply #128 on: August 12, 2019, 12:50:50 PM »

Offline bcgenuis

  • Brad Stevens
  • Posts: 268
  • Tommy Points: 28
I think the Electoral College works fine.  Overall the Supreme Court does, too.

The problems in our political system are largely related to money and the two-party system.



Perfectly explained. TP

While not perfect. Come to think of it, I can't think of a perfect system off-hand, our system mostly gets it right. (sorry... I meant correct) :-)


My solution, GET RID OF THE WINNER TAKES ALL concept in the Electoral College.

This puts each states votes in play.  Right now a Republican cannot win CA, but if you remove the winner take all concept, a Republican may spend time there to lessen the amount of votes the Democrat winner will receive.

In the past Texas was a solid Red state, if you remove the winner take all concept, some of those votes are removed from the Republican column and placed in the Democrat column. 

Same idea for Florida, NY etc...

This would lead to the citizens votes having more meaning. There are many Democrats in Republican leaning states that feel that their vote is meaningless and vice versa, for example, Northern California vs. Southern California.

Time to allocate EC vote based upon the % of the actual votes. And you can allocate the 2 senate votes to the winner, as a bonus.

It will make the race to 270 a lot more interesting.

I donít know which party would benefit, but I agree. Itís the Maine / Nebraska model, and I wish other states would adopt it.

The Democrats would probably be against the model as it places their bigger states in play (CA, NY).  Texas is already turning purple and FL is already purple. I think this would benefit the Republicans more than the Democrats, but you never know. Other middle sized states, like PA and OH would likely be 50/50 which would hurt Republicans (if they win those states) and help the Democrats. 

Does it equal out at the end?  I don't know but it would sure make for more interesting and inclusive elections.

Re: we do not run a democracy, lets get that straight
« Reply #129 on: August 12, 2019, 09:02:24 PM »

Offline Celtics4ever

  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17747
  • Tommy Points: 1172
Quote
Why is delaying a vote ó a move that only works with a Senate majority ó unacceptable, but filibustering (requiring only 41% of the Senate) was considered an acceptable tactic?

Because things are always alright when what  people view their side does it.

Re: we do not run a democracy, lets get that straight
« Reply #130 on: August 15, 2019, 09:42:19 AM »

Offline TDurden

  • Robert Williams
  • Posts: 19
  • Tommy Points: 1
The Electoral College is no longer necessary to protect state rights. This is no longer a union of separate states, as was the case in the 18th century. We are a nation of people living in different districts called states. We as a country have evolved and the way we elect a president needs to evolve with it.

I reject this entirely.

Now, more than ever, it is imperative to protect the rights, individuality, and interests of the states and the residents thereof.  As the coastal, urban states continue to grow ever more populated, the potential for a true tyranny of the majority is dangerously close to becoming a reality.

You're basically telling an entire subgroup of our society they don't matter to you and couldn't care less what they want or need.  Middle America won't accept being ruled over by the urban coasts.  Radically changing our current system will render the voices of nearly half the states meaningless.  That will only lead to even worse problems than we currently have.  You're advocating for exactly that which our government was set up to prevent from happening.

I do think the President has outsized influence within the system currently, as a byproduct of our Congress being entirely ineffectual, but the solution most certainly is not to scrap a system that has worked pretty darn well for ~ 250 years. The system, in terms of how a President is elected, is still working exactly as it was intended to. What you are advocating for is exactly what they wanted to prevent, and for good reason.  A country this large and diverse cannot function when the majority has free reign to subjugate the minority.

No it really isn't.  The electoral college was intended to be a last buffer against the election of a tyrant or man supremely unqualified to be the president. It was a failsafe in case the population as a whole got it wrong. It wasn't intended to elect a guy who lost the popular vote. Avoiding the tyranny of the majority is certainly important, but thats what the senate is for. It exists so that the smaller and/or poorer states still have a significant voice. Right now we have a situation where 45% of the population can elect the President and a majority in the senate and then steal a majority in the supreme court in effect controlling 2.5/3  branches of our government. Democrats won the popular vote in all three of the most recent races, President, Senate and House, yet control just one. You know whats worse than the tyranny of the majority, a tyranny of the minority which is what we have now. Its especially glaring because that 45% that elected trump and the senate is in effect further controlled by an even smaller sliver of the country (the far right) that hold a set of ideals that a majority, in some case a clear majority, do not agree with.

And it does not get more tyrannical than when a popularly elected president is denied his nomination to the Supreme Court. I dont know why anyone would not find this troubling.

Tyrannical? Thatís how checks and balances work.  It can suck, but itís how ďadvice and consentĒ works.

Really?  McConnell denied a hearing and a vote to Obamaís Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland. Barely an hour after Justice Antonin Scalia died in February 2016, McConnell issued a statement vowing to block any Obama replacement ― an unprecedented level of obstruction aimed at a sitting president.

McConnell will go down in history as Trump's wing man and be known as the Leader who showed the country how "advice and consent" works.

I donít love it, but itís the Senateís prerogative.  Just like voting down qualified candidates (Bork) and filibustering other judicial nominees are acceptable, so is delaying a confirmation vote.

Just because something is technically possible, doesn't mean it is "acceptable." The president puts forth a nomination, thats his job. The senates is to "advise and consent." So do you job, consider the nominee and if you then want to vote against him for political reasons then okay. You can do that. The idea that "the people should get to decide" is nice, except if the framers of the constitution wanted the people to decide they would have simply done that. And the people didn't decide because against the next justice was nominated by a guy who didn't win the popular vote and confirmed by a Republican senate that despite having  the majority received fewer votes than the democratic minority. Now that guy makes decision for the next thirty years. None of that makes any sense.

Why is delaying a vote ó a move that only works with a Senate majority ó unacceptable, but filibustering (requiring only 41% of the Senate) was considered an acceptable tactic?

Iím fine with all nominees getting an up or down vote, but thatís not how Dems wanted to play it with their filibusters under GWB. Blocking Garland was the logical extension of that.

Delaying a vote is fine and there are often good reasons why a vote should not be taken in the heat of the moment... preventing it altogether (which is what happened in this case) is authoritarian.  The fact is, it was an unprecedented situation designed to guarantee those very checks and balances you're citing could not function as intended. 

Just as preventing a vote on election security is designed to make sure democracy doesn't function as intended... SMH at the olympic level mental gymnastics required to defend the GOP today. 

Re: we do not run a democracy, lets get that straight
« Reply #131 on: August 15, 2019, 11:31:31 AM »

Offline slamtheking

  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21166
  • Tommy Points: 9133
I think the Electoral College works fine.  Overall the Supreme Court does, too.

The problems in our political system are largely related to money and the two-party system.



Perfectly explained. TP

While not perfect. Come to think of it, I can't think of a perfect system off-hand, our system mostly gets it right. (sorry... I meant correct) :-)


My solution, GET RID OF THE WINNER TAKES ALL concept in the Electoral College.

This puts each states votes in play.  Right now a Republican cannot win CA, but if you remove the winner take all concept, a Republican may spend time there to lessen the amount of votes the Democrat winner will receive.

In the past Texas was a solid Red state, if you remove the winner take all concept, some of those votes are removed from the Republican column and placed in the Democrat column. 

Same idea for Florida, NY etc...

This would lead to the citizens votes having more meaning. There are many Democrats in Republican leaning states that feel that their vote is meaningless and vice versa, for example, Northern California vs. Southern California.

Time to allocate EC vote based upon the % of the actual votes. And you can allocate the 2 senate votes to the winner, as a bonus.

It will make the race to 270 a lot more interesting.

I donít know which party would benefit, but I agree. Itís the Maine / Nebraska model, and I wish other states would adopt it.

The Democrats would probably be against the model as it places their bigger states in play (CA, NY).  Texas is already turning purple and FL is already purple. I think this would benefit the Republicans more than the Democrats, but you never know. Other middle sized states, like PA and OH would likely be 50/50 which would hurt Republicans (if they win those states) and help the Democrats. 

Does it equal out at the end?  I don't know but it would sure make for more interesting and inclusive elections.
curious if there's been any research into how prior elections would have turned out -- particularly the ones where the person with the least votes won the electoral college.  would Bush/Trump have gained more electoral votes than they'd have lost?

Re: we do not run a democracy, lets get that straight
« Reply #132 on: August 15, 2019, 11:37:23 AM »

Offline dannyboy35

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1052
  • Tommy Points: 51
Iím officially an independent although Iíve never voted republican. Any time someone wants to talk politics with me I have to ask if they think CNN, Fox or MSNBC are corrupt . If they say no then I see no point in continuing. What MSNBC is doing to some democratic candidates while propping up others is gross.

Re: we do not run a democracy, lets get that straight
« Reply #133 on: August 15, 2019, 11:49:43 AM »

Online Moranis

  • Global Moderator
  • Sam Jones
  • **********************
  • Posts: 22183
  • Tommy Points: 1059
I think the Electoral College works fine.  Overall the Supreme Court does, too.

The problems in our political system are largely related to money and the two-party system.



Perfectly explained. TP

While not perfect. Come to think of it, I can't think of a perfect system off-hand, our system mostly gets it right. (sorry... I meant correct) :-)


My solution, GET RID OF THE WINNER TAKES ALL concept in the Electoral College.

This puts each states votes in play.  Right now a Republican cannot win CA, but if you remove the winner take all concept, a Republican may spend time there to lessen the amount of votes the Democrat winner will receive.

In the past Texas was a solid Red state, if you remove the winner take all concept, some of those votes are removed from the Republican column and placed in the Democrat column. 

Same idea for Florida, NY etc...

This would lead to the citizens votes having more meaning. There are many Democrats in Republican leaning states that feel that their vote is meaningless and vice versa, for example, Northern California vs. Southern California.

Time to allocate EC vote based upon the % of the actual votes. And you can allocate the 2 senate votes to the winner, as a bonus.

It will make the race to 270 a lot more interesting.

I donít know which party would benefit, but I agree. Itís the Maine / Nebraska model, and I wish other states would adopt it.

The Democrats would probably be against the model as it places their bigger states in play (CA, NY).  Texas is already turning purple and FL is already purple. I think this would benefit the Republicans more than the Democrats, but you never know. Other middle sized states, like PA and OH would likely be 50/50 which would hurt Republicans (if they win those states) and help the Democrats. 

Does it equal out at the end?  I don't know but it would sure make for more interesting and inclusive elections.
curious if there's been any research into how prior elections would have turned out -- particularly the ones where the person with the least votes won the electoral college.  would Bush/Trump have gained more electoral votes than they'd have lost?
It would be interesting, but to do that right you have to fix gerrymandering. 
Historical Draft - Portland Trailblazers
PG - Magic Johnson, Tony Parker
SG - Clyde Drexler, Dennis Johnson, Alvin Robertson
SF - James Worthy, Alex English
PF - Charles Barkley, Ben Wallace
C - Moses Malone, George Mikan, Brad Daugherty

 

Hello! Guest

Welcome to the CelticsStrong Forums.

Community

Signup to win FREE tickets

* indicates required