Trump Slams Senator Who Prevented Nebraska Changing Its Electoral Voting

[placeholder]

45 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Which is why I said that if California followed the same system as Nebraska, Trump would have had 10 more EC votes. Same with New York.   

What about Texas? 

[TroubleandGrumpy]

On 9/25/2024 at 6:47 AM, jerrymahoney said:

That would require constitutional Amendment to Article 1 Section 3 Clause 3 of the US Constitution and  to the 17th Amendment to the Constitution.

Yep - and it will be voted and accepted by the People - like the 2 terms for a POTUS.  People will not vote NO to reducing the time politicians can live off taxpayer's money. 

[TroubleandGrumpy]

On 9/25/2024 at 9:53 AM, earlinclaifornia said:

I am so glad I asked.

Have another beer and eat some more fatty fried foods - dont worry about it - or your health and mind.

 

Is that a better response for you?? 

[jerrymahoney]

27 minutes ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

Yep - and it will be voted and accepted by the People - like the 2 terms for a POTUS.  People will not vote NO to reducing the time politicians can live off taxpayer's money. 

Constitutional amendment is not a 'vote' by the people.

[TroubleandGrumpy]

1 hour ago, jerrymahoney said:

Constitutional amendment is not a 'vote' by the people.

My bad. WTF??

 

I just did a Google and an Amendment to the Constitution requires a min. 75% of the States to agree.

Any proposed and approved Amendment requires 2/3 support of both House and Senate to proceed.

I had no idea that The People of USA have no say in the matter.

 

Even Thailand requires the People to agree to any change in the Constitution.

Unbelievable.

 

[jerrymahoney]

OK

[Berkshire]

On 9/25/2024 at 11:36 AM, Hanaguma said:

Which is why I said that if California followed the same system as Nebraska, Trump would have had 10 more EC votes. Same with New York.   

If you want every state to change, why not just do the most obvious and fairest system.  Simplify in the extreme.  That is, just go by the popular vote.  The candidate with the most vote wins.  Will of the people and all that.  Of course, Trump will lose every time.

[Hanaguma]

36 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

If you want every state to change, why not just do the most obvious and fairest system.  Simplify in the extreme.  That is, just go by the popular vote.  The candidate with the most vote wins.  Will of the people and all that.  Of course, Trump will lose every time.

Lovely idea but it really goes against the grain of being a federal republic as the Founding Fathers envisioned. Plus there aren't that many countries that actually have a simple vote like that for leader. Most have a form of parliamentary or federal system. Do you know of any that are a simple majority rules?

[Inderpland]

1 hour ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

My bad. WTF??

 

I just did a Google and an Amendment to the Constitution requires a min. 75% of the States to agree.

Any proposed and approved Amendment requires 2/3 support of both House and Senate to proceed.

I had no idea that The People of USA have no say in the matter.

 

Even Thailand requires the People to agree to any change in the Constitution.

Unbelievable.

 

You must be living in a different Thailand than the rest of us. The last time the constitution of Thailand changed it was done by the military junta.

[Inderpland]

28 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Lovely idea but it really goes against the grain of being a federal republic as the Founding Fathers envisioned. Plus there aren't that many countries that actually have a simple vote like that for leader. Most have a form of parliamentary or federal system. Do you know of any that are a simple majority rules?

Probably not many, but I would also assume there aren't many systems like the one in the US, where the minority can choose the leader against the majority's wishes.

[Hanaguma]

9 minutes ago, Inderpland said:

Probably not many, but I would also assume there aren't many systems like the one in the US, where the minority can choose the leader against the majority's wishes.

Happened in Canada last election. The Conservative party won the popular vote, but the Liberal party won more seats in Parliament.Much the same reason as in the US- Liberal support is more evenly spread around the country whereas there are only pockets of staunch Conservatives. So, we got Justin Trudeau, Liberal Party, as Prime Minister.  Fair enough, I am not a fan but he IS the PM.

[Inderpland]

14 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Happened in Canada last election. The Conservative party won the popular vote, but the Liberal party won more seats in Parliament.Much the same reason as in the US- Liberal support is more evenly spread around the country whereas there are only pockets of staunch Conservatives. So, we got Justin Trudeau, Liberal Party, as Prime Minister.  Fair enough, I am not a fan but he IS the PM.

That's a healthy attitude, and you didn't see the dems shouting from the rooftops about cheating when Trump won. That, however, changed when Trump lost in 2020 and he just couldn't dealt with it. He tried overturning the election and got his 'easily swayed' supporters in on it, and for this reason alone I will never forgive him (nor his supporters).

To your point though, I would like to rephrase my statement to;

 

'I would also assume there aren't many presidential elections like the one in the US, where the minority can choose the leader against the majority's wishes.'

 

Edited 14 hours ago by Inderpland

[Hanaguma]

1 hour ago, Inderpland said:

That's a healthy attitude, and you didn't see the dems shouting from the rooftops about cheating when Trump won. That, however, changed when Trump lost in 2020 and he just couldn't dealt with it. He tried overturning the election and got his 'easily swayed' supporters in on it, and for this reason alone I will never forgive him (nor his supporters).

To your point though, I would like to rephrase my statement to;

 

'I would also assume there aren't many presidential elections like the one in the US, where the minority can choose the leader against the majority's wishes.'

 

Respectfully disagree. After Trump won in 2016, more than 70 Democratic congress members refused to attend the inauguration. Luminaries like the late John Lewis referred to Trump's win as "illegitimate". And even Hillary herself- she conceded gracefully enough, but by 2019 was calling Trump an "illegitimate President".  And even Jimmy Carter.   

 

As forthe rest, I think the US presidential system is quite rare. Many countries have both presidents AND prime ministers.  Anyway, both sides know the rules and, if they are smart, will conduct their campaigns accordingly.

[Inderpland]

58 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Respectfully disagree. After Trump won in 2016, more than 70 Democratic congress members refused to attend the inauguration. Luminaries like the late John Lewis referred to Trump's win as "illegitimate". And even Hillary herself- she conceded gracefully enough, but by 2019 was calling Trump an "illegitimate President".  And even Jimmy Carter.   

 

As forthe rest, I think the US presidential system is quite rare. Many countries have both presidents AND prime ministers.  Anyway, both sides know the rules and, if they are smart, will conduct their campaigns accordingly.

To refuse to attend an inauguration is not in the same league as trying to prevent the peaceful transfer of power by bullying the VP, drumming up fake electors and having your cohorts 'fight like hell' during the storming of the Capitol. It's not even the same sport.

And what 'luminaries' say and what the losing candidate says (of which you have provided no link so, if true, context is missing) years after the election is irrelevant.

 

Yes, I agree the US system is quite unique, and it totally fails if one/any side does not accept the outcome.

Edited 12 hours ago by Inderpland