[OFF TOPIC] Politics Thread

[Olympian1010 8,003]

6 minutes ago, Federer91 said:

For a country as vast and different like the USA the Electoral College is the most suited and fairer system there could be. And for me frankly, it's a genious system, thought long before it should have been. But of course it's good when you win it and bad when you lose it. Excuses, excuses..

 

1 minute ago, AlFHg said:

I think that the "winner takes all" system is very weird, especially when applied to a non homogeneous country like USA

Fair points. However, when your current leader lost the popular vote (as in the actual vote) by 3.5 million votes, it might suggest the system needs to changed or tweaked.

 

The US can’t continue like it is right now. Chambers of Congress that pass nothing and actively work against each other. A president that flip-flops his opinions daily. A president that has one of the lowest approval ratings of all time. A Supreme Court controlled by one party. I mean I study a lot of world history, and this is generally how democracy begins to unravel. 

[Olympian1010 8,003]

If, and this is only but a very hypothetical situation, the US were to split sometime in the next few decades, my ideal country would be California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada. Our country would be a progressive majority. We all have some of the biggest economies in the US. Our natural resources would be significant. Plus, many our population would be a bit more similar.

 

I don’t think it will ever happen, but that’s my best case scenario should the US dissolve.

[AlFHg 330]

1 hour ago, Olympian1010 said:

 

Fair points. However, when your current leader lost the popular vote (as in the actual vote) by 3.5 million votes, it might suggest the system needs to changed or tweaked.

It’s the typical dilemma of democracy: stability or representation. The indirect election of the president with a temporary parliament is a possible solution in a country which I imagine being split between federalism and presidentialism. But I think that the way in which the states give their delegates is wrong. Paradoxically, the ideal law for your system would be our old “Porcellum”* law for our Senate.

 

*Porcellum, which can be more or less translated as “made by/for pigs” ( definition from the man who proposed it). It granted 55% of deputies to the list or coalition that obtained the highest number of votes in each region. Maybe this applied state by state for each winner may result in a good compromise of stability and representation. In Italy, it is definitely a wrong system

[Olympian1010 8,003]

Just now, AlFHg said:

It’s the typical dilemma of democracy: stability or representation. The indirect election of the president with a temporary parliament is a possible solution in a country which I imagine being split between federalism and presidentialism. But I think that the way in which the states give their delegates is wrong. Paradoxically, the ideal law for your system would be our old “Porcellum”* law for our Senate.

 

*Porcellum, which can be more or less translated as “made by/for pigs” ( definition from the man who proposed it). It granted 55% of deputies to the list or coalition that obtained the highest number of votes in each region. Maybe this applied state by state for each winner may result in a good compromise of stability and representation. In Italy, it is definitely a wrong system

And to add craziness to our system. Electors/Delegates, in the Electoral College, are not bound by the vote of the people. They are allowed to vote for whoever they want, and are chosen by states using about 5 different systems.

[AlFHg 330]

Just now, Olympian1010 said:

And to add craziness to our system. Electors/Delegates, in the Electoral College, are not bound by the vote of the people. They are allowed to vote for whoever they want, and are chosen by states using about 5 different systems.

Oh, that is new to me! I thought they had to declare support before being elected and then be bond to it

[Olympian1010 8,003]

Just now, AlFHg said:

Oh, that is new to me! I thought they had to declare support before being elected and then be bond to it

They declare support, but their not bound to vote that way.

[Olympian1010 8,003]

I’ve been doing some reading up on the Afghanistan War, and it’s not looking good. Currently the Taliban held the most territory they’ve held since 2001, with some estimates giving them control of around 50% of the country. The ANA have been taking a lot of loses and attacks on civilians have increased by quite a few percentage points in the last two years. It’s also well known that Pakistan is still actively supporting the Taliban. Rumor has it that the Russia and Iran are working to arm the Taliban as well. It’s not completely shocking to see that the demise of free Afghanistan may come within the next 2-3 years, but it is a shame after how many lives were lost fighting in the cause. 

[Olympian1010 8,003]

I have a feeling that this isn’t how police in most users countries would treat people with mental “disabilities”: 

 

This country is going to shit so fast nowadays.

[heywoodu 15,181]

9 hours ago, Olympian1010 said:

 

Fair points. However, when your current leader lost the popular vote (as in the actual vote) by 3.5 million votes, it might suggest the system needs to changed or tweaked.

 

This has been said so much by people who don't like Trump and I doubt so much most of them would say the same if Clinton had won the EC but not the popular vote. It's rather predictable, really.

[Olympian1010 8,003]

3 minutes ago, heywoodu said:

This has been said so much by people who don't like Trump and I doubt so much most of them would say the same if Clinton had won the EC but not the popular vote. It's rather predictable, really.

Well this isn’t the first time the “true” winner has lost the actual election. I’ve always been against the electoral college especially since I’m a democratic socialist. People should have all the power. Also, some states shouldn’t matter than other states. Other states argue that California would have to much power in that system. I always point out that there are reasons why California has such a big population. It’s because everyone wants to live here. We provide many benefits and services other states will not. We have our own issues to, but we shouldn’t be punished for being a successful state. 

Edited September 12, 2019 by Olympian1010