‘The truth is… there was no one to vote for’

[skepticalbip]

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

I think that we have someone crazy now. Certifiable. I think that if the presidency were decided by popular vote rather than the EC, our country would be in a better place today. The majority made the right decision.

By the barest of margins (and not by enough margin to avoid defeat in the EC).

Do you seriously think that if you got this close in the popular vote this time, and you keep re-doing the process every four years, that you can go for long without getting a crazy person? It's inevitable.

That's one reason why the founding fathers didn't go for direct elections to begin with, and instead passed the buck to the States.

Bottom line for me, the presidency has incredible power. The power to create alliances, appoint lifetime judges, set the direction of an entire branch of government, and create wars. I think that a person who has the power to create a war that could involve millions should have the mandate from the majority. The stakes are too high to allow a minority to set so much policy.

First, you are asserting that the president has a hell of a lot of power that the office does not have.
Appointment of judges is subject to the approval of the Senate.
The President can not create wars without consent of Congress.
The Constitution prescribes the role of the President as the executive empowered to enforce the acts of Congress, not to create law.

The problem is that the other two branches of the government have allowed the Executive branch to exceed its authority. Rather than hoping to correct the problems this causes by changing how the Executive is selected, a better solution would be for the Congress and Judicial branch to restrain the Executive powers to the intended state.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

First, you are asserting that the president has a hell of a lot of power that the office does not have.
Appointment of judges is subject to the approval of the Senate.
The President can not create wars without consent of Congress.
The Constitution prescribes the role of the President as the executive empowered to enforce the acts of Congress, not to create law.

The problem is that the other two branches of the government have allowed the Executive branch to exceed its authority. Rather than hoping to correct the problems this causes by changing how the Executive is selected, a better solution would be for the Congress and Judicial branch to restrain the Executive powers to the intended state.

The president certainly can start wars without the consent of Congress. Simply order our forces to attack, we will be at war whether Congress wants it or not.

 

[bilby]

Declarations of war are so 19th Century.

 

[skepticalbip]

First, you are asserting that the president has a hell of a lot of power that the office does not have.
Appointment of judges is subject to the approval of the Senate.
The President can not create wars without consent of Congress.
The Constitution prescribes the role of the President as the executive empowered to enforce the acts of Congress, not to create law.

The problem is that the other two branches of the government have allowed the Executive branch to exceed its authority. Rather than hoping to correct the problems this causes by changing how the Executive is selected, a better solution would be for the Congress and Judicial branch to restrain the Executive powers to the intended state.

The president certainly can start wars without the consent of Congress. Simply order our forces to attack, we will be at war whether Congress wants it or not.

Hard to attack unless Congress appropriates the funds needed to move the forces into place. And then there is the little matter of being impeached for abuse of power to worry about.

 

[skepticalbip]

Declarations of war are so 19th Century.

Well there were a couple wars declared during the 20th century but many more "conflicts" and "police actions" that weren't declared but were first approved by Congress. The Iraq invasion was approved twice by Congress because there were a few Democrats who voted against it the first time demanded a second vote so they could take credit for supporting the war.

 

[bilby]

The president certainly can start wars without the consent of Congress. Simply order our forces to attack, we will be at war whether Congress wants it or not.

Hard to attack unless Congress appropriates the funds needed to move the forces into place.

Can you name a nation state that couldn't be attacked by the US at a few hours notice with the current worldwide disposition of forces?

I reckon there might be remote island or mountain nations that could possibly be more than a day away from the nearest US unit with the range to strike them; but if do, there aren't many. Nepal, perhaps.

Winning a war would likely require funding for additional deployments; but starting a war, not so much.

 

[Will Wiley]

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

I think that we have someone crazy now. Certifiable. I think that if the presidency were decided by popular vote rather than the EC, our country would be in a better place today. The majority made the right decision.

By the barest of margins (and not by enough margin to avoid defeat in the EC).

Do you seriously think that if you got this close in the popular vote this time, and you keep re-doing the process every four years, that you can go for long without getting a crazy person? It's inevitable.

That's one reason why the founding fathers didn't go for direct elections to begin with, and instead passed the buck to the States.

I think that history will show that the majority would have picked the correct president in both 2000 and 2016. Bottom line for me, the presidency has incredible power. The power to create alliances, appoint lifetime judges, set the direction of an entire branch of government, and create wars. I think that a person who has the power to create a war that could involve millions should have the mandate from the majority. The stakes are too high to allow a minority to set so much policy.

I agree that the presidency has great power; and that's why I disagree that it should be given to the winner of a popularity contest, without regard for any other characteristics that winner might have.

.

What is your suggestion?

 

[skepticalbip]

Hard to attack unless Congress appropriates the funds needed to move the forces into place.

Can you name a nation state that couldn't be attacked by the US at a few hours notice with the current worldwide disposition of forces?

I reckon there might be remote island or mountain nations that could possibly be more than a day away from the nearest US unit with the range to strike them; but if do, there aren't many. Nepal, perhaps.

Winning a war would likely require funding for additional deployments; but starting a war, not so much.

The military leadership take their oath to defend and protect the Constitution first and then to obey the orders of the President and officers quite seriously. So it would take a major conspiracy for the generals to comply with a Presidential order to attack without Congressional approval first. But then there certainly could be such a conspiracy... but then there could also be a military conspiracy to conduct a coup and take over the country. Lots of weird and scary shit is possible.

 

[bilby]

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

I think that we have someone crazy now. Certifiable. I think that if the presidency were decided by popular vote rather than the EC, our country would be in a better place today. The majority made the right decision.

By the barest of margins (and not by enough margin to avoid defeat in the EC).

Do you seriously think that if you got this close in the popular vote this time, and you keep re-doing the process every four years, that you can go for long without getting a crazy person? It's inevitable.

That's one reason why the founding fathers didn't go for direct elections to begin with, and instead passed the buck to the States.

I think that history will show that the majority would have picked the correct president in both 2000 and 2016. Bottom line for me, the presidency has incredible power. The power to create alliances, appoint lifetime judges, set the direction of an entire branch of government, and create wars. I think that a person who has the power to create a war that could involve millions should have the mandate from the majority. The stakes are too high to allow a minority to set so much policy.

I agree that the presidency has great power; and that's why I disagree that it should be given to the winner of a popularity contest, without regard for any other characteristics that winner might have.

.

What is your suggestion?

http://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?9761-Limits-of-democracy&p=351599#post351599

 

[whichphilosophy]

There was Bernie.

He was worth voting for.

I don't know much about him, but since there are no scandals and he speaks in terms of unity between all parties that would make him boring but at the same time you could be right.

 

[untermensche]

There was Bernie.

He was worth voting for.

I don't know much about him, but since there are no scandals and he speaks in terms of unity between all parties that would make him boring but at the same time you could be right.

He is nothing more than a run-of-the-mill New Deal Democrat. A rare breed these days since almost all other Democrats have sold their souls to corporate interests and sing the corporate tune.

He probably was our last chance to do anything serious about climate change.

The election of Trump probably dooms the species, if it has not already been doomed.

 

[Harry Bosch]

There will never be a perfect or clean election. The US election process is based on an incredibly shaky foundation. However, one side will still get more votes than the other. Look at all the Trump advantages (Benghazi BS, Comey, fox news, and etc.) and yet HRC still won more votes.

By the barest of margins.

When the results lead to almost half of voters feeling totally devastated, that's a good indication that you chose the wrong methodology for selecting presidents.

Save democracy for the legislature. Judges and presidents need to know what the fuck they are doing; you can't afford a selection process that could put any crazy loon in such positions; nor is it wise to put politicians in those spots - impartiality is too important for executive and judiciary. Leave partisan bickering in the legislature where it belongs.

How do you define "barest margin"? Jesus Christ, she's currently ahead by 630,000 votes! And there still are 7 million more votes to count. They are mostly in California and Washington. But at the end of the day, she'll have far more than a million votes than Trump.

http://heavy.com/news/2016/11/popul...ege-presidential-election-results-california/

 

[skepticalbip]

By the barest of margins.

When the results lead to almost half of voters feeling totally devastated, that's a good indication that you chose the wrong methodology for selecting presidents.

Save democracy for the legislature. Judges and presidents need to know what the fuck they are doing; you can't afford a selection process that could put any crazy loon in such positions; nor is it wise to put politicians in those spots - impartiality is too important for executive and judiciary. Leave partisan bickering in the legislature where it belongs.

How do you define "barest margin"? Jesus Christ, she's currently ahead by 630,000 votes! And there still are 7 million more votes to count. They are mostly in California and Washington. But at the end of the day, she'll have far more than a million votes than Trump.

http://heavy.com/news/2016/11/popul...ege-presidential-election-results-california/

But even if she does get a million more votes, that would be like 0.8% of the total vote difference.

All of which is meaningless because the US does not elect presidents by popular vote.

 

[untermensche]

If the purpose of the electoral college is to protect the smaller states from the opinions of the larger states then this election showed it is still necessary.

You don't throw it out just because your candidate did not win.

 

[LordKiran]

If the purpose of the electoral college is to protect the smaller states from the opinions of the larger states then this election showed it is still necessary.

You don't throw it out just because your candidate did not win.

Except it doesn't do that. HRC could have won with around a dozen states total. It looks even worse if you break it down by district. The EC actually makes it possible for states like California to dictate the election over a collection of small middle America states.

 

[untermensche]

If the purpose of the electoral college is to protect the smaller states from the opinions of the larger states then this election showed it is still necessary.

You don't throw it out just because your candidate did not win.

Except it doesn't do that. HRC could have won with around a dozen states total. It looks even worse if you break it down by district. The EC actually makes it possible for states like California to dictate the election over a collection of small middle America states.

It does it to some degree.

It still takes a lot of smaller states having the same majority opinion.

 

[Treedbear]

The greatest improvement we can make to effect change in Washington and to promote elections that are determined by the will of the people is to have ranked choice voting (http://www.fairvote.org/). With the advent of electronic voting systems this is a no-brainer.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

There was Bernie.

He was worth voting for.

Yes, he was. Then Hillary and her DNC cronies conspired against him and then they expected his supporters to vote for Hillary....

 

[bilby]

The greatest improvement we can make to effect change in Washington and to promote elections that are determined by the will of the people is to have ranked choice voting (http://www.fairvote.org/). With the advent of electronic voting systems this is a no-brainer.

The assumption that 'determined by the will of the people' would be an improvement is deeply flawed, and I for one do not accept it as a starting premise when discussing the selection of a president.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

There was Bernie.

He was worth voting for.

Yes, he was. Then Hillary and her DNC cronies conspired against him and then they expected his supporters to vote for Hillary....

And they should have.

Take the evangelicals, for instance. They hate almost everything about Trump but were willing to ignore all the stuff that they hated because they knew that a Trump presidency would do a lot more for advancing their agenda and the issues they care about than a Clinton presidency, which would actively work against most of that. It's the same for the Sandernistas. Trump is going to actively work against the agendas which are important to them and Clinton would have done some of the stuff they wanted to have done.

The evangelicals were mature adults who made the best of a bad situation and the Sandernistas were whiny babies who stayed at home and cried because they weren't going to get a pony. The result of that is that the evangelicals are getting a lot of what they want and the Sandernistas are not only getting nothing, but probably losing a lot. All because they felt it was important to make a point that the people who actually oppose them don't give a shit about.