Thread: President Harris

Originally Posted by david44

How could you remove the electoral college via a constitutional amendment passed in both houses?

Just the houses is not enough. It would have to be ratified by 3/4 of the States (i.e. 38).

Originally Posted by nidhogg

Just the houses is not enough. It would have to be ratified by 3/4 of the States (i.e. 38).

TThanks for that, do you think it would be fairer?

Originally Posted by MarilynMonroe

Ya so what.. she isn't going around saying that is she? It is you that is making a big deal of it.

Here's the thing: every office I've run for I was the first to win. First person of color. First woman. First woman of color. Every time.

Kamala Harris

Originally Posted by david44

TThanks for that, do you think it would be fairer?

Of course it would be. But the Republicans record of winning the electoral college and losing the popular vote means there's fuck all chance it will ever happen.

^ It's a long time ago now, but I vaguely recall the reason for constituency vs PR in the UK and wonder if the US system was base similarly.
The reason was to do with looking after rural vs urban concerns. Higher populations in urban areas and PR would favour their attitudes and needs in favour of rural attitudes and needs. Can't recall the details but is US set up to protect in the same way?

should be enough here.......

Why Was the Electoral College Created?

Originally Posted by Troy

^ It's a long time ago now, but I vaguely recall the reason for constituency vs PR in the UK and wonder if the US system was base similarly.
The reason was to do with looking after rural vs urban concerns. Higher populations in urban areas and PR would favour their attitudes and needs in favour of rural attitudes and needs. Can't recall the details but is US set up to protect in the same way?

More or less yes. It meant the smaller states would have a similar level of vote as the big states/urban centres.

Originally Posted by david44

I think Harris will lose.

She pre empted any real debate on nominee.
Her collusion and cover up of Biden's issues show poor judgement not loyalty.
.

Have you been drinking some Republican kool aid?

Originally Posted by DrWilly

Have you been drinking some Republican kool aid?

Here's some more

Have a zip

Originally Posted by Troy

^ It's a long time ago now, but I vaguely recall the reason for constituency vs PR in the UK and wonder if the US system was base similarly.
The reason was to do with looking after rural vs urban concerns. Higher populations in urban areas and PR would favour their attitudes and needs in favour of rural attitudes and needs. Can't recall the details but is US set up to protect in the same way?

Of course you now have the situation where California (pop: 39,000,000) has the same number of senators as Wyoming (pop: 580,000).

Which is fucking ludicrous.

^^Cat fight!

I don't know Kamala that much, as she has been supporting Biden for four years, so it is good to hear her and what she stands for. There may be some truth to what was said in that debate from both sides. I want to hear Kamala more and what she stands for. I definitely know that it is tough when you have a choice of only two candidates and there is no way we want Trump in office.

Originally Posted by taxexile

Here's the thing: every office I've run for I was the first to win. First person of color. First woman. First woman of color. Every time.

Kamala Harris

Well
Last time she ran for office, she didn't win much.

And the VP thinghy was given to her just like now, when Biden's delegates and campaign funds are transfered to her.

So far nothing but a crowning to scare other candidates away.


I reckon the Dem elite has made a mistake.

She's weak and will throw everything on the floor in a debate

Originally Posted by Switch

Her team will be aware of this and take measures to minimize the impact. No doubt that she has the means to defeat Trump. Trump represents all the rednecks and Hillbilly supporters who will go to any depths just to vote for him.
The country is divided into two groups. Liberals and Trump idiots. Those idiots are dangerous, and they will still be there when Harris becomes president.
Bide v Trump was the battle of geriatric insults. As daft as it sounds, the Harris demolition of Trump will allow cowardly republicans to bury their worries about losing voters.by backing Trump. Trump represents the absolute worst of republican values, and has the deluded supporters to prove it.

Women have come a long way against misogyny, but there is still a long way to go.

I agree, well said.

Originally Posted by MarilynMonroe

I agree, well said.

No; not well said

Originally Posted by david44

I think Harris will lose.

She pre empted any real debate on nominee.
Her collusion and cover up of Biden's issues show poor judgement not loyalty.

Of course she appeals to the left, some african Americans and young but they have nowhere else to go and many do not vote.

Disagree, I think she has a huge chance to get the black, women and young democratic votes. She already has a ton of endorsements and backing from the big dogs.
I think she has a great chance! The only problem is those republican states and gun tooting voters which luckily, don't make up all of the US states.
Great article on the topic.

Has Kamala Harris got what it takes to beat Donald Trump?

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Of course you now have the situation where California (pop: 39,000,000) has the same number of senators as Wyoming (pop: 580,000).

Which is fucking ludicrous.

I'm not saying it's a good system, just trying to explain why it was set up that way. I think it should be modified to better suit the modern demographics, but not to PR. There are other reasons against PR, it leads to more parties and weaker governments, due to coalitions, where nothing really changes. As I mentioned, it's a very long time ago that I studied this and I'm sure there are other people here with a more modern perspective.

Originally Posted by helge

See, MM ?

You don't really agree with such Barstool Philosophy

Well when you put it that way, he has to back it up.
I don't know enough about politics, but I do know what we've been putting up with in regards to Trump over the last decade it seems.
If Trump gets in, it'll be a disaster not just for the US, but for Canada and the world really.

Considering how much the racist scum lost their tiny little.minds when Obama won , it should be rather epic when Kamala defeats their orange Jesus

Originally Posted by MarilynMonroe

Well when you put it that way, he has to back it up.

Originally Posted by MarilynMonroe

I don't know enough about politics

You don't have to know about politics, to know that "there are 2 groups in the US; Liberals and Trump Idiots", sounds wrong

Surely there are more diversity

Originally Posted by MarilynMonroe

If Trump gets in, it'll be a disaster not just for the US, but for Canada and the world really.

Now that is an opinion, and you allowed to hold that

Originally Posted by MarilynMonroe

Well when you put it that way, he has to back it up.
I don't know enough about politics, but I do know what we've been putting up with in regards to Trump over the last decade it seems.
If Trump gets in, it'll be a disaster not just for the US, but for Canada and the world really.

I agree and that is why it was so important to chooe a centre leaning candidate to attract less extreme former Republicans, the Democrats were offered an open goal and missed, No one knows yet until votes cast but I think Harris is less likely to attract them. As I said above the young and some minorities like muslims were never likely to vote Trump, Harris ensures they won't pick her the loss of Michigan alone may the nail that secures Trump.I have nothing against Harris and in France , Ireland she would be electable.

Originally Posted by Troy

There are other reasons against PR, it leads to more parties

Does

Democracy, innit

Inconvenient stuff

Originally Posted by Troy

weaker governments, due to coalitions,

A coalition government based on a public majority vote, is way stronger morally, than your 200+ mandate majority Labour rule based on 32% of the votes.

Originally Posted by Troy

where nothing really changes.

Harder to steamroll changes through, and harder to turn everything up side down, after the next election.

Stabile

Originally Posted by Troy

I'm sure there are other people here with a more modern perspective.

Opinions !