ForumGarden

To establish term limits for Congress, he will require the congress to vote against their own narrow self interests.

Somehow, I don't see that happening.

Bruv;1502707 wrote: I agree there ought to be some sort of change, but the question is........................what has happened to warrant a change, the US and UK system has worked for centuries, why is it not working now ?


We have a fascist government in the UK aboiut to privatise the nhs and that most people in this country did not vote for, the US is about to get one and you ask what has happened???

Well the proverbial has hit the political fan already internationally.

Primeminister Turnbull has made an open dig toward Trump. "Protectionism leads to poverty" is the headline. He was supposed to secure a meeting with Trump on his way to Peru, but didnt get one....... i think he maybe fuming over this. Or maybe he's not in the proper golf club like the Jap primeminister?

I really think Trump should fix this because we just sent another contingent of soldiers to Iraq...... and i hope bribery isnt going to rear its ugly face.

We have farmers/growers ready to pick their crops and export them to the US they are afraid it wont happen?

gmc;1502762 wrote: We have a fascist government in the UK aboiut to privatise the nhs and that most people in this country did not vote for, the US is about to get one and you ask what has happened???


Calm down Jock.

It is not fascist......so far, but I know what you are getting at.

What I asked hasn't altered.......Why NOW has the voting system that seems to have worked for years and years began to fail us ?

The same system that gave us the NHS to start with.....remember.

That question was answered recently. Apparently, the political system has become polarised..... the gap between rich and poor being the driving force. To get votes votes as a politician you focus on the rich and poor ignoring everyone else inbetween,the things that the middle classes would ordinarily vote on politicians make deals on bi-partisanship leaving the 'inbetweeners' with no voice. ....... its more complicated than that but thats the bery nadic argument.

Apart from the Electoral College system (which also exists in the U.K. - at least until P.R. is introduced), the main ones responsible for his getting in are the voters. However, to my mind, the ones who didn't vote are just as much to blame. Agreed, if they had have voted they could just as easily have voted FOR Trump, but this is the sort of thing that annoys me - not voting, then protesting at the outcome...

REVEALED: More than half of anti-Trump Portland protestors didn't vote | World | News | Daily Express

The political system here is polarized by who is naive & stupid & who isn't. Not talking about the idealogues, they have opinions formed. Talking about those who voted Obama, Bernie, & then.........him whose name will not be mentioned. The cult of personality voter, those taken in by the truthiness of false "facts" told by a big shouting mouth.

LarsMac;1502702 wrote: There REALLY needs to be a "None of the Above" option on the ballot.

If that one gets the most votes everyone on this list goes home and we find someone else.


It wasn't until this election I took your suggestion seriously.

I come up with the conclusion that, which should be obvious, there has to be a decision. made.

LarsMac;1502702 wrote: Or we change the rules so that the winner must carry a majority of the total number of registered voters, rather than a majority of the votes cast.


:-5



LarsMac;1502702 wrote: The highest voter turnout in my lifetime was 1960 with 62.8% turnout. 31.5% of the qualified voters elected JFK.

In the history of the republic, a majority of qualified voters has NEVER elected a president. Seems to me it's time that changed.


Why?

Works for me.

FourPart;1502770 wrote: Apart from the Electoral College system (which also exists in the U.K. - at least until P.R. is introduced), the main ones responsible for his getting in are the voters. However, to my mind, the ones who didn't vote are just as much to blame. Agreed, if they had have voted they could just as easily have voted FOR Trump, but this is the sort of thing that annoys me - not voting, then protesting at the outcome...

REVEALED: More than half of anti-Trump Portland protestors didn't vote | World | News | Daily Express


Im sorry? The westminster system has an electrol college? We have the westminster system here and ive never heard of such a thing!

magentaflame;1502775 wrote: Im sorry? The westminster system has an electrol college? We have the westminster system here and ive never heard of such a thing!
It is essentially the same idea. Many candidates get voted in with a minority of the vote. They then go on to extenuate that unrepresentative result further by forming a further 'majority' made up of other minority elected candidates. From what I can make out, this is very similar to the way the Electoral College system works (or doesn't, as the case may be). Most M.P.s are pro-EU. Most of the Public are anti-EU (as demonstrated by the Referendum). If left to the Government we would definitely be Remaining (Electoral College system), but the Democratic Referendum (Popular Vote) says otherwise. Not identical, no, but it certainly seems to mirror the system in many ways.

magentaflame;1502775 wrote: Im sorry? The westminster system has an electrol college? We have the westminster system here and ive never heard of such a thing!


It's exactly the same except the elected Member of Parliament is the Electoral College representative for that constituency. When they get to Westminster, the party or combination of parties which can successfully win a vote of confidence among this Electoral College will form the next Administration. The way the sums are done, and the ability to win the popular vote but lose the election, are identical to the American system. We have more parties so the combinations capable of providing that vote of confidence are potentially more complex, when there's no overall majority from a single party, but that's just an extension of the principle.

As an average voter, I am amazed I had to Google when we had the opportunity to change to PR.....2011, and more amazed why we were not interested enough to change. W, and more amazed why we were not interested enough to change. Was it too complicated or not explained well enough at the time ?

Except that the Alternative Voting system that the referendum was held about was not Proportional Representation, and was a much more complicated system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Ki ... esentation

LarsMac;1502761 wrote: To establish term limits for Congress, he will require the congress to vote against their own narrow self interests.

Somehow, I don't see that happening.


In whose interest it is to tell me who I can't for?

Since when is it up to the government to decided who can run for office?

I am for freedom to run and have a constitutionary keep the repersentaive if ttheir choice.

FourPart;1502795 wrote: Except that the Alternative Voting system that the referendum was held about was not Proportional Representation, and was a much more complicated system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Ki ... esentation


So they offer us something we don't understand ?...................very clever.

I can only be honest......I thought....or I think now, that it WAS proportional representation, and shamefacedly I don't remember how I voted......if I did.....I think I must have.

I am of the opinion that those 'in power' are not as clever as they think they are, and that they have a vested interest in.....shall I say......duping us.......so as to retain their positions.There are far too many.....career politicians....William Haque ???? What a knob he is.....for instance.

Gone are the days when a politician entered politics with a drive to improve the lives of their fellow man. Multi millionaire Oxford educated war mongering socialist prime ministers ?........heaven help us all.

Am I rambling ?

Just so that I know... is there any form of Proportional Representation which doesn't involve Party Lists of candidates in the order each party wants them elected? Because if there is, I don't know what it involves.

My own opinion of party lists is that they're absolutely unacceptable. It guarantees the election of a selected group of members who have no possibility of losing.

Systems like the single transferable vote, fine - that equates to voting down the candidates you least want in office rather than voting for the candidate you do want, but I see no harm in it. What it isn't is Proportional Representation.

spot;1502803 wrote: Just so that I know... is there any form of Proportional Representation which doesn't involve Party Lists of candidates in the order each party wants them elected? Because if there is, I don't know what it involves.

My own opinion of party lists is that they're absolutely unacceptable. It guarantees the election of a selected group of members who have no possibility of losing.

Systems like the single transferable vote, fine - that equates to voting down the candidates you least want in office rather than voting for the candidate you do want, but I see no harm in it. What it isn't is Proportional Representation.
That could be an interesting way of voting - like one of the surveys based on the 1 - 5 scale. For every candidate you get answer the question "How much would you like to see candidate 'X' win this election? 1 for not at all to 5 for very much so". The outright voting would remain the same, but with room for those who are not fully decided.

Bruv;1502792 wrote: As an average voter, I am amazed I had to Google when we had the opportunity to change to PR.....2011, and more amazed why we were not interested enough to change. W, and more amazed why we were not interested enough to change. Was it too complicated or not explained well enough at the time ?


Yes. The one chance the liberals have had to make a significant difference and they blew it so they could get in to bed with the tories and get properly shafted. The

version in scotland is working and people vote in numbers as they have never done in the past. Bear in mind the original idea of it is it prevents a small party getting control despite not having the popular support (that is why it was imposed on germany and italy post ww2) labour thought it would keep the snp in check. They still can't quite come to terms with why they have lost so much support in both the scottish and westminster parliaments.

I have to admit when I look at PR I find it very confusing to understand.......sure enough, it's my fault being mathematically dyslexic I suppose.

But the figures shown HERE show how unfair the voting system is in practice.

There must be a better way.

Bruv;1502824 wrote: I have to admit when I look at PR I find it very confusing to understand.......sure enough, it's my fault being mathematically dyslexic I suppose.

But the figures shown HERE show how unfair the voting system is in practice.

There must be a better way.


There is but since it means neither labour or tory would be able to form a government both are opposed to it and the media sell us this myth we need "strong" government.

It's as with Trump why bis a bully and braggart seen as being strong rather than just a bully and braggart.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-1 ... ast-member

Seems like he is nbot going to be able to accept that people in a free country have a right to boo and be generally disrespectful to politicians.

cars;1502756 wrote: One thing Trump stated in his campaigning, was that he believes in "Term Limits" for our politicians here. And so do I, currently "they" get their job and have it till they die!

They have no real incentive to do good for their constituents, what's good for us, the common people, doesn't apply to them. They should be "re-elected for each 4 year term.The general hope, as I understand it, is that the more senior a representative becomes the better the chance of gaining a committee chairmanship somewhere which carries significant influence for one's state or district.

I agree it's very flawed, but that's how competition works within the body politic.

Ahso!;1502858 wrote: The general hope, as I understand it, is that the more senior a representative becomes the better the chance of gaining a committee chairmanship somewhere which carries significant influence for one's state or district.

I agree it's very flawed, but that's how competition works within the body politic.


The problem here in USA is that once a representative is in office, they are there for life, they become a "senior representative" just by time passing bye. They don't have to necessarily work hard for their constituents, they just roll along day by day.

If they had to be "elected" every for years to keep that job, they would have to work for their supper, same as the common folks! :wah:

cars;1502876 wrote: The problem here in USA is that once a representative is in office, they are there for life, they become a "senior representative" just by time passing bye. They don't have to necessarily work hard for their constituents, they just roll along day by day.

If they had to be "elected" every for years to keep that job, they would have to work for their supper, same as the common folks! :wah:House members are up for reelection every two years and senators every six years.

They're rarely challenged for reselection. If a state has a bias in favor of one party then the elected representative won't be removed. Fixing them to a maximum of two Senate or Governor terms or four House terms will mix things a bit.

I get the term limits argument, I was only pointing out that they are indeed up for reelection. It's skewed and unfair in many ways, however, considering the structure of the system itself, that's how it was designed to operate. I'm all for rewriting the rule book.

cars;1502638 wrote: Just saw this on line this morning.

All is not lost for Hillary lovers.

On December 19th, the Electors of the Electoral College will cast their ballots.

If they all vote the way their states voted, Donald wins.

However, they can vote for Hillary if they choose, even in states where that is not allowed, their vote would still be counted.

So again, it Ain't over till it's over, or until the fat lady sings, which occurs first!



However, it it were to happen that the Electors voted for Hillary, and she won, then the riots would continue with Trump supporter's! :-2




In the media this morning :





Thousands of people have taken to the streets in the week since the election, outraged that Donald Trump is the new president-elect.

Since Hillary Clinton likely won the popular vote, over 4 million have signed a petition to encourage the Electoral College to make Clinton president instead.

The electors will gather at their state capitols in December, and vote to formally make Trump the 45th president.

With so many citizens calling on the Electoral College to choose Clinton, and some electors even saying they will switch their votes, could it happen?



As the saying goes: It ain't over till it's over! :wah:

magentaflame;1502743 wrote: We have that!.......its putting a phallic drawing on the voting form .....its not counted, or the vote is spread equally between candidates....not sure.

Its gotten so bad that one whoopsy of a politician said their should be fines for doing that. Not sure how that would work....... but it goes to show how switched on that politician is.


Main problem with that is that the number of spoilt papers is generally not announced so we don't know the size of the protest. IMHO it should be.

It's over cars. It's very over. Mucho over. Over & out.

AnneBoleyn;1502942 wrote: It's over cars. It's very over. Mucho over. Over & out.


Yes I believe it's over too, but the Hillary loving media keep putting out there hope for her supporters.

I myself, didn't (still don't) like Hillary & or the Donald!

I don't know why people claim dislike of Hillary, & for all of you unenthused out there, enjoy the phuking over that's coming.

AnneBoleyn;1502960 wrote: I don't know why people claim dislike of HillaryAre we not allowed to merely dislike Hillary's history as regards America's foreign policy? You seem to think she has no background, that she's sprung innocent onto the election platform. She has a history and it is horrific.

The Whites in America put Trump in power , they put Obama in power as well. The nation did not fear what Obama would do, but many here in America fear what Trump will do. And I see instability in Trumps ways already.

spot;1502963 wrote: Are we not allowed to merely dislike Hillary's history as regards America's foreign policy? You seem to think she has no background, that she's sprung innocent onto the election platform. She has a history and it is horrific.


I agree. Speaking with a friend of mine who is a fan of Hillary I asked her about the 30+ year history of Hillary and I was told not "to believe all those lies." Really? They're ALL lies?

How many Libyan refugees are in Europe at the moment? A thousand times more than there were before Hillary Clinton's State department destabilized the previously secure Libyan government, flooded the exile opposition with enough bribes to fund a civil war and totally wrecked the country for the next generation. That's not a matter of lies, it's documented in threads across this site if nothing else. Nobody can pretend it didn't happen. How exactly have US interests been advanced by that slaughter? Who oversaw it?

spot;1502967 wrote: How many Libyan refugees are in Europe at the moment? A thousand times more than there were before Hillary Clinton's State department destabilized the previously secure Libyan government, flooded the exile opposition with enough bribes to fund a civil war and totally wrecked the country for the next generation. That's not a matter of lies, it's documented in threads across this site if nothing else. Nobody can pretend it didn't happen. How exactly have US interests been advanced by that slaughter? Who oversaw it?


It was not Hillary who destabilized Libya.

LarsMac;1502969 wrote: It was not Hillary who destabilized Libya.


Ah. An interesting observation. Thank you.

Libya was destabilized? That's common ground, I hope?

Who did destabilize Libya?

spot;1502963 wrote: Are we not allowed to merely dislike Hillary's history as regards America's foreign policy? You seem to think she has no background, that she's sprung innocent onto the election platform. She has a history and it is horrific.


Did you just vote in our election? No? Shut up. You are "allowed" to dislike whatever, whomever suits your fancy.

Mickiel;1502965 wrote: The Whites in America put Trump in power , they put Obama in power as well. The nation did not fear what Obama would do, but many here in America fear what Trump will do. And I see instability in Trumps ways already.


At least you didn't say the Jews, though Chuck Schumer, Amy's cousin, did a real back-stabbing turncoat in 2008. Which whites do you mean in particular? GASP! Like Trump, you're saying elections are Rigged? :sneaky:

spot;1502972 wrote: Ah. An interesting observation. Thank you.

Libya was destabilized? That's common ground, I hope?

Who did destabilize Libya?


From reading up on the history of the country, I would say that Ghaddafi had a direct hand in destabilizing Libya. Several times.

ZAP;1502966 wrote: I agree. Speaking with a friend of mine who is a fan of Hillary I asked her about the 30+ year history of Hillary and I was told not "to believe all those lies." Really? They're ALL lies?


As a matter of fact, you remember that word? according to Fact checking organizations, Hillary lied the least, by far, of any other candidate. I guess your friend supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to choose. What's your beef? Oh wait, who cares, it's all over & to any voters of that man who voted against her as much or more as voting for him? Rots of Ruck, thanks for buying my bridge in Brooklyn.

ZAP;1502966 wrote: I agree. Speaking with a friend of mine who is a fan of Hillary I asked her about the 30+ year history of Hillary and I was told not "to believe all those lies." Really? They're ALL lies?Unfortunately, the things HC brags about are far worse than what she's been accused of.

The lady is a cold-blooded murdering Zionist. Bush in a dress.

All this talk about roe v wade and children and HC. When i see Clinton care about Palestinian women and children as well as women and children from other Middle Eastern countries, then she'll begin to earn respect from me.

LarsMac;1502975 wrote: From reading up on the history of the country, I would say that Ghaddafi had a direct hand in destabilizing Libya. Several times.


I suppose that would be correct if annoying American leaders were a legitimate destabilizing factor.

LarsMac;1502975 wrote: From reading up on the history of the country, I would say that Ghaddafi had a direct hand in destabilizing Libya. Several times.


Ghaddafi kept Libya stable for decades - in the same way that Tito kept Yugoslavia stable.

Bombing his palace is a clear attempt to murder him, on the other hand, definitely did not keep the country stable - not to mention being blatantly illegal. Admittedly not Hillary's doing but definitely America's.

Broad statment, but Im not sure Trump is quite catching on. I dont think he understands he is not a free man anymore. That he actually belongs to the American people. And just an observation....... it seems like he's stacking his cabnet and surrounds with close friends and relatives rather than qualified people. I see this coming to a corrupt messy end.

I realise Americans dont watch a lot of international news, but i think you need to know there are a lot of leaders around the world visiting other countries yto engage in talks like never before.

Ahso!;1502979 wrote: Unfortunately, the things HC brags about are far worse than what she's been accused of.

The lady is a cold-blooded murdering Zionist. Bush in a dress.

All this talk about roe v wade and children and HC. When i see Clinton care about Palestinian women and children as well as women and children from other Middle Eastern countries, then she'll begin to earn respect from me.


Defending Trump by attacking Hillary is really getting to be old, and now that she is out of it, rather pointless.

Bryn Mawr;1502995 wrote: Ghaddafi kept Libya stable for decades - in the same way that Tito kept Yugoslavia stable.

Bombing his palace is a clear attempt to murder him, on the other hand, definitely did not keep the country stable - not to mention being blatantly illegal. Admittedly not Hillary's doing but definitely America's.


I don't know about illegal, but the bombing was definitely warranted.

Reagan on Libya Air Strikes

On April 14, 1986, President Ronald Reagan addresses the nation to announce that he has authorized a series of air strikes against Lybia. The military action was ordered as retaliation for a Berlin terrorist bombing, which Reagan describes as the latest act in Lybia's "reign of terror.


History

Except that Kadaffi seemed to mellow out I know of no destableizion.

Wanna talk about destabilization?

2011 military intervention in Libya

People of short memories.

I remember because I was all for killing the bastard. I was short sighted.

LarsMac;1503002 wrote: Defending Trump by attacking Hillary is really getting to be old, and now that she is out of it, rather pointless.


To be true.

What i dont understand what Trump is on about when it comes to Clinton. First he says he's going to put her in prison then does a turn around like he's pardoned her or something....WTF? Who does he think he is? Its not up to him....its up to congress to decide.

Its almost Python like...... lpicture this..... Trump standing on a mountain crying out "I'M KING OF THE WORLD"! Then his pants fall down and everyone see's him as he really is.

Rather sad really, though comical. Another Reagan...... it'll look good on the surface but in the long run dissapointing

tude dog;1503006 wrote: I don't know about illegal, but the bombing was definitely warranted.



History

Except that Kadaffi seemed to mellow out I know of no destableizion.

Wanna talk about destabilization?

2011 military intervention in Libya

People of short memories.

I remember because I was all for killing the bastard. I was short sighted.


In what way was it warranted?

How can it not be illegal? The US was not at war with Libya but it carried out an unprovoked attack with the sole intent of murdering the lawful Head of State.

LarsMac;1503002 wrote: Defending Trump by attacking Hillary is really getting to be old, and now that she is out of it, rather pointless.That's a neoliberal defense talking point. Who's defending Trump? Also, my post was a reply to a post that touched on Clinton's honesty. i didn't discuss her honesty, what I did is point out the fact that she's a tool of both Israel and SA, and she's nothing more than a hypocrite.