A Honky Like Me.

Xmasexpat.....re: [background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]THE MAJORITY have spoken and they favored Hillary by 1.5 million and counting.[/background]

[background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]I stand corrected. [/background]

[background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]re: This is the second time in 20 years that the Electoral College has proven that it is a vestigial organ. [/background]

[background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]INDEED...[/background][background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]it has become obsolete. One way for me to move forward is to lobby my state (CA) representatives at the national level on this issue.[/background]
 
gracielle the Electoral College is the only thing keeping the 5 or so most populated countie in the US from deciding who wins the election.

Although Clinton's claimed margin of victory is 1.5 million more popular votes (personally I don't believe that number - and what of the alleged 3,000,000 votes cast by illegals) Trump won more electoral votes. Personally I don't want San Francisco, Los Angeles, Sakn Didgo, and New York counties to be the deciding voters for the president. But I don't really want to debate the number etc.

The Affordable Care Act - making medical insurance affordable and less expensive has not done that. Yes many people who didn't have medical insurance now have it; but the price being paid by others is outrageous.

I retired from the military in 2001 so I have "free" medical insurance; I am also a 100% disabled vet so I have the VA medical system if I need it; and I am on MEDICARE because of my disabilities. Three medical insurance plans for my wife and I; while not quite free I pay a lot less then many people.z

Who really pays for ACA insurance for the previous non-insured? Those who have careers with middle class and above income. I am also a retired US Customs Officer and before my medical retirement (heart attack) I was making $84K a year. My co-workers, married, with 1-3 children, have seen their deductible soar as well as watching their premiums skyrocket out of site. Some are now paying $1500 or more a month with a $5,000 or $10,000 deductible. That to me is criminal.

Everyone should be able to have access to medical care; at a price that is reasonable. I've written several letters to different elected officials with suggestions on how to lower the costs; the only group to benefit from ACA has been the medical insurance and health industries. AARP sells MEDICARE supplement insurance and they saw the ACA as a magic cash cow. There is an amazing amount of medical insurance fraud, over billing, over charging annually hundreds of millions of dollars. An example was a carbon fiber knee brace I needed. When I asked how much I was asked who my insurance provider was...funny question. When I told home who (TRICARE Prime government insurance) he told me that my insurer only paid half of what they billed. Said this is an $800 dollar brace; but will bill $1600 to get our $800. Taking his business card I called my insurer and told them what was said. I was thanked and 2 months later? They billed TRICARE $1600; and TRICARE, after being told what to expect - paid it anyway!

Everyone should have medical coverage - but when an elected official says "we have to vote it in place and then we can know what it says" is wrong!
 
[background=rgb(252, 252, 252)][background=rgb(230, 230, 230)]cwo4uscgret......[/background][/background]
[background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]Re:[/background][background=rgb(252, 252, 252)] [/background][background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]the Electoral College is the only thing keeping the 5 or so most populated counties in the US from deciding who wins the election......[/background]

[background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]........Personally I don't want San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, and New York counties to be the deciding voters for the president.........[/background]


[background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]There are alternatives to the Electoral College[/background][background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]...[/background]

http://www.ncpa.org/...Article_ID=9237
[background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]November 10, 2000[/background]

In light of the presidential election in which Al Gore seems to have won the popular vote and George W. Bush the electoral vote, some analysts are calling for the end to the electoral college. The election dramatized, they argue, that parties care more about your vote depending upon where you live.
There have been more proposals for constitutional amendments to change the electoral college than on any other subject. They include:
  • A direct popular vote, with a runoff between the top two finishers if no candidate receives 40 percent of the vote.
  • A district plan awarding two electoral votes to state's popular vote leader and the others to the winner in each congressional district.
  • A proportional method dividing each state's electoral vote to mirror its popular vote, which would do away with the winner-take-all nature of counting electoral votes.
  • Majority preference voting, in which voters rank their preferences; if no candidate received more than 50 percent, the bottom vote-getter would be eliminated and the second choices of those voters would be redistributed, repeating the process until someone had more than 50 percent.
Another proposal would keep the electoral college in place, but add another 102 electoral votes (two for each state and the District of Columbia) and award all of the bonus votes to the national popular vote winner.
Source: Jim Eskin, "Electoral College a Ticking Time Bomb," Dallas Morning News, November 10, 2000.

http://www.govtech.c...sed-at-MIT.html
Electoral College Alternatives Discussed at MIT
[background=rgb(235, 237, 239)]BY NEWS STAFF / OCTOBER 25, 2012[/background]

http://news.mit.edu/...conference-1023
Scholars ponder better ways to elect a president
National popular vote, alternate voting methods debated at MIT conference.
Peter Dizikes, MIT News Office
October 23, 2012
 
I thought it would be interesting for pretty much everyone to take a look at this site:

http://surgerycenterok.com/pricing/

This is a surgery center in Oklahoma that does not take insurance and posts prices for operations. I believe they will also do chemotherapy treatment. Notice that the prices are about 6 times less than what a normal hospital charges.

How is it that they are able to charge so little? These are questions people need to start asking themselves. Just take the time to look at these prices. It's interesting to note that a lot of the surgeries would be less than many people's co-pay.
 
For those of you who would like an alternative to the Electoral College, I have two suggestions:

1) Formulate an amendment to the constitution and get it passed as is required by the US Constitution.
2) Become citizens of a country that does not have an Electoral College and counts the popular vote.

Of course, the first option is very difficult. It is meant to be. In addition to being difficult, I doubt a single amendment would do it, because the very basis of the country is being a Republic. Rapid changes, swinging back and forth with "popular whim" were one of the reasons the US was created as a democratic Republic and not a popular Democracy.

I really can't believe all the whining that goes on about this.

If you live in a city, you are statistically most likely to be a Democrat, these days at least. I say thank god that there is some balance, as cwo4uscg mentions. I really can't believe that people on either side believe that they have the answer and that every size fits all, in a country as big and varied as the US.

For those who are freaked out about the difference between the popular vote and the EC vote and think that you all were somehow robbed of your destiny because "Hillary should have won": take a look at the state-level politics (if that even matters to anyone any more), how many Democratic positions in state legislatures have been lost, how many Democratic governorships have been lost, over the last 8 years. And of course, there is the US Congress, where Democrats lost a pretty big majority in both chambers, which was gone in 2 years after Obama's first election and is now Republican. Of course, Trump could screw that up; but either way, if Democrats were wise, they would give up some of this social engineering they are trying to do, which is not really helping anyone but hurting many, and be a bit more moderate and try to fix things that are really and truly problematic, and not on a pie-in-the-sky level either, but could mean the very future of the US itself.

Ries mentions that she has faith in the younger generation - I don't know her children and I'm assuming they are fine people. But other people their age, or so, who are throwing fits, temper tantrums, saying Trump isn't their president, finding "safe places" where they can pet a dog so they don't have a breakdown - of course it's their right to show their asses and say what they want (YES! to Free Speech! Always!), but I'm disgusted, personally, with the way many are acting. It gives me no consolation to know that I am stuck between someone like Trump and a bunch of cry babies in the future.

The Democrats talk about Republicans being racist (well, isn't that why they didn't vote for Obama, and why they were trying to impede his goals? Couldn't have anything to do with they being worried about his being far left and wanting to implement a single-payer healthcare system, could it?) and sure, there were a few idiots talking about Obama not being their president back then (even Trump, in 2012, wanted to lead a march on Washington, unfortunately, though that didn't go very far) - but I don't think in nearly the numbers. But it's OK for Democrats to act like little kids who want to take their ball and bat and go home - after all Democrats know exactly what is good for the rest of us, right?

Personally, I am so tired of the divisions in the US and the nanny state that the Democrats are trying to implement while denigrating everyone who doesn't agree with them that I stayed away when I left to do business and don't know if I'll ever go back for more than visits. There are an awful lot of people who feel the same, on both sides of the aisle, even if they still live in the US - look at the vote in the last presidential election. It was indeed close - but 1.5 million votes, remember, is a gnat's ass over 1% difference. The electoral college is helping those in the "fly-over zones", as so many people so eloquently put it, maintain a little bit of freedom from the people who have caused inner city blight and poor living conditions with their welfare policies and want to force even more.

Democrats can continue to say it was some kind of weird statistical fluke, that the EC is at fault, that everyone but them are a bunch of racists and misogynists and they know the only way to Utopia. But I don't think that is going to work. Depending on how Trump does, it could be disastrous for Democrats, if he does well. If he does poorly, sure for a time Democrats may hold the upper hand again - until everyone remembers why they voted for someone as "off" as Trump to begin with. And next time, when Democrats start seeing more latino and black men voting Republican (Trump got more of them than Romney did - imagine if someone else had been the Republican candidate and could have kept from antagonizing that sector of the vote!), they will be asking themselves again - "what happened? I don't get it..."
 
For those of you who would like an alternative to the Electoral College, I have two suggestions:

1) Formulate an amendment to the constitution and get it passed as is required by the US Constitution.
2) Become citizens of a country that does not have an Electoral College and counts the popular vote.

Of course, the first option is very difficult. It is meant to be. In addition to being difficult, I doubt a single amendment would do it, because the very basis of the country is being a Republic. Rapid changes, swinging back and forth with "popular whim" were one of the reasons the US was created as a democratic Republic and not a popular Democracy.

I really can't believe all the whining that goes on about this.

If you live in a city, you are statistically most likely to be a Democrat, these days at least. I say thank god that there is some balance, as cwo4uscg mentions. I really can't believe that people on either side believe that they have the answer and that every size fits all, in a country as big and varied as the US.

For those who are freaked out about the difference between the popular vote and the EC vote and think that you all were somehow robbed of your destiny because "Hillary should have won": take a look at the state-level politics (if that even matters to anyone any more), how many Democratic positions in state legislatures have been lost, how many Democratic governorships have been lost, over the last 8 years. And of course, there is the US Congress, where Democrats lost a pretty big majority in both chambers, which was gone in 2 years after Obama's first election and is now Republican. Of course, Trump could screw that up; but either way, if Democrats were wise, they would give up some of this social engineering they are trying to do, which is not really helping anyone but hurting many, and be a bit more moderate and try to fix things that are really and truly problematic, and not on a pie-in-the-sky level either, but could mean the very future of the US itself.

Ries mentions that she has faith in the younger generation - I don't know her children and I'm assuming they are fine people. But other people their age, or so, who are throwing fits, temper tantrums, saying Trump isn't their president, finding "safe places" where they can pet a dog so they don't have a breakdown - of course it's their right to show their asses and say what they want (YES! to Free Speech! Always!), but I'm disgusted, personally, with the way many are acting. It gives me no consolation to know that I am stuck between someone like Trump and a bunch of cry babies in the future.

The Democrats talk about Republicans being racist (well, isn't that why they didn't vote for Obama, and why they were trying to impede his goals? Couldn't have anything to do with they being worried about his being far left and wanting to implement a single-payer healthcare system, could it?) and sure, there were a few idiots talking about Obama not being their president back then (even Trump, in 2012, wanted to lead a march on Washington, unfortunately, though that didn't go very far) - but I don't think in nearly the numbers. But it's OK for Democrats to act like little kids who want to take their ball and bat and go home - after all Democrats know exactly what is good for the rest of us, right?

Personally, I am so tired of the divisions in the US and the nanny state that the Democrats are trying to implement while denigrating everyone who doesn't agree with them that I stayed away when I left to do business and don't know if I'll ever go back for more than visits. There are an awful lot of people who feel the same, on both sides of the aisle, even if they still live in the US - look at the vote in the last presidential election. It was indeed close - but 1.5 million votes, remember, is a gnat's ass over 1% difference. The electoral college is helping those in the "fly-over zones", as so many people so eloquently put it, maintain a little bit of freedom from the people who have caused inner city blight and poor living conditions with their welfare policies and want to force even more.

Democrats can continue to say it was some kind of weird statistical fluke, that the EC is at fault, that everyone but them are a bunch of racists and misogynists and they know the only way to Utopia. But I don't think that is going to work. Depending on how Trump does, it could be disastrous for Democrats, if he does well. If he does poorly, sure for a time Democrats may hold the upper hand again - until everyone remembers why they voted for someone as "off" as Trump to begin with. And next time, when Democrats start seeing more latino and black men voting Republican (Trump got more of them than Romney did - imagine if someone else had been the Republican candidate and could have kept from antagonizing that sector of the vote!), they will be asking themselves again - "what happened? I don't get it..."

Ries is, last time he looked, a 61 year old man.
Neither of my sons has thrown any temper tantrums, petted any dogs, or shown their asses.
They both do talk to other young people about the importance of voting, though.

and, personally, I am not particularly upset about the electoral college- I think its probably pretty antiquated as a concept, and will eventually change, but I am not complaining about it, nor do I know many people who are.

Statiscally, 80% of americans live in urban areas.
62% actually live in cities.

Not all cities are democratic, but urban areas are more likely to be more multicultural, open to gay rights, open to womens rights, and yes, somewhat more liberal.

But when I talk about kids, I am referring to the fact that, if we only look at US voters under 30, they voted overwhelmingly for Clinton.
Old people die- its inevitable, I know, I am one.
Young people will be voting more and more, and, the numbers tell us they are more liberal.
I think its unavoidable that things like drug legalization, gay marriage, planned parenthood, you know, liberal issues- are going to do better and better as time goes on.
Virtually all the young women my sons know use planned parenthood for their women's health issues- most young people do NOT get health coverage from their jobs.
I have one son who does, and he is one of the very few of his group of dozens of friends who does. My other son, like many of his friends, works several jobs, along with freelancing, and gets no company paid benefits.
This is common, and its why so many women under 40 think its absolutely stupid that the republicans are trying to defund the non-abortion services of planned parenthood, to cite just one example of the changes coming as voters age out, and new ones take their places.
 
Xmaspast....[background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]And the clown show begins. But it won't be 4 years. This turd is gone in 18 months. [/background]

I voted for Hillary, but certainly not because I believe she was the most capable candidate. In my opinion, both are unfit to hold the office. But one more so than the other. Trump won and will rightfully occupy the Oval Office for 4 years. The majority have spoken and the country needs to move forward.

I agree with you, except that the majority haven't spoken. Rather, the Electoral College has spoken - Hillary won the popular vote by more than a million votes.
 
2016-election-by-county-640x417.png


Trump won 3,084 of the 3,141 counties of the US. So basically he won 98% of the country; but the other 157 counties have more people then the other counties.

What's really sad though is only 57.9% percent of eligible US Voters voted. The other 96,000,000 people didn't vote. Even more sad is there could be 3,000,000 illegal or invalid votes counted!*

Voting, in America is not mandatory; something I disagree with.



*numbers from a Google search; accurate or not, I don't know.
 
2016-election-by-county-640x417.png


Trump won 3,084 of the 3,141 counties of the US. So basically he won 98% of the country; but the other 157 counties have more people then the other counties.

What's really sad though is only 57.9% percent of eligible US Voters voted. The other 96,000,000 people didn't vote. Even more sad is there could be 3,000,000 illegal or invalid votes counted!*

Voting, in America is not mandatory; something I disagree with.



*numbers from a Google search; accurate or not, I don't know.

If land elected presidents, this would be a relevant fact.
However, voters elect presidents, citizens- and they are people, not acreage.
Counties are a pretty irrelevant way to judge the winner.
80% of the US population lives in urban areas, and 60% lives in Cities.
 
80% of the US population lives in urban areas, and 60% lives in Cities.

Which is exactly the point. If a simple national majority vote should determine who is President, then about six population centers in the country can control the election, regardless of the wishes of the rest of the country (see map).

To avoid that being the case in passing legislation, the founders created our bicameral legislature with House of Reps reflecting raw population and the Senate with each state represented equally. This structure recognizes that, without the "land-based" Senate to give some weight to the wishes of the less-populated areas, the major population centers would overwhelm the wishes of those less-populated areas.

If you feel strongly that the winner should be chosen by simple majority vote, then you should move to amend the Constitution. Till that happens the EC roughly performs the same function in presidential voting as the Senate does in lawmaking.

(Assume you meant "rural areas." "Urban areas" are cities.)
 
Back
Top