|
Morel Guy
Stranger


Registered: 01/23/13
Posts: 15,577
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
Re: Brits want Hillary to win [Re: Great Scott]
#23701223 - 10/02/16 06:35 PM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Shit, while we are dreaming how about all law makers do some time before writing bs laws
-------------------- "in sterquiliniis invenitur in stercore invenitur" In filth it will be found in dung it will be found
|
Seriously_trippin
Cosmic Guru Ganesh



Registered: 07/12/13
Posts: 14,473
Last seen: 8 hours, 2 minutes
|
Re: Brits want Hillary to win [Re: Morel Guy]
#23701395 - 10/02/16 07:35 PM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Morel Guy said: I took acid before you were born. Guess I am just an old fart. Oh the days when Burger King was actually good. Lucy was $2 or $3 a hit and 100 doses were a bill. Between the Cold War and the war on terror.
A lot of LSD is 2-3$ a hit now too
-------------------- R.I.P Zombi3, Blue Helix Modest Mouse Zappa Slothie That Kid With The face ShLong Le Canard split_by_nine & Big Worm Forever Etched in the sands of time in the shroomery and ever so beloved and deeply missed by many
|
koods
Ribbit



Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,066
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 6 hours, 21 minutes
|
Re: Brits want Hillary to win [Re: Prisoner#1]
#23701397 - 10/02/16 07:36 PM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Prisoner#1 said:
Quote:
koods said: The two party system is constitutionally mandated. It is literally impossible for there to be a competitive three way race in American presidential politics.
please, show us where it\'s constitutionally mandated that there be only 2 parties?
I seem to recall that Abe Lincoln was a Whig until he joined some fresh upstarts called the Republican party, in fact, the Whigs had several candidates that were president as did the Democratic-Republicans and the Federalists before all you negative nancys started with your crap about how the 3rd parties were taking votes from valid candidates and putting the wrong people in office
How can you have three parties splitting the electorate? If nobody reaches 270 electoral college votes, which would clearly happen if 3 people split the national vote, then the entire election is null and void. That's a sure fire way to ensure only two candidates can be competitive.
--------------------
NotSheekle said “if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: Brits want Hillary to win [Re: koods]
#23701404 - 10/02/16 07:39 PM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
koods said:
Quote:
Prisoner#1 said:
Quote:
koods said: The two party system is constitutionally mandated. It is literally impossible for there to be a competitive three way race in American presidential politics.
please, show us where it\'s constitutionally mandated that there be only 2 parties?
I seem to recall that Abe Lincoln was a Whig until he joined some fresh upstarts called the Republican party, in fact, the Whigs had several candidates that were president as did the Democratic-Republicans and the Federalists before all you negative nancys started with your crap about how the 3rd parties were taking votes from valid candidates and putting the wrong people in office
How can you have three parties splitting the electorate? If nobody reaches 270 electoral college votes, which would clearly happen if 3 people split the national vote, then the entire election is null and void. That's a sure fire way to ensure only two candidates can be competitive.
SHOW US WHERE 2 PARTIES ARE CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED
|
koods
Ribbit



Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,066
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 6 hours, 21 minutes
|
Re: Brits want Hillary to win [Re: Prisoner#1]
#23701432 - 10/02/16 07:52 PM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
The electoral college system makes it IMPOSSIBLE for a third party candidate to ever be elected president.
--------------------
NotSheekle said “if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
|
Repertoire89
Cat



Registered: 11/15/12
Posts: 21,773
|
Re: Brits want Hillary to win [Re: koods]
#23701478 - 10/02/16 08:10 PM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Only because everyone votes for the two dud parties, all it takes is a majority voting for someone else.
On a related note, I'm all for changing the election process.
|
Repertoire89
Cat



Registered: 11/15/12
Posts: 21,773
|
Re: Brits want Hillary to win [Re: Great Scott]
#23701492 - 10/02/16 08:14 PM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
PeyoteZen said: Hillary Clinton belongs in prison. Period.
If politicians were made to pay for their crimes, we would have no politicians. This isn't even a serious or impressive crime, these people do all kinds of really fucked up shit.
I'm not sure what the point of this "scandal" is, some people who didn't like her in the first place drone on about it, but no one else cares. Much like Obama's birth certificate, why even bring it up?
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: Brits want Hillary to win [Re: koods]
#23701495 - 10/02/16 08:14 PM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
koods said: The electoral college system makes it IMPOSSIBLE for a third party candidate to ever be elected president.
Quote:
koods said: The two party system is constitutionally mandated. It is literally impossible for there to be a competitive three way race in American presidential politics.
SHOW US KOODS, SHOW US IN THE CONSTITUTION WHERE 2 PARTIES ARE MANDATED
|
Great Scott
Trigger Lover


Registered: 05/05/03
Posts: 19,797
Loc: Control Grid
Last seen: 4 years, 5 months
|
Re: Brits want Hillary to win [Re: Prisoner#1]
#23701514 - 10/02/16 08:20 PM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Prisoner#1 said:
Quote:
koods said: The electoral college system makes it IMPOSSIBLE for a third party candidate to ever be elected president.
Quote:
koods said: The two party system is constitutionally mandated. It is literally impossible for there to be a competitive three way race in American presidential politics.
SHOW US KOODS, SHOW US IN THE CONSTITUTION WHERE 2 PARTIES ARE MANDATED
He's operating under the presumption that a 33/33/33 split is the best a 3rd party can do. I don't see anything impossible about a 3rd party getting 50+ someday. Unlikely, but not impossible.
--------------------
|
koods
Ribbit



Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,066
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 6 hours, 21 minutes
|
Re: Brits want Hillary to win [Re: Great Scott]
#23701528 - 10/02/16 08:27 PM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
It could be 49/25/26 and it would still be a failed election. The only way it doesn't end up with a twelfth ammendment solution is if one or two of the candidates are long shots. 49/25/26 is a blowout in American politics.
What kind of confidence would the American people have in their system if, say, Jill stein won the most votes in the election, and the House of Representatives proceeded to make Donald Trump president?
--------------------
NotSheekle said “if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
Edited by koods (10/02/16 08:30 PM)
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: Brits want Hillary to win [Re: Great Scott]
#23701601 - 10/02/16 08:45 PM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
all that has to be done is to deny one of the other candidates that 270, currently the system is capable of a tie, 269/269 split between 2 parties, if a 3rd party manages to take a single electoral college vote in a state such as nebraska which isnt a winner take all state, the vote would be 269/268/1 giving 1 party a majority, all that's needed is a simple majority
the electoral college system is of course controlled by the states, 48 states are winner take all, if one candidate gains a majority in one of those state then all the votes for that state go to the majority holder. those rules could have changed the face to the 2 party system we're seeing today and without them all the elections could have been much different.
now after 1860 a lot of changes came about on the state level to put into place the 'winner take all' system as a response to lincoln taking office and subsequently freeing the slaves, of course the south was excluded from federal elections in 1964 but it was the first race to show a 2 party system developing to ensure the south had no voting power in further elections, prior to that it was any man's race, the 1860 elections saw 4 parties get electoral votes, in 1864 and after, only 2 parties received electoral votes due to state rules even though in nearly every election there is someone voting for a 3rd party
you want to change the system, change it on the state level. once that's done then it wont be a problem for a 3rd party to see an election that topples the establishment... of course, 29 states require their electors to pledge a candidate and stick to it

and that's why koods cant show a mandate that there needs to be a 270 majority or that only 2 parties can run in the US as mandated by the constitution, because koods simply doesnt have a grasp on how it works, he still votes in the popularity contest and thinks is makes a difference
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: Brits want Hillary to win [Re: koods]
#23701607 - 10/02/16 08:49 PM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
koods said: It could be 49/25/26 and it would still be a failed election. The only way it doesn't end up with a twelfth ammendment solution is if one or two of the candidates are long shots. 49/25/26 is a blowout in American politics.
What kind of confidence would the American people have in their system if, say, Jill stein won the most votes in the election, and the House of Representatives proceeded to make Donald Trump president?
thanks for proving you dont know what you're talking about yet again
Quote:
The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate.
The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.
The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.[Note 1]
The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
|
koods
Ribbit



Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,066
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 6 hours, 21 minutes
|
Re: Brits want Hillary to win [Re: Prisoner#1]
#23701637 - 10/02/16 09:00 PM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I don't think you understand what that says. If nobody gets 270 electoral votes, then each state delegation in the House gets to vote for one of the top three candidates. If nobody gets a majority of those votes, then whoever the senate picks as Vice President becomes president.
Can you imagine anything more retarded than that? Watch the final episode of Veep to see how absurd it is.
Just to be clear... "The person having the greatest Number of votes for President*, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed;"
* this isn't the greatest number of popular votes, this is the greatest number of electoral votes. And it has to be a majority, ie 270 or greater.
Edited by koods (10/02/16 09:04 PM)
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: Brits want Hillary to win [Re: Prisoner#1]
#23701662 - 10/02/16 09:09 PM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Prisoner#1 said:
Quote:
koods said: The electoral college system makes it IMPOSSIBLE for a third party candidate to ever be elected president.
Quote:
koods said: The two party system is constitutionally mandated. It is literally impossible for there to be a competitive three way race in American presidential politics.
SHOW US KOODS, SHOW US IN THE CONSTITUTION WHERE 2 PARTIES ARE MANDATED
while you're at it, show is the requirement of the electoral college to have 270 votes to win the election
|
koods
Ribbit



Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,066
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 6 hours, 21 minutes
|
Re: Brits want Hillary to win [Re: Prisoner#1]
#23701678 - 10/02/16 09:12 PM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed;
--------------------
NotSheekle said “if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
|
koods
Ribbit



Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,066
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 6 hours, 21 minutes
|
Re: Brits want Hillary to win [Re: koods]
#23701693 - 10/02/16 09:16 PM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President.
--------------------
NotSheekle said “if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
|
Brian Jones
Club 27



Registered: 12/18/12
Posts: 12,342
Loc: attending Snake Church
Last seen: 18 hours, 21 minutes
|
Re: Brits want Hillary to win [Re: Prisoner#1]
#23701742 - 10/02/16 09:32 PM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Prisoner#1 said: all that has to be done is to deny one of the other candidates that 270, currently the system is capable of a tie, 269/269 split between 2 parties, if a 3rd party manages to take a single electoral college vote in a state such as nebraska which isnt a winner take all state, the vote would be 269/268/1 giving 1 party a majority, all that's needed is a simple majority
the electoral college system is of course controlled by the states, 48 states are winner take all, if one candidate gains a majority in one of those state then all the votes for that state go to the majority holder. those rules could have changed the face to the 2 party system we're seeing today and without them all the elections could have been much different.
now after 1860 a lot of changes came about on the state level to put into place the 'winner take all' system as a response to lincoln taking office and subsequently freeing the slaves, of course the south was excluded from federal elections in 1964 but it was the first race to show a 2 party system developing to ensure the south had no voting power in further elections, prior to that it was any man's race, the 1860 elections saw 4 parties get electoral votes, in 1864 and after, only 2 parties received electoral votes due to state rules even though in nearly every election there is someone voting for a 3rd party
you want to change the system, change it on the state level. once that's done then it wont be a problem for a 3rd party to see an election that topples the establishment... of course, 29 states require their electors to pledge a candidate and stick to it

and that's why koods cant show a mandate that there needs to be a 270 majority or that only 2 parties can run in the US as mandated by the constitution, because koods simply doesnt have a grasp on how it works, he still votes in the popularity contest and thinks is makes a difference
I forgot that there were 2 states that aren't winner take all. That makes it even more amazing that no 3rd party candidate has won an electoral vote since Wallace took 5 Southern states in, I think, 1968.
Definitely rubbish that the Constitution mandates the 2 party system, but it is highly entrenched. The weirdness of this election cycle could be an impetus for future change into a more fluid, less fixed system.
But realistically all I see is the GOP remaining strong, if not continuing to rule the House, and demographic trends pointing to the Dems winning national elections.
-------------------- "The Rolling Stones will break up over Brian Jones' dead body" John Lennon I don't want no commies in my car. No Christians either. The worst thing about corruption is that it works so well,
|
koods
Ribbit



Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,066
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 6 hours, 21 minutes
|
Re: Brits want Hillary to win [Re: Brian Jones]
#23701769 - 10/02/16 09:42 PM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Fine... It PRACTICALLY mandates only two parties complete for president.
If your dream is to see a competitive third party in American politics, your number one goal should be a constitutional amendment that says whomever receives the most popular votes in the presidential election is elected president. Not only does that remove the hurdle to reach a majority of electoral votes, it makes the presidential election a true national election instead of a battle over a few states. It means that someone who receives fewer votes doesn't become president (Recount or not, George Bush got fewer votes than Al Gore).
--------------------
NotSheekle said “if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
|
Repertoire89
Cat



Registered: 11/15/12
Posts: 21,773
|
Re: Brits want Hillary to win [Re: koods]
#23701786 - 10/02/16 09:49 PM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
The current process is pretty retarded
|
koods
Ribbit



Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,066
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 6 hours, 21 minutes
|
Re: Brits want Hillary to win [Re: koods]
#23701787 - 10/02/16 09:50 PM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
It's also possible to gerrymander a presidential election, since states are free to decide to how their electoral voters are apportioned.
--------------------
NotSheekle said “if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
|
|