11
   

If there was no Electoral College, would the Republican Party be finished?

 
 
McGentrix
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 14 Nov, 2016 01:03 pm
@farmerman,
How does getting your people out to vote become "unethical and criminal"?

You'll need to explain that one a little better. Each state (for the most part) is decided by "the popular vote" and has nothing to do with gerrymandering. If your party gets more votes, then your candidate gets the electoral votes. I see nothing illegal or unethical about that. Remember that we are a federation of states. We are not a big ol' country that happens to be divided upon lines drawn in the snow.

I understand and completely agree about gerrymandering districts. But, that's the way the cookie crumbles. Our system is designed that way and until it changes then the winner will be the best strategist.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  0  
Reply Mon 14 Nov, 2016 01:41 pm
@Lash,
Lash wrote:

Actually, that was not the question. I think close analysis of the demographics as they fit in the electoral map McG so kindly brought is required before constructing an accurate answer.




Demographics might be a diversionary focus. The issues that Trump focussed on resonated with swing state rural voters that are concerned about jobs, religious freedom, and who do they have to learn to feel comfortable with. Everyone in this country does not celebrate non-English speaking diversity. Some people look upon owning a gun the way urban people value a fire extinguisher in their apartment. It's a big country, and rural America does not necessarily like societal changes on steroids, so to speak. Rural America can just about manage to accept a Jewish doctor in the local hospital, or be friendly with Catholic locals, and one should expect rural America to envision a tsunami of refugees, whether due to economics or wars, to be greeted with a Welcome Wagon? Puhlease. Let's be realists.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 14 Nov, 2016 01:54 pm
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:

Foofie wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:

The Electoral College has allowed for the "mischiefs of faction" to prevail in this election, something for which it was implemented to avoid, ironically.


Where was the "mischief"? The country is "right of center" and can vote in an election if voters think the issues warrant their vote. There were issues that resonated with conservative voters, especially with upwards of three Supreme Court justices possibly being replaced in the next few years. Where's the mischief?

A minority faction won the vote.


Does not make sense. The rural swing state vote just came out to vote this election cycle, and might not have been counted in the algorithm of some pollsters, since the total votes in the state is based on the last election cycle's voters. Only due possibly to the potential of upwards of three Supreme Court justices being chosen in the next four years did this rural (should I say white Protestants, or is that not pc?) demographic do the grasshopper thing and swarm.

No mischief. Just exercising their right to vote. The term mischief could be misconstrued by some that it is constitutional to disenfranchise voters due to some preference that they not surprise the pollsters, or at least the early pollsters. Due to the celebrity headliners at late Hillary campaign stops, the pollsters likely realized that many rural voters decided to forego their "religion and their guns" (who said that that's what they liked?) long enough to vote. It is still a right of center nation. And, it is still a majority that takes their identity seriously, having had it in their families before the urban progressive's families arrived sometime in the latter half of the nineteenth century oftentimes.

The reaction of Hillary and Bernie supporters to Trump's landslide victory tells me that many do not have a clue how to be a minority in a situation. I say that from my own experience as a minority. First rule is learn humility and never, never act out being on the losing team. It's just so puerile, in my opinion.
maporsche
 
  5  
Reply Mon 14 Nov, 2016 02:10 pm
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:

How do you get those numbers from that link?


Not all from the link. That was a starting point for population numbers.

Well the total population of the cities is like 48 million.
Approx 25% of the country's population is under 18 (and can't vote). That brings us down to 36 million.
Of those who can vote, only 66% are even registered. That brings us down to 24 million.

Now, I guess we should also count that only 85% of those registered to vote actually cast a vote. Now we're down to about 20 million people.

So, if you take the 50 largest cities in the USA and you were able to convince 100% of the people to vote for you, you'd have 20 million votes. Not enough to win an election.
McGentrix
 
  0  
Reply Mon 14 Nov, 2016 02:34 pm
@maporsche,
Apparently turnout was 58% with 134,302,600 (approx) voters. Total eligible voters was 231,556,622. It is estimated that 8.4% of voters were actually ineligible (felons, non-citizens, etc).

I am looking for data regarding urban v rural vote counts.
maporsche
 
  5  
Reply Mon 14 Nov, 2016 02:41 pm
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:

Apparently turnout was 58% with 134,302,600 (approx) voters. Total eligible voters was 231,556,622. It is estimated that 8.4% of voters were actually ineligible (felons, non-citizens, etc).

I am looking for data regarding urban v rural vote counts.


58% of 36 million is 20.88 million.

My points are:

1) the vast majority of voters exist outside the major cities
2) if a candidate wants to win the presidential election, even if it were entirely based on popular votes, they'd have to campaign nationwide and could not realistically focus on only big cities.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  3  
Reply Mon 14 Nov, 2016 02:49 pm
@Foofie,
In this election, their vote was of greater value than that of Democratic voters, who just exercised their right to vote as well, in the Electoral College.
cicerone imposter
 
  3  
Reply Mon 14 Nov, 2016 03:24 pm
@InfraBlue,
I like this from the Washington Post:
Quote:
The government is in Republican hands. Let them deal with him. Democrats can spend four years raising heirloom tomatoes, meditating, reading Jane Austen, traveling around the country, tasting artisan beers, and let the Republicans build the wall and carry on the trade war with China and deport the undocumented and deal with opioids, and we Democrats can go for a long , brisk walk and smell the roses.
georgeob1
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 14 Nov, 2016 04:39 pm
@cicerone imposter,
A bit childish, I think.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Mon 14 Nov, 2016 05:58 pm
@georgeob1,
Think Trump.
georgeob1
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 14 Nov, 2016 07:50 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I believe none of us yet knows what kind of President Trump may be. Indeed history teaches us that initial impressions are very often wrong. Consider the sometimes slavish adulation that accompanied Obama's ascent. I believe the judgment of history will be very different from that.
nimh
 
  3  
Reply Mon 14 Nov, 2016 08:14 pm
@Krumple,
Quote:
You dont need corporations to get elected.


Except for the Trump corporation, apparently.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 15 Nov, 2016 02:48 pm
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:

In this election, their vote was of greater value than that of Democratic voters, who just exercised their right to vote as well, in the Electoral College.


Sorry, sir, but I've lost interest in mentally jousting on this thread.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 15 Nov, 2016 02:49 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

I believe none of us yet knows what kind of President Trump may be. Indeed history teaches us that initial impressions are very often wrong. Consider the sometimes slavish adulation that accompanied Obama's ascent. I believe the judgment of history will be very different from that.


There you go again using a lifetime of collected wisdom (meant as a compliment).
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Nov, 2016 02:55 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Why not, it's what they have been doing since 2010. In fact the federal govt might actually get something done for a change.
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Nov, 2016 01:24 pm
@Thomas33,
It will tend to favor Republicans slightly but they certainly don't need it they can and have won the popular vote.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Sat 19 Nov, 2016 03:29 pm
@georgeob1,
Trump is a racial bigot, a misogynist, and a scammer. He's already bringing his family into the political scene to promote their businesses.

He's already cheapened the position of president, and it never recover from it after he finishes his term.
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Sun 20 Nov, 2016 06:34 am
@cicerone imposter,
nepotism laws, begun after the Kennedy admin (when Bobbie Kennedy was appointed to John F's cabinet), may be an obstacle to Kushner's appointment
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 20 Nov, 2016 06:51 am
It's weird because Hillary had offices in the West Wing and was a major player with healthcare although it failed, and Rosalyn Carter sat in on cabinet and security meetings.



nimh
 
  2  
Reply Thu 24 Nov, 2016 07:29 pm
@Lash,
Apparently it all depends on the legal specifics of the person's role. If I've understood things correctly (but I haven't looked too deeply), the relevant legal provision states that

Quote:
A public official may not appoint, employ, promote, advance, or advocate for appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement, in or to a civilian position in the agency in which he is serving or over which he exercises jurisdiction or control any individual who is a relative of the public official.


The definition of a public official includes the Presidency, so it applied to Bill Clinton and applies to Trump. The definition of "relative" includes son-in-law, so it applies to Kushner, and you'd certainly think it would include wife (i.e. Hillary, at the time), right?

So that leaves the definition of what counts as an "agency" which the President "exercises jurisdiction or control" etc over. It apparently covers:

Quote:
- an Executive agency;

- an office, agency, or other establishment in the legislative branch;

- an office, agency, or other establishment in the judicial branch; and

- the government of the District of Columbia


This is where the loopholes enter the equation, I guess, whether for presidents' wives or sons-in-law. Bill Clinton appointed Hillary to chair a "Task Force on National Health Care Reform". Does a Task Force constitute "an executive agency"? Hellfino, but I could see that kind of thing being used to go around the law.

According to that NPR article I just linked, things get trickier still:

Quote:
almost as a passing mention in the D.C. Circuit's 1993 opinion [on whether Hillary's task force had to publicly disclose records], the court said that the federal anti-nepotism statute does not appear to cover staff in the White House or in the Executive Office of the President. Judge Laurence Silberman wrote, "So, for example, a president would be barred from appointing his brother as attorney general, but perhaps not as a White House special assistant."


So there's an opening for Jared Kushner too... except that "there's plenty of disagreement in the legal community about whether that bit from Judge Silberman's opinion is legally binding because it wasn't part of the reasoning for the central holding in the case."

Okay. On Trump's sort-of bright side:

Quote:
Courts have also held in the past that parts of the Executive Office of the President are not agencies when it comes to the Freedom of Information Act, but it's unclear whether those legal precedents would be controlling when applied to the anti-nepotism statute.


Wait, that's not all! There's another part to that relevant legal provision in the anti-nepotism law, apparently:

Quote:
An individual appointed, employed, promoted, or advanced in violation of this section is not entitled to pay, and money may not be paid from the Treasury as pay to an individual so appointed, employed, promoted, or advanced.


So, basically ... this provision explicitly allows for the possibility of, say, the President violating the other provision, and just insists that, in such a case, the person in question isn't paid? So the First Lady or First Son-In-Law (etc) could just be taken on in an unpaid position instead? Or is this provision merely an enforcement mechanism (ie any person who was appointed in violation of the other provision has to resign and pay back any salary he received)?

No idea.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/12/2021 at 01:50:43