- Joined
- Nov 10, 2016
- Messages
- 14,607
- Reaction score
- 9,303
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
1. "a majority of the votes" is irrelevant when it comes to the President.Interesting fact is that of the past four appointments to the SCOTUS, all four have been appointed by a president who did not get a majority of votes in their election and the appointments were approved by Senators who did not represent a majority of our population. Right now a president who has got elected without a majority of the votes in the 2016 is appointing Federal judges and the appointments are being once again approved by Senators who do not represent a majority of Americans. So why not have the House do those functions as the do represent a majority of Americans. It seems in the past four years and more, our country is run by the minority and this will continue possibly into the future. Why not the change?
- I don't like the outcome so I'd like to change the rules...
Yet, they are still the known rules of the land. The "majority" everyone likes to speak of can certainly disperse themselves to those backward states and alter the landscape. Beware - manual labor may be involved.It is those very rules which has produced this ongoing tractor-trailer disaster.
Yet, they are still the known rules of the land. The "majority" everyone likes to speak of can certainly disperse themselves to those backward states and alter the landscape. Beware - manual labor may be involved.
Interesting fact is that of the past four appointments to the SCOTUS, all four have been appointed by a president who did not get a majority of votes in their election and the appointments were approved by Senators who did not represent a majority of our population. Right now a president who has got elected without a majority of the votes in the 2016 is appointing Federal judges and the appointments are being once again approved by Senators who do not represent a majority of Americans. So why not have the House do those functions as the do represent a majority of Americans. It seems in the past four years and more, our country is run by the minority and this will continue possibly into the future. Why not the change?
The rules were made for a time in the 1700's that is now gone with the wind. Republicans only defend them because it gives them a distinct advantage.
In a word? NO!
This country was not founded as a "Democracy," nor was it founded as Parliamentary system. It could have been the latter, as that was the form used by England.
In fact we started with a Confederation under the Articles of Confederation, with a single-house legislative branch in Congress. It was made up of delegates appointed by the States, but still having only 1 vote per State regardless of the number of delegates. Pretty much how the Revolutionary Congress worked during the War for Independence.
Then came the "Constitutional Convention" and the evolution of our current form of representative government. The reasons for this system are taught in schools, and hashed about in this Forum and elsewhere.
Regardless, IT WORKS. It allows for the various States to have a level of independence of governance within their own borders, and a level of cooperation with other States in terms of commerce, defense, and foreign affairs.
It was specifically designed to prevent any State, group of States, or areas with the largest populations centers to have overwhelming dominance over the rest of the nation.
The Democrats (and any other socialist, communist, or even fascist groups) are not content with this arrangement, because it acts to deny them absolute control and so absolute power.
So we see all sorts of arguments to "Change the System." Arguments always portrayed as seeking something more "just," more "beneficial," more "fair." Yet always to the benefits of those seeking such change...at the cost to others who don't see things their way.
That's the problem with your suggestion. Those asserting the merits of such changes always claim the moral high ground, while clearly demonstrating neither morals nor honesty...just pure ideological power grabbing.
So they want to "stack the Court" like FDR wanted, so it could be politicized and serve the needs of those in power. They want to get rid of the Electoral College (or defang it via a work-around like "National Popular Vote" initiatives) and go "popular vote" which can be swayed like any other mob system in history. They force "direct popular voting" by mass-mailing without a willingness to actually test it and set up a secure, workable system. There are all sorts of things they want to do; anything and everything to change what made this country what it is...and turn it into who knows what.
Well, I don't want to see our nation turned into a "PANEM" ala "The Hunger Games" where the large population centers decide, while the producers simply obey. I like the system set up. It has done well and allows for change, but slow change which can be adapted to.
The rules were made for a time in the 1700's that is now gone with the wind. Republicans only defend them because it gives them a distinct advantage.
What about if the GOP starts to lose, what then. The game was set up over 200 years ago and things have changed. We can no longer trust any politico to keep their words or promises, and this fiasco is only the last time, not the first time we are seeing this. A country ruled by its minority will soon become a authoritarian state and that is where we are headed.It doesn't change the fact that the rules are known before the game is played. We go through this EC nonsense every time the left loses a presidential election. When they win, mums the word.
No, we should change the rules so that a the majority has a voice, which with the present rules they do not have. When a minority can continually rule in any kind of democracy, it is headed toward authoritarian rule. Look at Russia and Turkey as very good examples. And that is where this country is headed, but you must know that and agree with it happening.1700s?? Holy moly, we should just ditch the whole Constitution since all those rules are so old!
Popular vote advocate = uneducatedInteresting fact is that of the past four appointments to the SCOTUS, all four have been appointed by a president who did not get a majority of votes in their election and the appointments were approved by Senators who did not represent a majority of our population. Right now a president who has got elected without a majority of the votes in the 2016 is appointing Federal judges and the appointments are being once again approved by Senators who do not represent a majority of Americans. So why not have the House do those functions as the do represent a majority of Americans. It seems in the past four years and more, our country is run by the minority and this will continue possibly into the future. Why not the change?
No, we should change the rules so that a the majority has a voice, which with the present rules they do not have. When a minority can continually rule in any kind of democracy, it is headed toward authoritarian rule. Look at Russia and Turkey as very good examples. And that is where this country is headed, but you must know that and agree with it happening.
How about this, instead of the people voting for president we could just have the people vote for their representative and then the representatives would choose a president, judges, etc. We could become a European style Parliamentary Republic instead of a Constitutional Republic. Heck, we could get rid of the Constitution altogether and just have community drum circles where whoever has the megaphone gets to speak and everyone "twinkles" their hands in approval.Interesting fact is that of the past four appointments to the SCOTUS, all four have been appointed by a president who did not get a majority of votes in their election and the appointments were approved by Senators who did not represent a majority of our population. Right now a president who has got elected without a majority of the votes in the 2016 is appointing Federal judges and the appointments are being once again approved by Senators who do not represent a majority of Americans. So why not have the House do those functions as the do represent a majority of Americans. It seems in the past four years and more, our country is run by the minority and this will continue possibly into the future. Why not the change?
1700s?? Holy moly, we should just ditch the whole Constitution since all those rules are so old!
It doesn't change the fact that the rules are known before the game is played. We go through this EC nonsense every time the left loses a presidential election. When they win, mums the word.
"We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”
Thomas Jefferson
If we did it this way, we would certainly be closer to doing it the way that idiot Ginsburg wanted it done.How about this, instead of the people voting for president we could just have the people vote for their representative and then the representatives would choose a president, judges, etc. We could become a European style Parliamentary Republic instead of a Constitutional Republic. Heck, we could get rid of the Constitution altogether and just have community drum circles where whoever has the megaphone gets to speak and everyone "twinkles" their hands in approval.
If we did it this way, we would certainly be closer to doing it the way that idiot Ginsburg wanted it done.
"installed" instead of "elected"
Yeah, that’s why an amendment process is included in the Constitution.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?