Politics

Ray B · Mar 20, 2019

jeanes said:
What about the push to allow 16 year olds to vote?

Given the new new deal there can be no discrimination. So anyone can vote. The logistics involved in having a 6 month old cast a ballot will be challenging, but then since any person is eligible to vote there would need to be ballots sent to every person on Earth. It is good that the DemonRats deny human status to not-yet-born children other wise someone would need to vote the proxy of the future child, which would also open the possibility of a person claiming that there was a child within and demanding two ballots.

Only by having every person on planet Earth cast a ballot in the United States elections can the United States really determine the will of THE people.

Fortunately I'm old and have lived the most of my life during a time when things were much more civilized. I do have pity for those young people that may never know of life in a civilized country.

tarbe · Mar 20, 2019

jeanes said:
What about the push to allow 16 year olds to vote?

Yup, more of the same kind of nonsense.

I had a co-worker who advocated for illegals to have full voting rights in the U.S.

She was from CT and went to University in CA...so I guess she had an excuse. It would take an extraordinary mind to resist the indoctrination she was likely subjected to.

Hogpatrol · Mar 20, 2019

jeanes said:
What about the push to allow 16 year olds to vote?

YAY!!!! Free marijuana for those that can't afford it. I swear lunacy has taken hold in California, New York, Colorado and a few other states.

Hank2211 · Mar 20, 2019

Wheels said:
Very well put. Especially for a non American.

Would love to have you teach a high school civics class. If we still had them.

Does it count that I'm married to an American and all of my kids are US citizens and now live and work in the US? If it wasn't for Wayne, I'd be one lonely Canuck!

But seriously, we see this very problem with "representation by population" in Canada. Because the major population centres are Ontario and Quebec, those of us who live outside of those province matter very little, if at all, in terms of elections. So our issues are ignored, or worse, we are sacrificed for the votes where they count. The Founding Fathers in the US were well attuned to this possibility and while they couldn't exclude it entirely, they showed enough foresight to ensure that you needed more than a simple majority of voters to elect people. As some have pointed out, but for this, New York, California and perhaps Texas could determine how everyone else in the US lives. That's exactly the problem we have here in Canada, and it may drive this country apart.

Ray B · Mar 20, 2019

Hank2211 said:
That's exactly the problem we have here in Canada, and it may drive this country apart.

I recall a petition/slogan from about 40 years ago that indicated the western four provinces wanted to separate from the remainder of Canada. BC, Alta, Sask & Manit were to become a country. It's sad when such solutions are seen as the only remaining option for correcting the problem.

Hank2211 · Mar 20, 2019

Ray B said:
I recall a petition/slogan from about 40 years ago that indicated the western four provinces wanted to separate from the remainder of Canada. BC, Alta, Sask & Manit were to become a country. It's sad when such solutions are seen as the only remaining option for correcting the problem.

How things change. Alberta and Saskatchewan would no more want to merge with BC than . . . actually I can't think of anything worse. BC is a province run by hypocrites and those whose intellectual development never got beyond the emotional stage . . .

But don't get me started.

Brent in Az · Mar 20, 2019

jeanes said:
What about the push to allow 16 year olds to vote?

Dem's want the votes of the indoctrinated youth. Get them to vote Democrat, before they get older, and wise up to failed Democrat policies. At least some of them.

sgt_zim · Mar 20, 2019

Hank2211 said:
This is a common refrain among losers - the rules (which have stood the test of time) are wrong. So they must be changed. You might recall that Harry Reid was told he would regret it when he changed Senate rules to do away with the filibuster on judicial appointments to all courts except the SCUS. When the Republicans did the same for that court, the chickens came home to roost. Lots of examples.

The electoral college was put in place for a number of reasons, but one was to ensure that population (the "tyranny of the majority") was not the only determining factor in political life. The Senate was set up, of course, for this very reason. So you need not only 50.1% of the population to make a law (House) but also (generally) 50.1% of the sates as well (Senate). Lot of sense there.

Minor correction on the purpose of the senate. As originally established, the Senate existed to give the several states a *strong* voice in the operation of the federal government. The 17th amendment has turned the several states into vassals.

Ray B · Mar 20, 2019

To add on to Sgt Zims; Originally the House of Representatives was set to have one representative per a specific number of citizens. It seems to me that citizens then were not the same as citizens now. For someone to vote for their rep they needed to be educated and may have had to own property. Requirements for inclusion into the electorate have been relaxed since those strict definitions. Additionally it was seen that the growth in population would result in a completely unwieldy number of reps. The total number of reps was limited to 435 but sorting them to various states amounted to obtaining the total population of voting citizens, dividing by 435 then drawing districts that come near the number for one rep. Having electors for the electoral college assigned proportionate to the number of reps and senators maintained the idea of a democracy where the citizens voted for their leaders. However while the electors based on number of Reps was related to the population, the electors based on Senators is a function of states. this was where the states such as Delaware and Rhode Island sought equality with Virginia and New York. Each state had 2 senators, therefor two electors.

But I think the real issue is not with the organization of the electoral college as it is with the manner that each state casts their ballots. Most of the states operate on the principal of winner-take-all. This applies to big states and little ones. Say a state is large and has 30 electoral votes. It has an election and 6,000,000 votes are cast. Let's say 4M were for A and 2M were for B.
In the "popular" system A would get 4M votes, B would get 2M
In the electoral college system from a state that is winner take all, A would get 30 electors, B would get 0
In the electoral college system from a state that prorates the electors (depending on the districts total, but for example) A would get 20 electors, B would get 10.

What system the candidates are seeking now is obscured because all that I've heard is that the electoral college should be eliminated but no plan for replacement has been offered.

sgt_zim · Mar 21, 2019

Ray B said:
To add on to Sgt Zims; Originally the House of Representatives was set to have one representative per a specific number of citizens. It seems to me that citizens then were not the same as citizens now. For someone to vote for their rep they needed to be educated and may have had to own property. Requirements for inclusion into the electorate have been relaxed since those strict definitions. Additionally it was seen that the growth in population would result in a completely unwieldy number of reps. The total number of reps was limited to 435 but sorting them to various states amounted to obtaining the total population of voting citizens, dividing by 435 then drawing districts that come near the number for one rep. Having electors for the electoral college assigned proportionate to the number of reps and senators maintained the idea of a democracy where the citizens voted for their leaders. However while the electors based on number of Reps was related to the population, the electors based on Senators is a function of states. this was where the states such as Delaware and Rhode Island sought equality with Virginia and New York. Each state had 2 senators, therefor two electors.

But I think the real issue is not with the organization of the electoral college as it is with the manner that each state casts their ballots. Most of the states operate on the principal of winner-take-all. This applies to big states and little ones. Say a state is large and has 30 electoral votes. It has an election and 6,000,000 votes are cast. Let's say 4M were for A and 2M were for B.
In the "popular" system A would get 4M votes, B would get 2M
In the electoral college system from a state that is winner take all, A would get 30 electors, B would get 0
In the electoral college system from a state that prorates the electors (depending on the districts total, but for example) A would get 20 electors, B would get 10.

What system the candidates are seeking now is obscured because all that I've heard is that the electoral college should be eliminated but no plan for replacement has been offered.

The apportionment of congresscritters has always been based on total census, not just those who were eligible to vote. Recall the 3/5 clause which the northern states insisted upon, because the southern states wanted to count all slaves towards their headcount.

Our founders truly were brilliant. They knew there was no way to completely eliminate corruption in government. The federal government was set up in a manner which would see competition in the corruption. Senators were certainly corrupt prior to the ratification of the 17th amendment, but they were corrupt on behalf of and beholden to interests which were in competition with the interests who were party to the corruptions which existed in the H0R and within the executive.

And think of the 4 powers reserved exclusively to the states via the Senate:
1. consent to the appointment of federal judges (who would likely be more friendly to the interests of the several states than to the federal government)
2. consent to the appointment of foreign ambassadors; again, so that ambassadors would recall that it wasn't merely the federal government they represented; also recall the power ambassadors had prior to the advent of rapid comms
3. the sole power to try impeachments
4. assent to Treaties

Brent in Az · Mar 22, 2019

The Mueller report has been given to the AG. The Leftist media are foaming at the mouth.

What will next months fabricated conspiracy be?

Ray B · Mar 23, 2019

Brent in Az said:
What will next months fabricated conspiracy be?

It won't be waiting until next month- it will be immediate. those two clowns from California: Shifferbrains and Swallowell have said they and their comrades in the house are initiating dozens of hearing and investigations on whatever comes to mind- the main strategy being to keep the president busy on defense so he won't be able to pursue policies.

Hogpatrol · Mar 23, 2019

Hogpatrol · Mar 23, 2019

MEME STORM IN PROGRESS. DON'T WHINE. JUST LOOK AWAY!!!

Hogpatrol · Mar 23, 2019

Hogpatrol · Mar 23, 2019

Hogpatrol · Mar 23, 2019

Hogpatrol · Mar 23, 2019

Hogpatrol · Mar 23, 2019

Hogpatrol · Mar 23, 2019

Politics

Ray B

tarbe

Hogpatrol

Hank2211

Ray B

Hank2211

Brent in Az

sgt_zim

Ray B

sgt_zim

Brent in Az

Ray B

Hogpatrol

Hogpatrol

Hogpatrol

Hogpatrol

Hogpatrol

Hogpatrol

Hogpatrol

Hogpatrol

Members online

Forum statistics

Proudly sponsored by

Latest posts

Latest profile posts

Buffalo Hunt with Henry Griffiths Safaris $10000

Share this page