Hillary says it's time to eliminate the Electoral College

[mindless1]

We are the majority. The Trump faction doesn't even blink at the truth of that as they attempt to impose their radical agenda on America.

You have wasted so much time whining in this topic, so there must be a reason. What has caused your panties to get in such a knot, or are you just another minion who repeats whatever your favorite celebrity told you to think?

What radical agenda has been imposed? Is it radical to deport illegal aliens, when (get ready for it) they are here against the law? Perhaps you should stop whining and make efforts to change the laws you don't like instead of whining when they are enforced, or did you have some other ant in your shorts that you'd like to be specific about instead of generalized whining?

On the other hand, that would be off-topic. This topic is about Hillary whining, lol.

 

[Alpha One Seven]

Pathetic...absolutely pathetic...

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/13/polit...son-cooper-electoral-college-cnntv/index.html

Are there people that still think she is relevant? lol
Look up 'sour grapes' and there is a picture of her there.

 

[pcgeek11]

Are there people that still think she is relevant? lol
Look up 'sour grapes' and there is a picture of her there.

That made me spit my coffee!

 

[pmv]

Hillary Clinton is not a conservative or anything even remotely approaching it.

Her past track record suggests otherwise (pro-death penalty, anti-gay-marriage, pro-welfare cuts, pro-Iraq-war, pro-Libya war, pro-cluster bomb exports, anti-union, good friend of the Saudis, pro-Honduras coup, imposer of a highly dodgy President on Haiti, supporter of deprofessionalisation and privatisation of teaching...those all seem like conservative positions to me).

Yes I was being provocative, but the point is, I don't accept its of any relevance whether she's opportunist in opposing the electoral college now, particularly as I've never particularly liked her anyway. The electoral college remains a bad system.

 

[bshole]

Doesn't change the fact that she's right.

I agree that Clinton is correct that the system is unfair because it allows some votes to count more than others. However, someone's got a point. Find me a Bernie supporter who doesn't want to get rid of super delegates.

 

[pmv]

Are there people that still think she is relevant? lol
Look up 'sour grapes' and there is a picture of her there.

Never ceases to shock me how Americans will direct that word at women. Granted its one of the more nuanced points of the unwritten etiquette of obscenity, but here it's almost always directed at men, I never heard anyone use it at a woman till encountering conservative Yanks on the internet. At which point it took me a moment to work out why I was taken aback, as I had never consciously thought about how the word is used, just internalised the rules via usage.

Clearly there's some misogyny involved even in the British usage, but it takes on a whole other level of misogyny the way (some?) Americans use it, and just ends up saying more about the speaker. It comes over as revealing a deeply-embedded, and very weird, kind of fear.

 

[fskimospy]

Her past track record suggests otherwise (pro-death penalty, anti-gay-marriage, pro-welfare cuts, pro-Iraq-war, pro-Libya war, pro-cluster bomb exports, anti-union, good friend of the Saudis, pro-Honduras coup, imposer of a highly dodgy President on Haiti, supporter of deprofessionalisation and privatisation of teaching...those all seem like conservative positions to me).

Yes I was being provocative, but the point is, I don't accept its of any relevance whether she's opportunist in opposing the electoral college now, particularly as I've never particularly liked her anyway. The electoral college remains a bad system.

Her past track record places her as one of the most liberal members of the senate as per her DW-NOMINATE score.

 

[fskimospy]

I agree that Clinton is correct that the system is unfair because it allows some votes to count more than others. However, someone's got a point. Find me a Bernie supporter who doesn't want to get rid of super delegates.

The electoral college and the superdelegate system are either good or bad on their own merits. Two important things though:

1) Clinton would have won without the EC and Sanders still would have lost without superdelegates.

2) Clinton had opposed the EC long before the 2016 election.

 

[fskimospy]

please refrain from using the word fact for an opinion.

Why? Did my phrasing confuse you or was it likely to confuse anyone else?

I am still waiting for a single compelling argument in its favor. Usually you hear the same three or four bad ones that are mostly covers for the fact that some people think rural areas should get extra special representation.

 

[pmv]

Her past track record places her as one of the most liberal members of the senate as per her DW-NOMINATE score.

But the issues I mentioned completely outwiegh any obscure statistical metric. She might have changed her tune, and, sure, would have been prefereable to any of the Republican front-runners (yet alone Trump) but any one of those issues puts her on the wrong side as far as I'm concerned. Besides, why should I agree with those compiling the statistic? I suspect I'd consider them conservatives as well.

 

[fskimospy]

But the issues I mentioned completely outwiegh any obscure statistical metric. She might have changed her tune, and, sure, would have been prefereable to any of the Republican front-runners (yet alone Trump) but any one of those issues puts her on the wrong side as far as I'm concerned. Besides, why should I agree with those compiling the statistic? I suspect I'd consider them conservatives as well.

The metric is not obscure and it measures her actual actions on topics as opposed to nebulous messaging. Why would those issues outweigh years of real votes on real issues and is your ideology really so rigid that even a single heresy transforms someone into a conservative? If so I guess I'm a conservative too, most likely. (I would imagine almost all humans are by that standard)

Why would the ideology of those who created it matter? It's a measure that compares legislators to each other in a common space, it's not like it's a set of things the authors classified as conservative or liberal. You should read more about it, it's a truly remarkable tool.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOMINATE_(scaling_method)

 

[Jhhnn]

You have wasted so much time whining in this topic, so there must be a reason. What has caused your panties to get in such a knot, or are you just another minion who repeats whatever your favorite celebrity told you to think?

What radical agenda has been imposed? Is it radical to deport illegal aliens, when (get ready for it) they are here against the law? Perhaps you should stop whining and make efforts to change the laws you don't like instead of whining when they are enforced, or did you have some other ant in your shorts that you'd like to be specific about instead of generalized whining?

On the other hand, that would be off-topic. This topic is about Hillary whining, lol.

Is there some part of this you fail to comprehend?

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/266038556504494082?lang=en

Deporting 11M people is a radical agenda, particularly considering that 2/3 have been here more than 10 years & often have American citizen children. They're 10% of the population of greater LA. We'd need a new Gestapo to do the job.

Eliminating healthcare coverage for ~20M Americans is a radical agenda.

Pandering to White Supremacists, "very fine people", is a radical agenda.

Trickle down tax cuts are a radical agenda.

Rolling back environmental & financial regulations are a radical agenda.

Privatizing education is a radical agenda.

I could go on but it won't change the fact that Hillary hate is a pathological condition...

 

[ivwshane]

I agree that Clinton is correct that the system is unfair because it allows some votes to count more than others. However, someone's got a point. Find me a Bernie supporter who doesn't want to get rid of super delegates.

Show me a Bernie supporter who understands how the primary process works and then they might have a point.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Never ceases to shock me how Americans will direct that word at women. Granted its one of the more nuanced points of the unwritten etiquette of obscenity, but here it's almost always directed at men, I never heard anyone use it at a woman till encountering conservative Yanks on the internet. At which point it took me a moment to work out why I was taken aback, as I had never consciously thought about how the word is used, just internalised the rules via usage.

Clearly there's some misogyny involved even in the British usage, but it takes on a whole other level of misogyny the way (some?) Americans use it, and just ends up saying more about the speaker. It comes over as revealing a deeply-embedded, and very weird, kind of fear.

You would be correct on your assessment. In the US it's used primarily as an exceptionally heavy-handed derogatory term toward women, primarily women in an authoritative position. Usually used by those who feel some kind of latent fear or inadequacy toward the target, from my personal experience.

 

[Jhhnn]

Show me a Bernie supporter who understands how the primary process works and then they might have a point.

Superdelegates were the Devil until they were the only way Bernie could win. Then it was all different-

http://www.npr.org/2016/05/19/47870...-superdelegates-are-key-to-winning-nomination

 

[BurnItDwn]

I agree that Clinton is correct that the system is unfair because it allows some votes to count more than others. However, someone's got a point. Find me a Bernie supporter who doesn't want to get rid of super delegates.

Oohhh I'm here!

I see both sides of both arguments and the way I see it ...

The electoral college does NOT reflect the will of the people, it is broken in it's current implementation. The worst are that entire parts of the country are unrepresented (puerto rico has over 3 million people who don't get counted!)

Super delegates have the potential to be anti-democratic, to go against the will of the people, but historically, they have always gone support the front-runner/popular winner of the primary They do exist as an emergency "abort" option ... for example, towards the end of the primary, if the top 2 candidates are close , and one of them gets into some kind of trouble with the law, then the super delegates have the responsibility to stop a garbage candidate from winning the primary to face a certain defeat in the election.

 

[Puffnstuff]

The worst are that entire parts of the country are unrepresented (puerto rico has over 3 million people who don't get counted!)

Territories are just that and since they are not states they have no voice like a state does which is a status of their own choosing.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Show me a Bernie supporter who understands how the primary process works and then they might have a point.

You line up the superdelegates, party insiders and donors ahead of the process, tilt the playing field in your favor and then wonder why an underdog candidate is able to build momentum, with one actually beating you?

 

[Starbuck1975]

Doesn't change the fact that she's right.

Why is she right? I trust the wisdom of the Founding Fathers in striking a balance between population and states in choosing our President over changing the process because of Al Gore and Hillary Clinton.

 

[BurnItDwn]

Territories are just that and since they are not states they have no voice like a state does which is a status of their own choosing.

Seems like whenever they hold a vote ... they don't just pick from 2 clear options, instead, tehy get a lot of options, and maybe things aren't worded very well since lots of the ballots come back incomplete or blank. It's almost like the existing status quo is being pushed by the existing local government in Puerto Rico.

 

[BurnItDwn]

Why is she right? I trust the wisdom of the Founding Fathers in striking a balance between population and states in choosing our President over changing the process because of Al Gore and Hillary Clinton.

I think gerrymandering has fouled any chance of any founding fathers intentions being observed in any state or district.

 

[Starbuck1975]

I think gerrymandering has fouled any chance of any founding fathers intentions being observed in any state or district.

So I would start by addressing the gerrymandering issues, which means the Democrats need to start winning at the local and state level, which means they need to start listening to the people who live there instead of donors from NY and CA.

Howard Dean understood this.

 

[fskimospy]

Why is she right? I trust the wisdom of the Founding Fathers in striking a balance between population and states in choosing our President over changing the process because of Al Gore and Hillary Clinton.

Why? The country they were a part of was a radically different place than it is today.

More importantly, if we're going to go with the original vision of the Founders then the general populace shouldn't even be voting for president, they are just supposed to vote for people who they think are wise to be electors and then all those electors are supposed to get together, talk it over, and pick a president without being bound in any way to the will of the voters. Pretty much a coronation of someone by the elites. They very purposefully made it so the general population elected as few of its leaders as possible because they thought the elites knew better. Do you think they were right?

 

[fskimospy]

I think gerrymandering has fouled any chance of any founding fathers intentions being observed in any state or district.

Let's not forget that:

1) The Founding Fathers didn't have one coherent set of collective intentions.
2) A lot of the intentions they did have individually (and some in consensus) were really, really shitty.

I have never understood why we should care what people who have been dead for two centuries would think about how we run our country. They also believed in witches and owning people as property. Their presidential system of government has failed in almost every place it has been tried except for the US, and it's looking pretty creaky in the US at the moment. It's perfectly reasonable to acknowledge they had bad ideas and to ignore them today.

 

[Jhhnn]

Why is she right? I trust the wisdom of the Founding Fathers in striking a balance between population and states in choosing our President over changing the process because of Al Gore and Hillary Clinton.

They made the same sort of compromise wrt Slavery, as well. I think it's clear that the EC was intended to be a deliberative body, a bulwark against populist demagogeury, not something that facilitates the election of a minority demagogue. The latter exactly what it delivered in 2016.