Vote Trump out

Should the Electoral College be abolished?

  • Yes

    Votes: 12 36.4%

  • No

    Votes: 21 63.6%
  • Total voters
    33
Bear420

Bear420

Well-Known Member
The GDP economy grew at only 1.2 percent, way below the 2.5 Percent the analysts projected. but the fall was because contraction in business inventories, which doesn't say a lot about our future.
Now take a look at final sales , excluding inventories. The economy Grew 2.5 % a good rebound from the winter months and in line with all the forecasts. while inventory's tend to move around without any long term trend.

personal consumption expenditures, grew at a 4.2 percent that is the evidence that long awaited rise in consumer spending and job improvement along with cheaper stable fuel prices. So we are feeling a bit more wealthy, spending more at food and travel buying a car or eating out Americans feel better, The rise from the first 6 months of 2016 where Up 3.1% from 2015. The other is employment Cost Index is up 2.9 percent over the present year. which lead me to believe and shows workers are making more money now and Pay raises are more frequent, then Prior Years, and that is coming in the form of Cash in your pockets, not eaten up by health care and other employer-provided benefits. bottom line People are spending more with bigger paychecks.
We were on the right track with a few things to work on Poor Productivity Growth and shrinking investments.

Poorly Productivity growth is a tough one which is under estimated in no easy solutions. The fed,res. can't just turn on and increase productivity, which new data shows we will be in trouble and long term is not a good thing, but It can be fixed along with investments, it takes time to recover from a recession.

But with time and some intelligence we can and were headed in the right direction.
Now I am really unsure of what will happen, is it all going to fall in the shitter again ? Or are we going to keep going in the direction we did and was making progress ?
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Bear420 said:
The GDP economy grew at only 1.2 percent, way below the 2.5 Percent the analysts projected. but the fall was because contraction in business inventories, which doesn't say a lot about our future.
Now take a look at final sales , excluding inventories. The economy Grew 2.5 % a good rebound from the winter months and in line with all the forecasts. while inventory's tend to move around without any long term trend.

personal consumption expenditures, grew at a 4.2 percent that is the evidence that long awaited rise in consumer spending and job improvement along with cheaper stable fuel prices. So we are feeling a bit more wealthy, spending more at food and travel buying a car or eating out Americans feel better, The rise from the first 6 months of 2016 where Up 3.1% from 2015. The other is employment Cost Index is up 2.9 percent over the present year. which lead me to believe and shows workers are making more money now and Pay raises are more frequent, then Prior Years, and that is coming in the form of Cash in your pockets, not eaten up by health care and other employer-provided benefits. bottom line People are spending more with bigger paychecks.
We were on the right track with a few things to work on Poor Productivity Growth and shrinking investments.

Poorly Productivity growth is a tough one which is under estimated in no easy solutions. The fed,res. can't just turn on and increase productivity, which new data shows we will be in trouble and long term is not a good thing, but It can be fixed along with investments, it takes time to recover from a recession.

But with time and some intelligence we can and were headed in the right direction.
Now I am really unsure of what will happen, is it all going to fall in the shitter again ? Or are we going to keep going in the direction we did and was making progress ?
Click to expand...
None of which addresses debt and banking overhang.

I think that's lipstick on the pig. We could be growing so much faster if everyone were involved in the economy rather than just the top 10%.
 
BobCajun

BobCajun

Well-Known Member
The reason for the Electoral system is that the founders didn't want common American idiots deciding who was President. Do you think they wanted blacks and women deciding who was President? Hardly. They only wanted "qualified" people to do the voting, meaning wealthy white men. However, it turns out that the Electors can also be idiots. That's the flaw in the system. Who is doing the vetting of Electors?
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
BobCajun said:
The reason for the Electoral system is that the founders didn't want common American idiots deciding who was President. Do you think they wanted blacks and women deciding who was President? Hardly. They only wanted "qualified" people to do the voting, meaning wealthy white men. However, it turns out that the Electors can also be idiots. That's the flaw in the system. Who is doing the vetting of Electors?
Click to expand...
The original reason was time, because our country was founded before telecommunications of any kind. Back then news, currency and votes traveled only as quickly as a house could gallop, Pony Express style.

We're well beyond that now and we see the limits of the system for what they are. Hence the need for change.
 
BobCajun

BobCajun

Well-Known Member
Actually, turns out it was because of slavery, some states letting slaves vote and others not, which would give the northern states an advantage. So there's actually no valid reason for the Electoral College system today, because there's no slavery. But I guess the varying populations of the states makes it necessary.

One Founding-era argument for the Electoral College stemmed from the fact that ordinary Americans across a vast continent would lack sufficient information to choose directly and intelligently among leading presidential candidates.

This objection rang true in the 1780s, when life was far more local. But the early emergence of national presidential parties rendered the objection obsolete by linking presidential candidates to slates of local candidates and national platforms, which explained to voters who stood for what.

Although the Philadelphia framers did not anticipate the rise of a system of national presidential parties, the 12th Amendment—proposed in 1803 and ratified a year later— was framed with such a party system in mind, in the aftermath of the election of 1800-01. In that election, two rudimentary presidential parties—Federalists led by John Adams and Republicans led by Thomas Jefferson—took shape and squared off. Jefferson ultimately prevailed, but only after an extended crisis triggered by several glitches in the Framers’ electoral machinery. In particular, Republican electors had no formal way to designate that they wanted Jefferson for president and Aaron Burr for vice president rather than vice versa. Some politicians then tried to exploit the resulting confusion.

Enter the 12th Amendment, which allowed each party to designate one candidate for president and a separate candidate for vice president. The amendment’s modifications of the electoral process transformed the Framers’ framework, enabling future presidential elections to be openly populist and partisan affairs featuring two competing tickets. It is the 12th Amendment’s Electoral College system, not the Philadelphia Framers’, that remains in place today. If the general citizenry’s lack of knowledge had been the real reason for the Electoral College, this problem was largely solved by 1800. So why wasn’t the entire Electoral College contraption scrapped at that point?

Standard civics-class accounts of the Electoral College rarely mention the real demon dooming direct national election in 1787 and 1803: slavery.

At the Philadelphia convention, the visionary Pennsylvanian James Wilson proposed direct national election of the president. But the savvy Virginian James Madison responded that such a system would prove unacceptable to the South: “The right of suffrage was much more diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes.” In other words, in a direct election system, the North would outnumber the South, whose many slaves (more than half a million in all) of course could not vote. But the Electoral College—a prototype of which Madison proposed in this same speech—instead let each southern state count its slaves, albeit with a two-fifths discount, in computing its share of the overall count.
http://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/
Click to expand...
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
BobCajun said:
Actually, turns out it was because of slavery, some states letting slaves vote and others not, which would give the northern states an advantage. So there's actually no valid reason for the Electoral College system today, because there's no slavery. But I guess the varying populations of the states makes it necessary.
Click to expand...
We don't need a fudge factor for states; that's covered by having the number of congressional representatives vary by state population. And then there's the Senate; every state gets two, no matter how large. The presidential election should be a simple majority vote, independent of the state where any vote comes from.
 
Winter Woman

Winter Woman

Well-Known Member
This is a direct lift from Factcheck

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.”
 
BobCajun

BobCajun

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
We don't need a fudge factor for states; that's covered by having the number of congressional representatives vary by state population. And then there's the Senate; every state gets two, no matter how large. The presidential election should be a simple majority vote, independent of the state where any vote comes from.
Click to expand...
Maybe straight popular voting would work. Seems to work in Canada and other nations. But as Winter Woman posted, simple majority does have potential glitches. This thing of the popular vote choosing one candidate and the Electoral vote choosing another does seem to be problematic though, from a purely democratic standpoint. When the President is not actually the person that most Americans wanted, I'd say there's a problem one way or another.
 
BobCajun

BobCajun

Well-Known Member
NLXSK1 said:
I dont see anything ready to fall on me.... Could you be more specific?
Click to expand...
Actually I did see a video yesterday about Trump not building the wall after all, just making some improvements on the fence. See Trump had to say stuff like that to get elected, but in reality it's completely impractical to actually carry out. But really all you need is a competent immigration policing scheme, instead of setting up sanctuaries for them.
 
Big_Lou

Big_Lou

Well-Known Member
NLXSK1 said:
I dont see anything ready to fall on me.... Could you be more specific?
Click to expand...
Back under your rock, cuck insect.

Screenshot 2016-11-06 at 6.38.38 PM.png

Incidentally, I asked my sister how she felt about the word "halfrican". She was angry, disgusted, and sad. Really shocked that I'D be in a community/associated with a 'person' of such repugnant calibre. She served as a surrogate mom for me and several of my siblings, her being the eldest daughter of eight. She was a Captain in the Air Force before you were (unfortunately) born.

Beyond being banned from this site, I'd like to see you in a mandated mental care facility and/or seriously considering suicide.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top