1 minute ago, placeholder said:

Ranked voting, anyone?

You mean like +4 for parents with children, -2 for couples without children -4 for LGTBQ, something like this?

 

Like JD Vance proposed?

Just now, Cameroni said:

You mean like +4 for parents with children, -2 for couples without children -4 for LGTBQ, something like this?

 

Like JD Vance proposed?

Why am I not suprised that you don't know what ranked voting is?

3 minutes ago, placeholder said:

12 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

Well, think about it, if you didn't have the electoral college you could have someone winning the presidency with 30% of the vote. So highly extremist candidates would be the norm then. That would be the true end result of "one person one vote" without system refinement.

 

It's all moot anyway, you would need fourth fifths of states to perform constitutional surgery and those states that benefit from the EC would not support that.

Ranked voting, anyone?

Read my opinion on this. It proposes two different ways to revise the EC, but, of course, I rather see it eliminated entirely.
Rung & Bill:  US Electoral College - Opinion (billsmart.com)

"Honest question?"

 

Yeah, but "honestly," how can you consider Trump pleading to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger "I only need 11000 votes, fellas, gimme a break!" to be a threat to democracy? If nothing else Trump just wanted to bolster it by asking Raffensperger to do some simple vote counting "re-calculation" and the while make sure that there was no "criminality" involved in the process...

 

 

32 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

 

Wasn't the right to bear arms about not being a victim to tyranny?  If the right to bear arms means that the people can rise up and defend themselves against a tyrant, what good would a musket do against whatever the government wields?

What good is an automatic rifle against an Abrams tank?  Do the citizens go out and buy Stingers? Where does it end?

 

Face it, Americans love their guns. It's the only valid reason for owning them.

 

The price you pay for that love affair is children being shot in your schools. AFAIK the only instance in Australia was two people killed at Monash University over 20 years ago.

 

 

3 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Why am I not suprised that you don't know what ranked voting is?

 

Sorry, I thought you meant the ranking JD Vance proposed related to child bearing.

 

If you mean Ranked Choice Voting, again you would need four fifths of the states to support a constitutional surgery to abolish the electoral college, it's impossible that this could happen, since many states benefit from EC and would not agree to change it.

 

Besides, Ranked Voting has its own problems, it makes it harder to vote, harder to count the votes, and much harder to ensure a transparent and accountable democratic process.

6 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

Read my opinion on this. It proposes two different ways to revise the EC, but, of course, I rather see it eliminated entirely.
Rung & Bill:  US Electoral College - Opinion (billsmart.com)

 

Actually that looks pretty good. But you'd still need four fifths of the states to peform constitutional surgery, and since many states benefit from EC, this never going to happen.

1 minute ago, Cameroni said:

 

Sorry, I thought you meant the ranking JD Vance proposed related to child bearing.

 

If you mean Ranked Choice Voting, again you would need four fifths of the states to support a constitutional surgery to abolish the electoral college, it's impossible that this could happen, since many states benefit from EC and would not agree to change it.

 

Besides, Ranked Voting has its own problems, it makes it harder to vote, harder to count the votes, and much harder to ensure a transparent and accountable democratic process.

Actually it's 3 quarters.

And it makes it harder to count the votes? Seriously? Maybe if some loon demands hand recounts, but even then, how hard is "much harder". Basically, it's still arithmetic.

7 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Actually it's 3 quarters.

And it makes it harder to count the votes? Seriously? Maybe if some loon demands hand recounts, but even then, how hard is "much harder". Basically, it's still arithmetic.

 

Amending the Constitution requires a double supermajority: an amendment introduced in Congress has to pass both houses by a two-thirds vote, and then must be approved by the legislatures of three-quarters of the states. 

 

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/annals-of-inquiry/the-united-states-unamendable-constitution

 

If you read the above article you will see that there have literally been hundreds and hundreds of attempts to amend or abolish the electoral college, all but 1 failed.

 

To abolish the EC and introduce a different system you'd need a majority of states to agree, who would never do that, because they benefit from EC.

 

Good luck trying.

 

And yes, ranked voting complicates matter greatly, it would be a nightmare.

On 9/18/2024 at 3:17 PM, johng said:

Easy answer  he is not a threat to democracy  he is a threat to his opponents   who have done everything undemocratically  possible to try and stop him regaining the presidency.

 

Everything "undemocratically  possible"? Up to and including, "I only need 11000 votes, fellas, gimme a break"?

Former President, Donald Trump, in my opinion is no threat to Democracy within the USA. perhaps manipulation by the  "other party" within this farcical two  horse race, Truths will never,ever, out.  And the greater world should subscribe to the mandate US$ is king for trade. Keep printing the dollars bills boys as it will come back to bite your ass.

20 hours ago, diceman said:

i asked a genuine question and instead of factual evidence the whole thread descends into insults. i guess thats the problem in a nutshell. 

 

Then I suggest you change your "honest question" to "genuine question." At least we could read some honesty into that and respond accordingly. It's your association of "honesty" to the mis-characterization of a crook that some of us have problems with. To put i mildly.

On 9/18/2024 at 3:49 PM, impulse said:

They spelled it wrong.  It's not democracy.  It's Democrats that he's a threat to.  They're the real threat to democracy.

 

 

 

Wrong again!

12 minutes ago, watthong said:

20 hours ago, diceman said:

i asked a genuine question and instead of factual evidence the whole thread descends into insults. i guess thats the problem in a nutshell. 

@diceman, Ask it again, and I'll answer it. I just don't want to scan back to try to find it.

Oh! I see now. Your question is the basis for this forum. Sorry...

I've given my answer, but yes, you're right. The forum does have a lot of insulting comments. That's, in part, because Trump has increased the division in the USA by a lot. I've never seen it as bad as it is now. 

 

11 minutes ago, watthong said:

Up to and including,

 

Up to and including trying to assassinate him X 2

    Maya Angelou, the American poet and author, famously said, 'When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.'.   Donald Trump has shown us who he is, in both his words and actions, and now it is up to us to 'believe him the first time'.   It's that simple.   It's all there for anyone to see and process and, no, I will not be wasting my time putting it all down here because it will, indeed, be a complete waste of time.   Trumpets don't want to believe the real him the first time--or, any time for that matter. 

     I will say my 'first time' was when Trump arrogantly stated:  'I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose any voters.'   I was, and still am, incredulous that someone could make such a statement.  He was certainly showing me who he was--arrogant, deeply flawed, dangerously egotistical, with no respect for the law and, indeed, saw himself as above the law.   Taking Maya Angelou to heart, I believed him the first time--and have not been proved wrong.   He ended his presidential term ranked the worst in history, and rightly so, culminating in his illegal efforts to overturn the election.  At 78 and with nothing to lose, he is even more dangerous this time around.  

1 minute ago, Paul Catton said:

Former President, Donald Trump, in my opinion is no threat to Democracy within the USA. perhaps manipulation by the  "other party" within this farcical two  horse race, Truths will never,ever, out.  And the greater world should subscribe to the mandate US$ is king for trade. Keep printing the dollars bills boys as it will come back to bite your ass.

Why should any nondescript person have any say in the Internal Politics of the USA, whilst the USA Dollar is tied to being the mandated currency of trade it affects the world.  Welcome to BRICS, Bring back the Gold Standard etc.

8 minutes ago, Paul Catton said:

And the greater world should subscribe to the mandate US$ is king for trade. Keep printing the dollars bills boys as it will come back to bite your ass.

They have weaponised the USD

( various sanctions against all and sundry)

and now it is coming back to bite their ass   more and more countries are saying enough is enough  turning away from the PetroDollar towards a new monetary and trading alliance BRICS

5 hours ago, harryviking said:

The Dems? Never liked them, never will! But this time it is about more than that. Look at the situation in the world! Now we need someone with a more clear mind, not a barking mad dog named Trump! 

That's the same motivation as the long term Republicans that have publicly endorsed Harris in the upcoming election.

58 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Well, think about it, if you didn't have the electoral college you could have someone winning the presidency with 30% of the vote. So highly extremist candidates would be the norm then. That would be the true end result of "one person one vote" without system refinement.

 

It's all moot anyway, you would need fourth fifths of states to perform constitutional surgery and those states that benefit from the EC would not support that.

It would be very difficult to pass an amendment you are right about that.

But two amendments that were bitterly opposed were passed, prohibition and the repeal of prohibition, so not impossible.

 

Not true about 30% of the vote.

Currently if no candidate gets at least 51% of the electoral college votes the decision goes to the House of Representatives,

same could be done with the popular vote.

Alternatively, could have a runoff as in some state elections with the leading vote getters running.

1 hour ago, WDSmart said:

Republicans have been "in office" for the past number of years. It's not the president or the federal government that makes the rules for voter registration and IDs. It's each state's legislature. And in Republican-controlled states, these rules have become more and more restrictive over the last ten years or so,

So you are misguided then... Democratics hold the majority in Senate. 

4 minutes ago, thesetat2013 said:

So you are misguided then... Democratics hold the majority in Senate. 

And, the Republicans have been in control of the House of Representatives.

But that has nothing to do with voting. Again, I'll remind you that the federal government, like the Senate, has nothing to do with the rules governing elections. Those are left up to each individual state. Each state makes up its own rules for what is required as ID to register to vote and then to vote. 
 

It is very hard for somebody of even modest intelligence to take a question like this seriously. The first thing that comes to mind is that when you have a man with a incredibly delicate ego and very deep self-esteem issues, he can be easily manipulated through a simple compliment into providing you with an unfair advantage during a negotiation, regardless of whether you're an ally or an adversary.

 

The flip side of that is that just a simple note passed around a table insulting or demeaning him, or questioning the crowd sizes of his rallies, could send him into a mental fog and delirium so deep, that he completely loses his ability to conduct a negotiation, or digresses into a conversation about kidnapped stir fried dogs.

 

The third aspect of this is that he's a terrible negotiator to begin with, the man cannot negotiate his way out of a paper bag, contrary to his very well crafted, but utterly fake image. 

 

I could keep going all day. He is a very dangerous man. 

 

Have you seen this brilliant parody of the animal tirade? 

 

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C_5cwQZuEgd/?igsh=MWcyeHpweWtpYzByZA==

14 minutes ago, cdemundo said:

It would be very difficult to pass an amendment you are right about that.

But two amendments that were bitterly opposed were passed, prohibition and the repeal of prohibition, so not impossible.

 

Not true about 30% of the vote.

Currently if no candidate gets at least 51% of the electoral college votes the decision goes to the House of Representatives,

same could be done with the popular vote.

Alternatively, could have a runoff as in some state elections with the leading vote getters running.

If more than 2 candidates, I favor implementing ranked voting rather than passing responsibility to the House or runoff elections.

9 minutes ago, cdemundo said:

It would be very difficult to pass an amendment you are right about that.

But two amendments that were bitterly opposed were passed, prohibition and the repeal of prohibition, so not impossible.

 

Not true about 30% of the vote.

Currently if no candidate gets at least 51% of the electoral college votes the decision goes to the House of Representatives,

same could be done with the popular vote.

Alternatively, could have a runoff as in some state elections with the leading vote getters running.

Prohibition was a time when women still commanded moral authority. In the time of Taylor Swift's 12 exes it would be very hard to get a moral majority  for any issue, let alone for changing the Electoral College. After all the small states benefit from the EC, why would they agree to lose it? It just would not happen.

 

There have been many hundreds of attempts to amend and change the EC, only 1 succeeded, and that was a long, long time ago.

 

Let's say you would have some candiate win the popular vote by 33%, it then goes to the House of Reps, they then elect someone else entirely. How would this reflect the will of the people? Most had voted for the candidate with the 33%. Also not really satisfactory.

 

In any event, all this dreaming about a different system, is just that, silly day dreaming. You could never change the EC or abolish it given the hurdles involved.

 

 

 

25 minutes ago, johng said:

 

Up to and including trying to assassinate him X 2

 

Say hi to @susanlea for me, unless he/she/it's taking the day off...

I don't know @susanlea    any thought on the 2 x assassination attempts ?

9 hours ago, WDSmart said:

As a US citizen, I have to preface my remarks that the USA IS NOT A DEMOCRACY, nor is any other country I know of. The USA is a REPUBLIC in which the representatives are supposedly democratically elected. But all that would best be taken up in another forum. So, I will address the question as it has been asked...

Trump is a threat to "democracy" IMO because of the following:

- He and the Republican Party continually strive to limit the number of people who are allowed to vote;

- He and the Republican Party are guilty of reformatting the districts within a state in favor of their party (gerrymandering) ;

- He continually spreads false information, which wrongly influences how people vote;

- If elected, he will continue to strive to become a dictator;

- If elected, I am sure he will try to remove the limitations that would prohibit him from running for president again so he could remain president indefinitely. (Of course, he is now 78, so, thankfully, that wouldn't be for too much longer).
 

There are many others, but those above are the strongest threats, again, IMO.

Stir the pot, former Dem now a Indep undecided!

Limit?  One has to be a citizen to vote, Demo say anyone who has a license show should be able to vote. States DMV, can't ask if they are citizens in application process, gerrymandering counter is to allow more illegals to into into the country the current busing distribution to certain destination can be contrue to counter it? 

He does spread more boosting than anything like a teen claiming he has a big dick with Rubio, typical white guy in the locker room who does nothing but put a foot in his mouth Trump isnt the only one his personality thinking the way he talks is as he thinks hes at a wresthlng match against the Rock.

Speculation nothing more he could never over turn the rules of being President he will never get a majority from his own party. Just like Arnold former Governor of Cal could never run for President. 

Yes he rambles around the issues not knowing he is doing it and his handlers are too afraid to guide and tell him. The Demos counter with the pure Art of War,  diversion if they catch you in a lie it is red look straight say No it is black. 

Sooner it is over the better at this point with Trump I know exactly what Im getting with Harris from my home City and State I also know what Im going to get.The question will I vote if I do the choice is easy and it is my right to keep it to myself.

7 hours ago, mdr224 said:

Indeed, im kissing it goodbye. A country ruled by the media

The media are only agents for the true "powers that be."

1 hour ago, johng said:

They have weaponised the USD

( various sanctions against all and sundry)

and now it is coming back to bite their ass   more and more countries are saying enough is enough  turning away from the PetroDollar towards a new monetary and trading alliance BRICS

Who wants rubles, yuan and rupees?

 

The real store of value IMO is gold and silver.