A Deeply Fractured US
- Thread starter BeyondTheNow
- Start date
- Status
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-tells-donald-trump-racism-no-place-society-a4459111.html
James Mattis has broken his silence and has now come out to very explicitly condemn the US president over his actions throughout this ongoing crisis. He expresses serious concerns with how the US military is being utilized.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/06/james-mattis-denounces-trump-protests-militarization/612640/?fbclid=IwAR1EWTYSUdqLG-gY8ZbHVUMchDV4-_zZYcnvKf9ztnhSmzwlgIeNkWL97NQ
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/06/james-mattis-denounces-trump-protests-militarization/612640/?fbclid=IwAR1EWTYSUdqLG-gY8ZbHVUMchDV4-_zZYcnvKf9ztnhSmzwlgIeNkWL97NQ
- Reaction score
- 3,100
- Points
- 1,160
tomahawk6 said:
Infantile schoolyard response, very presidential.
S
stellarpanther
Guest
That election can't come soon enough.
- Reaction score
- 3,100
- Points
- 1,160
Cheers!
S
stellarpanther
Guest
tomahawk6 said:
If he wins re-election the rest of the world might take up drinking!
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 430
"In the 2016 United States presidential election, ten members of the Electoral College voted or attempted to vote for a candidate different from whom they were pledged.[1] This movement, dubbed the Hamilton Electors, was co-founded by Micheal Baca of Colorado and Bret Chiafalo of Washington. The movement attempted to find 37 Republican electors willing to vote for a different Republican. Three of these votes were invalidated under the faithless elector laws of their respective states, and the elector either subsequently voted for the pledged candidate or was replaced by someone who did.[2][3][4] Although there had been a combined total of 155 instances of individual electors voting faithlessly prior to 2016 in over two centuries of previous US presidential elections,[5] 2016 was the first election in over a hundred years in which multiple electors worked to alter the result of the election in order to "vote their conscience for the good of America" in accordance with Alexander Hamilton's Federalist Paper No. 68.[6] Electors were subjected to public pressure, including death threats."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_electors_in_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election
So to 'heck" with winning the popular vote. It's all about the Electoral college.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_electors_in_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election
So to 'heck" with winning the popular vote. It's all about the Electoral college.
QV
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,349
- Points
- 1,010
Baden Guy said:"In the 2016 United States presidential election, ten members of the Electoral College voted or attempted to vote for a candidate different from whom they were pledged.[1] This movement, dubbed the Hamilton Electors, was co-founded by Micheal Baca of Colorado and Bret Chiafalo of Washington. The movement attempted to find 37 Republican electors willing to vote for a different Republican. Three of these votes were invalidated under the faithless elector laws of their respective states, and the elector either subsequently voted for the pledged candidate or was replaced by someone who did.[2][3][4] Although there had been a combined total of 155 instances of individual electors voting faithlessly prior to 2016 in over two centuries of previous US presidential elections,[5] 2016 was the first election in over a hundred years in which multiple electors worked to alter the result of the election in order to "vote their conscience for the good of America" in accordance with Alexander Hamilton's Federalist Paper No. 68.[6] Electors were subjected to public pressure, including death threats."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_electors_in_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election
So to 'heck" with winning the popular vote. It's all about the Electoral college.
Is that a new thing? Curious, how did the popular vote numbers land in Canada's last election?
- Reaction score
- 1,591
- Points
- 1,260
Baden Guy said:So to 'heck" with winning the popular vote. It's all about the Electoral college.
He said what Republicans have been trying not to say for years.
He is likely aware the Republicans have lost the popular vote in six of the last seven presidential elections.
- Reaction score
- 564
- Points
- 810
QV said:
Obviously you know the answer to that... but there is a difference between individual riding first past the post and the electoral college. In a two party electoral college the only way that you can win without the popular vote is that some of the states votes are worth more than others. Which then raises the question about who is actually being represented in the Federal system, the state or the people>
By the way, I'd actually like to reform the Canadian system... elect the upper house from a list based on popular vote percentage (ie 100 senators and for each percent of the vote the party gets one), govern from the upper house, and change the method of non-confidence (so you just don't continue voting out the government). Maybe even make it a dynamic vote, ie you can change it whenever you want, so the people can actually easily remove the government. The reasoning: the governing (upper) house would actually represent the country and not the regions, and the lower house could be allowed to consider issues regionally.
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 8,839
- Points
- 1,040
Almost every party prefers a system under which it would win consistently.
But some parties spend more time demanding revolutionary change after an election loss, while other parties spend more time navel gazing about which part of the electorate they failed to capture.
But some parties spend more time demanding revolutionary change after an election loss, while other parties spend more time navel gazing about which part of the electorate they failed to capture.
- Status
Similar threads
