- This topic has 510 replies, 37 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 11 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
All that being said my personal opinion is the electoral college should be tweaked. One vote per congressional district and 2 per state. Do that math and Hillary loses WAY big. instead of 55 votes from CA she only gets 10 to 15 (estimation) since she only won like 10 districts and two for the state.
You’re saying the EC should be more imbalanced than it already is?
you have to win a majority of the states, not just libertard population centers full of illegal mexicans
Let Mexifornistan leave. elections have consequences as a famous Kenyan once said
Good plan. Let’s kick out the world’s sixth largest economy, and see what the flyover states do without those tax dollars.
EXACTLY StateRed44! If you blow away LA and San Fran Trump wins CA by about 1.5 mil. Back to 2008 and 2012 Obama would have never won. And YES pak, those tax dollars wind up being a bad deal, they come with a huge deficit in that state alone. CA WILL DEFAULT sooner or later, just a matter of time. I’d settle for the San Andreas fault dividing them off any day now. The rest of the state can stay with us.
Smarter than the average bear
Brilliant analysis. If you don’t count the people that voted for Clinton, Trump wins in a landslide. Who’da thunk it.
Just calling it as I see it.
BTW, rye, I went into our data and did some data mining. It’s interesting how some of the pundits have said over and over how higher educated voters voted for Trump by a margin of about 8%. I broke down our data of those considered “higher educated” and here’s some interesting insight. Of those in that demographic if you further break that down by age it’s funny how it breaks. Over 60% of that group over 45 voted for Trump whereas 35% under the age of 45 voted for him. One could imply a correlation to the shift of college campuses to a more liberal environment 30 or so years ago as being a factor in that, so I also looked at data gathered near college campuses and the shift was dramatic with San Francisco and New York being off the scale. So from a data standpoint it is overly simplistic to correlate that those with higher education did not vote for Trump. If you break down the population at large for statistical groups it comes out almost a draw, there just happens to be more “higher educated” in the population of those under the age of 45. Just sayin’
Smarter than the average bear
A good read about the failure of the legacy media
http://www.businessinsider.com/tucker-carlson-tonight-show-fox-news-2016-12
Old vs. young is one that links with red vs blue voters. It has done that election over election every since the solid south swung from one party to another. Older people get more “conservative” and typically vote towards issues like national security, pension protection, and to the right on social wedge issues.
Trump won. That’s great for him and those that support him. I really hope he does a stupendous job and goes down as one of our nation’s best presidents.
He’s got a lot of challenges based on how he got elected. This isn’t a mandate as many GOP proclaim. It’s an election where the candidate lost the popular vote, lost the educated vote, lost the moneyed vote, yet won. He’s seemingly not recognizing that and running his early days like his campaign, and with all the tact, awareness, sensitivity and understanding of his new job like it’s the days of the wild wild west.
Some other quick thoughts:
– A representative Democracy is an idea that is past its time. It was primarily put in place to protect the interests of white, land owning males and to figure out what to do about slave populations. That’s not the country we live in any more, and the system should be changed to reflect that.
– The beauty of our system is that it allows for change, and that’s been done many times over the years. It appears it is time to change something else. I highly doubt it will happen.
– Absolutely agree that voting should require appropriate identification.
– The article about tax money is tax money sent to and received from the Federal election. The Federal election is about the Federal level. Local taxes and state taxes are taken in at the local or state level and spent at the local or state level. Pretty simple. Yet, if the argument is that the article at the Federal level doesn’t matter because there are additional local and state level taxes, then that is incorrect.
– I see California leaving as similar to Texas leaving. Both have made noises in this direction over the past 10+ years. Both would fracture our union. Our geo-political enemies (China, Russia, and others) would like nothing more than to see this happen. Fracturing the USA would leave us similar to what Europe was before the EU and what they’re seemingly going back to.
– Globally the world is seeing a rise in nationalism. In the US, we see nationalism, but I think it’s also paired with a rise of “don’t tread on me” States’ rights. What many call nationalism is something that I think is more like isolationism.
– Our actual voting systems need to be overhauled. The fact that we run elections with a piece of paper and a pencil is baffling. The fact that there are “counts” and “recounts” is baffling. The fact that it isn’t real time is baffling. I work in technology. This system is primitive and prone for errors. I’ll bet it is the same 2 years from now and then 4 years from now.Two things rye, Democratic REPUBLIC, and no system made by man can 100% ensure it won’t be hacked if it’s “real time” and connected via the internet. Client server on a closed loop MAYBE, but then that ain’t happening.
Smarter than the average bear
Yogi: I respectfully suggest that I know more about that topic of how to build that system than anyone on this thread. It absolutely can be built and effectively be tamper proof. If the Federal government wanted to give me a grant, I could lead a team to do it.
The real question is whether we want real time election results. I’d say we don’t because it might tamper with the outcome. It would just need a reporting delay built in.
Statered: Multi-culturalism is and always has been the union.
Sorry rye, I’ve been doing those systems since WAY before the internet was “invented” so I can give you a run for the money on that one (circa 1985). I built interfaces for the Navy to the NRC many moons ago, super secure until the inventor, Al came along and screwed them up. The ultimate problem is interfaces into the weeds and ensuring security happens all the way down the line. not gonna happen any day soon.
Smarter than the average bear
What if everything we know is wrong?
I ask myself that question nigh daily.
Some other quick thoughts:
– A representative Democracy is an idea that is past its time. It was primarily put in place to protect the interests of white, land owning males and to figure out what to do about slave populations. That’s not the country we live in any more, and the system should be changed to reflect that.Oh really? They were just greedy white male slaveholders wanting to protect their wealth. Nothing to do with wanting a different system than they had in Europe where the ultra wealth fiefdoms were ruled by tyrants. Of course not! They just wanted to create their own version of that over here but making themselves the robber barons!
And a Representative Republic with the electoral college system is an idea that’s past its time?! I think not. The whole system was developed by Hamilton (not wealthy, not slave holder) to equalize the power of the high population cities of Philly, Boston, and NY. Then as now they could have dictated to the rest of the colonies how things would be and quite several colonies would NOT sign the Constitution until an equalizing factor was put in. Fortunately to change the Constitution would take 2/3 of the states ratifying some kind of popular vote system. I give that a snowball’s chance in hell of ever happening for the same reason today as it was 240 years ago: the rest of the country doesn’t want NYC, Boston, Philly, LA, San Fran picking the President.Yogi: I respectfully suggest that I know more about that topic of how to build that system than anyone on this thread. It absolutely can be built and effectively be tamper proof. If the Federal government wanted to give me a grant, I could lead a team to do it.
Let me see if I understand this: you just said that if the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT GAVE YOU OUR TAX MONEY Y.O.U. could lead a team to effectively overthrow the Constitution by putting in place an electronic popular voting system that would basically allow about 8 or so metro areas impose their will on the entire country every 4 years. The candidates could reduce their carbon election footprint considerably for sure! No New Hamshire crap or Iowa crap or SC primary crap anymore. Just LA, SF, Chicago, Boston, Philly, NYC, and DC. carry those and carry the country.
Brilliant.
You need a grant of TAX MONEY because no way you could sell that idea in the arena of public discourse and get anywhere close to achieving.
….and some wonder why Boomers have disdain for Millennials.Let me see if I understand this:
No, you don’t understand apparently. He was saying he could build a secure e-voting system. None of the rest of what you spewed is even relevant.
Although I will say I’m familiar with rye’s expertise and think if anyone could lead that effort he could.
Not sure what he would do about physical security of the systems though.
As has been clearly shown over the past several centuries what was thought to be secure is clearly not. There has NEVER been a system built that cannot be beat. The old expression “two can keep a secret if one of them is dead” applies. The iPhone encryption probably comes closest BUT that is as long as it’s data stays within the phone itself. Once that data leaves the phone it’s just as vulnerable as anything else.
I’ve been playing in the data system sandbox for over 40 years and not once have I ever thought or said I could build something that is crack proof, that is total nonsense. I built my companies interface to the E Verify system and I cringe at the thought of sending SSNs across the wire and at times in the last 4 months we were verifying over 300 people a day. There is no such thing as data security. That’s one of the biggest reasons I held Hillary is such disdain over her email server. She opened up some of our most costly secrets to any and all who wanted to grab them all for the sake of keeping prying eyes away from her dirty laundry. In the end she secured neither and should the big war have broken out would have left the US exposed to all of our enemies. THAT alone is why she should be in JAIL. Four people died because of her and many many more could have.
Smarter than the average bear
Statered: Multi-culturalism is and always has been the union.
The term you are searching for is regionalism. The ideology of multiculturalism is recent vintage and only grew legs following the demographic shift which resulted from the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965.
The immigration pattern (excluding Chinese and Japanese to the west coast) was a tri-melting pot: Protestant, Catholic and Jewish. Though there were differences in culture,(example: German Jews, here very early, had a distinct dislike for the Pale Settlement Jews when they started immigrating in the 1880s) their racial component was similar and their religious basis had very strong underpinnings. Groups also tended to cluster in enclaves, regional distinctions worth noting would be the highly ethnic cities of the northeast(still tri-melting pot) compared to the monolithic South, largely Protestant, Celtic but another racial group included that was non white but Protestant. Upper Midwest Swedes, Norwegians, etc or the Germans in Oklahoma and east Texas, Belgians and Frenchies in southern Louisiana, etc it went on and on.
What you had were not Hindus living beside Muslims living beside homosexuals (an ideological position if there ever was, currently speaking) living beside nominal Christians living beside, etc. all reveling in the glorious nature of their “diversity” but self reliant communities with recognizable cores of identity. When you have communities of that nature-a sense of identity, purpose and place-the central government is not required as the arbiter of all things. No multicultural “state” has ever lasted in the modern sense with multiculturalism being part of state policy, the Soviet Union would be the classic case of an ideological construct which blew apart when reality finally settled in. The US is an even more ideological state than the Soviet Union (notice the desire to crush different opinions especially those that contradict state ideology) whereby it uses equality to smash all differences in people thus making the state the ultimate arbiter. What you are seeing now, and it will accelerate, it the eventual breakup of the US.
As an aside, let California go. We can do without their tax dollars, it will be a fair swap in negating their influence.
McCallum
Yogi: We will agree to disagree on the actual voting system. If you think the system we have is more tamper proof than the one that could be built, then I suggest we’re not finding any common ground on 90% of these topics.
Golden chain: Let me explain the flaw of the current system in picking a President. In other parts of our system, your vote counts equally against all others that voted in that election. Take the local election. Say you are one of only 10 people that voted. Your vote weighs a ton (1/10th of the vote), but it is equal to the votes of the other 9 people that voted. Maybe more people should have voted, but your vote was counted and weighed fairly against the others cast. That’s about as fair as it can be in a system that doesn’t require mandatory voting.
Now let’s take it to the State level. There are two counties in your State. You have ten people in your county that voted fo governor. You were one of those ten. The next county over had 990 people that voted. Your vote would count as 1/1000th of the vote for governor. It would not be that your vote counts for 1/10th of 1/2 of the voting weight while the person at the next county over’s vote counted 1/990th of 1/2 of the voting weight.
Now let’s take it a step further. Let’s say that 6 people in your county voted for one candidate and 4 people in the county voted for the other. You were one of those four. It is winner take all. Your vote no longer counts. Now let’s say the other county voted 600/390 for the candidate you voted for. Seems obvious that 604 votes should put the candidate in right? Nope, stalemate. Hmm. Something isn’t right there.
The argument will be that the states are supposed to be weighted, but the weighting isn’t right. Also it doesn’t ever reflect properly in winner take all. Flawed system.
We have a representative democracy and a Republic in the make up of the Senate and the House. In all of those elections, voted to select those representatives are all counted evenly amongst those that are cast in the election for those candidates.
In the election for the President, we do not. It should be a common vote across the masses where reach vote is the same.
We’ve systemically removed systems of fractional votes or other legal residents not getting to vote. Removing this system that gives fractional weighting is next.
Ryebread,
The states are not arbitrary. They all found purpose and standing based on the people that settled those states. The people in the states desired protection, as they still do, from the perils of democracy whereby if 50.1% decide in favor of something then it must be so. This is more easily adddressed the more local one becomes, it worsens as the distance from the governed grows. No state would have joined the union had not there been CLEAR AND PRECISE PROTECTIONS TO THEIR SOVEREIGNTY. The power of Virginia and New York was feared among the other colonies and they sought protection from the powers of those two states. The states, because no individual has a political standing outside of an organized concept of state, must remain sovereign and their soveignty is protected through republican provisions such as the electoral college.
Further, many senators were picked by the respective state legislatures NOT through direct vote. This enhanced the idea that loyalty remained to one’s state not to the federal government. Observations on the gutting of treasuries from the writings of Cincinnatus are examples of basis for denying democracy through republican principles. The founders understood well enough that power centralized was a controlling power, republican blocks on the centralizing of power are key underpinnings to the republic. Lincoln dismantled all, if not most, of those underpinnings.
If the electoral college is undone then states should put forth their inherent right to find standing on their own or among other like minded states who understand the dangers of democracy. As we have seen, the power of the state can undo direct democracy easily through the edicts of judges who are powered by the central state.
Lord, where is John Jay when you need him?
McCallum
rye, if you think you can build a tamper proof system of ANY kind you are mistaken. The enigma machine the German’s had in WWII was great until two things happened, we got our hands on one AND we got our hands on the key codes WITHOUT the Germans knowing we had it. NO SYSTEM is infallible, NONE, NADDA.
One would think that the system to protect the most powerful weapon system known to man, the ballistic missile submarine would have one such system. Read about the Walkers and how their spy ring compromised that very system during the cold war. Wikipedia has a very good article on it BUT it was much worse than their descriptions, trust me on that. I rode one too many times during that time period and I can attest to things that were not what they should have been.
As soon as you lay cable OR transmit data in any way in the open (even encrypted to the 1000th Nth degree) it becomes fallible. someone somewhere can break it. The email cracking this past summer should be a clue. Hundreds of millions of personal computers with viruses and malware and data breaches galore should be proof enough. NO DATA IS SECURE. NONE. Even data locked in a safe is vulnerable, PERIOD, because someone, somewhere can open it. To think otherwise is lunacy. Data system security today is known as threat mitigation, NOT threat removal. There is no way, PERIOD, that anyone can design a real time election system that does not contain any method or opening for breach because it can only work by transmitting data through electronic means. I’d be willing to bet a year’s pay on that one. And the bet would be that you would have to be able to 100% assure that EVERY vote would be tallied and reported correctly while having a 100% assurance that no external means could corrupt even one vote. I don’t know anyone that would take that bet and I have a very big circle of very intelligent friends in this business.
Smarter than the average bear
- The topic ‘NC Political Predictions’ is closed to new replies.
