American democracy is broken

Discussion in 'Elections & Campaigns' started by LafayetteBis, May 6, 2019.

  1. AmericanNationalist

    AmericanNationalist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2013
    Messages:
    41,160
    Likes Received:
    20,938
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Actually, in debate, people can have alternative views and people typically point out things that support their views. As an authoritarian American, I lament all things woeful in this country and the failure of the democratic experiment. To which your reply is "It's Trump that's bad"

    Trump did not create the dysfunction that is the House, or the never Trumpers. That's their decision. He unfortunately didn't create the fundamental flaw of courts deciding political issues(an issue as far back as Dred Scott.) Democracy's demise precedes Donald Trump, and is inevitable all over the world.

    Human beings are growing to hate the democratic system.
     
  2. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yep, the lefties are outraged by his successes, keeping campaign pledges, and a roaring economy with historically low unemployment in all demographics. This portends problems for the authoritarians.
     
  3. gnoib

    gnoib Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2019
    Messages:
    5,448
    Likes Received:
    4,075
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The US is not a democracy, that's the problem.
     
  4. Phil

    Phil Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Messages:
    2,219
    Likes Received:
    134
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    I need new glasses and therapy for my right rotator cuff. The 12th... President...
    1796: Pres and VP in rivalry: bad
    1800: accidental tie: bad
    1824: 4 candidates, second place man chosen: bad
    1860: 39% winner: bad
    1876: Disputed winner: bad
    1884, 88, 92: very close: bad
    1912: 44% winner: bad
    1960: cheating: bad
    1976: winner gets fewer states: bad
    1992: 43% winner bad
    2000: recount: bad
    2016: Everything in the whole saga: bad.
     
  5. Seth Bullock

    Seth Bullock Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2015
    Messages:
    13,625
    Likes Received:
    11,934
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The problem with this proposal is that Americans - a free people - may wish not to contribute to campaigns. But if these "democracy dollars" are coming from their tax dollars, they are being forced to, even if through other people.

    A better idea would be to limit all contributions to candidates from any one source to $100, an amount most people can afford.
     
  6. Injeun

    Injeun Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2012
    Messages:
    12,832
    Likes Received:
    5,961
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You have forgotten the other candidates running for the office. Clinton did not win the majority of total votes. She only received about 48 percent. Consequently she did not win the popular vote. That said, they knew the rules going in and were all vying for the EC which Trump wound up winning.

    [Hillary Clinton/Tim Kaine 48.3% 65,844,969


    Donald Trump/Mike Pence 46.2% 62,979,984

    Libertarian Gary Johnson/Bill Weld 3.3% 4,492,919

    Green Jill Stein/Ajamu Baraka 1.1% 1,449,370

    Other 1.2% 1,684,908

    Total Votes 136,452,150 538
    Election results via: Ballotpedia

     
  7. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    From the online dictionary here:
    Majority - the greater number.

    It can mean more than 50% of the vote, but in this instance (of a national election in the Electoral College) IT DOES NOT! There the majority vote takes 'em all!

    That is, whoever wins the majority popular-vote in an election obtains ALL THE EC VOTES OF THAT STATE. Those who did not vote for the majority winner, their votes are thrown-away, discounted, obliterated!

    Which is pure trickery, manipulation, deception, unfairness - and should be made illegal, altered, done away with.

    But wont be until Americans vote to do so and which the Rabid-Right will never allow! Because America has not the collective courage to admit historically it made an horrendous mistake back in 1812 in its voting apparatus for the presidency by means of a constitutional amendment ...!

    PS: And need I mention the same trickery in gerrymandering the popular-vote at the state-level for the HofR. Nope!
    PPS: How is that the US gets the scores right for just about all sports games, but cannot do the same for the popular-voting of political representation to state or national positions?

     
    Last edited: May 29, 2019
  8. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What "democracy dollars"? All nations on earth employ taxation in order fund state and national operations that are voted by the appropriate legislatures!

    Taxation is the principle means of supporting numerous national needs. The taxation income is not considered to be forced, but necessary in managing city, state and national operations on behalf of its citizens.

    Try hard to use the right-words, and not the Right-words when debating in a forum! Try harder .... !
     
  9. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    ECONOMIC HISTORY LESSON

    And we are disappointed to see such pathetic rebuttal in a national political debate. Or, at least, I am.

    Historical facts:
    *Your emphasis on a "roaring economy" began all by itself by first stopping an explosion of the Unemployment Rate upon entering office of the Obama Administration*. In the midterms of 2010, Americans made a Gross Error at the ballot-box by giving the majority in the HofR to the Replicants. The HofR refused any further stimulation money!
    *After four years of no rise in the Employment to population ratio (from 2010 to 2014, see here) because the Replicants would not vote the necessary funding in the Replicant controlled HofR.

    *In 2012 Donald Dork was miselected PotUS and now takes the credit for a Booming Economy that had been started previous to his election ... !

    It would help a lot if you understood what has been happening historically in the place where you live ...

    *By passing in 2010 the ARRA spending-bill that spiked a skyrocketing Unemployment Ratio (at 10%)! See here!
     
    Last edited: May 29, 2019
  10. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You are only fooling yourself with the above jabbering.

    The facts of the matter show that America is a dysfunctional democracy because of its electoral mechanism - which has been in place since a long, long time at the very beginning of its "so-called democracy" (1812). So, Americans today think it must be right and correct. Wrong!

    The Electoral College was a patch-work agreement to keep the southern-states in the Union that were threatening to leave! Because the northern states were calling for freeing the negroe slaves brought in from Africa. Without which the southern-states' economy would pitch into a great recession. (The northern states had more than enough manpower pouring in from migrating Europeans.)

    My Point:
    *History is a magic eye-opener to the present day. As long as one is aware of it and our origins as a nation. It was a long bumpy-road that did not end in the Civil War that supposedly freed the slaves.
    *But in this new day-and-age of ours, the very same unfairness exists in terms of Income Disparity. It is not only racial but economic in nature and mostly due to ineffective Upper-income Taxation.
    *Meaning blacks/hispanics today still benefit far, far less from a booming economy than do whites! See here from the Census Bureau: Real Median Household Income by Race and Hispanic Origin: 1967 to 2017
    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: May 29, 2019
  11. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    ONLY IS ENOUGH!

    Only?

    From the dictionary here:
    majority = the greater number.

    Only is enough in any multiple-candidacy "popular-vote" for any office in the land - or it should be. But, in America, and uniquely in America amongst developed nations, the count of the national popular-vote for the presidency "only" is not sufficient.

    Hillary's majority vote nationally, when accumulated by the Electoral-College's distortional mechanism, becomes one where "by state" the majority-vote-wins-all-the-state's-votes. Meaning the votes of the losers are transformed / altered / adapted / modified / converted / revised / remodeled / reformed / reshaped / refashioned / reworked / remade / remodeled / redone / refined - ad nauseam!

    Meaning all of the EC-votes go to only one of the two candidates based upon their "majority" in that state. Which is blatantly unfair and must stop!


    And it should be illegal because it NEGATES/VOIDS/NULLIFIES the popular-votes of the "losers". There is nothing more bizarre in a voting procedure than when in any state the losers of a national popular-vote are negated (abracadabra!) and the majority-winner allotted ALL THE VOTES OF THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE!

    (Except perhaps even more bizarre is Gerrymandering of both state and national votes for political office!)

    How does it feel to live in a "supposedly free country", when your vote for the PotUS can be disregarded and manipulated into a mandate for an individual for whom YOU DID NOT VOTE!


    Because it is a Great Mystery to most other developed countries who have avoided pertinently to employ an Electoral College to elect the chief Executive of their nation for the very reason that it can be manipulated ... !
     
  12. Seth Bullock

    Seth Bullock Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2015
    Messages:
    13,625
    Likes Received:
    11,934
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If you don't know what "democracy dollars", read you own OP.

    Sheesh!
     
  13. Injeun

    Injeun Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2012
    Messages:
    12,832
    Likes Received:
    5,961
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Believe and say what you will. The fact is that most American voters did not vote for Clinton. And your own rationale: "it should be illegal because it NEGATES/VOIDS/NULLIFIES the popular-votes of the "losers", is failed. Second, Trump and Clinton both knew the rules going in, and ran their campaigns accordingly. As such, they both had an equal chance to win. In the end, Trump won according to the established rules.
     
  14. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    From here:
    Now how could the Electoral College (EC) NOT SHOW the same results as the popular-vote?

    Which is the question I have been answering. Because the EC-process is "cooked" ...
     
    Last edited: May 29, 2019
  15. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,370
    Likes Received:
    9,297
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It would seem you need some education on how the electoral college functions.
    Featured snippet from the web

    The founding fathers established it in the Constitution as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens. ... The Electoral College consists of 538 electors. A majority of 270 electoral votes is required to elect the President.

    If these people do not vote the way the nation does then the popular vote no longer matters in a Presidential election.
    https://thirty-thousand.org/pages/section_IX.htm
     
  16. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Some people must have the last word.

    You've had yours ....
     
  17. gnoib

    gnoib Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2019
    Messages:
    5,448
    Likes Received:
    4,075
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not cooked, but it ignores the majority of the people and prevents smaller parties to and their views to be represented.
    If the US system would vote for parties and their representatives in the house, which than elect the president, it would be more democratic and give other voices a chance, Germany.
    Or if you go by majority, if neither candidate has 51%, have a run off, France
    The US system is broke, by all means.
    You have a 2 year election cycle and a 4 year and a 6 year election cycle. It is constant election time.

    The 2 party system, the different cycles and the electoral disenfranchises to many voters, the majority.
     
  18. Injeun

    Injeun Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2012
    Messages:
    12,832
    Likes Received:
    5,961
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The biggest detriment to a fair election is our media (abc,nbc,cbs,msnbc,cnn), which is essentially a propaganda tool for the left wing. Were it not for their political bias, it is my opinion that Trump would have garnered 60% of the popular vote. For the uninitiated, just look at clips of their faces on election night. They were supposed to be reporting the results of the election. Instead it was lamentations.
     
  19. Phil

    Phil Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Messages:
    2,219
    Likes Received:
    134
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Plurality
     
  20. alexa

    alexa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    18,965
    Likes Received:
    3,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    No, I see no sign of that. Of course people hate the US destroying their States and killing their people in the name of 'democracy' and people abhor how since the 80's with the advent of neo liberalism, democracy has to an extremely large extent been removed by stealth creating instead Plutocracies - the sort of thing which as we saw in the 30's tends to lead to authoritarian regimes.
     
    LafayetteBis likes this.
  21. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Blah, blah, blah!

    M R A ...
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2019
  22. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male


    Yes and no. Human beings where you live, perhaps. Not where I live. And why?

    Because Civics is a well-taught course in Europe. It is obligatory in all schools. And people understand well the structure and operations of governments.

    Unfortunately however (perhaps) the EU has generated a plethora of Political Currents and that is VERY MUCH UNLIKE the US; which has been a two-party system virtually since the get-go. And why, in America, parties have been VERY HAPPY to manipulate the popular-vote by means of Gerrymandering and the Electoral College.

    It is sooooo much easier to do than having a multiplicity of parties all fighting for the same objective - to be elected!
     
  23. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Definition of debate (from a DICTIONARY):
    Key words, "a formal discussion". Not an exchange of one-liner sarcasm!

    Which demonstrates distinctly three attributes of the writer addicted to sarcasm in a Debate Forum by saying:
    *I really have no rebuttal to offer you because I don't understand what you mean (since I had a Civics Class that barely lasted two months, once a week for an hour)! And anyway, passing Civics was NOT a requirement to obtain a high-school degree!
    *I find one-liner invective to suit me far more so than reasoned thought.
    *It does for the mind what defecation does for the body ... ! :dual:
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2019
  24. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    ADVERTIZE THIS!
    Monumental BS!

    The TV has been a major element in any American election. And why*?

    Because Americans watch the TV more hours per week than any other country on earth. (See here if you don't believe that fact.)

    Which means that in a two-party political system as ours, politics devolves to "Who can pay for the most TV-time to get across their message".

    If you want to buy a car or a refrigerator, that's just fine. But not for electing a political representative of the people!

    So, do TV adverts really matter? That's not what analysis says - see here:

    Do Negative Ads Make A Difference? Political Scientists Say Not So

    So, what does make a difference? Public Debate seems to do the trick, which means the primary element there is yet again the TV.

    TV channel owners LOVE POLITICS ... even to the point of favorizing their candidate! Whyzzat?

    Because what matters most in America is Who Wins - and not How They Win. This is a golden-rule of any business - but not necessarily the best for a fair&honest democracy. Whyzzat again?

    Because, IMHO, a TV advert of less than 30 seconds cannot possibly convey any real understanding of the political-policies that a candidate advocates no matter how many times it is repeated.

    VOTER TURNOUT

    And then there is matter of voter-turnout. The midterms are well-known for their diminished attendance at the polls. Which is how, two years after Obama took office and still in a Major Recession, the Dems lost their majority in the HofR as punishment.

    What happened from 2010 onwards? Because of Replicant opposition to spending, The Great Recession created NO JOBS until 2014. (Was this a willful gambit of the Replicants to have High Unemployment defeat Obama in 2012? You betcha!)

    Don't wanna believe that? Then do explain what is shown in this Employment-to-population Ratio history from the Bureau of Labor Statistics here. No net-increase in Employment was created from 2010 to 2014! Once again, thanks to the Replicants ... !


    *It will surprise you to know that in France, like other European countries, no political advertising is allowed! Debates Yes. But no hairbrained TV-advertising.





     
    Last edited: May 30, 2019
  25. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes, but of minor relevance in a two-party system heavily dominated by BigMoney!

    Let's get BigMoney out of politics!

    As much as I dislike the manipulation of voting in the US, I do believe that the fundamental reason for a Three Party system of governance is a better proposition. It makes governance much more difficult to pursue and, in that manner (I like to think), better. Of course, I have no way of proving that sentiment.

    And, with the newly instituted EU parliament in Strasbourg, the EU has a semblance of three-part governance (like the US). But that wont really happen for a long, long time due to the plethora of languages around the EU. It would be difficult to vote the Head of EU government for someone who cannot speak your language.

    I can't agree because I think Americans are just-plain-lazy about voting*. Voter turnout is so very low in most elections.

    *The Replicants took the HofR-leadership away from the Dems in the 2010 election. The percentage turnout that year was a measly 40% of the electorate. The impact upon the economy was that no jobs were created for another four years!
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2019

Share This Page