Discussion:
with and without the electoral college system, comparison
(too old to reply)
weary flake
2020-06-30 18:39:31 UTC
Permalink
With the elector college system the popular vote of a state
cannot excessively overwhelm the popular vote of other states.
The easiest way I can think of to demonstrate the two voting
systems is to pretend that there are five states in all ways
equal in population, etc., but who's voting looks like this:

States 1,2,3,4 vote 55% for Candidate A and 45% for Candidate B

State 5 votes 5% for Candidate A and 95% for Candidate B

In the electoral college system it is a landslide for
Candidate A. 4 states win 1 state loses.

Without the electoral college it is a landslide for Candidate B,
with 1 state winning and 4 states losing.
m***@gmail.com
2020-06-30 21:17:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by weary flake
With the elector college system the popular vote of a state
cannot excessively overwhelm the popular vote of other states.
The easiest way I can think of to demonstrate the two voting
systems is to pretend that there are five states in all ways
States 1,2,3,4 vote 55% for Candidate A and 45% for Candidate B
State 5 votes 5% for Candidate A and 95% for Candidate B
In the electoral college system it is a landslide for
Candidate A. 4 states win 1 state loses.
Without the electoral college it is a landslide for Candidate B,
with 1 state winning and 4 states losing.
When I was in 5th grade, right after the 1960 election took place, there were numerous debates about eliminating the Electoral College. 60 years later...no change.
alvey
2020-06-30 21:54:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by weary flake
With the elector college system the popular vote of a state
cannot excessively overwhelm the popular vote of other states.
The easiest way I can think of to demonstrate the two voting
systems is to pretend that there are five states in all ways
States 1,2,3,4 vote 55% for Candidate A and 45% for Candidate B
State 5 votes 5% for Candidate A and 95% for Candidate B
In the electoral college system it is a landslide for
Candidate A. 4 states win 1 state loses.
Without the electoral college it is a landslide for Candidate B,
with 1 state winning and 4 states losing.
When I was in 5th grade, right after the 1960 election took place, there
were numerous debates about eliminating the Electoral College. 60 years
later...no change.
It's a strange system you have.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
moviePig
2020-06-30 22:30:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by alvey
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by weary flake
With the elector college system the popular vote of a state
cannot excessively overwhelm the popular vote of other states.
The easiest way I can think of to demonstrate the two voting
systems is to pretend that there are five states in all ways
States 1,2,3,4 vote 55% for Candidate A and 45% for Candidate B
State 5 votes 5% for Candidate A and 95% for Candidate B
In the electoral college system it is a landslide for
Candidate A. 4 states win 1 state loses.
Without the electoral college it is a landslide for Candidate B,
with 1 state winning and 4 states losing.
When I was in 5th grade, right after the 1960 election took place, there
were numerous debates about eliminating the Electoral College. 60 years
later...no change.
It's a strange system you have.
A (Presidential) electoral college presumes that voter "wisdom" is
distributed by God according to region (i.e., state boundaries), and
that "wise"-majority states will outnumber "unwise" ones.

(Okay, that's not really where it came from, but afaics it's the "ideal"
that the electoral college embodies. So, at least there's a rationale.)
moviePig
2020-06-30 22:35:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by alvey
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by weary flake
With the elector college system the popular vote of a state
cannot excessively overwhelm the popular vote of other states.
The easiest way I can think of to demonstrate the two voting
systems is to pretend that there are five states in all ways
States 1,2,3,4 vote 55% for Candidate A and 45% for Candidate B
State 5 votes 5% for Candidate A and 95% for Candidate B
In the electoral college system it is a landslide for
Candidate A.  4 states win 1 state loses.
Without the electoral college it is a landslide for Candidate B,
with 1 state winning and 4 states losing.
When I was in 5th grade, right after the 1960 election took place, there
were numerous debates about eliminating the Electoral College.  60 years
later...no change.
It's a strange system you have.
A (Presidential) electoral college presumes that voter "wisdom" is
distributed by God according to region (i.e., state boundaries), and
that "wise"-majority states will outnumber "unwise" ones.
(Okay, that's not really where it came from, but afaics it's the "ideal"
that the electoral college embodies.  So, at least there's a rationale.)
((I'm speaking of only the two votes a state gets as its "birthright".))
alvey
2020-06-30 22:49:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by alvey
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by weary flake
With the elector college system the popular vote of a state
cannot excessively overwhelm the popular vote of other states.
The easiest way I can think of to demonstrate the two voting
systems is to pretend that there are five states in all ways
States 1,2,3,4 vote 55% for Candidate A and 45% for Candidate B
State 5 votes 5% for Candidate A and 95% for Candidate B
In the electoral college system it is a landslide for
Candidate A. 4 states win 1 state loses.
Without the electoral college it is a landslide for Candidate B,
with 1 state winning and 4 states losing.
When I was in 5th grade, right after the 1960 election took place, there
were numerous debates about eliminating the Electoral College. 60 years
later...no change.
It's a strange system you have.
A (Presidential) electoral college presumes that voter "wisdom" is
distributed by God according to region (i.e., state boundaries), and
that "wise"-majority states will outnumber "unwise" ones.
So there's two presumptive flaws right there. This is no god and not much
more than that value in the way of voter wisdom.
Post by moviePig
(Okay, that's not really where it came from, but afaics it's the "ideal"
that the electoral college embodies. So, at least there's a rationale.)
As there was for the Pharaoh to kill all the Hebrew babies.
The question is; Do you need an electoral collage for a Presidential
election?


alvey
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
moviePig
2020-06-30 23:07:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by alvey
Post by moviePig
Post by alvey
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by weary flake
With the elector college system the popular vote of a state
cannot excessively overwhelm the popular vote of other states.
The easiest way I can think of to demonstrate the two voting
systems is to pretend that there are five states in all ways
States 1,2,3,4 vote 55% for Candidate A and 45% for Candidate B
State 5 votes 5% for Candidate A and 95% for Candidate B
In the electoral college system it is a landslide for
Candidate A. 4 states win 1 state loses.
Without the electoral college it is a landslide for Candidate B,
with 1 state winning and 4 states losing.
When I was in 5th grade, right after the 1960 election took place, there
were numerous debates about eliminating the Electoral College. 60 years
later...no change.
It's a strange system you have.
A (Presidential) electoral college presumes that voter "wisdom" is
distributed by God according to region (i.e., state boundaries), and
that "wise"-majority states will outnumber "unwise" ones.
So there's two presumptive flaws right there. This is no god and not much
more than that value in the way of voter wisdom.
Post by moviePig
(Okay, that's not really where it came from, but afaics it's the "ideal"
that the electoral college embodies. So, at least there's a rationale.)
As there was for the Pharaoh to kill all the Hebrew babies.
The question is; Do you need an electoral collage for a Presidential
election?
Well, lately I've wondered if we need a President...
alvey
2020-06-30 23:18:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by alvey
Post by moviePig
Post by alvey
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by weary flake
With the elector college system the popular vote of a state
cannot excessively overwhelm the popular vote of other states.
The easiest way I can think of to demonstrate the two voting
systems is to pretend that there are five states in all ways
States 1,2,3,4 vote 55% for Candidate A and 45% for Candidate B
State 5 votes 5% for Candidate A and 95% for Candidate B
In the electoral college system it is a landslide for
Candidate A. 4 states win 1 state loses.
Without the electoral college it is a landslide for Candidate B,
with 1 state winning and 4 states losing.
When I was in 5th grade, right after the 1960 election took place, there
were numerous debates about eliminating the Electoral College. 60 years
later...no change.
It's a strange system you have.
A (Presidential) electoral college presumes that voter "wisdom" is
distributed by God according to region (i.e., state boundaries), and
that "wise"-majority states will outnumber "unwise" ones.
So there's two presumptive flaws right there. This is no god and not much
more than that value in the way of voter wisdom.
Post by moviePig
(Okay, that's not really where it came from, but afaics it's the "ideal"
that the electoral college embodies. So, at least there's a rationale.)
As there was for the Pharaoh to kill all the Hebrew babies.
The question is; Do you need an electoral collage for a Presidential
election?
Well, lately I've wondered if we need a President...
That's another oddity about your system. It gives way more power to the
Beloved Leader than any other reputable democracy.



alvey
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
moviePig
2020-07-01 02:34:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by alvey
Post by moviePig
Post by alvey
Post by moviePig
Post by alvey
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by weary flake
With the elector college system the popular vote of a state
cannot excessively overwhelm the popular vote of other states.
The easiest way I can think of to demonstrate the two voting
systems is to pretend that there are five states in all ways
States 1,2,3,4 vote 55% for Candidate A and 45% for Candidate B
State 5 votes 5% for Candidate A and 95% for Candidate B
In the electoral college system it is a landslide for
Candidate A. 4 states win 1 state loses.
Without the electoral college it is a landslide for Candidate B,
with 1 state winning and 4 states losing.
When I was in 5th grade, right after the 1960 election took place, there
were numerous debates about eliminating the Electoral College. 60 years
later...no change.
It's a strange system you have.
A (Presidential) electoral college presumes that voter "wisdom" is
distributed by God according to region (i.e., state boundaries), and
that "wise"-majority states will outnumber "unwise" ones.
So there's two presumptive flaws right there. This is no god and not much
more than that value in the way of voter wisdom.
Post by moviePig
(Okay, that's not really where it came from, but afaics it's the "ideal"
that the electoral college embodies. So, at least there's a rationale.)
As there was for the Pharaoh to kill all the Hebrew babies.
The question is; Do you need an electoral collage for a Presidential
election?
Well, lately I've wondered if we need a President...
That's another oddity about your system. It gives way more power to the
Beloved Leader than any other reputable democracy.
You might almost think of us as a winner-take-all personality cult...
Barry Margolin
2020-07-02 22:57:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by alvey
Post by moviePig
Post by alvey
Post by moviePig
Post by alvey
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by weary flake
With the elector college system the popular vote of a state
cannot excessively overwhelm the popular vote of other states.
The easiest way I can think of to demonstrate the two voting
systems is to pretend that there are five states in all ways
States 1,2,3,4 vote 55% for Candidate A and 45% for Candidate B
State 5 votes 5% for Candidate A and 95% for Candidate B
In the electoral college system it is a landslide for
Candidate A. 4 states win 1 state loses.
Without the electoral college it is a landslide for Candidate B,
with 1 state winning and 4 states losing.
When I was in 5th grade, right after the 1960 election took place, there
were numerous debates about eliminating the Electoral College. 60 years
later...no change.
It's a strange system you have.
A (Presidential) electoral college presumes that voter "wisdom" is
distributed by God according to region (i.e., state boundaries), and
that "wise"-majority states will outnumber "unwise" ones.
So there's two presumptive flaws right there. This is no god and not much
more than that value in the way of voter wisdom.
Post by moviePig
(Okay, that's not really where it came from, but afaics it's the "ideal"
that the electoral college embodies. So, at least there's a rationale.)
As there was for the Pharaoh to kill all the Hebrew babies.
The question is; Do you need an electoral collage for a Presidential
election?
Well, lately I've wondered if we need a President...
That's another oddity about your system. It gives way more power to the
Beloved Leader than any other reputable democracy.
The Constitution actually gives most power to Congress, not the
President. But over time, Congress has delegated more and more powers to
the President.
--
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA
suzeeq
2020-07-02 23:01:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by alvey
Post by moviePig
Post by alvey
Post by moviePig
Post by alvey
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by weary flake
With the elector college system the popular vote of a state
cannot excessively overwhelm the popular vote of other states.
The easiest way I can think of to demonstrate the two voting
systems is to pretend that there are five states in all ways
States 1,2,3,4 vote 55% for Candidate A and 45% for Candidate B
State 5 votes 5% for Candidate A and 95% for Candidate B
In the electoral college system it is a landslide for
Candidate A. 4 states win 1 state loses.
Without the electoral college it is a landslide for Candidate B,
with 1 state winning and 4 states losing.
When I was in 5th grade, right after the 1960 election took place, there
were numerous debates about eliminating the Electoral College. 60 years
later...no change.
It's a strange system you have.
A (Presidential) electoral college presumes that voter "wisdom" is
distributed by God according to region (i.e., state boundaries), and
that "wise"-majority states will outnumber "unwise" ones.
So there's two presumptive flaws right there. This is no god and not much
more than that value in the way of voter wisdom.
Post by moviePig
(Okay, that's not really where it came from, but afaics it's the "ideal"
that the electoral college embodies. So, at least there's a rationale.)
As there was for the Pharaoh to kill all the Hebrew babies.
The question is; Do you need an electoral collage for a Presidential
election?
Well, lately I've wondered if we need a President...
That's another oddity about your system. It gives way more power to the
Beloved Leader than any other reputable democracy.
The Constitution actually gives most power to Congress, not the
President. But over time, Congress has delegated more and more powers to
the President.
They have? How and which ones?
Adam H. Kerman
2020-07-03 17:06:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by suzeeq
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by alvey
. . .
That's another oddity about your system. It gives way more power to the
Beloved Leader than any other reputable democracy.
The Constitution actually gives most power to Congress, not the
President. But over time, Congress has delegated more and more powers to
the President.
They have? How and which ones?
Margolin is correct. The alvey posting entity trolling "I despise all
Americans" is just being its usual asshole self. Anyone else would have
ignored the troll, but Margolin's purpose in life is to make the
official declaration on behalf of Usenet that a trolling has occurred.

Haven't you ever heard of Chevron deference?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/chevron_deference

Federal courts will generally defer to an agency's interpretation of the
law based on expert opinion provided by the agency. Federal law is
excessively complicated and Congress has no clue what it passes. Post
WWII (and in some cases, since the New Deal), Congress has allowed the
executive to interpret the law through standards-making in a regulator
process, freeing Congress from legislating all the details.

And then let's never forget that Congress bitches and moan each and
every time the United States goes to war, but mostly because Congress
passed the War Powers Act and subsequent laws to evade its
constitutional burden to declare war. Funny how much Congress would
bitch and moan over the centuries, refusing to exercise political power,
wasn't anticipated by the Founding Fathers.

Who was the last enemy the United States declared war upon through
resolution of Congress? This is sort of a trick question.

Note: The Korean War was declared, not by Congress but the United
Nations Security Council on a day Russia stupidly boycotted, failing
to veto the resolution.
suzeeq
2020-07-03 17:21:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by suzeeq
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by alvey
. . .
That's another oddity about your system. It gives way more power to the
Beloved Leader than any other reputable democracy.
The Constitution actually gives most power to Congress, not the
President. But over time, Congress has delegated more and more powers to
the President.
They have? How and which ones?
Margolin is correct. The alvey posting entity trolling "I despise all
Americans" is just being its usual asshole self. Anyone else would have
ignored the troll, but Margolin's purpose in life is to make the
official declaration on behalf of Usenet that a trolling has occurred.
Haven't you ever heard of Chevron deference?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/chevron_deference
Of course not. I don't follow law.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Federal courts will generally defer to an agency's interpretation of the
law based on expert opinion provided by the agency. Federal law is
excessively complicated and Congress has no clue what it passes. Post
WWII (and in some cases, since the New Deal), Congress has allowed the
executive to interpret the law through standards-making in a regulator
process, freeing Congress from legislating all the details.
And then let's never forget that Congress bitches and moan each and
every time the United States goes to war, but mostly because Congress
passed the War Powers Act and subsequent laws to evade its
constitutional burden to declare war. Funny how much Congress would
bitch and moan over the centuries, refusing to exercise political power,
wasn't anticipated by the Founding Fathers.
Who was the last enemy the United States declared war upon through
resolution of Congress? This is sort of a trick question.
Note: The Korean War was declared, not by Congress but the United
Nations Security Council on a day Russia stupidly boycotted, failing
to veto the resolution.
Adam H. Kerman
2020-07-03 17:27:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by suzeeq
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by suzeeq
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by alvey
. . .
That's another oddity about your system. It gives way more power to the
Beloved Leader than any other reputable democracy.
The Constitution actually gives most power to Congress, not the
President. But over time, Congress has delegated more and more powers to
the President.
They have? How and which ones?
Margolin is correct. The alvey posting entity trolling "I despise all
Americans" is just being its usual asshole self. Anyone else would have
ignored the troll, but Margolin's purpose in life is to make the
official declaration on behalf of Usenet that a trolling has occurred.
Haven't you ever heard of Chevron deference?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/chevron_deference
Of course not. I don't follow law.
Well, now you know.

You've heard of the War Powers Act, yes?
Post by suzeeq
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Federal courts will generally defer to an agency's interpretation of the
law based on expert opinion provided by the agency. Federal law is
excessively complicated and Congress has no clue what it passes. Post
WWII (and in some cases, since the New Deal), Congress has allowed the
executive to interpret the law through standards-making in a regulator
process, freeing Congress from legislating all the details.
And then let's never forget that Congress bitches and moan each and
every time the United States goes to war, but mostly because Congress
passed the War Powers Act and subsequent laws to evade its
constitutional burden to declare war. Funny how much Congress would
bitch and moan over the centuries, refusing to exercise political power,
wasn't anticipated by the Founding Fathers.
Who was the last enemy the United States declared war upon through
resolution of Congress? This is sort of a trick question.
Note: The Korean War was declared, not by Congress but the United
Nations Security Council on a day Russia stupidly boycotted, failing
to veto the resolution.
suzeeq
2020-07-03 18:14:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by suzeeq
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by suzeeq
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by alvey
. . .
That's another oddity about your system. It gives way more power to the
Beloved Leader than any other reputable democracy.
The Constitution actually gives most power to Congress, not the
President. But over time, Congress has delegated more and more powers to
the President.
They have? How and which ones?
Margolin is correct. The alvey posting entity trolling "I despise all
Americans" is just being its usual asshole self. Anyone else would have
ignored the troll, but Margolin's purpose in life is to make the
official declaration on behalf of Usenet that a trolling has occurred.
Haven't you ever heard of Chevron deference?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/chevron_deference
Of course not. I don't follow law.
Well, now you know.
You've heard of the War Powers Act, yes?
Yes.
Adam H. Kerman
2020-07-03 18:22:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by suzeeq
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by suzeeq
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by alvey
. . .
That's another oddity about your system. It gives way more power to the
Beloved Leader than any other reputable democracy.
The Constitution actually gives most power to Congress, not the
President. But over time, Congress has delegated more and more powers to
the President.
They have? How and which ones?
Margolin is correct. The alvey posting entity trolling "I despise all
Americans" is just being its usual asshole self. Anyone else would have
ignored the troll, but Margolin's purpose in life is to make the
official declaration on behalf of Usenet that a trolling has occurred.
Haven't you ever heard of Chevron deference?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/chevron_deference
Of course not. I don't follow law.
Well, now you know.
You've heard of the War Powers Act, yes?
Yes.
That's a specific example of Congress delegating power to the executive.
Given that it's an enumerated power of Congress, allowing the executive
to commit acts of war without a Congresional resolution with a
declaration of war is unconstitutional. There's just no way to get the
issue before a federal judge as courts defer to the political branches
on political matters like this.

If there are other major examples of Congress delegating its powers,
someone will have to remind me.
number6
2020-07-03 17:24:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by suzeeq
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by alvey
. . .
That's another oddity about your system. It gives way more power to the
Beloved Leader than any other reputable democracy.
The Constitution actually gives most power to Congress, not the
President. But over time, Congress has delegated more and more powers to
the President.
They have? How and which ones?
Margolin is correct. The alvey posting entity trolling "I despise all
Americans" is just being its usual asshole self. Anyone else would have
ignored the troll, but Margolin's purpose in life is to make the
official declaration on behalf of Usenet that a trolling has occurred.
Haven't you ever heard of Chevron deference?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/chevron_deference
Federal courts will generally defer to an agency's interpretation of the
law based on expert opinion provided by the agency. Federal law is
excessively complicated and Congress has no clue what it passes. Post
WWII (and in some cases, since the New Deal), Congress has allowed the
executive to interpret the law through standards-making in a regulator
process, freeing Congress from legislating all the details.
And then let's never forget that Congress bitches and moan each and
every time the United States goes to war, but mostly because Congress
passed the War Powers Act and subsequent laws to evade its
constitutional burden to declare war. Funny how much Congress would
bitch and moan over the centuries, refusing to exercise political power,
wasn't anticipated by the Founding Fathers.
Who was the last enemy the United States declared war upon through
resolution of Congress? This is sort of a trick question.
Note: The Korean War was declared, not by Congress but the United
Nations Security Council on a day Russia stupidly boycotted, failing
to veto the resolution.
The basic problem is that Congress has the sole ability to declare war ...
but the President is in charge of deploying forces where and when needed ...
The Barbary War in 1805 is an interesting case ... Jefferson sent warships
to the "shores of Tripoli" to defend American interests but he himself
opined that without a Congressional Declaration of War he could go no
further ... Congress never formally declared war but passed a resolution
saying essentially kick the crap out of those SOBs as if we did declare
war ...
Ever since then it's never really settled as what is a war and what are
deployed forces to protect Americans and American interests ...
Adam H. Kerman
2020-07-03 17:46:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by number6
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by suzeeq
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by alvey
. . .
That's another oddity about your system. It gives way more power to the
Beloved Leader than any other reputable democracy.
The Constitution actually gives most power to Congress, not the
President. But over time, Congress has delegated more and more powers to
the President.
They have? How and which ones?
Margolin is correct. The alvey posting entity trolling "I despise all
Americans" is just being its usual asshole self. Anyone else would have
ignored the troll, but Margolin's purpose in life is to make the
official declaration on behalf of Usenet that a trolling has occurred.
Haven't you ever heard of Chevron deference?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/chevron_deference
Federal courts will generally defer to an agency's interpretation of the
law based on expert opinion provided by the agency. Federal law is
excessively complicated and Congress has no clue what it passes. Post
WWII (and in some cases, since the New Deal), Congress has allowed the
executive to interpret the law through standards-making in a regulator
process, freeing Congress from legislating all the details.
And then let's never forget that Congress bitches and moan each and
every time the United States goes to war, but mostly because Congress
passed the War Powers Act and subsequent laws to evade its
constitutional burden to declare war. Funny how much Congress would
bitch and moan over the centuries, refusing to exercise political power,
wasn't anticipated by the Founding Fathers.
Who was the last enemy the United States declared war upon through
resolution of Congress? This is sort of a trick question.
Note: The Korean War was declared, not by Congress but the United
Nations Security Council on a day Russia stupidly boycotted, failing
to veto the resolution.
The basic problem is that Congress has the sole ability to declare war ...
but the President is in charge of deploying forces where and when needed ...
The Barbary War in 1805 is an interesting case ... Jefferson sent warships
to the "shores of Tripoli" to defend American interests but he himself
opined that without a Congressional Declaration of War he could go no
further ... Congress never formally declared war but passed a resolution
saying essentially kick the crap out of those SOBs as if we did declare
war ...
Ever since then it's never really settled as what is a war and what are
deployed forces to protect Americans and American interests ...
Could... you... please... write... with... sentences... and... not...
pregnant... pauses?

That's an interesting example. The Founding Fathers didn't anticipate
that war versus other than a foreign state. Bills of attainder were made
unconstitutional, so pirates can't just be declared rogue actors.

I think Congress could issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal, but the
Constitution says only that state legislatures cannot do that.
alvey
2020-07-03 20:45:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by suzeeq
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by alvey
. . .
That's another oddity about your system. It gives way more power to the
Beloved Leader than any other reputable democracy.
The Constitution actually gives most power to Congress, not the
President. But over time, Congress has delegated more and more powers to
the President.
They have? How and which ones?
Margolin is correct. The alvey posting entity trolling "I despise all
Americans" is just being its usual asshole self. Anyone else would have
ignored the troll, but Margolin's purpose in life is to make the
official declaration on behalf of Usenet that a trolling has occurred.
lol!
And as usual, Kermie is both wrong, and pompously dull with it.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Haven't you ever heard of Chevron deference?
And, as usual, Kermie can't help himself from jumping in and boring the
arse off everyone.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/chevron_deference
Federal courts will generally defer to an agency's interpretation of the
law based on expert opinion provided by the agency. Federal law is
excessively complicated and Congress has no clue what it passes. Post
WWII (and in some cases, since the New Deal), Congress has allowed the
executive to interpret the law through standards-making in a regulator
process, freeing Congress from legislating all the details.
And then let's never forget that Congress bitches and moan each and
every time the United States goes to war, but mostly because Congress
passed the War Powers Act and subsequent laws to evade its
constitutional burden to declare war. Funny how much Congress would
bitch and moan over the centuries, refusing to exercise political power,
wasn't anticipated by the Founding Fathers.
Who was the last enemy the United States declared war upon through
resolution of Congress? This is sort of a trick question.
Note: The Korean War was declared, not by Congress but the United
Nations Security Council on a day Russia stupidly boycotted, failing
to veto the resolution.
Well my Attention didn't wander. It positively sprinted away.



alvey
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
The Horny Goat
2020-07-03 15:46:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by alvey
Post by moviePig
Post by alvey
The question is; Do you need an electoral collage for a Presidential
election?
Well, lately I've wondered if we need a President...
That's another oddity about your system. It gives way more power to the
Beloved Leader than any other reputable democracy.
Actually an American president is bound by "checks and balances" far
more than most of America's allies. In power terms a Canadian prime
minister with a solid majority (which Justin Trudeau does NOT have at
the moment) has fewer restraints than Boris Johnson who has fewer
restraints than most of the EU states.
alvey
2020-07-03 20:32:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by alvey
Post by moviePig
Post by alvey
The question is; Do you need an electoral collage for a Presidential
election?
Well, lately I've wondered if we need a President...
That's another oddity about your system. It gives way more power to the
Beloved Leader than any other reputable democracy.
Actually an American president is bound by "checks and balances" far
more than most of America's allies.
Think I'd disagree with that. In most other 1st world democracies the
Leader is *much* more beholden to their party, and especially their
cabinet. In Australia & Britain of recent decades many a PM has been rolled
by their own party. Iirc Oz has had 3 PMs punted by their collegues in the
last 10 years! So I'd opine that easily losing your leadership is a far
more effective "check & balance" to a runaway leader than anything America
has.

Also, I don't recall any "allies" leaders issuing 'executive pardons'.
Post by The Horny Goat
In power terms a Canadian prime
minister with a solid majority (which Justin Trudeau does NOT have at
the moment) has fewer restraints than Boris Johnson who has fewer
restraints than most of the EU states.
You need to back that assertion with examples.



alvey
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
FPP
2020-07-03 21:30:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by alvey
Post by moviePig
Post by alvey
The question is; Do you need an electoral collage for a Presidential
election?
Well, lately I've wondered if we need a President...
That's another oddity about your system. It gives way more power to the
Beloved Leader than any other reputable democracy.
Actually an American president is bound by "checks and balances" far
more than most of America's allies. In power terms a Canadian prime
minister with a solid majority (which Justin Trudeau does NOT have at
the moment) has fewer restraints than Boris Johnson who has fewer
restraints than most of the EU states.
Well, he was until the day he wasn't.

Yes, we HAVE checks and balances, and no, they don't work. That's not
because they're not good, but because one party decided they would
abandon them, because they're afraid of tweets.

No, really... that's it! Donald Trump is unfit for office, and
everybody knows it.
The entire Republican party just up and decided that no matter what he
did, they were going to go along with it, 98%.

Checks and balances don't work if you don't use them... just like seat
belts.
--
Nuts that spent the last twenty years prepping their bunker to survive
indefinitely in a nuclear winter are giving up after wearing a thin
cloth mask for three weeks. LOL -Matt Haughey

"Leaders who have hidden in a bunker and gassed their own citizens
include Saddam Hussein, Adolf Hitler and Donald [Bunker Bitch] Trump." -
Ben Wexler
REAL PRESIDENTS LEAD. REALITY TV PRESIDENTS DON'T.

Trump: "No, I don't take responsibility at all." - 3/13/20
The Horny Goat
2020-07-04 22:59:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by FPP
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by alvey
Post by moviePig
Post by alvey
The question is; Do you need an electoral collage for a Presidential
election?
Well, lately I've wondered if we need a President...
That's another oddity about your system. It gives way more power to the
Beloved Leader than any other reputable democracy.
Actually an American president is bound by "checks and balances" far
more than most of America's allies. In power terms a Canadian prime
minister with a solid majority (which Justin Trudeau does NOT have at
the moment) has fewer restraints than Boris Johnson who has fewer
restraints than most of the EU states.
Well, he was until the day he wasn't.
Yes, we HAVE checks and balances, and no, they don't work. That's not
because they're not good, but because one party decided they would
abandon them, because they're afraid of tweets.
Obviously simply because a constitution is written down doesn't mean
it's worth the paper it was printed on. In most political scientists'
opinion the 1935 Soviet Constitution was an extremely democratic
constitution but was violated nearly every day by Stalin from its
promulgation till his death and by his successors long afterwards.
FPP
2020-07-05 04:11:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by FPP
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by alvey
Post by moviePig
Post by alvey
The question is; Do you need an electoral collage for a Presidential
election?
Well, lately I've wondered if we need a President...
That's another oddity about your system. It gives way more power to the
Beloved Leader than any other reputable democracy.
Actually an American president is bound by "checks and balances" far
more than most of America's allies. In power terms a Canadian prime
minister with a solid majority (which Justin Trudeau does NOT have at
the moment) has fewer restraints than Boris Johnson who has fewer
restraints than most of the EU states.
Well, he was until the day he wasn't.
Yes, we HAVE checks and balances, and no, they don't work. That's not
because they're not good, but because one party decided they would
abandon them, because they're afraid of tweets.
Obviously simply because a constitution is written down doesn't mean
it's worth the paper it was printed on. In most political scientists'
opinion the 1935 Soviet Constitution was an extremely democratic
constitution but was violated nearly every day by Stalin from its
promulgation till his death and by his successors long afterwards.
I particularly LOVE it when Trump sits in the White House under the John
Adams quote:

"I pray heaven to bestow the best of blessings on this house and all
that shall hereafter inhabit it. May none but the wise men ever rule
under this roof."

Adams is doing donuts in his grave...
--
Nuts that spent the last twenty years prepping their bunker to survive
indefinitely in a nuclear winter are giving up after wearing a thin
cloth mask for three weeks. LOL -Matt Haughey

"Leaders who have hidden in a bunker and gassed their own citizens
include Saddam Hussein, Adolf Hitler and Donald [Bunker Bitch] Trump." -
Ben Wexler
REAL PRESIDENTS LEAD. REALITY TV PRESIDENTS DON'T.

Trump: "No, I don't take responsibility at all." - 3/13/20
The Horny Goat
2020-07-03 15:42:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by alvey
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by weary flake
The easiest way I can think of to demonstrate the two voting
systems is to pretend that there are five states in all ways
States 1,2,3,4 vote 55% for Candidate A and 45% for Candidate B
State 5 votes 5% for Candidate A and 95% for Candidate B
In the electoral college system it is a landslide for
Candidate A. 4 states win 1 state loses.
Without the electoral college it is a landslide for Candidate B,
with 1 state winning and 4 states losing.
When I was in 5th grade, right after the 1960 election took place, there
were numerous debates about eliminating the Electoral College. 60 years
later...no change.
It's a strange system you have.
How is this fundamentally different from Canada (338 seats) or the UK
(650 seats) where a party particularly strong in one region (such as
the Democrats in California which won the state by a larger margin
than Hillary did nation-wide) can win the popular vote and lose the
election.

As in Canada in 2019 where the Conservatives 'won' with 1.2% more of
the popular vote than Trudeau's Liberals yet 'lost' with 121 vs 157
seats. (Conservatives scored well in AB/SK while the Libs scored in
the "905 belt" which is the area around Metro Toronto where each
largely swept their respective region)

I say again - in 2016 the Dems won California by a greater margin than
they did nationally - meaning that Trump out-polled them in the
remaining 49 states.

Bottom line is that pretty much the ONLY system that prevents this
happening is a proportional representation system that works off a
national list. PR based on regions can still produce the above result
as Germany has demonstrated.
Adam H. Kerman
2020-07-03 17:24:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by alvey
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by weary flake
The easiest way I can think of to demonstrate the two voting
systems is to pretend that there are five states in all ways
States 1,2,3,4 vote 55% for Candidate A and 45% for Candidate B
State 5 votes 5% for Candidate A and 95% for Candidate B
In the electoral college system it is a landslide for
Candidate A. 4 states win 1 state loses.
Without the electoral college it is a landslide for Candidate B,
with 1 state winning and 4 states losing.
When I was in 5th grade, right after the 1960 election took place, there
were numerous debates about eliminating the Electoral College. 60 years
later...no change.
It's a strange system you have.
How is this fundamentally different from Canada (338 seats) or the UK
(650 seats) where a party particularly strong in one region (such as
the Democrats in California which won the state by a larger margin
than Hillary did nation-wide) can win the popular vote and lose the
election. . . .
Oh, alvey full knows that numerous nations around the world have systems
that protect specific populations in specific geographical areas, at the
expense of the general population. In the UK, contituencies are rarely
redrawn -- sometimes for centuries -- ignoring population shifts.

alvey is disinterested and you'll never get him off his "I despise all
Americans" tirade.

While the Founding Fathers gave an advantage to smaller states with two
additional Electors, they never anticipated that nearly every state
would award its entire Electoral College delegation to the winner by
pluraiity. The candidate doesn't even have to win a majority in the
state to win the entire delegation.

Unfortunate they didn't mandate proportional voting in the Constitution,
but that would solve the problem AND eliminate swing states, while still
giving an advantage to states with small populations. It would simply
encourage candidates to campaign in any state in which they think they
could win just a few electors even if they can't win the entire state by
plurality.

Proportional voting could be implemented without Constitutional amendment.
alvey
2020-07-03 21:09:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by alvey
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by weary flake
The easiest way I can think of to demonstrate the two voting
systems is to pretend that there are five states in all ways
States 1,2,3,4 vote 55% for Candidate A and 45% for Candidate B
State 5 votes 5% for Candidate A and 95% for Candidate B
In the electoral college system it is a landslide for
Candidate A. 4 states win 1 state loses.
Without the electoral college it is a landslide for Candidate B,
with 1 state winning and 4 states losing.
When I was in 5th grade, right after the 1960 election took place, there
were numerous debates about eliminating the Electoral College. 60 years
later...no change.
It's a strange system you have.
How is this fundamentally different from Canada (338 seats) or the UK
(650 seats) where a party particularly strong in one region (such as
the Democrats in California which won the state by a larger margin
than Hillary did nation-wide) can win the popular vote and lose the
election. . . .
Oh, alvey full knows that numerous nations around the world have systems
that protect specific populations in specific geographical areas, at the
expense of the general population. In the UK, contituencies are rarely
redrawn -- sometimes for centuries -- ignoring population shifts.
Fact: GB has been routinely adjusting electoral boundaries since 1944. (And
one day they might even get it right).
http://aceproject.org/main/english/bd/bdy_gb.htm
Post by Adam H. Kerman
alvey is disinterested and you'll never get him off his "I despise all
Americans" tirade.
Imo, the lowest form of life on usenet is the creature who makes false
statements about someone who they have in their killfile.

snip tedious



alvey
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
moviePig
2020-07-03 21:30:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by alvey
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by alvey
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by weary flake
The easiest way I can think of to demonstrate the two voting
systems is to pretend that there are five states in all ways
States 1,2,3,4 vote 55% for Candidate A and 45% for Candidate B
State 5 votes 5% for Candidate A and 95% for Candidate B
In the electoral college system it is a landslide for
Candidate A. 4 states win 1 state loses.
Without the electoral college it is a landslide for Candidate B,
with 1 state winning and 4 states losing.
When I was in 5th grade, right after the 1960 election took place, there
were numerous debates about eliminating the Electoral College. 60 years
later...no change.
It's a strange system you have.
How is this fundamentally different from Canada (338 seats) or the UK
(650 seats) where a party particularly strong in one region (such as
the Democrats in California which won the state by a larger margin
than Hillary did nation-wide) can win the popular vote and lose the
election. . . .
Oh, alvey full knows that numerous nations around the world have systems
that protect specific populations in specific geographical areas, at the
expense of the general population. In the UK, contituencies are rarely
redrawn -- sometimes for centuries -- ignoring population shifts.
Fact: GB has been routinely adjusting electoral boundaries since 1944. (And
one day they might even get it right).
http://aceproject.org/main/english/bd/bdy_gb.htm
Post by Adam H. Kerman
alvey is disinterested and you'll never get him off his "I despise all
Americans" tirade.
Imo, the lowest form of life on usenet is the creature who makes false
statements about someone who they have in their killfile.
snip tedious
It might be that "getting it right" is a chimera -- in that *every* set
of electoral boundaries gets *something* right, and none can get
*everything* right (maybe even by definition).
Adam H. Kerman
2020-07-03 22:40:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by alvey
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by alvey
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by weary flake
The easiest way I can think of to demonstrate the two voting
systems is to pretend that there are five states in all ways
States 1,2,3,4 vote 55% for Candidate A and 45% for Candidate B
State 5 votes 5% for Candidate A and 95% for Candidate B
In the electoral college system it is a landslide for
Candidate A. 4 states win 1 state loses.
Without the electoral college it is a landslide for Candidate B,
with 1 state winning and 4 states losing.
When I was in 5th grade, right after the 1960 election took place, there
were numerous debates about eliminating the Electoral College. 60 years
later...no change.
It's a strange system you have.
How is this fundamentally different from Canada (338 seats) or the UK
(650 seats) where a party particularly strong in one region (such as
the Democrats in California which won the state by a larger margin
than Hillary did nation-wide) can win the popular vote and lose the
election. . . .
Oh, alvey full knows that numerous nations around the world have systems
that protect specific populations in specific geographical areas, at the
expense of the general population. In the UK, contituencies are rarely
redrawn -- sometimes for centuries -- ignoring population shifts.
Fact: GB has been routinely adjusting electoral boundaries since 1944. (And
one day they might even get it right).
http://aceproject.org/main/english/bd/bdy_gb.htm
Post by Adam H. Kerman
alvey is disinterested and you'll never get him off his "I despise all
Americans" tirade.
Imo, the lowest form of life on usenet is the creature who makes false
statements about someone who they have in their killfile.
snip tedious
It might be that "getting it right" is a chimera -- in that *every* set
of electoral boundaries gets *something* right, and none can get
*everything* right (maybe even by definition).
What does that have to do with alvey's troll in which he refused to
acknowledge that numerous countries around the world favor a specific
population in a specific geographic area at the expense of the general
population?

The Founding Fathers simply didn't specify how each state would award
Electors, and I have no idea if they even considered it. Perhaps
Electors would have represented state legislatures, like Senator.
The Horny Goat
2020-07-04 22:55:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by alvey
Fact: GB has been routinely adjusting electoral boundaries since 1944. (And
one day they might even get it right).
http://aceproject.org/main/english/bd/bdy_gb.htm
And unlike the United States (or nearly everywhere else) you DON'T
have to be a citizen to vote there.

My daughter is a Canadian (who has lived in London since 2014) and has
voted in 5 British elections: 3 general elections, the Brexit
referendum and a by-election to choose a new MP when her MP resigned
to run successfully for Mayor of London after Boris Johnson ran for
the national Parliament.

(Not all foreigners get to vote in UK elections but Canadians,
Aussies, New Zealanders and I believe Americans who have lived there a
specified period of time do)
Adam H. Kerman
2020-07-04 23:30:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by alvey
Fact: GB has been routinely adjusting electoral boundaries since 1944. (And
one day they might even get it right).
http://aceproject.org/main/english/bd/bdy_gb.htm
And unlike the United States (or nearly everywhere else) you DON'T
have to be a citizen to vote there.
My daughter is a Canadian (who has lived in London since 2014) and has
voted in 5 British elections: 3 general elections, the Brexit
referendum and a by-election to choose a new MP when her MP resigned
to run successfully for Mayor of London after Boris Johnson ran for
the national Parliament.
(Not all foreigners get to vote in UK elections but Canadians,
Aussies, New Zealanders and I believe Americans who have lived there a
specified period of time do)
Even though Americans haven't spoken English in years?
The Horny Goat
2020-07-05 08:01:53 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 4 Jul 2020 23:30:44 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by The Horny Goat
(Not all foreigners get to vote in UK elections but Canadians,
Aussies, New Zealanders and I believe Americans who have lived there a
specified period of time do)
Even though Americans haven't spoken English in years?
Ha ha ha - by THAT definition of English a higher proportion of
Americans speak Englsh then they do down under!

Look up Paul Hogan on Youtube if you need a reminder...(yes I know
he's made a lot of $$$ portraying a national stereotype)

alvey
2020-07-03 21:51:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by alvey
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by weary flake
The easiest way I can think of to demonstrate the two voting
systems is to pretend that there are five states in all ways
States 1,2,3,4 vote 55% for Candidate A and 45% for Candidate B
State 5 votes 5% for Candidate A and 95% for Candidate B
In the electoral college system it is a landslide for
Candidate A. 4 states win 1 state loses.
Without the electoral college it is a landslide for Candidate B,
with 1 state winning and 4 states losing.
When I was in 5th grade, right after the 1960 election took place, there
were numerous debates about eliminating the Electoral College. 60 years
later...no change.
It's a strange system you have.
How is this fundamentally different from Canada (338 seats) or the UK
(650 seats) where a party particularly strong in one region (such as
the Democrats in California which won the state by a larger margin
than Hillary did nation-wide) can win the popular vote and lose the
election.
Preface: I know nothing of the Canadian system, but I assume it's a
Westminster model. (Just checked. It is. Very much so.)

When I said the USA has a "strange system" I was referring to more than the
EC. If I'm correct (and I'm sure it'll be Trumpeted if I'm not), "features"
which the US have which Westminster doesn't are;

1. Public, State primaries/caucuses - A hugely time-consuming and expensive
process.
2. Direct voting for President/PM - At least with Westminster the leader
comes from the 'ruling party'.(cf Obama)
3. The Electoral College - Another time-consuming and arguably redundant
step.
4. Two year terms for your Lower House - Two years! Seriously?
5. No independent, national body for electoral redistribution - Currently
the States do their own distributions. A poor practice.

I believe that none of the variants of Westminster are ideal, but to
paraphrase someone whose name I forget; "They're better than letting Putin
rule for forty years".


alvey
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Loading...