Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
The only person who thought Rick Perry had a chance was Rick Perry.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Okay, I was watching some Youtube videos on US government when I started thinking about the Electoral College.
I don't really know what to think. I don't really like it, but not for reasons most people do: because to me it seems like it's way too convoluted and kinda unnecessary nowadays.
"I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work." -Thomas EdisonThe main reason the Electoral College was used was trying not to piss off the southern colonies over slavery. Due to slave labor, they had a much smaller voting population, and there were a fair number of people in the northern colonies in favor of emancipation even at that point. Doing the math here isn't hard; a direct vote would basically screw the South, and the South knew it.
And while people can wax poetic about the potential to have ended slavery faster, the fact was that England would still have loved to swoop in and take the colonies back. (That's part of what the War of 1812 was about.) And if the colonies became divided by that issue before the U.S. could get off the ground as a nation...well, it's proof that 18th century realpolitik was a thing.
In theory, we don't need it now (although we would if Huckabee had his way).
Expergiscēre cras, medior quam hodie. (Awaken tomorrow, better than today.)I've got some reservations about abolishing it completely. This argument may have come from those same folks, but it's been said that a direct election of the executive leads to autocracy. Currently, though it's heavily discouraged, an elector can vote against his constituents, these are called faithless electors. If they feel strongly enough about it, an elector can do what they think is right even if their constituents have been carried away by rhetoric. Could we reapportion the college so that a voter in Colorado has as much influence as a voter in Tennessee (I think a Coloradoan has five times the influence of a Tenneseean at present)?
edited 11th Sep '15 7:40:49 PM by Artificius
"I have no fear, for fear is the little death that kills me over and over. Without fear, I die but once."The electoral college sucks
. Granted, it doesn't suck as much as the recent UK election
, but that ain't saying much.
edited 11th Sep '15 7:43:06 PM by TheWanderer
| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |
If Trump wins, it'd be more along the lines of Give me the Prize(Kurgans theme), Run like Hell/Waiting for the Worms by Pink Floyd, Bad for Good/Alive by Meatloaf.
Come to think of it more songs fit Trump than any of the other canidates.
edited 11th Sep '15 8:41:50 PM by Skycobra51
Look upon my privilege ye mighty and despair.I can understand why the Electoral College was created way back at the founding of the country, but with today's technology and other factors I just don't see how it's efficient to keep it around. Direct votes for president should, in fact, be a thing. One person, one vote, direct effect.
Not sure how that'd turn anything into an autocracy.
![]()
I would've at least thought "End of the world as we know it."
To the second part, Hell if I know. Anyone not Carson, or Trump. There's just too damned many of them.
To steal a line from Weird Al's Weasel Stomping Day "It's tradition that makes it okay."
But in all seriousness, it'd probably take nothing short of an act by congress to remove the electoral college.
At least with it gone, your vote would actually mean something.
Another issue for me though, is that Senators don't have term limits. Is it any wonder we can't get things done when we have the same people year after year?
edited 11th Sep '15 9:07:01 PM by Skycobra51
Look upon my privilege ye mighty and despair.![]()
My money is on Santorum.
He is calling it the Cyber Party
The artist formally known as Deviant BraeburnI've heard a good argument that enforcing term limits on Senators would ensure that the only people who get any skill at crafting laws would be the lobbyists. Since, you know, learning how all this works takes time and experience, and forcing officials out leaves us with continually inexperienced congresspersons dealing with big business lobbyists who can't be pushed out because they're not government employees. Which means laws even more influenced by big money than they currently are.
This is a case in which having the same people year after year isn't necessarily a weakness of the system and is probably beneficial.
edited 11th Sep '15 9:19:51 PM by AceofSpades
Yeah compare the likes to Mc Caine to the newer Tea Party nuts, expeirance can be good for the public at times.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranNowhere is this struggle more apparent than in a recent declaration by Louisiana's attorneys that there are 2,000 family planning providers ready to accommodate new patients. A federal judge, reviewing the list in an early September court hearing, found hundreds of entries for specialists such as ophthalmologists; nursing homes caregivers; dentists; ear, nose, and throat doctors; and even cosmetic surgeons.
"It strikes me as extremely odd that you have a dermatologist, an audiologist, a dentist who are billing for family planning services," said the judge, John deGravelles, who will determine in the next week whether it is legal for the state to end Planned Parenthood's Medicaid contracts. "But that is what you're representing to the court? You're telling me that they can provide family planning and related services?"
His harsh questioning sent the state back to the drawing board. On Tuesday, the state's attorneys acknowledged that the dentists and other specialists didn't belong on the list. They filed a pared-down version that lists just 29 health care providers.
Gov. Bobby Jindal, a Republican contender for the presidency, moved to cut off $730,000 in Medicaid reimbursements to the state's two Planned Parenthood clinics in late August in response to several heavily edited, widely circulated videos purporting to show Planned Parenthood employees selling fetal parts, which is illegal.
Planned Parenthood denies the charges and has asked for an injunction to block Jindal.
In straining to identify alternate providers, the state has added to a growing body of evidence that other health care providers would have a difficult time accommodating low-income women if Planned Parenthood were no longer able to take Medicaid. Planned Parenthood clinics in Louisiana do not provide abortions. Instead, the clinics provide thousands of annual cancer and STI screenings, overwhelmingly to low-income women on Medicaid. In Louisiana alone, the group last year performed 2,100 well-woman exams, 1,200 pap smears, and 11,000 STI tests, and it administered long-lasting contraceptives 4,100 times, to 5,200 patients, a spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood of the Gulf Coast said.
Several Louisiana health care providers that would have to take over Planned Parenthood's patients have stressed that their capacity to do so is very limited. "You can't just cut Planned Parenthood off one day and expect everyone across the city to absorb the patients," Stephanie Taylor, who oversees the state's efforts to curb sexually transmitted diseases, told the New York Times. "There needs to be time to build the capacity."
Another obstacle is the dearth of family planning clinics and doctors that accept women on Medicaid or other forms of public funding. Across the country, Planned Parenthood provides contraception to almost 40 percent of women who rely on public programs for family planning. The Times notes that four out of five Planned Parenthood patients have incomes below 150 percent of the poverty level, at a time when two-thirds of states reported difficulties ensuring there are enough health providers, especially OB-GY Ns, for Medicaid patients.
On Tuesday, there was fresh evidence for what the fight to defund Planned Parenthood means for poor women. The Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive rights think tank, published an analysis of nearly 500 counties where Planned Parenthood operates clinics. In 103 of those counties, Planned Parenthood is the health care provider for every single woman who relies on public funding for contraception. In an additional 229 counties, Planned Parenthood clinics provide care for at least half of patients who rely on Medicaid.
edited 11th Sep '15 9:52:38 PM by TheWanderer
| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |edited 12th Sep '15 12:48:07 AM by AngelicBraeburn
The artist formally known as Deviant Braeburn

More to say have you?
But seriously, that was informative. I actually learned something.
edited 11th Sep '15 5:34:47 PM by Skycobra51
Look upon my privilege ye mighty and despair.