• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What do Democrats and Republicans both like?

Lafayette

Lafayette

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 13, 2015
Messages
9,594
Reaction score
2,072
Location
France
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
From the Economist, here: What do Democrats and Republicans both like?

Excerpt:
IN AN era of deep partisan division in America, is there anything about which Democrats and Republicans still agree? A new working paper by Larry Bartels, a political scientist at Vanderbilt University, finds a few remaining areas of common ground. His study relies on surveys conducted by YouGov, a pollster, which asked 2,500 Americans to rate on a scale from zero to ten how favourably they view different individuals and social groups. A zero corresponded to “extremely unfavourably” and a ten corresponded to “extremely favourably”.
Click to expand...
Unsurprisingly, the most polarising groups are those that tend to divide the major parties: Democrats, for instance, are not big fans of the National Rifle Association, while Republicans tend to frown upon Black Lives Matter. Politicians usually draw the ire of the opposing party. Mitch McConnell, the leader of the Republicans in the Senate, manages to draw the contempt of both parties.

Even subjects that don’t typically feature in campaign ads show yawning partisan gaps—for example, Democrats are much more likely to admire the United Nations than Republicans are. The few topics that received high scores from both parties tended to be blandly unobjectionable, such as nurses and farmers. Perhaps the strongest point of concurrence was that respondents from both parties found Congress equally distasteful.
Click to expand...


Info-graphic (from same source):
20180324_WOC111.png



And never the twain shall meet?

We shall see. Americans have differing opinions on a very large scale. But, unlike Europeans, who are only learning the voting trick, Americans have the ability to cross the diagonal divide (seen on the following infographic) with remarkable ease and frequency.

Which is how Donald Dork got elected. It was a bit too easy given the fact that Hillary won the popular-vote, which is the only real democratic criteria for a candidate's election to any political office in the nation.

Except one - the Presidency ...
 
Last edited:
From Pew Research: Trump’s victory another example of how Electoral College wins are bigger than popular vote ones

Excerpt:
Our tally shows Clinton won 65.8 million votes (48.25%) to almost 63 million (46.15%) for Trump, with minor-party and independent candidates taking the rest.

This mismatch between the electoral and popular votes came about because Trump won several large states (such as Florida, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin) by very narrow margins, gaining all their electoral votes in the process, even as Clinton claimed other large states (such as California, Illinois and New York) by much wider margins. Trump’s share of the popular vote, in fact, was the seventh-smallest winning percentage since 1828, when presidential campaigns began to resemble those of today.

In fact, the very nature of the way the U.S. picks its presidents tends to create a disconnect between the outcome in the Electoral College and the popular vote. The last time a popular-vote loser won the presidency in the Electoral College was, of course, in 2000, when George W. Bush edged out Al Gore 271-266 despite Gore winning some 537,000 more popular votes nationwide. The other electoral-popular vote mismatches came in 1876 and 1888; in all four instances the Democratic nominee ended up the loser. (In the 1824 election, which was contested between rival factions of the old Democratic-Republican Party, Andrew Jackson won a plurality of the popular and electoral vote, but because he was short of an Electoral College majority the election was thrown to the House of Representatives, which chose runner-up John Quincy Adams.)
Click to expand...

No other modern, developed nation on earth has such a miscarriage of the popular-vote ...
 
Lafayette said:
From Pew Research: Trump’s victory another example of how Electoral College wins are bigger than popular vote ones

Excerpt:


No other modern, developed nation on earth has such a miscarriage of the popular-vote ...
Click to expand...

And if you read Federalist 68 in which Hamilton explains why we have the EC, the purpose of it was IGNORED and not even followed by the electors in all the state meetings.

So we have a lose/lose proposition for the nation in order to give a win to someone supported by a minority of voters.
 
Lafayette said:
From the Economist, here: What do Democrats and Republicans both like?

Excerpt:


Info-graphic (from same source):
20180324_WOC111.png



And never the twain shall meet?

We shall see. Americans have differing opinions on a very large scale. But, unlike Europeans, who are only learning the voting trick, Americans have the ability to cross the diagonal divide (seen on the following infographic) with remarkable ease and frequency.

Which is how Donald Dork got elected. It was a bit too easy given the fact that Hillary won the popular-vote, which is the only real democratic criteria for a candidate's election to any political office in the nation.

Except one - the Presidency ...
Click to expand...



The popular vote is conducted within the states and then the states send the popularly elected Electors to vote based on previously agreed to rules and procedures.

We are not a Democracy. We are a Republic.

How many home runs does Tom Brady need to shoot before he can win the Derby?

You say you want a guy to win one game by employing the rules of another.

What is your confusion in this?
 
haymarket said:
And if you read Federalist 68 in which Hamilton explains why we have the EC, the purpose of it was IGNORED and not even followed by the electors in all the state meetings.

So we have a lose/lose proposition for the nation in order to give a win to someone supported by a minority of voters.
Click to expand...

Care to cut and paste the nugget from Hamilton that supports your allegation?
 
code1211 said:
Care to cut and paste the nugget from Hamilton that supports your allegation?
Click to expand...

As I have posted it at least two score times - it is always at my fingertips.

The Avalon Project : Federalist No 68

Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention. They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment. And they have excluded from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the President in office
Click to expand...

Hamilton explains to the nation that they should accept the EC rather than the popular vote because the CHIEF threat will come from foreign powers seeking to play their own creature in our high office o the presidency. And he tells us that the EC will protect against that.

The chief problem in 2016 being that there is not one case reported in any of the state Electoral college meetings where this was even discussed or considered or debated even though the news was rife at that time with speculation about Trump and Russia. Not a single report from a single state shows that any of the electors meetings did what Hamilton said was their main purpose for existing. Not a one.
 
What do Democrats and Republicans both like?
Click to expand...

gerrymandering and entertainment disguised as news that tells you what you already think. oh, and ice cream.
 
haymarket said:
And if you read Federalist 68 in which Hamilton explains why we have the EC, the purpose of it was IGNORED and not even followed by the electors in all the state meetings.

So we have a lose/lose proposition for the nation in order to give a win to someone supported by a minority of voters.
Click to expand...

There is more to the EC system than just using EC delegates as middleman electors. It also weighs (balances?) the states relalive power by using their legislative representation (2 Senators plus their # of House seats) rather than the actual number of popular votes cast in the POTUS election.

Instead of two states, each equal with the minimum of 3 EC votes, one could look at it much as a series of games between two baseball teams. These teams, A and B, play each other in a series of 7 games. Do the total number of games won or the total runs scored by them matter?

The game results (runs scored) are as follows:

#1 A 10, B 2
#2 A 2, B 5
#3 A 12, B 6
#4 A 2, B 3
#5 A 3, B 4
#6 A 12, B 3
#7 A 4, B 5

Team B wins the series 4 games to 3 games if only the number of games won matter.

Team A wins the series 45 runs to 28 runs if only the total number of runs matter.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
There is more to the EC system than just using EC delegates as middleman electors. It also weighs (balances?) the states relalive power by using their legislative representation (2 Senators plus their # of House seats) rather than the actual number of popular votes cast in the POTUS election.

Instead of two states, each equal with the minimum of 3 EC votes, one could look at it much as a series of games between two baseball teams. These teams, A and B, play each other in a series of 7 games. Do the total number of games won or the total runs scored by them matter?

The game results (runs scored) are as follows:

#1 A 10, B 2
#2 A 2, B 5
#3 A 12, B 6
#4 A 2, B 3
#5 A 3, B 4
#6 A 12, B 3
#7 A 4, B 5

Team B wins the series 4 games to 3 games if only the number of games won matter.

Team A wins the series 45 runs to 28 runs if only the total number of runs matter.
Click to expand...

First, I was quoting Founding Father Alexander Hamilton and what he claimed was the chief reason for the Electoral College. And it was ignored in 2016.

Second, since you gave me a sports comparison, allow me to do the same with you.

A father takes his son Little Jimmy to a NBA basketball game in Boston pitting their beloved Celtics against the hated Lakers .
In the first quarter the Lakers pull out to a 25 to 24 lead.
In the second quarter it is more of the same and the Lakers again outscore the Celts 25 to 24 and at halftime the score reads LA 50 and Boston trailing with 48 points.
In the third quarter the Lakers run up 27 points while the Celts put in only 22. At the end of three quarters the score is now LA 77 and Boston 70.
But in the fourth quarter the home team gets hot and outscores the Lakers 35 to 20 making the score Boston 105 and the Lakers only 97.

Little Jimmy is besides himself as they leave the area waving a Celtic pennant and is nearly jumping up and down that the home team won. But then dad explains that Boston did NOT win - they actually lost.

"How so", Little Jimmy asks.

Dad explains ...."the league wants teams to play hard every minute of the game rather than just turn it on at the end so each team gets one point for winning each quarter and one point for who has the most points at the end of the game. That gives LA three points and Boston only 2 and the Lakers win."

Little Jimmy cannot believe it telling dear old dad... "That is the dumbest thing I ever heard of. Every kid in America knows that if you outscore the other guy - your team wins."

Dad says - "Son, just wait until you learn about the Electoral College."
 
haymarket said:
First, I was quoting Founding Father Alexander Hamilton and what he claimed was the chief reason for the Electoral College. And it was ignored in 2016.

Second, since you gave me a sports comparison, allow me to do the same with you.

A father takes his son Little Jimmy to a NBA basketball game in Boston pitting their beloved Celtics against the hated Lakers .
In the first quarter the Lakers pull out to a 25 to 24 lead.
In the second quarter it is more of the same and the Lakers again outscore the Celts 25 to 24 and at halftime the score reads LA 50 and Boston trailing with 48 points.
In the third quarter the Lakers run up 27 points while the Celts put in only 22. At the end of three quarters the score is now LA 77 and Boston 70.
But in the fourth quarter the home team gets hot and outscores the Lakers 35 to 20 making the score Boston 105 and the Lakers only 97.

Little Jimmy is besides himself as they leave the area waving a Celtic pennant and is nearly jumping up and down that the home team won. But then dad explains that Boston did NOT win - they actually lost.

"How so", Little Jimmy asks.

Dad explains ...."the league wants teams to play hard every minute of the game rather than just turn it on at the end so each team gets one point for winning each quarter and one point for who has the most points at the end of the game. That gives LA three points and Boston only 2 and the Lakers win."

Little Jimmy cannot believe it telling dear old dad... "That is the dumbest thing I ever heard of. Every kid in America knows that if you outscore the other guy - your team wins."

Dad says - "Son, just wait until you learn about the Electoral College."
Click to expand...

That ignores the reason for having states, weighted as we do, within a republic. Obviously CA or NY could (and likely would) win over any combination of low population states totaling the same number of EC votes if only the popular vote total was considered. You wish to use the excess votes in one big blue state to overwhelm the votes of many red by smaller margin states. The EC was also designed to prevent that.
 
Money. The answer is money.






What do I win?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That ignores the reason for having states, weighted as we do, within a republic. Obviously CA or NY could (and likely would) win over any combination of low population states totaling the same number of EC votes if only the popular vote total was considered. You wish to use the excess votes in one big blue state to overwhelm the votes of many red by smaller margin states. The EC was also designed to prevent that.
Click to expand...

According to Founding Father Hamilton, this is NOT the reason the EC was established. It was established so special people with special abilities could protect the nation against a foreign adversary installing a creature of their own in our highest office. And that failed in 2016 and no effort was made in even one state to do that.

Where does it say that the reason we have states is to deny the people their choice for president?

All I want is for each American to have an equal vote in who sits in the White House. The only system that gives you that is the popular vote.
 
haymarket said:
As I have posted it at least two score times - it is always at my fingertips.

The Avalon Project : Federalist No 68



Hamilton explains to the nation that they should accept the EC rather than the popular vote because the CHIEF threat will come from foreign powers seeking to play their own creature in our high office o the presidency. And he tells us that the EC will protect against that.

The chief problem in 2016 being that there is not one case reported in any of the state Electoral college meetings where this was even discussed or considered or debated even though the news was rife at that time with speculation about Trump and Russia. Not a single report from a single state shows that any of the electors meetings did what Hamilton said was their main purpose for existing. Not a one.
Click to expand...

The Electoral College functioned exactly as it was designed to function.

Once again, you are reading words and conjuring a conclusion that has little to do with the writer's intent.
 
code1211 said:
The Electoral College functioned exactly as it was designed to function.

Once again, you are reading words and conjuring a conclusion that has little to do with the writer's intent.
Click to expand...

NO - I quoted Hamilton in what he said was the chief threat to our country that the EC would protect us from.

Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention.
Click to expand...
The EC sure did not do that in 2016. Can you cite one report anywhere that showed us it functioned as Hamilton described to the nation in Federalist 68 to protect us against the CHIEF threat of a foreign adversary installing a creature of their own in our highest office?
 
haymarket said:
According to Founding Father Hamilton, this is NOT the reason the EC was established. It was established so special people with special abilities could protect the nation against a foreign adversary installing a creature of their own in our highest office. And that failed in 2016 and no effort was made in even one state to do that.

Where does it say that the reason we have states is to deny the people their choice for president?

All I want is for each American to have an equal vote in who sits in the White House. The only system that gives you that is the popular vote.
Click to expand...

The constitution.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution states:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
Click to expand...

The margin of victory in a state, that allocates its electors in a winner take all manner, does not matter.
 
haymarket said:
NO - I quoted Hamilton in what he said was the chief threat to our country that the EC would protect us from.


The EC sure did not do that in 2016. Can you cite one report anywhere that showed us it functioned as Hamilton described to the nation in Federalist 68 to protect us against the CHIEF threat of a foreign adversary installing a creature of their own in our highest office?
Click to expand...

Your girl lost and I know you still can't believe it happened.

It did happen and Trump won.

Get over it.

The Electoral College functioned exactly as it was intended to function in 2016 under the laws in force in 2016.

You seem to be exhorting the Electors to ignore the expressed preferences of the voters that elected them. Is your prescription to ensure the safety of democracy to simply eliminate democracy?

Another interesting and disjointed logic chain... The same one used by the Democrat Party in their primaries. What flavor of Kool Aid are you all drinking?
 
code1211 said:
The popular vote is conducted within the states and then the states send the popularly elected Electors to vote based on previously agreed to rules and procedures.

We are not a Democracy. We are a Republic.
Click to expand...

I get the same BS all the time from ignoramuses who have never taken a course in Civics. Very wrong and now very boring!

One voter (duly registered), one vote. That's all. The accumulation of votes determines the plurality winner of any election - whether town, city, state or national. Proportional representation determines the exact number of elected officials of an city/state/national election. There is no need whatsoever for futher manipulation of the vote.

It's time we, the sheeple, became a True Democracy. Once that happens, the US becomes also a True Republic. Compare the linked words, and maybe understand why you should top misformulating them - because the dictionary shows that they are identical.

For the present it is neither a republic or a democracy as regards the vote for PotUS.

Furthermore from here: The Electoral College (United States)

Excerpt:
Opponents of the Electoral College claim such outcomes do not logically follow the normative concept of how a democratic system should function. One view is the Electoral College violates the principle of political equality, since presidential elections are not decided by the one-person one-vote principle. Outcomes of this sort are attributable to the federal nature of the system. Supporters of the Electoral College argue candidates must build a popular base that is geographically broader and more diverse in voter interests than either a simple national plurality or majority. Neither is this feature attributable to having intermediate elections of presidents, caused instead by the winner-takes-all method of allocating each state's slate of electors. Allocation of electors in proportion to the state's popular vote could reduce this effect.
Click to expand...
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The constitution.



The margin of victory in a state, that allocates its electors in a winner take all manner, does not matter.
Click to expand...

I gave you the reason for the EC and you gave me the mechanical formula. Those are two very different things.
 
code1211 said:
Your girl lost and I know you still can't believe it happened.
Click to expand...

My post did not mention any "girl" and had nothing to do with any "girl".
 
haymarket said:
And if you read Federalist 68 in which Hamilton explains why we have the EC, the purpose of it was IGNORED and not even followed by the electors in all the state meetings.

So we have a lose/lose proposition for the nation in order to give a win to someone supported by a minority of voters.
Click to expand...

No, we have a misconceived democracy as regards the election of the PotUS.

All other elected offices in the nation are decided by means of the popular-vote winner. Only one is misinterpreted since the dawn of our so-called "republic". It is that of the presidency, which is an office not elected by means of a true popular-vote.
 
Lafayette said:
No, we have a misconceived democracy as regards the election of the PotUS.

All other elected offices in the nation are decided by means of the popular-vote winner. Only one is misinterpreted since the dawn of our so-called "republic". It is that of the presidency, which is an office not elected by means of a true popular-vote.
Click to expand...

Did you even bother to read the explanation from Hamilton as to the purpose of the EC?

We all know how the president is chosen. That is not in dispute.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
You cited a reason and I cited another.
Click to expand...

Again, what I did was to cite Founding Father Alexander Hamilton and the reason he gave to the people of the USA in order to get them to support the US Constitution. And that CHIEF reason for the existence of the EC was completely ignored in 2016.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom