Hilliary actually won New Hampshire!

[Pappy!]

Hilliary, even though she was soundly beaten (by 22%) actually ended up with 15 delegates compared to Bernie Sanders 13.
This is because of something called "Super Delegates" What the Hell ??? First I have heard of a super delegate.

This comes after the virtual tie in Iowa which was decided by a total of 6 coin tosses, one for each precinct tied, in which Hilliary won all 6 coin tosses.

Things that make ya' go hmmmm.........

[DirtyDan]

another lawyer trick

Shakespeare was right

dan

[Daycruiser]

Super Delegate is a Democratic Party trick to circumnavigate the voters to get the candidate the "Party" wants to win the nomination.  Just the left stacking the deck against their own members. 

[The emperor has no clothes]

Super Delegate is a Democratic Party trick to circumnavigate the voters to get the candidate the "Party" wants to win the nomination.  Just the left stacking the deck against their own members. 

It is very undemocratic isn't it ? It might yet bite her in the ass though. It feeds into the narrative that she is part of the establishment that got us where we are.

[art]

Screwed up system.

[Serk]

Hehehehe, I _LOVE_ this Super Delegate situation, it'd be hard to come up with a more perfect example of why socialism is wrong and evil if we TRIED to do it!

[Patrick]

Hmm, nice, super delegates must be paid for by superpacs. Bernie doesn't use them and the clintons are the hierarchy of that wonderful specie. So, it all makes sense now doesn't it.

[..]

In 2015 she and her husband earned an average of $70,000+ A DAY.

She really is one of the people. Ha ha ha. She's as  disgusting as the current occupier of our White House.

[Moonshot_1]

What is disgusting to me is how this isn't a major story in the media. You have to look for it.

It would be one thing to have a close election and a quirk in the rules giving Hilliary an extra delagate.

But this was a 20% deficit. 60 - 40. And she gets more delegates than Sanders?

The media should be ripping the DNC apart over this one. Sure hearing lots of crickets though.

[..]

They all do it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate

[The emperor has no clothes]

What is disgusting to me is how this isn't a major story in the media. You have to look for it.

It would be one thing to have a close election and a quirk in the rules giving Hilliary an extra delagate.

But this was a 20% deficit. 60 - 40. And she gets more delegates than Sanders?

The media should be ripping the DNC apart over this one. Sure hearing lots of crickets though.

Its nothing new. There have been super delegates for years. Party rules have been adjusted many times over the years.

[Crackerborn]

Hillary gets 15 delegates, Bernie gets 13. Sounds like socialism at its best. And just to let you know, both parties have super-delegates that can cast their vote any way they please (with their masters permission). Another reason the electoral college should be scrapped. Who can tell me the number of times a presidental candidate has won in the popular vote but lost an election because the electoral college numbers gave the victory to the other candidate? It may be more than you think.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Hillary gets 15 delegates, Bernie gets 13. Sounds like socialism at its best. And just to let you know, both parties have super-delegates that can cast their vote any way they please (with their masters permission). Another reason the electoral college should be scrapped. Who can tell me the number of times a presidental candidate has won in the popular vote but lost an election because the electoral college numbers gave the victory to the other candidate? It may be more than you think.

You are confusing the electoral college with a parties nominating process. Completely different tasks.

[Crackerborn]

You are confusing the electoral college with a parties nominating process. Completely different tasks.

I poorly phrased my thought, electoral college is for the general election. How many presidential elections in the last 30 years have been won by the electoral college vote rather than the popular vote?

Delegates are not assigned per the popular vote in a primary for either party.

Notice any similarities?

[The emperor has no clothes]

You are confusing the electoral college with a parties nominating process. Completely different tasks.

I poorly phrased my thought, electoral college is for the general election. How many presidential elections in the last 30 years have been won by the electoral college vote rather than the popular vote?

Delegates are not assigned per the popular vote in a primary for either party.

Notice any similarities?

I understand what you out are saying. But this country was founded on States Rights. A popular vote would negate that. I lean left more than most here but I am still HUGELY in favor of our Federalist system. 

[Crackerborn]

I believe one or more of our founding fathers argued against political parties on the grounds that such institutions would serve themselves rather than the people. The electoral college, in its current form, was established in 1804 by the 12th amendment. The Vice President was the runner up in the election process since there could be a large number of candidates prior to the monopolizing of the political process by the two sides of a coin we have now.

Wouldn't that be fun in today's political environment!

The electoral college was designed to protect states rights. How is that working out?

[The emperor has no clothes]

I believe one or more of our founding fathers argued against political parties on the grounds that such institutions would serve themselves rather than the people. The electoral college, in its current form, was established in 1804 by the 12th amendment. The Vice President was the runner up in the election process since there could be a large number of candidates prior to the monopolizing of the political process by the two sides of a coin we have now.

Wouldn't that be fun in today's political environment!

The electoral college was designed to protect states rights. How is that working out?

Do you think states rights would fare better without the electoral college ?

[FryeVRCCDS0067]

I'm not sure which of the two is most likely to lose the national election. But, whichever it is, that's who I'm rooting for! 

[hukmut]

LET ME SEE THAT DAMN COIN!!!





Ride safe.


While you can...

[Moonshot_1]

Hillary gets 15 delegates, Bernie gets 13. Sounds like socialism at its best. And just to let you know, both parties have super-delegates that can cast their vote any way they please (with their masters permission). Another reason the electoral college should be scrapped. Who can tell me the number of times a presidental candidate has won in the popular vote but lost an election because the electoral college numbers gave the victory to the other candidate? It may be more than you think.

No Presidential Candidate has ever won the presidency by the popular vote. The electoral college is the only format Constitutionally authorized.

The Electoral College consist of electors from all the states and the District of Columbia.
Each State has the same number of electors as they do Representatives and Senators with the District of Columbia allotted 3 electors.

This format has each state being represented by electors for choosing a President as they do legislators.

My opinion a wonderfully crafted simple system for choosing a Federal executive for all 50 states and DC.

Should the city of Los Angeles have the same representation in choosing a President or Legislative representation as the entire State of Iowa?

Of course not. The system we currently have evens out the field. Not perfect but pretty darn good and likely the best that can be achieved.

As to the super delegates, as I believe meathead pointed out, they are not part of the Electoral College but a creation by the political parties for their own internal electoral process and have nothing to do with the General election.

As to the super delegate issue in New Hampshire, I realize that the super delegates are part of the process in both parties but my concern in the New Hamp. Democratic primary was the huge margin of victory Sanders had and he winds up with a delegate deficit.

I'm sure a political party can survive such an anomaly, but if this goes on state after state, the integrity of their process will suffer as it would seem the process to be predetermined and the votes and participation in the process doesn't matter.

Even in the General election, the State's Slate of Electors goes to popular vote winner of the state or, in a couple of states, proportional allotment. So the votes at the state level are an integral part of the process and do matter greatly in the Electoral College.

The idea of a popular vote for POTUS is a bad one.

[Rams]

Hilliary, even though she was soundly beaten (by 22%) actually ended up with 15 delegates compared to Bernie Sanders 13.
This is because of something called "Super Delegates" What the Hell ??? First I have heard of a super delegate.

This comes after the virtual tie in Iowa which was decided by a total of 6 coin tosses, one for each precinct tied, in which Hilliary won all 6 coin tosses.

Things that make ya' go hmmmm.........

Just goes to show, the fix is in for Clinton in the Dem party.    Not that I like either candidate but, says a lot about our system to allow this kind of bs.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Hilliary, even though she was soundly beaten (by 22%) actually ended up with 15 delegates compared to Bernie Sanders 13.
This is because of something called "Super Delegates" What the Hell ??? First I have heard of a super delegate.

This comes after the virtual tie in Iowa which was decided by a total of 6 coin tosses, one for each precinct tied, in which Hilliary won all 6 coin tosses.

Things that make ya' go hmmmm.........

Just goes to show, the fix is in for Clinton in the Dem party.    Not that I like either candidate but, says a lot about our system to allow this kind of bs.

I agree. I think I saw a while back that she has about 300 super delegates already committed to her. I think it is a way for the powers that be to scare off potential nominees. At least Bernie isn't intimidated.

[scooperhsd]

The parties are the parties - they can do whatever they want.

HOWEVER - I have ALWAYS been against the idea of the Electoral College- we ought to get rid of it and elect the president by popular vote.

[Patrick]

The idea of a popular vote for POTUS is a bad one.
end quote





Ya, we would have ended up with gore.

[Moonshot_1]

The parties are the parties - they can do whatever they want.

HOWEVER - I have ALWAYS been against the idea of the Electoral College- we ought to get rid of it and elect the president by popular vote.

Much would have to happen to get to the popular vote option.

First, you would have to repeal the Constitutional provision of the Electoral College and replace it with Constitutional language that would get us to the popular vote option.

You have to first realize that every election in this country for political office is at the state and local level. Even for the Presidency. You vote for the electors for your state.

So this means that you would have to create, Constitutionally, the new federal agency that would be in charge of your new popular Presidential vote as there now must be a federal accounting of all the votes and Constitutional language to determine how to make these votes official and binding.
Basically the new federal agency would be in charge of the count and verifying the count and presenting it to Congress for ratification.

The voter laws must then meet a federal standard for all voters and polling places and must be the same in all states and territories.

The complexities of all of this would be formidable as we are a federation of 50 separate Countries and small handful of territories. One of the results would be that the people of the just the city of LA would have the same representation as the entire State of Iowa in the choosing of the Nation's top executive.

The argument that all that would have to be done is to count the state's popular vote doesn't work as they are not Constitutionally mandated to do this once you repeal the Electoral College. Going to a popular vote would shift this solely to the Federal government.

By contrast, the Electoral College is an eminently fair and relatively simple process for choosing the President of a Federation. People and States are fairly represented.

[Willow]

For those concerned about the electoral versus popular vote, there are only four elections in two hundred thirty-six years that have been decided by the electoral college different than the popular vote.  The only one that would be meaningful to us is the initial election of George W. Bush.  That override was primarily undoing the vote margins in California and Illinois.  To those that are in opposition to the electoral college I would ask, do you want California and Illinois to have a louder voice in electing the president?

I personally like the electoral college.  At its inception the population was much smaller.  The count of electors is each states number of US representatives ans US senators.  With a smaller population that gave a meaningful weight to less populated states.  At its inception, the House of Representatives had only 65 members compared to 26 Senators averaging 5 representatives ans 2 senators per state.  You can easily see how throwing in the two extra votes per state gave a more meaningful impact to the votes within the less populated states. primarily the Southern states.  Today there are 435 members of the House and 100 members of the Senate rendering an average of 8.7 representatives and still 2 senators per state.  Varying from that average, California has 53 representatives and there are seven states each with only a single representative.  (As an aside George W. Bush carried five of those seven states with 3 electoral votes each.)

You can see that what was intended to give a little more weight to the more thinly populated states in 1780 had a great deal more effect then than it does now.  My belief is that the electoral college needs to be altered to once more increase the weight of the less populated states and reduce the impact of the population giants.  That would be meaningful, unless of course, we want our president elected by California, Texas, and six other states.

I live in Kansas. 

[Moonshot_1]

For those concerned about the electoral versus popular vote, there are only four elections in two hundred thirty-six years that have been decided by the electoral college different than the popular vote.  The only one that would be meaningful to us is the initial election of George W. Bush.  That override was primarily undoing the vote margins in California and Illinois.  To those that are in opposition to the electoral college I would ask, do you want California and Illinois to have a louder voice in electing the president?

I personally like the electoral college.  At its inception the population was much smaller.  The count of electors is each states number of US representatives ans US senators.  With a smaller population that gave a meaningful weight to less populated states.  At its inception, the House of Representatives had only 65 members compared to 26 Senators averaging 5 representatives ans 2 senators per state.  You can easily see how throwing in the two extra votes per state gave a more meaningful impact to the votes within the less populated states. primarily the Southern states.  Today there are 435 members of the House and 100 members of the Senate rendering an average of 8.7 representatives and still 2 senators per state.  Varying from that average, California has 53 representatives and there are seven states each with only a single representative.  (As an aside George W. Bush carried five of those seven states with 3 electoral votes each.)

You can see that what was intended to give a little more weight to the more thinly populated states in 1780 had a great deal more effect then than it does now.  My belief is that the electoral college needs to be altered to once more increase the weight of the less populated states and reduce the impact of the population giants.  That would be meaningful, unless of course, we want our president elected by California, Texas, and six other states.

I live in Kansas. 

I would only add that as the electoral college is altered to reflect more "weight" of the less populated states, the legislature be also similarly altered as well.

[Willow]

I would only add that as the electoral college is altered to reflect more "weight" of the less populated states, the legislature be also similarly altered as well.

We would have to disagree on that point.  The purpose of the House of Representatives is to stand for the population while that of the Senate is to represent the equal distribution of power of the individual states.  Although I am bothered by the law-making power of a majority of modern day Americans, I approve of the distribution within the Congress.

If I had the power to apply what wisdom I think I have to changing the political system of the U. S. of A. it would be to limit the right to vote to those who were reasonable determined to be contributors to rather than extractors from of the populace at large.  In that sense I find myself in agreement, although somewhat modified, with some of the founding fathers who pushed for limiting the vote to landowners.       

[The emperor has no clothes]

I would only add that as the electoral college is altered to reflect more "weight" of the less populated states, the legislature be also similarly altered as well.

We would have to disagree on that point.  The purpose of the House of Representatives is to stand for the population while that of the Senate is to represent the equal distribution of power of the individual states.  Although I am bothered by the law-making power of a majority of modern day Americans, I approve of the distribution within the Congress.

If I had the power to apply what wisdom I think I have to changing the political system of the U. S. of A. it would be to limit the right to vote to those who were reasonable determined to be contributors to rather than extractors from of the populace at large.  In that sense I find myself in agreement, although somewhat modified, with some of the founding fathers who pushed for limiting the vote to landowners.       

Hmm... Interesting. Would that mean if you were laid off and were on unemployment you would be barred from voting ? And then there would be question of those on Social Security and Medicare ?

[Willow]

I would only add that as the electoral college is altered to reflect more "weight" of the less populated states, the legislature be also similarly altered as well.

We would have to disagree on that point.  The purpose of the House of Representatives is to stand for the population while that of the Senate is to represent the equal distribution of power of the individual states.  Although I am bothered by the law-making power of a majority of modern day Americans, I approve of the distribution within the Congress.

If I had the power to apply what wisdom I think I have to changing the political system of the U. S. of A. it would be to limit the right to vote to those who were reasonable determined to be contributors to rather than extractors from of the populace at large.  In that sense I find myself in agreement, although somewhat modified, with some of the founding fathers who pushed for limiting the vote to landowners.       

Hmm... Interesting. Would that mean if you were laid off and were on unemployment you would be barred from voting ? And then there would be question of those on Social Security and Medicare ?

Your interpretation and mine of who are extractors and who are contributors are obviously different.

To be done right I'm sure there would be details to be worked out.

Not that it matters but just to help you understand my perspective, unemployment payments are, or should be, collecting upon what one has paid for thru employment insurance.  I believe that's hidden in your employer's cost for your services.  Were it my choice no one would receive Social Security or Medicare that hadn't appropriately paid into those funds.  Welfare.  A person working and receiving some assistance mat still be a contributor but one who is living for extended time solely on what the "welfare system" will provide, in my opinion, cannot in any way be considered a contributor.

I didn't say everyone would like my ideas or even that it would make the system perfect but, in my opinion, it would be an improvement.  As it is I think we are riding a sinking ship.  I was fortunate to be born when I was.  I have lived through the postwar boom.  I do not feel good about the living situations of my grandchildren.

Life is not uncomplicated, is it?

[The emperor has no clothes]

You are correct, life is very complicated.  Your ideas are interesting, the hard part is determining who is contributing and who isn't. Of course this is all academic, neither you or I is likely to be in a position of power. (Well at least I'm not) 

[Moonshot_1]

A couple of thoughts here.

On the Electoral College and Legislative representation. I believe the two must be linked. They currently are and if you tweak one you should tweak the other. I cannot see Electoral College representation being proportionately different that Legislative representation and considering both being proper.

I am on board with the right to vote being qualified somehow.
There cannot be a single qualification but multiple ones.

But it must also be noted that voting is a State right in the sense that there are only State elections.
So a state will be as liberal or as conservative in their voter laws as they can be within the Constitution.

As to what qualifications should be considered, I believe those who:

Pay property tax. (Local, State or Federal)
Pay income tax. (Local, State or Federal)
Owns a business and employs people
Are in the Military or have Served in the Military

I'm pretty sure we could find many more ways to qualify to exercise that right to vote.
But there should be some.