Trump II

[Alan Goldhammer]

You forgot one more "one" - "one person - one vote - one state." Which is already the case here.

In federal situations, that paradigm is simply not valid. Federally organized entities typically have two parliament chambers: one based on the proportional principle, the other on parity. I am not aware (someone please correct me if wrong) of a federal state with the "one person - one vote" paradigm.

Israel, Italy, Denmark, Netherlands, Canada, and many more

[Alan Goldhammer]

Isn't the left the one who constantly harps about the need to include mental patients in regular activities, not isolate them? 

Absolutely and he is a wonderful real estate developer and should have stuck to that line of work.  Are you confident that he has authority over the largest military in the world (and I ask this seriously)?

[Alan Goldhammer]

That's politics, it's a blood sport, always has been, always will be, regardless of time or country.  If you can't handle it, go home. 

Not really.  During the Reagan years there was a lot of collaboration between parties to get things done.  I can remember being a a couple of Congressional hearings back then where Republican Senators were praising their Democratic colleagues and thanking them for working so hard to get a particular piece of legislation passed.  Dan Quayle used to remark how well he worked with Ted Kennedy on health legislation.  Things changed when Gingrich declared war on the Democrats and was able to lead the party to victory in 1994 when they took over the House.  The House has remained rancorous ever since.  The Senate still worked in bipartisan directions until McConnell and Reid rose to power in their respective parties and then the Senate became as rancorous as the House.

The nice thing about archiving things is how some of these old statements are catching up to current members.  I just wanted to point out a bit of history from one who was there at the time.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Israel, Italy, Denmark, Netherlands, Canada, and many more

None of those are federations, except Canada. And even in Canada it isn't "one man, one vote" to elect the national leader: people vote for their local member of parliament, just like here they vote for their electoral representative.

[Kevin Gallagher]

Except that the Rethuglican wing of the Corporate Incumbent Party, did everything they could to stymie Obama's policies, and even his choice for the Supreme Court. Of course, when Democrats threaten the same thing, that's an anti-democratic outrage.

As Tom Selleck said In "Quigley Down Under" "we already ran the misfits out of our country, we sent 'em back to England." Words to remember

[Farmer]

All this drama reminds me of a spoiled child the first time it's told "no" and the ensuing tantrums.

Yes, that's exactly Trump.  Well described.

[Farmer]

We have our own problems, some of which overlap with other countries, but hey, at least were not like Great Britain.  Watching parliament on C-Span is both entertaining and confusing, confusing because in that environment how does anything actually get done?

As opposed to your Congress, which is infamous for being slower than frozen molasses?

[Alan Klein]

Erik,

While your statement is correct on its surface, we do not see any move by the Republican Congress to investigate our President's business ties.  We don't know how much President Trump's companies owe to foreign banks, we have not seen any evidence that he has adequately stepped away from his companies, and his sons, who ostensibly run the companies, get US taxpayer subsidized protection when traveling on business ($100K for a trip by Don Jr. to Uruguay).  Regarding the independent judiciary, Trump accused an American born jurist who has Hispanic roots of being unfit to adjudicate a trial involving Trump University.  This past weekend he insulted the Appellate Court judge who overturned the travel ban as a "so-called judge."  These are the types of behaviors that are bothering many of us.  I tolerated the victories by Richard Nixon in 1968, Ronald Reagan in 1980 and even the disputed victory of George W. Bush in 2000.  I agree that President Trump won the election because of the antiquated Constitutional provisions governing presidential elections.  I do not regard him as fit for office and find his behavior demeaning to the majority of the American public that did not vote for him.

You can vote him out of office in 2020 if you're not happy with him.  In the meanwhile he has the power of the Presidency, is Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces and Chief Executive of the US Government for four years just like Obama and every other President before him.  His mandate and power come from the US Constitution not from how many people voted for him.

[Alan Klein]

Back in the '80's, I worked with this guy who truly believed that he should be able to "register" with the government as an "artist" and that the government would then give him a stipend to support himself while he did his art.  Yikes!

I've been waiting for check too so I could spend all my time taking pictures.

[Alan Klein]

Texas as all the other southern states moved to the Republican column after the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  You can draw whatever conclusion you want from that.  California move away from the Republican party after Governor Wilson's xenophobic adoption of strict immigration controls at the state level.  This was amply documented in Kevin Starr's wonderful history of California during that era "Coast of Dreams:  California on the Edge - 1990 - 2003" where Repblicans today stand no chance of winning any statewide office. 
  One final try here.  The EC is inherently undemocratic in that it violates the 'one person - one vote' paradigm.  Because each state gets a minimum of 3 EC votes regardless of population, a vote in Wyoming counts more than a vote in California.  California gets 1 EV for every 508K people whereas Wyoming its 1 EV per 143K.  Thus a Californian has 1/5 the voting power of someone in Wyoming.  Slate published a good MAP showing the disparity.

You deliberately ignore that we are a Federal republic made up of 50 separate sovereign states that have their own governments.  Each State wants to be recognized that they are just as legitimate as any other regardless of geographic size or population.  Just like the UN Assembly where tiny Jamaica has one vote like China, each US State gets two electoral votes representing each of their senators plus the apportionment based on population.  Beside the Electoral College, the Senate is made up of two Senators from each state regardless of geographic size and population.  The Senators do not represent the people.  They represent their sovereign states.  Only the House of Representatives, the house of the people, represent the people and are proportionately delegated based on population.

True democracy and parliamentarian government won't work in the USA because of the Federal multi state situation.  That's why and Electoral system was created; to honor each states' sovereignty.  The Electoral system also created the two party system although parties are not even mentioned in the Constitution.  Since a majority is required to become president, it forces people to get together under a big tent and adjust their differences to created a single candidate to get the majority of electoral votes.  This couldn't work in a Parliamentary system; hence two parties.

[Farmer]

You can vote him out of office in 2020 if you're not happy with him.  In the meanwhile he has the power of the Presidency, is Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces and Chief Executive of the US Government for four years just like Obama and every other President before him.  His mandate and power come from the US Constitution not from how many people voted for him.

No, his executive power comes from (and is limited by) the Constitution.  Any mandate comes from the people and so the numbers do matter.  Creating and implementing policy as a transaction matter is provided for by the constitution.  Deciding what that policy should be and how to practically apply it, is a matter of mandate.

[Alan Klein]

The speaker in the Uk parliament has stated that Trump will not be allowed to address the members of parliament if he visits the UK on a state visit. Loud applause greeted the announcement.

The speaker and those applauding will change their minds when Trump reacts to this insult and reverses his offer to make a trade deal with GB after they leave the EU. 

[Farmer]

True democracy and parliamentarian government won't work in the USA because of the Federal multi state situation.  That's why and Electoral system was created; to honor each states' sovereignty.  The Electoral system also created the two party system although parties are not even mentioned in the Constitution.  Since a majority is required to become president, it forces people to get together under a big tent and adjust their differences to created a single candidate to get the majority of electoral votes.  This couldn't work in a Parliamentary system; hence two parties.

Damn us Aussies for having a parliamentary, multi-state, federation which provides for each state to be represented equally regardless of size or population in the upper house (Senate).  Damn us to hell for using a form of government that Alan has declared can't work.

And, for the record, you're a republic and a federation and the issue of the president is one of your type of government being a republic - being a federation basically has nothing to do with it.  Of course, on that level we differ - we are a constitutional monarchy, not a republic, but pretty much all models put forward for us to change to a republic retain the parliament and the current structure of the upper and lower houses thereof at the federal level.

The EC is easily resolved into a more equitable process by removing the "winner takes all" standard that the States currently use.  You can keep your minimum for smaller states to protect them, but if you make it proportional then the big "locked" states which are ignored by each party suddenly come into play (the GOP might not win the majority of California, but they might, for example, be able to push a few more EC votes with campaigning and the Dems could similarly have some chance of pulling a vote of two in Texas.  All states become important because there's no longer a lock on those which overall are not going to change, and it more evenly represents the voters by making the blocks more granular.  It requires no significant change in any process except for the states to allocate EC votes proportionately.

[Farmer]

The speaker and those applauding will change their minds when Trump reacts to this insult and reverses his offer to make a trade deal with GB after they leave the EU.

You realise it's not a right to speak to the house?  Foreign dignitaries speaking to the house only started in 1939 (the house has been meeting separately from the Lords since 1341, more or less).  For Trump to speak it would be a privilege and since he has insulted numerous people, including UK citizens, it's not unreasonable for the Speaker to not invite him (and it's not the first time a visiting foreign dignitary hasn't been invited to speak).

You're right, though, Trump will react like the spoilt-brat narcissist that he is, but since he has business interests in the UK he will probably not do much about it (hint: he is (and was always) going to try to negotiate a trade deal with the UK (not GB) that was in favour of the US, with little concern as to whether or not it benefits the UK.  The only thing that will ameliorate that basic direction is if there appears to be a "win" in it for him to offer them something (either in terms of for his business interests or through public acclimation).

[Alan Klein]

Phil,  But the point is the states (except for Maine) have not decided to go to proportional electoral votes based on the popular votes in their state.  Why would California give up their massive Democrat vote in the electoral college based on a winner take all system for their state?  How would you get the democrat controlled California legislature to push for a state constitutional change to make that happen.  It won't.  Even the small states gain power by not proportioning the electoral votes based on their popular vote.  So the US and State Constitutions stand as they are.

Your point about the Australian system is well taken.  My point was the fact in the US there isn't proportional representation in the senate or in the electoral college for President based totally on population.  Therefore, true democracy and a parliamentarian system won't work unless you somehow weight the electoral votes.    It is also well to remember that the US Constitution originally had electors voted by each of the states' legislatures.  The people did not originally vote for the President.  The founders really had little use for Presidents giving most power to the Congress.  Unfortunately, over the years, Congress has given up their power to the President because of their fecklessness and desire to not have to make hard decisions that might get them unelected.  They'd rather let the President stick his neck out.  A perfect example is what Trump did with the travel ban.  The Congress previously passed a law stating that the president can declare immigration policy.  So now he takes the lumps.  They should have left it that the President had to go to Congress to get permission.  But it was less dangerous for them to let him make the mistake as he did recently and let him take the lumps.  Then they can sit back and gripe about what a shame he did what he did.  They're cowards, frankly.  The fact is Trump, Obama, and all our recent Presidents have had too much power to screw things up. 

[Alan Klein]

Damn us Aussies for having a parliamentary, multi-state, federation which provides for each state to be represented equally regardless of size or population in the upper house (Senate).  Damn us to hell for using a form of government that Alan has declared can't work.

Phil how does that work? Does the Upper house have equal votes for each State? How is it all equal?

[Manoli]

Phil how does that work? Does the Upper house have equal votes for each State? How is it all equal?

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

[mecrox]

The speaker and those applauding will change their minds when Trump reacts to this insult and reverses his offer to make a trade deal with GB after they leave the EU.

I read a persuasive post which suggested that the way to deal with this is to stop making any mention of the T word. The T word is a non-word. Instead, use the words Republican or Republicans. As a long-standing political party the Republicans are going to have the whole nine yards pinned to them anyway so it is in their interest to start owning the situation instead of trying to hide in the back of the room. This would bring some welcome balance to the conduct of affairs and reduce the crazed focus on the T word as if this is all about one man acting alone. It isn't or at least it shouldn't be unless one fancies a dictatorship which I am sure no one does. There is a Legislature and a Judiciary, not just an Executive. That is the whole point of the system.

I suspect the same thing may happen here in the UK if or more likely when withdrawal from the EU starts to go wrong. The panic button will get pressed as soon as enough politicians realize it is not the famous names who are going to take the rap but "the Tories" in general, as a party at the polls.

[Farmer]

Phil how does that work? Does the Upper house have equal votes for each State? How is it all equal?

As Manoli linked, you can read about our Electoral system, but to answer the question directly each state (we have 6 - they're just physically very large compared to your states) has 12 Senators, and the two territories have 2 Senators each.  So each state has the same representation in the Senate and they serve fixed, 6 year terms with half of them being elected every 3 years (the normal period of the lower house).  There is an exception to that in that the constitution provides for what is known as a double dissolution, but that's not particularly relevant to this discussion.

Senators for each state are elected under a preferential voting system (as is the lower house).

In response to your point of why the states would change?  That's not the point - the point is discussing a better and fairer way and acknowledging that the current EC isn't helping your country.

Oh, and why would CA give that up?  Because based on the popular vote, the Dem candidate might have got up - it depends on exactly how you do it.  Fortunately, someone has already crunched the numbers for us to see:

http://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/13319/who-would-have-won-the-presidency-if-all-states-electors-were-allocated-proport

I'll repost the results here:

Quote:

I calculated the vote allocation using the Webster/Sainte-Laguë method (based on results as of November 9, 2016) applied to each individual state:
•Clinton 263
•Trump 262
•Johnson 10
•Stein 2
•McMullin 1

In the spirit of the Electoral College giving less populous states a boost in the vote, I altered the formula to award 2 votes per state to the winner of the popular vote, and the remainder allocated via Webster/Sainte-Laguë:
•Trump 269
•Clinton 259
•Johnson 7
•Stein 2
•McMullin 1

For comparison, here I applied Webster/Sainte-Laguë to the entire United States population without splitting them based on state:
•Clinton 256
•Trump 255
•Johnson 17
•Stein 1
•McMullin 1
•Other 8 (these were not separated in the data source)

***

It makes for an interesting exercise.  Trump may still have won in such a scenario, but of course in such a scenario, campaigning would be different so this is really just illustrative of the outcome compared to the "winner takes all" approach as it stands (which was 306 to 232).  It suggests that such a change would provide a more representative result based on the overall vote, providing a result closer to "one person one vote", which is an established principle of fairness in democracy.  Again, though, campaigning would have been different under such models.

The real benefit is that all states are in play for both sides (or perhaps even an independent here or there).

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

The speaker and those applauding will change their minds when Trump reacts to this insult and reverses his offer to make a trade deal with GB after they leave the EU.

What is any verbal offer worth, especially from DJT? He's mostly shooting from the lip, just to be unpredictable (at best), or indifferent about the consequences for others (more likely).

His advances to Russia (e.g. suggestions to lift the sanctions against Russia for invading Crimea) have most likely already caused people getting killed at the Ukrainian border when Putin was testing the reactions from the Trump administration. It may also have to do with that DJT chose to no longer get daily briefings from the security organizations.

This is not a game of who is right or who is wrong, this is really serious (geo-political) stuff. Not something a sane person would leave up to someone in charge with the mental issues that professionals in the field of psychology ascribe to him, based on the symptoms he is showing.

Cheers,
Bart