And... you can at least admit that part of the reason the electoral college was even a thing is b/c it simplified the counting process. With modern tech being at its current state, and rapidly progressing, there should be no reason why we are still doing things the way they were dones years and years ago. I honestly feel like the system needs a massive overhaul, but I'm well aware of the fact that we're a long ways from that thinking being the general consensus.
That's not the reason at all. The reason we have the electoral college system is because it was supposed to prevent corruption/special interests groups from having too much power so it was divvied up between the states. It also gave the smaller states a voice. There's a reason we have it and I'm glad for it
You're right about it not being perfect and it messes up from time to time, the most recent example being in 2000
On an unrelated note, we were robbed of a truly iconic 4/8 years in 08
(better with annotations on)
I always knew she was stupid, but I didn't truly appreciate how transparent her utter lack of knowledge outside of listening for key words to fling talking points at was until I recently did a youtube binge of her videos. It's not too late to run, Sarah
That's not the reason at all. The reason we have the electoral college system is because it was supposed to prevent corruption/special interests groups from having too much power so it was divvied up between the states. It also gave the smaller states a voice. There's a reason we have it and I'm glad for it
You're right about it not being perfect and it messes up from time to time, the most recent example being in 2000
I didnt know about the special interest groups (I see why though), but I did know about the giving everyone a voice thing. I said "part", and I still feel like actually having such few votes to count in comparison to the actuall number of legally elligble voters was part of the reason this system was created, or at least a plus for why they kept it. Regardless of the fact, I cant help but feel its antiquated. Why can't we find a modern alternative that at THE LEAST gets rid of the superdelegates on the Dem side.
I didnt know about the special interest groups (I see why though), but I did know about the giving everyone a voice thing. I said "part", and I still feel like actually having such few votes to count in comparison to the actuall number of legally elligble voters was part of the reason this system was created, or us at least plus for why they kept it. Regardless of the fact, I kept help but feel its antiquated. Why can't we find a modern alternative that at THE LEAST gets rid of the superdelegates on the Dem side.
You could be right about it being easier to count because 270 (or 538 if you will) is so much easier than trying to go to 300M+ .
Yeah I'm not sure why we have or even need superdelegates. It's not fair to actual voters because congressmen and women are choosing who they want and it adds a lot of weight. Maybe if I knew the origins behind it. With that being said its plain to see that superdelegates do prefer Hill over Sanders but that doesn't decide the race
@RatedG v true. This one will be close. Who do you guys feel are elegible VP noms for either side. I keep hearing Nina Turner and Elizabeth Warren for the Dems, and I have heard Paul Ryan for the Repubs, but why would he give up that position for the VP. I know its higher in the pecking order but isnt the Speaker position a little more influential?
@RatedG v true. This one will be close. Who do you guys feel are elegible VP noms for either side. I keep hearing Nina Turner and Elizabeth Warren for the Dems, and I have heard Paul Ryan for the Repubs, but why would he give up that position for the VP. I know its higher in the pecking order but isnt the Speaker position a little more influential?
After the 1968 Democratic National Convention, the Democratic Party made changes in its delegate selection process, based on the work of the McGovern-Fraser Commission. The purpose of the changes was to make the composition of the convention less subject to control by party leaders and more responsive to the votes cast during the campaign for the nomination.
Some Democrats believed that these changes had unduly diminished the role of party leaders and elected officials, weakening the Democratic tickets of George McGovern and Jimmy Carter. The party appointed a commission chaired by Jim Hunt, the then-Governor of North Carolina, to address this issue. In 1982, the Hunt Commission recommended and the Democratic National Committee adopted a rule that set aside some delegate slots for Democratic members of Congress and for state party chairs and vice chairs. Under the original Hunt plan, superdelegates were 30% of all delegates, but when it was finally implemented for the 1984 election, they were 14%. The number has steadily increased, and today they are approximately 20%.
@RatedG v true. This one will be close. Who do you guys feel are elegible VP noms for either side. I keep hearing Nina Turner and Elizabeth Warren for the Dems, and I have heard Paul Ryan for the Repubs, but why would he give up that position for the VP. I know its higher in the pecking order but isnt the Speaker position a little more influential?
Julian Castro (former San Antonio mayor and now Secretary of Housing & Urban Development) seems to be the popular pick for Hillary.
Yes, the political system is perfect and nothing needs to be changed. Go America!
Plenty of things have been around for years; that doesn't make it right.
As you know, our government is a republic, based on the democratic process of electing officials.
For very legitimate reasons, both the primary election systems and the general election system are directly adapted from this model of electing representatives who then choose, sometimes by further indirect elections and sometimes directly, nominees and Presidents. Many people, including influential historical figures, politicians, philosophers, and admittedly some unknowledgeable randos, agree that direct democracy isn't always the best way to go. Here's some of their reasoning:
Quote:
The reason that the Constitution calls for this extra layer, rather than just providing for the direct election of the president, is that most of the nation’s founders were actually rather afraid of democracy. James Madison worried about what he called "factions," which he defined as groups of citizens who have a common interest in some proposal that would either violate the rights of other citizens or would harm the nation as a whole. Madison’s fear – which Alexis de Tocqueville later dubbed "the tyranny of the majority" – was that a faction could grow to encompass more than 50 percent of the population, at which point it could "sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens." Madison has a solution for tyranny of the majority: "A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking."
As Alexander Hamilton writes in "The Federalist Papers," the Constitution is designed to ensure "that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications." The point of the Electoral College is to preserve "the sense of the people," while at the same time ensuring that a president is chosen "by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice."
Some of the arguments that people make for the electoral college, both in that article and in further reading, are awful or not applicable to modern society. Some, however, still ring rather true and the reasons can still be seen as both reasonable and necessary, depending on your view.
I would encourage you and anyone who questions these systems to read further and think critically (not that I think your views are a product of being uninformed or that you are wrong). I would also challenge the notion that modern technology is capable of properly handling a direct election system with 350 million people as potential voters. In fact, I would argue that as technology develops at increasingly rapid rates, the possibility for tampering, manipulation, and corruption actually becomes even more of a concern.
But you wouldn't know, Iowa popular votes aren't released
Explain this to me. In simpler terms
And Marvin I agree with you he probably is ahead of the popular vote so far. That may not be the case going into Super Tuesday but for right now id bet on it
And Marvin I agree with you he probably is ahead of the popular vote so far. That may not be the case going into Super Tuesday but for right now id bet on it
Basically, they have delegates for the same reasons the federal system has an electoral college.
Superdelegates, then, are based upon the notion that the Democratic Party is a political party that is, in its basic status as a legal entity that is technically a corporation if I have my facts straight, distinct from the actual federal government. The leaders and officials of that corporation or entity believe, with due reason, something along the lines of "this is our party, this is our entity, and we should have some measure of influence over which person we choose to represent us in a national general election." And I happen to entirely agree with that on the premise that a lack of confidence from the party itself will negatively impact a presumptive nominee in several ways; nominating a candidate behind whom lies little party support is not only telling of the actual political divides between said candidate and said party, but could potentially be an inaccurate depiction of that party's values, proposals, positions, and stances.
Quote:
Originally posted by J P O W
Julian Castro (former San Antonio mayor and now Secretary of Housing & Urban Development) seems to be the popular pick for Hillary.
I'm salty about this. The only reason he's the "top choice" in many circles and, according to insiders, for Hillary herself is his age and race. He's demographically appealing. What about the experience and policy matters? What about the political savvy, the passion, and the sheer intelligence? By now it should be clear that I'm extremely pro-Warren as a VP pick for either candidate, and both Hillary and Sanders would be better as each other's VP than someone like Julian Castro, if we look at factors other than demographics. Obama won partially because he was a young black man at a time when the electorate was shifting to favor such characteristics, but he was also extremely passionate, intelligent, had experience and a record to back him up, and was in general one of the strongest candidates that the Democrats had produced since 1992 Bill Clinton or even longer. This Castro boy is not in the same boat.
I'm salty about this. The only reason he's the "top choice" in many circles and, according to insiders, for Hillary herself is his age and race. He's demographically appealing. What about the experience and policy matters? What about the political savvy, the passion, and the sheer intelligence? By now it should be clear that I'm extremely pro-Warren as a VP pick for either candidate, and both Hillary and Sanders would be better as each other's VP than someone like Julian Castro, if we look at factors other than demographics. Obama won partially because he was a young black man at a time when the electorate was shifting to favor such characteristics, but he was also extremely passionate, intelligent, had experience and a record to back him up, and was in general one of the strongest candidates that the Democrats had produced since 1992 Bill Clinton or even longer. This Castro boy is not in the same boat.
I can totally see how Castro is ideal for demographics and can see how Hillary would chose him for that rather than experience. But being a Texas myself, he's extremely popular here among democrats for similar reasons you stated for Obama. He's not nearly as well known as Obama was during the time of his run but I think if he's chosen for VP he could win over a lot of people with his charm.
I like Warren but I don't think a Clinton/Warren ticket would be good at all. She would be a good choice for Sanders if he gets the nomination.
you can at least admit that part of the reason the electoral college was even a thing is b/c it simplified the counting process. With modern tech being at its current state, and rapidly progressing, there should be no reason why we are still doing things the way they were dones years and years ago. I honestly feel like the system needs a massive overhaul, but I'm well aware of the fact that we're a long ways from that thinking being the general consensus.
.