This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
1barney67
The discontent among voters for Mrs. Clinton, Governor Sanders, and Mr. Trump could manifest in a candidate's inability to win the nomination or the presidency.
• A brokered (contested) election is possible if no candidate wins a majority of delegates via the state primaries and caucuses. Then the nomination takes place at the party's convention. Delegates who had previously committed to a candidate become free to vote for whomever they choose. I think of it as a do over, which in this election might be a good thing.
Sounds odd now, but actually it was the conventions that chose the candidate from the 1830s to the 1950s, though it was a much dirtier business then. The last brokered convention for Democrats was in 1952 when it took three ballots to nominate Illinois Governor Adlai Stevenson. For Republicans, the last brokered convention was in 1948 when it took three ballots to nominate New York Governor Thomas Dewey.
• As for the presidency, if no candidate wins the required electoral votes to become president (270), the election goes to the House of Representatives. This method was established by the 12th Amendment. The House votes for the top three candidates.
The first time that happened was in 1824. Despite winning the popular vote, Sen. Andrew Jackson of Tennessee failed to win enough electoral votes. He was running against Secretary of State John Quincy Adams (Massachusetts), House Speaker Henry Clay (Kentucky), and Secretary of the Treasury William Crawford. Then Clay supported Adams, who won. Jacksonians argued that Clay and Adams had made a deal, an exchange where if Clay backed Adams, then Adams would make Clay Secretary of State, which is the position President Adams did end up giving to Clay. Regardless, as far as I know this wasn't illegal.
If either of these situations were to arise, you will hear a lot about thwarting the will of the people. But it should be said that our elections are not direct democracy anyway. They are indirect via the electors of the Electoral College.
For my part, I never believed Vox Populi Vox Dei.
• A brokered (contested) election is possible if no candidate wins a majority of delegates via the state primaries and caucuses. Then the nomination takes place at the party's convention. Delegates who had previously committed to a candidate become free to vote for whomever they choose. I think of it as a do over, which in this election might be a good thing.
Sounds odd now, but actually it was the conventions that chose the candidate from the 1830s to the 1950s, though it was a much dirtier business then. The last brokered convention for Democrats was in 1952 when it took three ballots to nominate Illinois Governor Adlai Stevenson. For Republicans, the last brokered convention was in 1948 when it took three ballots to nominate New York Governor Thomas Dewey.
• As for the presidency, if no candidate wins the required electoral votes to become president (270), the election goes to the House of Representatives. This method was established by the 12th Amendment. The House votes for the top three candidates.
The first time that happened was in 1824. Despite winning the popular vote, Sen. Andrew Jackson of Tennessee failed to win enough electoral votes. He was running against Secretary of State John Quincy Adams (Massachusetts), House Speaker Henry Clay (Kentucky), and Secretary of the Treasury William Crawford. Then Clay supported Adams, who won. Jacksonians argued that Clay and Adams had made a deal, an exchange where if Clay backed Adams, then Adams would make Clay Secretary of State, which is the position President Adams did end up giving to Clay. Regardless, as far as I know this wasn't illegal.
If either of these situations were to arise, you will hear a lot about thwarting the will of the people. But it should be said that our elections are not direct democracy anyway. They are indirect via the electors of the Electoral College.
For my part, I never believed Vox Populi Vox Dei.
2jjwilson61
>1 barney67: A brokered convention means that the power brokers decide the election behind closed doors and that can't happen under the current rules, so a brokered election is not possible. A convention where the winner is not determined on the first ballot and continues on to multiple ballots is certainly possible, but that won't be a brokered convention.
3rolandperkins
". . .conventions. . .chose the candidates
from the 1830s to the 1950s. (1)
Right. A interesting bit I read years ago
was that the first party to HAVE a convention
was (ca. 1832) the short-lived Anti-Masonic
Party. I can remember conventions back as
far as 1940, but I wasnʻt aware of just which
one it was in which the primaries began to
command the convention.
I do remember that, in 1952, my state,
Massachusetts, was won by Sen. Estes Kefauver
(D, TN). But, midway through a roll call, the
strategically placed Mass. delegation changed
from Kefauver to Adlai Stevenson (D, IL). The
strategy was said to have been worked out by
an unlikely alliance of 3 key Democrats:
former Boston mayor James M. Curley,
Sen. John F. Kennedy (D, MA) and the likely incoming governor Paul Dever.
Amazingly, Adlai had done so poorly in the primary
that two Republicans Dwight D. Eisenhower and
Sen. Robert A. Taft (R, O.), as "Democrats"
outvoted him by write-in votes!
from the 1830s to the 1950s. (1)
Right. A interesting bit I read years ago
was that the first party to HAVE a convention
was (ca. 1832) the short-lived Anti-Masonic
Party. I can remember conventions back as
far as 1940, but I wasnʻt aware of just which
one it was in which the primaries began to
command the convention.
I do remember that, in 1952, my state,
Massachusetts, was won by Sen. Estes Kefauver
(D, TN). But, midway through a roll call, the
strategically placed Mass. delegation changed
from Kefauver to Adlai Stevenson (D, IL). The
strategy was said to have been worked out by
an unlikely alliance of 3 key Democrats:
former Boston mayor James M. Curley,
Sen. John F. Kennedy (D, MA) and the likely incoming governor Paul Dever.
Amazingly, Adlai had done so poorly in the primary
that two Republicans Dwight D. Eisenhower and
Sen. Robert A. Taft (R, O.), as "Democrats"
outvoted him by write-in votes!
5jjwilson61
Hm. Nevertheless, I've heard speeches where the term was used to mean a convention where the outcome was determined in a smoke-filled back room, and that can't happen with today's rules.
6timspalding
The process is so stacked toward success, someone will win. (I think.) But I think I'd prefer a brokered convention to, well, at least three of the major candidates…
9prosfilaes
The Democrats can't have a properly brokered election, not with two candidates. Someone has to have a majority. As Nate Silver points out*, there's a strong limit to what superdelagates can do, and even within that range, it's unlikely they'll throw their weight behind a candidate who has solidly lost.
* http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/superdelegates-might-not-save-hillary-clinto...
You mention the first time that president didn't get enough electoral votes, but not the last. 1876, wasn't it? Again, in a 2 party system, it's dreadfully unlikely. A serious third-party candidate could conceivably cause such a problem, but if there is to be one, he or she isn't clearly out there yet. And the last times a third-party candidate got electoral votes was 1948 and 1968, in both cases because the Democrats in the South rebelled. Looking at those elections and the 1996 election, another Ross Perot is not going to upset the Electoral College; Ross Perot only got second place in two states. It's highly unlikely, even if Trump ran as an Independent, that he could manage to grab a single state.
* http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/superdelegates-might-not-save-hillary-clinto...
You mention the first time that president didn't get enough electoral votes, but not the last. 1876, wasn't it? Again, in a 2 party system, it's dreadfully unlikely. A serious third-party candidate could conceivably cause such a problem, but if there is to be one, he or she isn't clearly out there yet. And the last times a third-party candidate got electoral votes was 1948 and 1968, in both cases because the Democrats in the South rebelled. Looking at those elections and the 1996 election, another Ross Perot is not going to upset the Electoral College; Ross Perot only got second place in two states. It's highly unlikely, even if Trump ran as an Independent, that he could manage to grab a single state.
10jjwilson61
>9 prosfilaes: it's unlikely they'll throw their weight behind a candidate who has solidly lost.
Yeah, it's annoying that the media is reporting super-delegates that have pledged to a candidate as belonging to the delegate total for that candidate since they can change their minds even on the first ballot, unlike the delegates that are awarded based on the actual vote count.
Yeah, it's annoying that the media is reporting super-delegates that have pledged to a candidate as belonging to the delegate total for that candidate since they can change their minds even on the first ballot, unlike the delegates that are awarded based on the actual vote count.
11barney67
If Trump were to run as a third-party, he could win some electoral votes.
A brief history of third-party electoral votes:
In 1991 the oft-imitated crackpot Ross Perot won 18.9% of the popular vote – but no electoral votes.
In 1968 Alabama Democrat George Wallace won 45 electoral votes when he ran as an independent.
Twenty years earlier, Democrat Strom Thurmond won 39 electoral votes on a states' rights ticket.
Further back still, in 1924 Progressive Robert LaFollette won 13 electoral votes (Wisconsin, his home state) in the election of Cal "Don't Smile When You Say That" Coolidge.
In the infamous election of 1912, TR the Bull Moose won 27% of the popular vote and 88 electoral votes, while simultaneously hunting a bear, writing another volume of history, and learning to juggle. Portly William Howard Taft won 23% and 8 electoral votess. Woodrow "I Have a PhD and You Don't" Wilson won only 42% of the popular vote but a whopping 435 electoral votes, a dim foreshadowing of Things To Come.
1860: known best as Lincoln versus Douglas, Kentucky native John Breckenridge represented southern Democrats. He was third in the popular vote but second in electoral vote, with 72 behind Lincoln's 180. Breckenridge joined the Confederate Army and is – so far – the only senator convicted of treason.
Source: Wikipedia
A brief history of third-party electoral votes:
In 1991 the oft-imitated crackpot Ross Perot won 18.9% of the popular vote – but no electoral votes.
In 1968 Alabama Democrat George Wallace won 45 electoral votes when he ran as an independent.
Twenty years earlier, Democrat Strom Thurmond won 39 electoral votes on a states' rights ticket.
Further back still, in 1924 Progressive Robert LaFollette won 13 electoral votes (Wisconsin, his home state) in the election of Cal "Don't Smile When You Say That" Coolidge.
In the infamous election of 1912, TR the Bull Moose won 27% of the popular vote and 88 electoral votes, while simultaneously hunting a bear, writing another volume of history, and learning to juggle. Portly William Howard Taft won 23% and 8 electoral votess. Woodrow "I Have a PhD and You Don't" Wilson won only 42% of the popular vote but a whopping 435 electoral votes, a dim foreshadowing of Things To Come.
1860: known best as Lincoln versus Douglas, Kentucky native John Breckenridge represented southern Democrats. He was third in the popular vote but second in electoral vote, with 72 behind Lincoln's 180. Breckenridge joined the Confederate Army and is – so far – the only senator convicted of treason.
Source: Wikipedia
12timspalding
Four-way race: Cruz, Trump, Bloomberg, Sanders
13Taphophile13
A four-way race could be very interesting—especially if it ends up in SCOTUS again.
14krolik
>13 Taphophile13:
Or rather, end up in the House? For potential mischief which everyone is better off avoiding?
Or rather, end up in the House? For potential mischief which everyone is better off avoiding?
15barney67
"What happens if no presidential candidate gets 270 Electoral votes?"
"If no candidate receives a majority of Electoral votes, the House of Representatives elects the President from the 3 Presidential candidates who received the most Electoral votes. Each state delegation has one vote. The Senate would elect the Vice President from the 2 Vice Presidential candidates with the most Electoral votes. Each Senator would cast one vote for Vice President. If the House of Representatives fails to elect a President by Inauguration Day, the Vice-President Elect serves as acting President until the deadlock is resolved in the House."
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html#verifycandid...
"If no candidate receives a majority of Electoral votes, the House of Representatives elects the President from the 3 Presidential candidates who received the most Electoral votes. Each state delegation has one vote. The Senate would elect the Vice President from the 2 Vice Presidential candidates with the most Electoral votes. Each Senator would cast one vote for Vice President. If the House of Representatives fails to elect a President by Inauguration Day, the Vice-President Elect serves as acting President until the deadlock is resolved in the House."
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html#verifycandid...
16prosfilaes
>11 barney67: In 1991 the oft-imitated crackpot Ross Perot won 18.9% of the popular vote – but no electoral votes.
As I said, he only placed second in two states. If Donald Trump runs, it's likely he'll do the same, and place third in all but a few states where he manages to grab second. That's irrelevant in the electoral system.
In 1968 Alabama Democrat George Wallace won 45 electoral votes when he ran as an independent.
Twenty years earlier, Democrat Strom Thurmond won 39 electoral votes on a states' rights ticket.
In both cases, the states they won, they appeared on the ballot as the Democratic nominee. If Trump can repeat that and somehow get state Republican parties to get him on the ballot in certain states as the Republican nominee, he might win those states. I see no scenario where that's going to happen.
As I said, he only placed second in two states. If Donald Trump runs, it's likely he'll do the same, and place third in all but a few states where he manages to grab second. That's irrelevant in the electoral system.
In 1968 Alabama Democrat George Wallace won 45 electoral votes when he ran as an independent.
Twenty years earlier, Democrat Strom Thurmond won 39 electoral votes on a states' rights ticket.
In both cases, the states they won, they appeared on the ballot as the Democratic nominee. If Trump can repeat that and somehow get state Republican parties to get him on the ballot in certain states as the Republican nominee, he might win those states. I see no scenario where that's going to happen.
17rolandperkins
". . . Ross Perot . . . only placed sescod
in two states . . ." (16)
I remember his finishing second in Maine,
and 3rd in (I thought) 49 states). Do you know
what was the other state in which he finished second?
in two states . . ." (16)
I remember his finishing second in Maine,
and 3rd in (I thought) 49 states). Do you know
what was the other state in which he finished second?
18barney67
It's about winning states, for the electoral votes, rather than winning the whole country. If any candidate can win a big state or some small states, that creates momentum and then anyone can win.
19prosfilaes
>17 rolandperkins: I went to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1992 and sorted by Perot's percentages (and then by the other guys, to make sure I wasn't missing anything.) He beat the Republicans in Maine by 300 votes and the Democrats in Utah by 20,000. Utah was the only state where Clinton got less than 25% (24.65%) and DC (9%), Rhode Island and Massachusetts (29% each) are the only places where Bush got less than 30%. With the exception of the Republican turn out in DC, there's only one state where Perot beat what Bush did in every state, and only seven more where he beat what Clinton did in every state.
>18 barney67: It's about winning states, for the electoral votes, rather than winning the whole country.
And the last candidate who won a state without being listed on the ballot as a Democrat or Republican was Roosevelt in 1912. (The guys in 1948 and 1968 were listed as the Democratic nominee in the states they won.) And Trump ain't no Teddy Roosevelt.
In 1992, Clinton got at least 24% in every state and Bush got 29% in everywhere but DC. Since the 1980 election, except for the Democrats in Utah (where they've several times got 24% and Carter got 20%) and the Republicans in DC, the Republicans and the Democrats have each got at least 25% of the votes in every state, every Presidential election in the last 35 years.
In 1992, 37% of the popular vote was enough for Clinton to take Nevada. So there's the lines. A third party needs at least 25% of the vote to come in second (any state but Utah or DC--and Utah doesn't like Trump and DC is ridiculously Democratic) and 37% and a three-way split to actually take any state.
Teddy Roosevelt could pull it off, but nobody has in a century. Trump is simply not going to break that line.
>18 barney67: It's about winning states, for the electoral votes, rather than winning the whole country.
And the last candidate who won a state without being listed on the ballot as a Democrat or Republican was Roosevelt in 1912. (The guys in 1948 and 1968 were listed as the Democratic nominee in the states they won.) And Trump ain't no Teddy Roosevelt.
In 1992, Clinton got at least 24% in every state and Bush got 29% in everywhere but DC. Since the 1980 election, except for the Democrats in Utah (where they've several times got 24% and Carter got 20%) and the Republicans in DC, the Republicans and the Democrats have each got at least 25% of the votes in every state, every Presidential election in the last 35 years.
In 1992, 37% of the popular vote was enough for Clinton to take Nevada. So there's the lines. A third party needs at least 25% of the vote to come in second (any state but Utah or DC--and Utah doesn't like Trump and DC is ridiculously Democratic) and 37% and a three-way split to actually take any state.
Teddy Roosevelt could pull it off, but nobody has in a century. Trump is simply not going to break that line.
20barney67
That's a false comparison. You mean, "all other things being equal, it would take someone like TR". Well, things are not equal to 1912. I agree it would be extraordinary, but I also know that extraordinary things happen, or else how did "hanging chad" become a part of my vocabulary?
21prosfilaes
>20 barney67: That's a false comparison.
What's false about it? You make a claim, but you provide no evidence at all.
Well, things are not equal to 1912.
The past is never equal to the present. That doesn't make comparisons "false"; it makes them of less than perfect predictive power. If you want to limit it to the last 100 years, there has not been a single electoral vote not cast by a faithless elector that did not go to someone who was on the ballot as a Republican or a Democrat. 0.
but I also know that extraordinary things happen, or else how did "hanging chad" become a part of my vocabulary?
If we're down to extraordinary things happen, why are we talking about it? Lots of extraordinary things could happen. The aliens from "They Live" could drop their masks and exclude the human Trump from running. Obama could declare himself dictator for life. Putin could declare war and we could unconditionally surrender.
2000 was not extraordinary. It was exceptional, but it was predicted for many years. It sort of happened in 1876, and could have happened in 1960 had Nixon decided to push the issue. He was, probably, the legitimate winner over JFK, if you're the type of person who believes the dead don't get a vote.
What's false about it? You make a claim, but you provide no evidence at all.
Well, things are not equal to 1912.
The past is never equal to the present. That doesn't make comparisons "false"; it makes them of less than perfect predictive power. If you want to limit it to the last 100 years, there has not been a single electoral vote not cast by a faithless elector that did not go to someone who was on the ballot as a Republican or a Democrat. 0.
but I also know that extraordinary things happen, or else how did "hanging chad" become a part of my vocabulary?
If we're down to extraordinary things happen, why are we talking about it? Lots of extraordinary things could happen. The aliens from "They Live" could drop their masks and exclude the human Trump from running. Obama could declare himself dictator for life. Putin could declare war and we could unconditionally surrender.
2000 was not extraordinary. It was exceptional, but it was predicted for many years. It sort of happened in 1876, and could have happened in 1960 had Nixon decided to push the issue. He was, probably, the legitimate winner over JFK, if you're the type of person who believes the dead don't get a vote.
23prosfilaes
>22 barney67: As always, your commitment to impersonal discussion of facts and making only the cases you can defend as true shines through.
25barney67
There's been a lot of bluster and overheated talk about the "Republican Establishment" stealing the election from Trump and The American People if a contested convention takes place.
Hogwash. If Trump doesn't win enough delegates, then he isn't the candidate. It's that simple. That's what the rules are. At the convention, the delegates can vote for whomever they want. Nothing's being stolen. The will of the people isn't being thwarted any more than it is by the Electoral College. There's nothing magical or superior about The Will of the People -- on the contrary, I would argue. We don't live in a direct democracy of vox populi vox dei.
Hogwash. If Trump doesn't win enough delegates, then he isn't the candidate. It's that simple. That's what the rules are. At the convention, the delegates can vote for whomever they want. Nothing's being stolen. The will of the people isn't being thwarted any more than it is by the Electoral College. There's nothing magical or superior about The Will of the People -- on the contrary, I would argue. We don't live in a direct democracy of vox populi vox dei.
26theoria
>25 barney67: Unfortunately, many of Mr Trump's supporters are armed to the teeth. There could be blood inside the conventional hall in Cleveland if he is denied the nomination.
27barney67
>26 theoria: Ha! Violence? Surely you jest, pops. You've been fooled by the bluster. The only hostility I saw was by the anti-Trump protesters who tried to prevent him from speaking. Liberal tolerance, hmm? Free speech? Open mindedness? What happened to those?
I haven't seen any Trump supporters brandishing guns or threatening violence during rallies. Bringing up the possibliity of violence at the convention -- now that's incitement. Or maybe twisted wishful thinking.
No one is "denied" the nomination because no one is given the nomination. You win it or you don't. You win or lose based on delegates won before the convention even starts.
Mobs in both parties need to understand that there are rules.
I haven't seen any Trump supporters brandishing guns or threatening violence during rallies. Bringing up the possibliity of violence at the convention -- now that's incitement. Or maybe twisted wishful thinking.
No one is "denied" the nomination because no one is given the nomination. You win it or you don't. You win or lose based on delegates won before the convention even starts.
Mobs in both parties need to understand that there are rules.
28prosfilaes
>25 barney67: There's been a lot of bluster and overheated talk about the "Republican Establishment" stealing the election from Trump and The American People if a contested convention takes place.
Hogwash. If Trump doesn't win enough delegates, then he isn't the candidate. It's that simple. That's what the rules are.
That's the rules the establishment set so they'd retain power. Looking at it from a different angle, they're rules set up fifty years ago by politicians in a backroom by compromise for their own goals. There's nothing magical or superior about them, and anyone who doesn't like them or thinks they're unfair should feel free to speak up as loud as they want.
>27 barney67: Mobs in both parties need to understand that there are rules.
That's very authoritarian. There are rules; some of them should be followed, some of them ignored at will, and some of them protested loudly. Just because there are rules, doesn't mean anything.
Hogwash. If Trump doesn't win enough delegates, then he isn't the candidate. It's that simple. That's what the rules are.
That's the rules the establishment set so they'd retain power. Looking at it from a different angle, they're rules set up fifty years ago by politicians in a backroom by compromise for their own goals. There's nothing magical or superior about them, and anyone who doesn't like them or thinks they're unfair should feel free to speak up as loud as they want.
>27 barney67: Mobs in both parties need to understand that there are rules.
That's very authoritarian. There are rules; some of them should be followed, some of them ignored at will, and some of them protested loudly. Just because there are rules, doesn't mean anything.
29jjwilson61
Ensuring majority support of a candidate isn't an unreasonable rule.
30prosfilaes
>29 jjwilson61: There's no real way once you come to a contested convention to ensure majority support of a candidate. I don't think there is a reasonable rule; you're basically taking it out of the hands of the people who voted in the primaries. If they don't pick Trump, Cruz was rejected by a solid majority of primary voters, and since he's supposedly hated by the Establishment more than Trump...
If Rubio or Bush get it... it would feel like a time where the principal let the students vote on something and then went ahead with what they had planned that the students had voted against anyway.
People are going to feel screwed, and understandably. That it would have been hard to prevent a situation like this from coming up isn't going to make anyone feel better.
If Rubio or Bush get it... it would feel like a time where the principal let the students vote on something and then went ahead with what they had planned that the students had voted against anyway.
People are going to feel screwed, and understandably. That it would have been hard to prevent a situation like this from coming up isn't going to make anyone feel better.
31barney67
Expecting people to follow rules isn't authoritarian. I'm not suggesting that every rule is a good one. But on this one subject, the time for debate was BEFORE the election started, not after the fact simply because your guy didn't win enough delegates. That's like bemoaning the Electoral College after a presidential election in which your guy wins the popular vote but not enough electors. Too late. It's over. Move on.
I suspect that all of this handwringing is moot because Trump will win enough delegates and will then he will lose to Clinton in the election, which is what I predicted years ago. Even if she has to kill someone, Mrs. Clinton is determined to be president.
Then after the election everyone can calm down, go back to work, and complain about something else.
For everything there is a season.
I suspect that all of this handwringing is moot because Trump will win enough delegates and will then he will lose to Clinton in the election, which is what I predicted years ago. Even if she has to kill someone, Mrs. Clinton is determined to be president.
Then after the election everyone can calm down, go back to work, and complain about something else.
For everything there is a season.
32barney67
>30 prosfilaes: But the students don't run the school. They're not supposed to.
33prosfilaes
>31 barney67: But on this one subject, the time for debate was BEFORE the election started, not after the fact simply because your guy didn't win enough delegates.
Which is a game that rulesmakers play to avoid argument. Complaints are either premature (especially dealing with "theoretical" problems) or too late (especially dealing with problems that are going to occur.)
That's like bemoaning the Electoral College after a presidential election in which your guy wins the popular vote but not enough electors. Too late. It's over. Move on. ... Then after the election everyone can calm down, go back to work, and complain about something else.
When exactly do you think that reform of the Electoral College should be discussed, if not after it's shown itself to be problematic?
>32 barney67: But the students don't run the school. They're not supposed to.
Giving children power is part of letting them grow up and learn how to be adults. (I'm told the rule of thumb is to give them limited options and make sure you can live with whatever choice they pick of the ones you give them.) But whether or not you think the student body should get a chance to vote on something, if they do vote on something, their vote shouldn't be disregarded, because that makes the whole thing a farce and the students bitter about it.
(The example I remember was where they ran a vote on whether to have a prayer at graduation, as an attempt to end-run the courts. When the students voted against the idea, they were invited to try again and see if they could vote right this time.)
Which is a game that rulesmakers play to avoid argument. Complaints are either premature (especially dealing with "theoretical" problems) or too late (especially dealing with problems that are going to occur.)
That's like bemoaning the Electoral College after a presidential election in which your guy wins the popular vote but not enough electors. Too late. It's over. Move on. ... Then after the election everyone can calm down, go back to work, and complain about something else.
When exactly do you think that reform of the Electoral College should be discussed, if not after it's shown itself to be problematic?
>32 barney67: But the students don't run the school. They're not supposed to.
Giving children power is part of letting them grow up and learn how to be adults. (I'm told the rule of thumb is to give them limited options and make sure you can live with whatever choice they pick of the ones you give them.) But whether or not you think the student body should get a chance to vote on something, if they do vote on something, their vote shouldn't be disregarded, because that makes the whole thing a farce and the students bitter about it.
(The example I remember was where they ran a vote on whether to have a prayer at graduation, as an attempt to end-run the courts. When the students voted against the idea, they were invited to try again and see if they could vote right this time.)
34margd
John Kasich is getting roasted
http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/03/24/john-kasich-t...
Because he's not winning primaries, but also
...Many Beltway Republicans don’t like him. ... No doubt Chairman Kasich’s strict budgets made life unpleasant for a few lobbyists. But so did his demeanor — which, D.C. veterans say, was often sanctimonious and rude....
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/21/magazine/why-the-republican-establishment-does...
http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/03/24/john-kasich-t...
Because he's not winning primaries, but also
...Many Beltway Republicans don’t like him. ... No doubt Chairman Kasich’s strict budgets made life unpleasant for a few lobbyists. But so did his demeanor — which, D.C. veterans say, was often sanctimonious and rude....
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/21/magazine/why-the-republican-establishment-does...
35RickHarsch
Sanctimonius? Rude? Sounds like at least a step in the right direction, no pun intended. This Trump phenomenon is skewing everything: I saw Lindsay Graham on the Daily Show and he was almost likeable. Kasich is a monster, but seems sweet compared to Trump and Cruz.
36theoria
No one likes a sanctimonious clown, though. At least the other Republican harlequinade candidates are good for laughs.
37barney67
>33 prosfilaes: I never said "too early." People are free to argue the point after the election and before the next one arrives. That's years.
You disregard the arguments that have already taken place, e.g. the Electoral College has been argued for years. I'm sure you can find that online. I imagine you will also find debates from years back about delegates and much else about the process.
You disregard the arguments that have already taken place, e.g. the Electoral College has been argued for years. I'm sure you can find that online. I imagine you will also find debates from years back about delegates and much else about the process.
38prosfilaes
>37 barney67: People are free to argue the point after the election and before the next one arrives. That's years.
That's like bemoaning the Electoral College after a presidential election in which your guy wins the popular vote but not enough electors. Too late. It's over. Move on.
So no, after they lose, they should move on.
You disregard the arguments that have already taken place, e.g. the Electoral College has been argued for years. I'm sure you can find that online. I imagine you will also find debates from years back about delegates and much else about the process.
I don't disregard them; I notice they changed nothing. Things change when there's enough pressure for them to change, and that's right after they've blown up in people's faces. The rulesmakers want to move the discussion away from that point, so the people who aren't professionals with deep-set interests stop trying to influence things.
That's like bemoaning the Electoral College after a presidential election in which your guy wins the popular vote but not enough electors. Too late. It's over. Move on.
So no, after they lose, they should move on.
You disregard the arguments that have already taken place, e.g. the Electoral College has been argued for years. I'm sure you can find that online. I imagine you will also find debates from years back about delegates and much else about the process.
I don't disregard them; I notice they changed nothing. Things change when there's enough pressure for them to change, and that's right after they've blown up in people's faces. The rulesmakers want to move the discussion away from that point, so the people who aren't professionals with deep-set interests stop trying to influence things.
39barney67
Maybe things haven't changed because they don't need to be changed. I have no problem with the delegate system. I have no problem with the Electoral College.
With boogeyman like "the rulesmakers", that sounds like what others here are afraid of, too, some group, some nameless They who make all the rules, control Us, and make us miserable. See the thread on Who is The Establishment. Then stop reading Alex Jones and Noam Chomsky.
With boogeyman like "the rulesmakers", that sounds like what others here are afraid of, too, some group, some nameless They who make all the rules, control Us, and make us miserable. See the thread on Who is The Establishment. Then stop reading Alex Jones and Noam Chomsky.
40RickHarsch
Alex Jones together with Noam Chomsky? There's no accounting for lack of knowledge, and no real excuse for someone by now not to understand who Chomsky is and what he says.
41prosfilaes
>39 barney67: Maybe things haven't changed because they don't need to be changed. I have no problem with the delegate system. I have no problem with the Electoral College.
If you have no problem with them, the fact that you don't think people should be complaining about them (right now) should be taken with a little skepticism.
With boogeyman like "the rulesmakers",
Try thinking a little abstractly. The people who make the rules are real in any particular situation. They generally know more about the situation than anyone else, and in good cases, believe themselves unbiased. They know the current situation, have generally worked around its hard points and consider its problems not worth the trouble fixing them (or else they would have fixed them already), and resent the efforts of anyone outside to meddle. They range from the Bitcoin miners and Wikimedia Commons admins, who have some effect on the outside world, to the Unicode/ISO 10646 people (who control how text is written in computers) to the DNC/RNC primary election commissions (who control who will get a shot at the US president). They aren't boogeymen, but they have a vested interest in the current system, have already decided it's too much work to change even if they want to, and are tired of explaining that to people.
If you have no problem with them, the fact that you don't think people should be complaining about them (right now) should be taken with a little skepticism.
With boogeyman like "the rulesmakers",
Try thinking a little abstractly. The people who make the rules are real in any particular situation. They generally know more about the situation than anyone else, and in good cases, believe themselves unbiased. They know the current situation, have generally worked around its hard points and consider its problems not worth the trouble fixing them (or else they would have fixed them already), and resent the efforts of anyone outside to meddle. They range from the Bitcoin miners and Wikimedia Commons admins, who have some effect on the outside world, to the Unicode/ISO 10646 people (who control how text is written in computers) to the DNC/RNC primary election commissions (who control who will get a shot at the US president). They aren't boogeymen, but they have a vested interest in the current system, have already decided it's too much work to change even if they want to, and are tired of explaining that to people.
42barney67
>41 prosfilaes: You seem to have a real problem with authority. Trust me, there's no one hiding under the bed. Contrary to what Alex Jones and Noam Chomsky tell you.
I've never had problems speaking abstractly. I took my share of philosophy in college. I know that "rules-makers" exist. The difference is, I'm not afraid of them. Keeping in mind that there is no monolithic THEM who decide EVERYTHING for EVERYONE, I know that rules-makers are imperfect. But what's the alternative? They're necessary. And so: There's a process by which Republicans choose a candidate. A contested convention, which seems more and more likely, is not a breach of the process. It's a continuation of it. People who complain about it are the ones with the problem. They don't know the rules or why they exist, when to protest them or how to protest them, when to try to change them or how to try to change them. It seems that you like others are getting suckered into the PT Barnum sensationalism of journalism and TV.
I've never had problems speaking abstractly. I took my share of philosophy in college. I know that "rules-makers" exist. The difference is, I'm not afraid of them. Keeping in mind that there is no monolithic THEM who decide EVERYTHING for EVERYONE, I know that rules-makers are imperfect. But what's the alternative? They're necessary. And so: There's a process by which Republicans choose a candidate. A contested convention, which seems more and more likely, is not a breach of the process. It's a continuation of it. People who complain about it are the ones with the problem. They don't know the rules or why they exist, when to protest them or how to protest them, when to try to change them or how to try to change them. It seems that you like others are getting suckered into the PT Barnum sensationalism of journalism and TV.
43prosfilaes
>42 barney67: You seem to have a real problem with authority. Trust me, ... People who complain about it are the ones with the problem. They don't know ... when to protest {the rules} or how to protest them,
Yeah, I have a real problem with authority that says that. Monarchies, bounded by tradition, with leaders hopefully having a strong vested interest into improving their nation, can work that way. Unicode may be a technocracy, but ultimately the unifying factor is that they're all interested in making writing work right on computers. A democracy where people get told that there's rules about when and how to protest; just trust authority? That thing is going down the shit hole. Without transparency, without any sense of responsibility to the common good or the nation, the "elected" will take whatever isn't nailed down and conscript clawhammers for the rest. No-bid contracts? The complainers have the problem. A candidate gets left off the ballot because they didn't follow an elaborate set of rules that there's no evidence the other candidates had to follow? There's a time and method to protest that.
Yeah, I have a real problem with authority that says that. Monarchies, bounded by tradition, with leaders hopefully having a strong vested interest into improving their nation, can work that way. Unicode may be a technocracy, but ultimately the unifying factor is that they're all interested in making writing work right on computers. A democracy where people get told that there's rules about when and how to protest; just trust authority? That thing is going down the shit hole. Without transparency, without any sense of responsibility to the common good or the nation, the "elected" will take whatever isn't nailed down and conscript clawhammers for the rest. No-bid contracts? The complainers have the problem. A candidate gets left off the ballot because they didn't follow an elaborate set of rules that there's no evidence the other candidates had to follow? There's a time and method to protest that.
44RickHarsch
What's the point in arguing with someone who can't differentiate between Alex Jones and Noam Chomsky ?
