darth_ender

Oh, good! You’re here! I was so worried.

captainsolo said:

That said I did recently play Lego Indy and that got me excited again so I think I’m going to dive into more of the novels. I’ve read the novelizations and a book or two which were far better in tone and story than the films had gotten.

I liked Fate of Atlantis but the age and style of the game make it cumbersome these days. The later games are all pretty damn bad and have lackluster stories. Infernal Machine was infernally frustrating on the n64 (that. damn. jeep.) , and Emperor’s Tomb was almost as bad. Staff of Kings is really not worth it, but if it ever comes across the cheap bins I may give it a go. Uncharted is okay, but it doesn’t fill that fedora sized hole in gaming. Why they can’t just give in and let someone really make an amazing game? Why not go nuts and have Rockstar or Rocksteady do it?

Captainsolo, captainsolo! Sir, might I suggest that you…

…It can wait.

No! It can’t! I have to share! Apparently, some guy wrote a fan fiction novelization of The Fate of Atlantis, and readers find it more enjoyable than many of the official novels. I’ve downloaded it but have not yet read it. You might like it. See this thread for details.

http://raven.theraider.net/showthread.php?t=20938

Warbler said:

darth_ender said:

Warbler said:

darth_ender said:

Warbler said:

*sigh* Why‽ Why do want to take are ability to vote for are US Senators away from us?

Do you elect all your judges? You may elect local judges, but many places do not, and you certainly don’t elect Federal judges. Do you elect the president’s Cabinet? Do you elect the parliamentarian? Do you elect who becomes Speaker of the House? Do you choose the president’s running mate when you nominate your party’s presidential candidate?

Senators are different than judges, parliamentarians, and the Speaker of the House.

And?

My point is that there is nothing inherent in any particular office that requires that senators be voted in directly.

I totally disagree. The US Senate represent one half of the legislative branch of our federal government. Heck if you can’t see why they should be elected, why should the House of Representative? Why should the President? Why have any elected office?

That is not the point of my argument. I am arguing for repeal of the 17th Amendment. They would still be elected, and even elected by the people…just indirectly. But your argument of going to the opposite extreme does not strengthen your argument of why they should be directly elected.

But in answer to your question, it’s another separation of power.

Let me give you an example of how we are governed by unelected bodies: Have you ever heard of Accutane? It is a prescription medication for acne. If you have acne problems and went to your doctor for a prescription, he would say, “Sorry, I can’t do that. It’s been pulled from the market by the FDA.” Yes, the Food and Drug Administration, an unelected federal agency determined that selling Accutane is now illegal. What gives this body power to do this? Well, Congress simply cannot create every single law and oversee every single aspect of regulating American life. Therefore, they have created agencies that help oversee these kinds of things…agencies filled with unelected members. Congress makes a broad law stating, “Drug companies can’t sell bad drugs, and we’re creating to FDA to see to it that it happens.” Then the FDA follows through.

In the medical field, we are governed very heavily by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), which in turn is overseen by the Department of Health and Human Services, who is headed by the (unelected) Cabinet-level Secretary of Health and Human Services. But it is CMS that makes the specifics of what we in the medical field can and can’t do. While overseen by the government, the laws they make do not get approved by the legislature or the president’s Cabinet. They make the laws largely independently of the actual elected representatives. In a sense, we indirectly elect this body to govern our medical care.

Why don’t you get upset that the other offices are not voted in, or not voted in directly (such as the Speaker)?

Why don’t we have the individual county governments in your state elect people to your state senate?

Or why not individual cities? Or individual households? Yes, it would not be cumbersome at all. The United Households of America has a nice ring to it 😉 In all seriousness, we are divided into states for a reason, and those states were supposed to maintain sovereignty as often as possible, even above the federal level. This has been undermined over the years, but I believe it is still an essential part of our nation that we should get back to. A county level sovereignty was never intended, nor is it practical.

There are so many roles we do not elect? It’s not like it undermines democracy. Repealing the 17th Amendment is one of the ways I favor the democratic republic government.

I don’t get how.

Because we are represented in a different manner. Our federal judges also represent us, though they represent the collective morality of the nation. Yet, they are not elected. Rather, they are nominated and approved by bodies that have been elected. In a sense, we elect them as well…indirectly.

Consider this: a senator is elected for six years, while a congressperson is elected for only two; senators are always two per state, while congresspeople reflect the general population. These traits were part of the Great Compromise of 1787 to ensure that small states were not overpowered by large states. But wait a second! Now that the people elect these individuals directly, these traits do not match the power granted a senator.

How does how the Senators are elected alter the traits or anything about the Great Compromise?

Because of the intent behind that compromise. It was intended that they represent the states on equal ground.

They still are, whether the people elect the members or the state government does.

Then why the need for equal representation?

Representing the people of those states is not the same thing because the difference in size/population has little meaning when representing the people directly.

They still represent the state.

Now a senator is nearly impossible to remove from office until he/she drops dead or decides to throw in the towel.

Senators can be defeated in elections. We can make it easier to remove US Senators from office if we need to without taking away the peoples’ right to vote.

I’m listening.

For what? I have to explain you how we can make it easier to remove US Senators???

I was open to ideas!!!

More frequent elections allow for congresspeople to be replaced more readily.

fine, change the term limits for Senators. But still have them elected by the people.

You mean the term lengths, though I would not squawk at term limits either. They are overdue!

Yes, I meant term lengths.

Also, if the population itself, instead of the state government, directly elect senators, then what is the point of having two per state?

The founders decided that we needed one legislative body where all the states were represented equally.

Listen, if representing a state government, then two senators representing that government represents equal footing. But if they are representing the state population, what difference does it make? Why should the people of North Dakota have the same amount of influence as the people of New York in federal decisions? Do you think the people care?

I don’t get your point here. The founds wanted each state represented equally in the Senate. That is done whether the people in the state elect them or whether they are elected by the state government.

Why is it necessary when it makes little difference in the states’ interest? Do you care about the details of Pennsylvania’s budget? Are you aware of any law enforcement problems? Do you know about the opiate crisis as it relates to your state? Is it possible that your state legislators might know this info better?

And yet, while I am suggesting that we return this power to the state legislators, I am in no way suggesting that we take power from the people in terms of the House. The House is still required in order to pass a bill. The Senate cannot do it alone. The people still have their voice.

The point of the Great Compromise is rooted in the nature of the American federation. E Pluribus Unum - Of many, one. The purpose was to guarantee that the rights of the states’ governments were given equal treatment. At the time, loyalty to your state was greater than loyalty to the country. States wanted an equal standing at the federal negotiating table
Since the Civil War, we have gotten away from that trend, and we likewise have abandoned the purpose of the indirect election. Now, I see little reason to fret that my state sends as many senators to Congress as California. I don’t really care that my state gets equal representation in that house.

The fact that loyalty to your state has changed since the civil war is another reason to drop the idea of state legislators picking the US Senators.

I am suggesting that we should give the states more power. Decentralization of power was a major part of the Constitution. The more we give to the feds, the less they will take interest in local issues and be more concerned with things nationwide. Even worse, the more power we give to the feds, the better position to seize more power and have no one to stop them. Having 50 states keeping each other in check is more desirable than an all powerful federal government with no oversight.

We are not safeguarding the small states when we are granting the general population proportionally larger power than the large states. We are simply divvying out the power of everyone’s vote unfairly.

I am not understanding you here. Whether elected by the people or by state legislatures, the US Senate would still represents each state equally as the founders intended.

See above.

I still don’t understand.

Pennsylvania has 18 Congressmen representing the people. This is good because it makes sure that Nebraska, with a much smaller population, only has 3 Congresspeople who can argue for the needs of the state on the federal stage. The needs of the country as a whole outweigh Nebraska. Yet, they both have 2 senators each. How are the senators representing the states themselves? The way I see it, the state government understands the specific needs of the states and advocates for state policy on a federal level. The individual voters are mostly interested in how the Senate will dictate federal policy. It devalues the states’ needs, I feel, because the people are generally more aware of federal issues than state issues, even in their own state.

Now, look at the positives of having the state legislature make the call.

Yeah, US Senators win their seats by lining the pockets and kissing the a** of the members of the state legislatures and making corrupt deals. No thanks.

That is called a political bribe and it is illegal.

And of course our great members of the state legislators would never stoop to do something under the table. perish the thought. Do you honestly expect me to believe that the US Senate elections in the state legislators would never ever be corrupt? It would never be about who is doing the most favors for members of the state legislators. It would never be about getting the friends of the members of the state legislators comfy jobs in Washington? Come on!

And of course a directly elected senator would never take a bribe either.

Or perhaps other indirectly or unelected officials are always taking bribes to behave in a certain way. I’ll bet that’s why the FDA pulled Accutane.

Yes, I know they’re all crooked, but I don’t see them being any less crooked when they can just be bribed by someone else.

What is not illegal, however, is lobbyists, wealthy donors, and corporations kissing the a** of directly elected senators to ensure they vote the way those influential supports desire. Might it not be nice to ensure that those interfering parties actually don’t get much say in the senators’ decision-making?

They still will even with the Senators being elected by the state legislators. Heck you could make the same argument for having the state governments pick members of the House of Representatives.

See above.

First, most people are set in their ways. Elections are decided almost entirely on the whims of the relatively few whose minds are not made up. The rest is left up to the enthusiasm of those committed to their worldview, whether they will get out and vote. But the end result on a large scale is what is called “the tyranny of the majority.”

Sorry, not following you here. Elections are decided by the voters, all of the voters.

Look at the referendum on the U.K.'s withdrawal from the EU. If you think about it, most people probably did not have their minds changed from the beginning to the end of the process.

So?

But a relatively few did, and thus determined what, in my mind, was an economic catastrophe for Europe.

No, the few that changed their minds plus those that already had their minds made up, determined things.

What you fail to see is that large bodies of people who simply live out their lives act in a more fickle manner than a small body that deliberates over an issue. I was explaining why: because of the fairweathered decision-making of a relative few.

Nonetheless, it is still the people deciding things. I think that is what America is about.

Yes, but the people can also choose wrong. That’s why power is divided. That’s why we have a democratic republic instead of a direct democracy. That’s why all these different bodies of power keep each other in check.

What is interesting about deliberative bodies instead of direct democracy is that policy change does not depend on the whims of a relative few.

Again direct democracy does not depend on the whims of a few, but the whims of all that vote. I don’t get why you think the people don’t matter just because they already have their minds made up. This confuses me.

People debate and make decisions they believe will be in the lasting interest of the people.

real honest debates in Federal and state deliberative bodies are far and few between. Most of the “debates” grandstanding and for show. They come in with their minds made up long before “debate” begins.

Regardless of your cynicism about the reality of those debates, the fact of the matter is that a smaller body will make fewer decisions that change with the wind. The Senate can stop the hasty actions of the House, if needed.

The Senate can’t do that now?

I’m talking about those who choose the senators not making a rash decision in whom they select, as opposed to a directly elected senator swept in by the Occupy Wallstreet movement or the Tea Party movement.

Are you aware of the two bodies of the Parliament of the United Kingdom? One is a directly elected body. This is the lower house, the House of Commons. Policy is primarily determined there.

The upper house, the House of Lords, is completely unelected. Though it has changed drastically over the years, it’s role is different than the HoC, particularly in that it cannot indefinitely stop a bill from passing, but it can delay it and cause the HoC to rethink its approach. Its role, like the Senate, is to result in more deliberation. And the U.K. seems to work pretty well.

I think there are many that would want to do away with the House of Lords or have them elected. I know I would be totally against this unelected legislative body. The way the UK does it smacks of elitism. Definitely not for America.

It does, but my point is that it does serve a valuable role in its current function.

Those decision are not sudden, but rather systematic and slow. Indirect elections can actually put a brake on kneejerk reactions. Take a look at this article where “the majority” of Britons actually oppose Brexit now.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/british-people-changed-minds-brexit-second-referendum-poll-finds-a7795591.html

53% to 47%, people now oppose it. Yet, that really represents the minds changing of only a relative few.

The point you are missing is that the few minds changed on matter because the numbers on both sides as a whole are very very close. This isn’t a few people deciding this, this is the whole of the country. If 90% had either voted to stay or voted to go, the minds of a few wouldn’t affect the decision at all.

The few had such an effect because the country was already just about split down the middle on the issue, and still are.

See above.

My point still holds true.

Your point still misses my point, which is that the “voice of the people” really only represents the whims of a relative few. I say this because there is a greater steadiness in the smaller body than the people as a whole, and that steadiness can temper the ever changing general populace. On the other hand, the vote of the general population in electing members of the House of Representatives would balance the inflexibility in the election of senators, one would hope.

If we were to allow our state legislatures to have more of a role in the electing federal officers (i.e. senators), think of the positives. First, Americans would pay more attention to their local elections, making sure they put state legislators in place with whom they agree, and not simply voting for the president of their choice, and then marking all the members of the same party on the rest of the ticket.

Nothing is stopping the people from paying due respect to the local elections already. They are important enough already without the US Senate seats in the balance.

It’s not about respect. It’s about attention.

That is what I meant by respect, giving the elections due attention.

And I’m talking about how laws influence the way people behave. People naturally ignore local elections in greater amounts and turn out for national elections, most heavily for the presidential election.

That is their own fault. The people are free give the local elections all the attention they require. If they don’t, shame on the people.

It is also people’s own fault that they smoke, elect white supremacist politicians, perpetuated slavery, and so forth. Changes in policy affect people’s behavior. If our elected officials are wise, they would change policy to change people’s behavior for the better (see anti-smoking legislation, for example).

That’s just human behavior, knowing which election might make the biggest difference in their lives.

It is also stupid. I wish people wouldn’t do it. I always consider carefully every decision on the ballot.

You are literally the exception.

Second, it would allow for the legislators, who are more keenly aware of the states’ fiscal and policy needs than the average state resident, to elect a senator to represent the state government’s needs.

And I am sure state legislators would never ever put their own self interests or that of their party ahead of what was best for the state.

Why this bitter outlook towards state legislatures?

Its called politics.

Even in our current system, politics and politicians are equally dishonest in nature.

Do you trust your directly elected senators to be more upstanding?

No, I don’t trust any politician.

In reality, your life should be shaped more by your state laws and lawmakers. That’s the way it was intended, and even with the erosion of state sovereignty, the state government still plays a heavier role than the federal government in your life. In the most ideal setting, I feel the state legislatures should be able to have a greater impact on federal policy.

Well that has changed more and more since the Civil War.

That is not a desirable change. See above.

Remember, the state legislators are still directly elected. Now, they’ll actually be better able to perform their jobs because the federal senators would be answerable to them.

I’d rather the US Senators be answerable to the people than bureaucrats in the state legislators

The House of Representatives already does that.

I want both house to be answerable to the people.

Both would be. One would just have an intermediary body.

There was a reason for the separate bodies, a reason which has been lost with Amendment #17.

nope.

Agh! Defeated in mortal combat! 😉 I don’t know why you feel the need to respond to every sentence. Just respond when it actually contributes, silly Warb 😃

And third, speaking of being answerable to them, if the senators get out of line, the state legislator could more easily remove them than we as a general population can.

Again we can make it easier to remove US Senators when necessary without taking away the peoples’ right to vote.

Fourth, those brakes I was talking about…senators would be less likely to make snap decisions based on the passing popularity of an item and would be more likely to represent the needs of the deliberative body on the state level.

But does that deliberative body always represent the will of the people of the state? I don’t think so.

Warbler, that’s my point. The tyranny of the majority is a real thing.

better the tyranny of the majority of the people, than the tyranny of the party in control of the state legislature.

I don’t remember surrendering all direct election power. Just that of the election of the federal senators. You would still directly elect the vast majority of your representatives, from the local level to the president.

Sometimes, it’s better not to represent the will of the majority, particularly on a hot issue.

That is why we have deliberative bodies rather than direct democracy.

Like the state legislature?

Sometimes, it’s better to actually have people slow down and talk about things. Heck, the majority voted for Bush in 2004, though in the end, most people didn’t like him. Why don’t we throw out our representatives the moment theye stop representing the will of the people? Because those representatives have the opportunity to take part in a deliberative process and not act on impulse, like the general public have

The deliberative process is still there whether the US Senators are elected by the people or by the state governments.

But not for the purpose I am advocating.

(again, I cite the example that it only takes a relatively few impulsive changes of mind to change the actual majority).

again, that is only true when the people are split down the middle on an issue.

And that’s actually pretty often. Even a 60-40 split only requires 10.000000001% to change their mind. That’s a relatively small portion of the given population.

It may seem counterintuitive, but I believe repealing the 17 Amendment would actually improve the legislative process on the state and federal levels.

I couldn’t disagree with you more.

You’ve also forgotten about the problem of gerrymandering. It is possible due to gerrymandering(and it can even happen with out it), that the party in control of a state legislator is not the party favored by the people of the state. I think this is true in Pennsylvania right now. The Republicans are in control of the state legislator, but I think the majority of the people are Democrats. If we did things your way, the state would have Republican US Senators, even though the people would want Democrat US Senators.

Um…Senator Toomey is a Republican, directly elected by the people, Warb.

Way to totally ignore my point. gerrymandering is a thing, it exists and you know it. You also know it can be used undermine the will of the people and keep the minority party in control of a state legislature.

I’m not ignoring your point, but I don’t understand your hostility in this reply. I don’t feel I’ve been rude, so I don’t know why you’re getting worked up. Maybe I didn’t understand your point. Nevertheless, I don’t see how gerrymandering would play a role in this issue. See my reply to Catbus.

But again, that is the point. If the majority elected a Republican majority legislature, then they shouldn’t be surprised when that legislature elects a Republican senator.

With gerrymandering it is possible that the majority vote Democratic and still the Republicans end up in control of the state legislature.

Let us create a pretend state. It has 15 people in it. It has 8 Democrats and 7 Republicans. They are split up into 5 districts. They vote to elect members of the state legislature. Here are the results (D for voting democrat, D for voting republican

District 1: D,D,D

District 2: D,D,D

District 3: R,R,D

District 4: R,R,D

District 5: R,R,R

The result: 2 democrats and 3 republicans are elected to the state legislature. They in turn elect two Republicans to the US Senate, even though the majority of the state would want two Democrats to be the US Senators.

See the problem?

I wish I had more time. Now that I am researching a bit more, I can see the problem of gerrymandering being more of an issue than I’d identified, even with my previous statement in this very reply. But, as you suggested that we can alter the law to more easily remove senators, could we not also alter the law to minimize gerrymandering? If we were able to do so, would that be more of a compromise for you?

Speaking of the supposed ill of having representatives not always represent the will of the people, remember that sometimes, the majority may lean enough one way to put a representative in place that the people would not normally elect. Nevertheless, those representatives must represent according to what they were elected to do, even if it differs from the will of the people.

Lyman Hall said:

Mr. Secretary — Georgia seems to be split right down the middle on this issue [of American independence]. The people are against it—and I’m for it. But I’m afraid I’m not yet certain whether representing the people means relying on their judgment or on my own. So in all fairness, until I can figure it out, I’d better lean a little toward their side.

Lyman Hall later said:

In trying to resolve my dilemma I remembered something I’d once read, ‘that a representative owes the People not only his industry, but his judgment, and he betrays them if he sacrifices it to their opinion.’ It was written by Edmund Burke, a member of the British Parliament.

You quote 1776, well played.

I thought so 😉

It’s okay to have reps that only represent a freeze frame of the electorate in place at the time of his/her election. It’s inevitable and allows for slow, steady change.

You may have a point here, but still to me it seems un-American to take my vote from me.

Just one more thought on the matter, and then I probably will have to leave it alone till tomorrow: if an amendment was made that allowed you to elect the Supreme Court justices, and then you realized that the outcome resulted in judges being too influenced by politics rather than what they feel is proper interpretation of the Constitution, would you be in favor of repealing that amendment? It would be taking away your vote…but it might be for the better function of our political system.

If I were able to persuade you that repealing the 17th Amendment would result in a better functioning system, wouldn’t you then be willing to give up your vote in this case? It may go contrary to the immediate thought of, “Hey, more votes means more power to the people! Woohoo!” But so would taking away voting for the SCOTUS. So, putting aside the emotional appeal, would you be willing to change your mind based entirely on logical appeal?

CatBus said:

darth_ender said:

I am in favor, however, of repealing the 17th Amendment.

After reading your arguments, I think there’s another fundamental philosophical chasm at some more basic level. Generally speaking, I don’t trust people with power to do the right thing. Senators, Presidents, whoever. Elections, while imperfect, are a means of keeping those in power from straying too far. Not the only means, but a critical one – and the one that must be used to some degree to qualify the nation as a democracy. I’m also a big fan of the separation of powers – if you have to give a bunch of people power, use the power of petty infighting to help keep them in check.

In my mind, the election of senators from state legislators is, in fact, a separation of powers.

Due to some already-long-discussed issues (gerrymandering, the EC, etc), it’s become clear over the years that it’s possible for a minority of voters to retain control of the House and the Presidency indefinitely – the only question is how far a political party would go to implement this sort of minority rule. A system where the votes still happen, but one side is guaranteed to win regardless of the outcome. The Senate, for all its other faults such as its baked-in bias in favor of smaller-population states, cannot be gamed to the same degree as the House and the Presidency. Statewide elections cannot be gerrymandered. I feel it’s only because of this we haven’t seen people take full advantage of the politically-unpopular legal loopholes that could win them the House and Presidency regardless of the vote totals (because the whole concept of “politically unpopular” becomes irrelevant once you no longer rely on vote totals for your wins). There are worse things than gerrymandering floating around in the dark corners of the political world.

This is an interesting point that I’ll grant makes the direct election of senators more worthwhile, but only in contrast to the direct election of the House, not in contrast to election by the state legislature. I fail to see how gerrymandering is applicable to the indirect election of senators. They are elected by the entire state legislature, not by any boundaries within, and those legislatures are not defined by regional boundaries within a state either, so they cannot be gerrymandered.

Thus, I don’t see the Senate as a less-democratic chamber that moderates the democratic excesses of the House at all. To the contrary, I see it as the nation’s only backstop (albeit a rather weak one given its baked-in bias and limited authority) against any plan for permanent minority rule in the US a la South Africa, which, given recent events, seems to clearly be the plan of far too many. Repealing the 17th would remove that backstop, and nothing else in the Constitution would prevent the sort of minority rule that is technically easily doable within the constraints of the rest of the Constitution – the literal end of American democracy – but for the conscience of politicians, in which I don’t place a great deal of trust.

Again, I don’t see how gerrymandering applies in this instance. If it did, I would see the strength of your argument. However, the senators would still depend on the election of their state’s legislators, who in turn would still be answerable to the people of the entire state. Therefore, I don’t see a way that a party in power could twist the laws to maintain minority rule. If I am wrong in my information, please correct me.

thejediknighthusezni said:

Moral Narcissism

The leadership of the Left are intensely depraved outright psychopaths. It’s extremely alarming to see regular Americans excuse their catastrophic destruction with “Well, they think they are creating a better world.” No, they are almost entirely beyond that. These are highly educated and motivated and shrewd horrible little monsters. They know that their Critical Theory and Cultural Marxism and insane statism is nothing but a recipe for agonizing totalitarianism. Orwell tried to break through this moronic gullibility when he wrote of O’Brien savagely torturing Winston for trying to believe the Party leaders had higher motivations.

But these vomitous sadistic nihilistic beasts would be instantly and furiously rejected by all were it not for their tools and dupes. This is where Moral Narcissism enters the frame.

The tools and dupes are also psychopaths or have strong psychopathic tendencies. They also feel strong drives to pillage and dominate and destroy all who dare to question their mad program. But for many of them, the cruel demented power of devastation is not enough. They have a deranged need to feel they are the most wonderful beings on the planet for their efforts. They need to feel they are right WHILE KNOWING, UNDERNEATH IT ALL, THAT THEY ARE HORRIFYINGLY AND COMPLETELY WRONG.

UNDERNEATH IT ALL, PEOPLE KNOW. Underneath all the BS people will tell others, and try to as much as half-convince themselves, everyone with at least three functioning brain cells knows the real score and is able to quickly become conscious of right and wrong, helpful and hurtful.

The Moral Narcissist NEEDS and DESPERATELY YEARNS to be CRUELLY and CATASTROPHICALLY WRONG. This is absolutely necessary to their severe mental derangement. Here’s why:

The MorNars require that all should bow to their gloriousness and dedication to their utopian vision, and any who dare to refuse acknowledgement or show the slightest opposition are evil animals who stand in the way and must be despised and watch their children destroyed. They feel a need to believe this makes them good beyond all, but here’s the catch. Nature and nature’s Creator have already established the one optimum Way in which human beings must live and conduct themselves. This Path of True Law is immutable and transcendent and was woven into all existence from the moment of creation. This fact utterly destroys everything that a Moral Narcissist IS and reveals them for the moronic destroyers that they are. If it has already been established by Powers infinitely beyond them, it means that they are pathetic little bits of absolutely ridiculous stupidity. The MorNars understand this much subconsciously and can react in only one way. They hiss and spit, their eyes roll in their sockets, and they are filled with a cruel contempt for any who would choose the Way before what the Moral Narcissist has defiantly declared PC.

See, Silverwook? All is well!

Warbler said:

darth_ender said:

Warbler said:

*sigh* Why‽ Why do want to take are ability to vote for are US Senators away from us?

Do you elect all your judges? You may elect local judges, but many places do not, and you certainly don’t elect Federal judges. Do you elect the president’s Cabinet? Do you elect the parliamentarian? Do you elect who becomes Speaker of the House? Do you choose the president’s running mate when you nominate your party’s presidential candidate?

Senators are different than judges, parliamentarians, and the Speaker of the House.

And?

My point is that there is nothing inherent in any particular office that requires that senators be voted in directly. Why don’t you get upset that the other offices are not voted in, or not voted in directly (such as the Speaker)?

There are so many roles we do not elect? It’s not like it undermines democracy. Repealing the 17th Amendment is one of the ways I favor the democratic republic government.

I don’t get how.

Consider this: a senator is elected for six years, while a congressperson is elected for only two; senators are always two per state, while congresspeople reflect the general population. These traits were part of the Great Compromise of 1787 to ensure that small states were not overpowered by large states. But wait a second! Now that the people elect these individuals directly, these traits do not match the power granted a senator.

How does how the Senators are elected alter the traits or anything about the Great Compromise?

Because of the intent behind that compromise. It was intended that they represent the states on equal ground. Representing the people of those states is not the same thing because the difference in size/population has little meaning when representing the people directly.

Now a senator is nearly impossible to remove from office until he/she drops dead or decides to throw in the towel.

Senators can be defeated in elections. We can make it easier to remove US Senators from office if we need to without taking away the peoples’ right to vote.

I’m listening.

More frequent elections allow for congresspeople to be replaced more readily.

fine, change the term limits for Senators. But still have them elected by the people.

You mean the term lengths, though I would not squawk at term limits either. They are overdue!

Also, if the population itself, instead of the state government, directly elect senators, then what is the point of having two per state?

The founders decided that we needed one legislative body where all the states were represented equally.

Listen, if representing a state government, then two senators representing that government represents equal footing. But if they are representing the state population, what difference does it make? Why should the people of North Dakota have the same amount of influence as the people of New York in federal decisions? Do you think the people care?

The point of the Great Compromise is rooted in the nature of the American federation. E Pluribus Unum - Of many, one. The purpose was to guarantee that the rights of the states’ governments were given equal treatment. At the time, loyalty to your state was greater than loyalty to the country. States wanted an equal standing at the federal negotiating table
Since the Civil War, we have gotten away from that trend, and we likewise have abandoned the purpose of the indirect election. Now, I see little reason to fret that my state sends as many senators to Congress as California. I don’t really care that my state gets equal representation in that house.

We are not safeguarding the small states when we are granting the general population proportionally larger power than the large states. We are simply divvying out the power of everyone’s vote unfairly.

I am not understanding you here. Whether elected by the people or by state legislatures, the US Senate would still represents each state equally as the founders intended.

See above.

Now, look at the positives of having the state legislature make the call.

Yeah, US Senators win their seats by lining the pockets and kissing the a** of the members of the state legislatures and making corrupt deals. No thanks.

That is called a political bribe and it is illegal. What is not illegal, however, is lobbyists, wealthy donors, and corporations kissing the a** of directly elected senators to ensure they vote the way those influential supports desire. Might it not be nice to ensure that those interfering parties actually don’t get much say in the senators’ decision-making?

First, most people are set in their ways. Elections are decided almost entirely on the whims of the relatively few whose minds are not made up. The rest is left up to the enthusiasm of those committed to their worldview, whether they will get out and vote. But the end result on a large scale is what is called “the tyranny of the majority.”

Sorry, not following you here. Elections are decided by the voters, all of the voters.

Look at the referendum on the U.K.'s withdrawal from the EU. If you think about it, most people probably did not have their minds changed from the beginning to the end of the process.

So?

But a relatively few did, and thus determined what, in my mind, was an economic catastrophe for Europe.

No, the few that changed their minds plus those that already had their minds made up, determined things.

What you fail to see is that large bodies of people who simply live out their lives act in a more fickle manner than a small body that deliberates over an issue. I was explaining why: because of the fairweathered decision-making of a relative few.

What is interesting about deliberative bodies instead of direct democracy is that policy change does not depend on the whims of a relative few.

Again direct democracy does not depend on the whims of a few, but the whims of all that vote. I don’t get why you think the people don’t matter just because they already have their minds made up. This confuses me.

People debate and make decisions they believe will be in the lasting interest of the people.

real honest debates in Federal and state deliberative bodies are far and few between. Most of the “debates” grandstanding and for show. They come in with their minds made up long before “debate” begins.

Regardless of your cynicism about the reality of those debates, the fact of the matter is that a smaller body will make fewer decisions that change with the wind. The Senate can stop the hasty actions of the House, if needed.

Are you aware of the two bodies of the Parliament of the United Kingdom? One is a directly elected body. This is the lower house, the House of Commons. Policy is primarily determined there.

The upper house, the House of Lords, is completely unelected. Though it has changed drastically over the years, it’s role is different than the HoC, particularly in that it cannot indefinitely stop a bill from passing, but it can delay it and cause the HoC to rethink its approach. Its role, like the Senate, is to result in more deliberation. And the U.K. seems to work pretty well.

Those decision are not sudden, but rather systematic and slow. Indirect elections can actually put a brake on kneejerk reactions. Take a look at this article where “the majority” of Britons actually oppose Brexit now.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/british-people-changed-minds-brexit-second-referendum-poll-finds-a7795591.html

53% to 47%, people now oppose it. Yet, that really represents the minds changing of only a relative few.

The point you are missing is that the few minds changed on matter because the numbers on both sides as a whole are very very close. This isn’t a few people deciding this, this is the whole of the country. If 90% had either voted to stay or voted to go, the minds of a few wouldn’t affect the decision at all.

The few had such an effect because the country was already just about split down the middle on the issue, and still are.

See above.

If we were to allow our state legislatures to have more of a role in the electing federal officers (i.e. senators), think of the positives. First, Americans would pay more attention to their local elections, making sure they put state legislators in place with whom they agree, and not simply voting for the president of their choice, and then marking all the members of the same party on the rest of the ticket.

Nothing is stopping the people from paying due respect to the local elections already. They are important enough already without the US Senate seats in the balance.

It’s not about respect. It’s about attention. And I’m talking about how laws influence the way people behave. People naturally ignore local elections in greater amounts and turn out for national elections, most heavily for the presidential election. That’s just human behavior, knowing which election might make the biggest difference in their lives.

Second, it would allow for the legislators, who are more keenly aware of the states’ fiscal and policy needs than the average state resident, to elect a senator to represent the state government’s needs.

And I am sure state legislators would never ever put their own self interests or that of their party ahead of what was best for the state.

Why this bitter outlook towards state legislatures? Do you trust your directly elected senators to be more upstanding? In reality, your life should be shaped more by your state laws and lawmakers. That’s the way it was intended, and even with the erosion of state sovereignty, the state government still plays a heavier role than the federal government in your life. In the most ideal setting, I feel the state legislatures should be able to have a greater impact on federal policy.

Remember, the state legislators are still directly elected. Now, they’ll actually be better able to perform their jobs because the federal senators would be answerable to them.

I’d rather the US Senators be answerable to the people than bureaucrats in the state legislators

The House of Representatives already does that. There was a reason for the separate bodies, a reason which has been lost with Amendment #17.

And third, speaking of being answerable to them, if the senators get out of line, the state legislator could more easily remove them than we as a general population can.

Again we can make it easier to remove US Senators when necessary without taking away the peoples’ right to vote.

Fourth, those brakes I was talking about…senators would be less likely to make snap decisions based on the passing popularity of an item and would be more likely to represent the needs of the deliberative body on the state level.

But does that deliberative body always represent the will of the people of the state? I don’t think so.

Warbler, that’s my point. The tyranny of the majority is a real thing. Sometimes, it’s better not to represent the will of the majority, particularly on a hot issue. Sometimes, it’s better to actually have people slow down and talk about things. Heck, the majority voted for Bush in 2004, though in the end, most people didn’t like him. Why don’t we throw out our representatives the moment theye stop representing the will of the people? Because those representatives have the opportunity to take part in a deliberative process and not act on impulse, like the general public have (again, I cite the example that it only takes a relatively few impulsive changes of mind to change the actual majority).

It may seem counterintuitive, but I believe repealing the 17 Amendment would actually improve the legislative process on the state and federal levels.

I couldn’t disagree with you more.

You’ve also forgotten about the problem of gerrymandering. It is possible due to gerrymandering(and it can even happen with out it), that the party in control of a state legislator is not the party favored by the people of the state. I think this is true in Pennsylvania right now. The Republicans are in control of the state legislator, but I think the majority of the people are Democrats. If we did things your way, the state would have Republican US Senators, even though the people would want Democrat US Senators.

Um…Senator Toomey is a Republican, directly elected by the people, Warb.

But again, that is the point. If the majority elected a Republican majority legislature, then they shouldn’t be surprised when that legislature elects a Republican senator. It would have likely turned out with a similar result if your state legislators voted for the senator. I’m betting Toomey was put in place at the same time as a number of Republican state legislators, as 2010 was a very successful midterm election season for the Republicans.

Speaking of the supposed ill of having representatives not always represent the will of the people, remember that sometimes, the majority may lean enough one way to put a representative in place that the people would not normally elect. Nevertheless, those representatives must represent according to what they were elected to do, even if it differs from the will of the people.

Lyman Hall said:

Mr. Secretary — Georgia seems to be split right down the middle on this issue [of American independence]. The people are against it—and I’m for it. But I’m afraid I’m not yet certain whether representing the people means relying on their judgment or on my own. So in all fairness, until I can figure it out, I’d better lean a little toward their side.

Lyman Hall later said:

In trying to resolve my dilemma I remembered something I’d once read, ‘that a representative owes the People not only his industry, but his judgment, and he betrays them if he sacrifices it to their opinion.’ It was written by Edmund Burke, a member of the British Parliament.

It’s okay to have reps that only represent a freeze frame of the electorate in place at the time of his/her election. It’s inevitable and allows for slow, steady change.

I’ll never be happy till you give me a haircut while watching The Next Generation and you’ve had a few beers in you. I’d love to see how that haircut turns out 😉

Really? I could’ve sworn when you said this in the Star Trek thread six hours ago…

ray_afraid said:

chyron8472 said:

So what you’re saying is you haven’t watched Trek since The Next Generation?

I haven’t sen much of TNG and I’ve hated what I’ve seen.
I’ve seen TOS and the first two movies. I like all of that.
I’ve seen lot’s of TNG and the first two reboots and did not like that.

…that you already was. 😉

Warbler said:

*sigh* Why‽ Why do want to take are ability to vote for are US Senators away from us?

Do you elect all your judges? You may elect local judges, but many places do not, and you certainly don’t elect Federal judges. Do you elect the president’s Cabinet? Do you elect the parliamentarian? Do you elect who becomes Speaker of the House? Do you choose the president’s running mate when you nominate your party’s presidential candidate?

There are so many roles we do not elect? It’s not like it undermines democracy. Repealing the 17th Amendment is one of the ways I favor the democratic republic government.

Consider this: a senator is elected for six years, while a congressperson is elected for only two; senators are always two per state, while congresspeople reflect the general population. These traits were part of the Great Compromise of 1787 to ensure that small states were not overpowered by large states. But wait a second! Now that the people elect these individuals directly, these traits do not match the power granted a senator. Now a senator is nearly impossible to remove from office until he/she drops dead or decides to throw in the towel. More frequent elections allow for congresspeople to be replaced more readily. Also, if the population itself, instead of the state government, directly elect senators, then what is the point of having two per state? We are not safeguarding the small states when we are granting the general population proportionally larger power than the large states. We are simply divvying out the power of everyone’s vote unfairly.

Now, look at the positives of having the state legislature make the call. First, most people are set in their ways. Elections are decided almost entirely on the whims of the relatively few whose minds are not made up. The rest is left up to the enthusiasm of those committed to their worldview, whether they will get out and vote. But the end result on a large scale is what is called “the tyranny of the majority.” Look at the referendum on the U.K.'s withdrawal from the EU. If you think about it, most people probably did not have their minds changed from the beginning to the end of the process. But a relatively few did, and thus determined what, in my mind, was an economic catastrophe for Europe. What is interesting about deliberative bodies instead of direct democracy is that policy change does not depend on the whims of a relative few. People debate and make decisions they believe will be in the lasting interest of the people. Those decision are not sudden, but rather systematic and slow. Indirect elections can actually put a brake on kneejerk reactions. Take a look at this article where “the majority” of Britons actually oppose Brexit now.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/british-people-changed-minds-brexit-second-referendum-poll-finds-a7795591.html

53% to 47%, people now oppose it. Yet, that really represents the minds changing of only a relative few.

If we were to allow our state legislatures to have more of a role in the electing federal officers (i.e. senators), think of the positives. First, Americans would pay more attention to their local elections, making sure they put state legislators in place with whom they agree, and not simply voting for the president of their choice, and then marking all the members of the same party on the rest of the ticket. Second, it would allow for the legislators, who are more keenly aware of the states’ fiscal and policy needs than the average state resident, to elect a senator to represent the state government’s needs. Remember, the state legislators are still directly elected. Now, they’ll actually be better able to perform their jobs because the federal senators would be answerable to them. And third, speaking of being answerable to them, if the senators get out of line, the state legislator could more easily remove them than we as a general population can. Fourth, those brakes I was talking about…senators would be less likely to make snap decisions based on the passing popularity of an item and would be more likely to represent the needs of the deliberative body on the state level.

It may seem counterintuitive, but I believe repealing the 17 Amendment would actually improve the legislative process on the state and federal levels.

darklordoftech said:

That they decided to have a single universe that everything has to conform to rather than allowing stories to occur in separate universes. Why should Thrawn and Dark Empire occur in the same universe? Why should Tales of the Jedi and KOTOR occur in the same universe?

I can get behind this. I haven’t read any for a few years, but I was enjoying the Star Trek novels that often contradicted each other, but tended to agree with existing official movie/TV show canon existent at the time. It made it easy to establish one’s own personal canon while discarding what one didn’t like.

I enjoyed the books dealing with teenage Jimmy Kirk, Captain Robert April, and First Officer George Kirk.

^Exactly! Being a democratic republic and using the EC are completely unrelated! I literally hate that argument! If it were true, then the fact that we elect the majority of representatives directly undermines our republic! AGGGGHHHHH!

I understand that there is some benefit to indirect election, but not in the case of the POTUS, especially with such a poor implementation of indirect election. I am in favor, however, of repealing the 17th Amendment.

Why don’t you check out a thread where you might find some inspiration?

Skynet sock confirmed.

As part of my liberal democracy I say…

Wait, that’s not even how this thread works! You’re supposed to suggest a new thread, silly!

I oppose any elitism where a…what’s the term?..superdelegate sort of moderates and makes unilateral decisions. I favor a more democratic approach. Therefore, in this thread, you may suggest an idea for a new thread before starting to ensure that it is a good idea and a similar thread has not already been created. However, I alone will not moderate this thread. Every Off Topic reader may provide input! And while I’m at it, I intend to raise the minimum wage to $15/hour! And free college and complimentary puppy for everyone!

So go on! Post your ideas in this thread! Take part in the democracy of Western Civilization! I won’t be the only one to say yes, you can start a new thread, or no you can’t. In fact, I probably won’t ever say anything about it because I probably won’t return to this thread after today!

Ric Olie said:

I just want to assure everybody that I am not leaving. I will never give you up, nor let you down. I’m not going to run around and desert you.

Ric-rolled.

Warbler said:

darth_ender said:

Warbler said:

darth_ender said:

Warbler said:

darth_ender said:

I think the DNC as a whole is partially to blame. The very fact that there is a superdelegate system, disproportionally and undemocratically favoring the voice of the elite, allowed Hillary to grab the nomination when the more likeable Bernie Sanders might have defeated Trump. The fact that the so-called “Democrat” Party represents something so opposite, the fact that the “people’s party” favors the highest ranking officials over the layman by an astronomical ratio, and the fact that the corruption in the nomination process is so widespread, all indicate to me that that they sealed their own fate by pushing HRC to the front of the line. Those who feel that Democratic politicians are morally superior to Republican politicians are simply selective in what facts they recall.

The Republican politicians just about all spinelessly endorsed Trump. Case closed on moral superiority.

While I don’t disagree that it was stupid, I don’t think that necessarily makes them morally inferior alone. Let me give you a personal example: I was the clinical preceptor in my department of the hospital, which basically means on my floor, I was Number 2. The director loved me and thought I was amazing; she promoted me and provided me many opportunities. She also did a whole bunch of stupid stuff that alienated her staff, pissed me off, and set me up for some difficult situations when she decided to leave. I realized that, in order to be a tempering influence for good on my floor, sometimes I would have to tow the line, even when I disagreed with my boss. If I hadn’t played along, I likely would have gotten fired (my predecessor as clinical preceptor had been fired before me for disagreeing too often and too publicly). Now that she’s gone, I’m Number 1, and I am able to make some significant changes/improvements to the department and the hospital as a whole.

I see your point, but sometimes you have to put the good of the nation ahead of your own career and party. I think every Republican who endorsed/supported Trump should be ashamed of themselves.

Admittedly, I agree, and were I an elected Republican politician, I hope I would have the moral courage to oppose our loony president.

I think you would.

Thank you.

Moral of the story: sometimes, to secure your influence, you have to support those in power, even when you vehemently oppose them personally. I am certain that a number of Republicans in Congress loved Trump. Note, however, how many prominent Republcians opposed him. And note how many were not then holding office or not seeking office.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Republicans_who_opposed_the_Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign,_2016

The Democrat primary system is not about a person; it’s the DNC’s system that has been in place since the '80s, is upheld by the elected, and does not represent the evils of a specific individual. It’s a foolish system that runs contrary to the Party’s supposed ideals. Then again, the whole primary system is pretty screwy.

I agree that the DNC should get rid of Super Delegates. Then again, if the Republicans had them, could they have stopped Trump with them?

Perhaps, but that is not the point. I hate him, but he was democratically nominated. I don’t want to sacrifice the principles of democracy simply because the GOP elected a nutjob once. How often would this seeming “safeguard” be a tool of abuse in the future?

As has been pointed out to me by conservatives in this forum: America is not a pure democracy. We are a Democratic Republic. Finally, if we really don’t want to sacrifice the principles of democracy, then we have to get rid of the electoral college.

That is a stupid GOP argument in favor of the College. I have long spoken of abolishing it. The functional problems with the College are nothing compared the functional problems of the superdelegate system. The Electoral College supersedes the superdelegate system only in terms of scope of damage. The former is the more undemocratic and leads to false results and the less popular nominee more often; the latter elects the eclipse-staring, nuke code-holding, veto-wielding president.

NeverarGreat said:

This one was created straight from an entry in Wookieepedia:

Luke is in the Wolf 359 desert interrogating a moisture vaporator, assisted by a Bank of America droid, when he notices handsome objects in the sky. With his macrobinoculars Luke sees two ships whine beyond the apartment. He jumps into his Daytonaspeeder. The Summoning Treadwell blows a porcelain doll and is unable to follow. Luke adopts off into the desert to find his friends. Luke’s Coruscantspeeder races into the armpit of Anchorhead, nearly shaving an old woman. Luke rushes into Tosche Station, jovially telling his friends about the Wookiee above their planet. He is overjoyed to be reunited with his friend W. Thomas Riker who is on planet leave from Middle Earth. Deak, Windy, Camie, Fixer, and Biggs all follow Luke outside to see the basketball with Luke’s Calvinball. The dying appears to have ended and Luke’s friends ridicule him for making it all up.

It works better than I would have expected.

That did turn out pretty good!

^Stole my thunder! 😉

hairy_hen said:

What is this, Be Reasonable In The Political Thread Day?

Where’s the name-calling and mindless bickering over nonsensical things that don’t really matter?

Come on guys, I’m disappointed. :p

Up your!

yhwx said:

darth_ender said:

yhwx said:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-sanders-comeback-would-be-unprecedented/

Let me begin by saying that I bear no ill will towards Mr. Sanders. Nothing that follows should be misconstrued as an attack on his policies, his track record, his electability in November or his character. I’m not a corporate media crony, or a plant from a pro-Hillary Clinton super PAC. I’m just a guy who believes in the predictive power of cold, hard data.

And the unsexy truth is that, barring some catastrophic news event, Sanders will not win the Democratic nomination for president in 2016. In fact, most past candidates in Sanders’s position dropped out long before this point in the race, and those who stayed in made little pretense of winning. (The Sanders campaign, which announced Wednesday it was laying off a ton of staff, may be recognizing this.)

Historically speaking, Democratic primary races do not have many twists and turns. Rather, the eventual winner tends to take an early lead — on or before Super Tuesday — and stay there. Runner-ups can kick for a while, but they tend to concede the race by February or early March.

As it stands, Sanders is firmly in runner-up territory. He is losing 9 million to 12 million among those who have already voted, and polls show him lagging by an average of 8.8 percentage points in the states yet to vote. Sanders has gained substantially in national polls but is still the less popular candidate (outside of the Bernietopia that is social media).

To be kind to the Sanders camp, I ignored superdelegates and demographics.

The result is pretty striking: After the early days of the campaign, no underdog has ever won the Democratic nomination. A true come-from-behind victory would show up on this chart as a green line (winners) wandering above the 50 percent line (falling behind) before crossing back over (catching up) and veering toward the bottom of the chart. Instead, after the mad scramble for the first 10 percent of delegates, no candidate ever crosses over the 50 percent line. That is, the king stay the king. (Of course, there haven’t been that many Democratic primaries in the modern era, so I wouldn’t interpret this data as some type of iron-clad rule.)

The reason for this is pretty simple: Proportional allocation of delegates makes comebacks really, really hard. You can’t just notch wins in a string of states, as Sanders did in late March and early April. You have to start consistently trouncing your opponent by large margins in every contest. You need, well, a political revolution.

But what about Obama? Sanders supporters have compared their candidate’s current deficit to Obama’s in 2008, but at this point in that election Obama was actually winning by 143 pledged delegates — enough that Clinton, despite still holding a lead in superdelegates, was receiving pressure to drop out of the race. In fact, Obama was at no point in 2008 actually behind Clinton in pledged delegates. It’s just that the media usually included superdelegates in their counts in 2008, and the DNC has instructed them not to this time around. That’s because we’ve learned our lesson: Superdelegates can change their mind. Unfortunately for Sanders, pledged delegates can’t.

I hope you’re reading what I’m writing, because I feel like you’re replying to one note while I’m talking about several. I am a psychology major prior to my nursing career, and I enjoy a great deal of sociology as well. Now I am a psychiatric nurse. My point: I spend a lot of time thinking about how others think.

Even with this graph, it does not take into account the influence of the superdelegates. As it points out, a candidate has to win early races to win at all. Well, Hillary had secured most of the superdelegates very early in the campaign. That makes the cause of any other candidate look like a fool’s errand. To what am I ascribing my primary opposition in this particular argument? Hillary? No: the DNC’s practices and the superdelegate system. A terrible Democratic candidate who is entrenched, as Hillary was, in the nation’s politics is bound to win a large number of her peers’ support. How is it a democratic process when the support of her peers outweigh the support of her constituents by orders of the thousands? Nancy Pelosi’s vote is worth more than yours by orders of magnitude. Clearly, when a Joe Democrat goes to cast his ballot on his state’s primary day, he is going to take into consideration who he think has the best chance of winning. The person with the most superdelegates is going to win, even though I like this other person a little better, he thinks. Therefore, he casts his ballot for the person he can tolerate and he believes stands the best chance of winning.

Yes, removing the superdelegate system from the onset may not have made any difference in the nomination, or even if it did, in the general election outcome. But it could have. More importantly, it is an undemocratic system that certainly has affected outcomes before, and I believe the Democrats here should oppose this system in their own party.

I did read your momentum argument. I can’t really agree or disagree with it, because I don’t know how people factor that in. I tend to think people vote for whoever they’re going to vote for, but I don’t know if that’s how all people think. That’s why the conversation infuriates me.

I promise you, momentum matters and sways people’s votes. McCain was not favored to win the nomination in 2008; Giuliani was. However, McCain won enough early primaries and gathered enough momentum that his victory seemed inevitable, and therefore, more people voted for him or simply didn’t bother voting against him.

CatBus said:

yhwx said:

darth_ender said:

yhwx said:

Everybody says ‘Bernie would have won’ or ‘Bernie wouldn’t have won,’ but I won’t really believe either until I see some polling data.

darth_ender said:

I think the DNC as a whole is partially to blame. The very fact that there is a superdelegate system, disproportionally and undemocratically favoring the voice of the elite, allowed Hillary to grab the nomination when the more likable Bernie Sanders might have defeated Trump.

While there is no way to prove that he would have won, I feel he easily could have better united the Democrat Party and that his supporters were far more passionate than Clinton’s. Heck, Jeebus here protest voted against Hillary. I doubt there would have been much of that against Bernie, even among Hillary supporters. I’ve no doubt most would have gone ahead and voted for Bernie as their number two pick.

I think the unification problem had more to do with Bernie’s supports (and to some extent Bernie himself) than Clinton herself.

As documented earlier, Bernie’s supporters notably moved to support Hillary at higher rates and faster than Hillary’s supporters moved to support Obama eight years earlier. While there are always some holdouts in any primary race, the 2016 Democratic Party was notable for its lack of a unification problem, at least when compared to prior years.

Since I’ve wasted a lot of precious time today talking to you Star Wars nerds 😉 , I won’t do any more substantiation of my comments and again will speculate that, in spite of giving support to Hillary, I do not necessarily believe they all got out and voted for her. As I said, General Election Day is not a black and white popularity contest. In a nation where voting is optional, it’s a measure of who has more passion. Hillary voters in key states didn’t get out to vote. Trump voters, unfortunately, did. In 2012, Obama garnered approximately the same popular vote as Clinton in 2016, but Romney voters failed to materialize. However, in 2008, Barack brought out 3.5 million more than he did four years later. Passion can play an important role.

Warbler said:

darth_ender said:

Warbler said:

darth_ender said:

I think the DNC as a whole is partially to blame. The very fact that there is a superdelegate system, disproportionally and undemocratically favoring the voice of the elite, allowed Hillary to grab the nomination when the more likeable Bernie Sanders might have defeated Trump. The fact that the so-called “Democrat” Party represents something so opposite, the fact that the “people’s party” favors the highest ranking officials over the layman by an astronomical ratio, and the fact that the corruption in the nomination process is so widespread, all indicate to me that that they sealed their own fate by pushing HRC to the front of the line. Those who feel that Democratic politicians are morally superior to Republican politicians are simply selective in what facts they recall.

The Republican politicians just about all spinelessly endorsed Trump. Case closed on moral superiority.

While I don’t disagree that it was stupid, I don’t think that necessarily makes them morally inferior alone. Let me give you a personal example: I was the clinical preceptor in my department of the hospital, which basically means on my floor, I was Number 2. The director loved me and thought I was amazing; she promoted me and provided me many opportunities. She also did a whole bunch of stupid stuff that alienated her staff, pissed me off, and set me up for some difficult situations when she decided to leave. I realized that, in order to be a tempering influence for good on my floor, sometimes I would have to tow the line, even when I disagreed with my boss. If I hadn’t played along, I likely would have gotten fired (my predecessor as clinical preceptor had been fired before me for disagreeing too often and too publicly). Now that she’s gone, I’m Number 1, and I am able to make some significant changes/improvements to the department and the hospital as a whole.

I see your point, but sometimes you have to put the good of the nation ahead of your own career and party. I think every Republican who endorsed/supported Trump should be ashamed of themselves.

Admittedly, I agree, and were I an elected Republican politician, I hope I would have the moral courage to oppose our loony president.

Moral of the story: sometimes, to secure your influence, you have to support those in power, even when you vehemently oppose them personally. I am certain that a number of Republicans in Congress loved Trump. Note, however, how many prominent Republcians opposed him. And note how many were not then holding office or not seeking office.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Republicans_who_opposed_the_Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign,_2016

The Democrat primary system is not about a person; it’s the DNC’s system that has been in place since the '80s, is upheld by the elected, and does not represent the evils of a specific individual. It’s a foolish system that runs contrary to the Party’s supposed ideals. Then again, the whole primary system is pretty screwy.

I agree that the DNC should get rid of Super Delegates. Then again, if the Republicans had them, could they have stopped Trump with them?

Perhaps, but that is not the point. I hate him, but he was democratically nominated. I don’t want to sacrifice the principles of democracy simply because the GOP elected a nutjob once. How often would this seeming “safeguard” be a tool of abuse in the future?

I am not saying Republicans are morally superior, as I, myself, have abandoned the GOP. I’m just saying that you can’t lay it all on that one issue.

Well you did say

Those who feel that Democratic politicians are morally superior to Republican politicians are simply selective in what facts they recall

Which made me think you were talking about the individual politicians and not the parties themselves.

I am saying that both parties (meaning the elected individuals and not the constituents) are corrupt and amoral swine.

TV’s Frink said:

darth_ender said:

Don’t oversimplify my original statement. Remember, I only said the DNC was part to blame. I think the Comey investigation immediately before Election Day, Hillary’s own campaigning, the Electoral College that I deeply abhor, and numerous other factors also secured her defeat.

I’m really getting tired of reading sensible Conservative posts in here.

Up your!

yhwx said:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-sanders-comeback-would-be-unprecedented/

Let me begin by saying that I bear no ill will towards Mr. Sanders. Nothing that follows should be misconstrued as an attack on his policies, his track record, his electability in November or his character. I’m not a corporate media crony, or a plant from a pro-Hillary Clinton super PAC. I’m just a guy who believes in the predictive power of cold, hard data.

And the unsexy truth is that, barring some catastrophic news event, Sanders will not win the Democratic nomination for president in 2016. In fact, most past candidates in Sanders’s position dropped out long before this point in the race, and those who stayed in made little pretense of winning. (The Sanders campaign, which announced Wednesday it was laying off a ton of staff, may be recognizing this.)

Historically speaking, Democratic primary races do not have many twists and turns. Rather, the eventual winner tends to take an early lead — on or before Super Tuesday — and stay there. Runner-ups can kick for a while, but they tend to concede the race by February or early March.

As it stands, Sanders is firmly in runner-up territory. He is losing 9 million to 12 million among those who have already voted, and polls show him lagging by an average of 8.8 percentage points in the states yet to vote. Sanders has gained substantially in national polls but is still the less popular candidate (outside of the Bernietopia that is social media).

To be kind to the Sanders camp, I ignored superdelegates and demographics.

The result is pretty striking: After the early days of the campaign, no underdog has ever won the Democratic nomination. A true come-from-behind victory would show up on this chart as a green line (winners) wandering above the 50 percent line (falling behind) before crossing back over (catching up) and veering toward the bottom of the chart. Instead, after the mad scramble for the first 10 percent of delegates, no candidate ever crosses over the 50 percent line. That is, the king stay the king. (Of course, there haven’t been that many Democratic primaries in the modern era, so I wouldn’t interpret this data as some type of iron-clad rule.)

The reason for this is pretty simple: Proportional allocation of delegates makes comebacks really, really hard. You can’t just notch wins in a string of states, as Sanders did in late March and early April. You have to start consistently trouncing your opponent by large margins in every contest. You need, well, a political revolution.

But what about Obama? Sanders supporters have compared their candidate’s current deficit to Obama’s in 2008, but at this point in that election Obama was actually winning by 143 pledged delegates — enough that Clinton, despite still holding a lead in superdelegates, was receiving pressure to drop out of the race. In fact, Obama was at no point in 2008 actually behind Clinton in pledged delegates. It’s just that the media usually included superdelegates in their counts in 2008, and the DNC has instructed them not to this time around. That’s because we’ve learned our lesson: Superdelegates can change their mind. Unfortunately for Sanders, pledged delegates can’t.

I hope you’re reading what I’m writing, because I feel like you’re replying to one note while I’m talking about several. I am a psychology major prior to my nursing career, and I enjoy a great deal of sociology as well. Now I am a psychiatric nurse. My point: I spend a lot of time thinking about how others think.

Even with this graph, it does not take into account the influence of the superdelegates. As it points out, a candidate has to win early races to win at all. Well, Hillary had secured most of the superdelegates very early in the campaign. That makes the cause of any other candidate look like a fool’s errand. To what am I ascribing my primary opposition in this particular argument? Hillary? No: the DNC’s practices and the superdelegate system. A terrible Democratic candidate who is entrenched, as Hillary was, in the nation’s politics is bound to win a large number of her peers’ support. How is it a democratic process when the support of her peers outweigh the support of her constituents by orders of the thousands? Nancy Pelosi’s vote is worth more than yours by orders of magnitude. Clearly, when a Joe Democrat goes to cast his ballot on his state’s primary day, he is going to take into consideration who he think has the best chance of winning. The person with the most superdelegates is going to win, even though I like this other person a little better, he thinks. Therefore, he casts his ballot for the person he can tolerate and he believes stands the best chance of winning.

Yes, removing the superdelegate system from the onset may not have made any difference in the nomination, or even if it did, in the general election outcome. But it could have. More importantly, it is an undemocratic system that certainly has affected outcomes before, and I believe the Democrats here should oppose this system in their own party.

yhwx said:

darth_ender said:

yhwx said:

Everybody says ‘Bernie would have won’ or ‘Bernie wouldn’t have won,’ but I won’t really believe either until I see some polling data.

darth_ender said:

I think the DNC as a whole is partially to blame. The very fact that there is a superdelegate system, disproportionally and undemocratically favoring the voice of the elite, allowed Hillary to grab the nomination when the more likable Bernie Sanders might have defeated Trump.

While there is no way to prove that he would have won, I feel he easily could have better united the Democrat Party and that his supporters were far more passionate than Clinton’s. Heck, Jeebus here protest voted against Hillary. I doubt there would have been much of that against Bernie, even among Hillary supporters. I’ve no doubt most would have gone ahead and voted for Bernie as their number two pick.

I think the unification problem had more to do with Bernie’s supports (and to some extent Bernie himself) than Clinton herself.

Please explain. Bernie tried to unite his people behind Hillary after he lost. Yes, his people are partly to blame, but that’s the point of politics, isn’t it? Hillary’s supporters were more lukewarm. Bernie’s were more passionate. Many Dems would have gone out to vote for whichever candidate had a (D) by his/her name. Others would consider their vote meaningless and not bother. I believe many Democrats/Hillary supporters stayed home because they either did not like her or did not believe it would have made a difference. On the other hand, I think a greater portion of Bernie’s supporters would have gotten out to vote for him, in addition to those who just vote for the (D) no matter what.

Again, no way to know for sure, but I think if HRC had been a better candidate, she could have captured more passion from her own supporters and redirected the passion of Bernie’s supporters for her. Instead, many of them were deeply offended at gasp the DNC’s shenanigans in securing the nomination for her. To so many, this was unforgivable.

Don’t oversimplify my original statement. Remember, I only said the DNC was part to blame. I think the Comey investigation immediately before Election Day, Hillary’s own campaigning, the Electoral College that I deeply abhor, and numerous other factors also secured her defeat.