Site Search:
 
Speak Korean Now!
Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

The Future Legacy of President HRC
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
 
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  

How will the HRC Presidency be regarded?
Positive and rewarding
27%
 27%  [ 3 ]
Negative and disappointing
72%
 72%  [ 8 ]
Total Votes : 11

Author Message
Non



Joined: 22 May 2013

PostPosted: Sat Jul 08, 2017 7:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It shouldn't be decided by any state. Forget state borders. It should be decided by the popular vote. One person, one vote, all weighted equally. No special treatment toward people from smaller states. The candidate with the most votes wins. If more people from the winning side happen to live in CA than any other state, so be it; that's not the same as "California deciding the fate of the country." (California certainly wouldn't vote 100% Democratic anyway, they cast the third highest amount of Republican votes, after TX and FL). The loser of the popular vote should not win the election. How is that defensible?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
J.Q.A.



Joined: 09 Feb 2017
Location: Seoul

PostPosted: Sat Jul 08, 2017 2:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pure Democracy is mob rule...the U.S. is not a Democracy. It is a Constitutional Republic. Read up on it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Non



Joined: 22 May 2013

PostPosted: Sat Jul 08, 2017 4:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Constitution can be changed. If it were changed to to popular vote for president, as it is in most countries, it would still be a constitutional republic. Not a direct democracy--that would be where decisions are made by the people, not their elected representatives. This idea you seem to have that a constitutional republic by definition must appoint it's president via electoral college, and all countries that don't use this system are governed by "mob rule" (a meaningless slur) suggests that you don't really understand the terms you're tossing around.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
J.Q.A.



Joined: 09 Feb 2017
Location: Seoul

PostPosted: Sat Jul 08, 2017 4:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Non wrote:
The Constitution can be changed. If it were changed to to popular vote for president, as it is in most countries, it would still be a constitutional republic. Not a direct democracy--that would be where decisions are made by the people, not their elected representatives. This idea you seem to have that a constitutional republic by definition must appoint it's president via electoral college, and all countries that don't use this system are governed by "mob rule" (a meaningless slur) suggests that you don't really understand the terms you're tossing around.


A. Hamilton would agree with what I'm saying...a pure Democracy is mob rule, or at least devolves into it.

And, you did miss the point of the U.S. being a Republic...to protect the minority, which is why the E.C. is there.

You can dazzle, gnash your teeth, scream and cry...but the point is...ah...heck with it. If you can't figure it out, it is not worth the effort of my fingers.

Go on then...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Non



Joined: 22 May 2013

PostPosted: Sat Jul 08, 2017 6:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

J.Q.A. wrote:
Non wrote:
The Constitution can be changed. If it were changed to to popular vote for president, as it is in most countries, it would still be a constitutional republic. Not a direct democracy--that would be where decisions are made by the people, not their elected representatives. This idea you seem to have that a constitutional republic by definition must appoint it's president via electoral college, and all countries that don't use this system are governed by "mob rule" (a meaningless slur) suggests that you don't really understand the terms you're tossing around.


A. Hamilton would agree with what I'm saying...a pure Democracy is mob rule, or at least devolves into it.


Yeah, you said that already. The bit you quoted from me, right above, refutes it. You need to say something new now, in response to what I just said, not just repeat what I already responded to. If you don't want to do that, that's your right, but then I have no idea why you quoted me. If you didn't understand what I said, I can try to explain it again.

J.Q.A. wrote:
And, you did miss the point of the U.S. being a Republic...to protect the minority, which is why the E.C. is there.


Protect you from what? Not winning? Not getting to dictate policy to the majority? You have basic Constitutional rights that are inviolable. Beyond that, what do you need "protection" from?

You see the problem, I hope. One side or the other has to lose. They don't get to run the show. "Protecting" the losers by letting them win doesn't solve anything, it just shifts the need for "protection" to the other side. Of course, this whole notion that any side needs to be "protected" from being out of power is laughable, but even if we accept it, it doesn't work.

J.Q.A. wrote:
You can dazzle, gnash your teeth, scream and cry...but the point is...ah...heck with it. If you can't figure it out, it is not worth the effort of my fingers.


Perfectly calm here, dude. What the hell does "dazzle" mean in this context? I don't know what you're doing on a message board if you can't or won't articulate what's on your mind, but that's your choice.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fox



Joined: 04 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Sat Jul 08, 2017 6:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Non wrote:
The loser of the popular vote should not win the election. How is that defensible?


It's defensible under the Constitution of the United States of America, on the basis that, while it can be changed, the people of America have not yet decided to change it through the mechanism available to them. Until or unless such a change occurs, then it is entirely legitimate to say, "The loser of the popular vote winning the election is defensible." Yes, determining the President by popular vote would, in the modern era, make some sense if one views the states as nothing but arbitrary boundaries with no interests of their own. By contrast, if one views the states as sovereign entities with interests, and one acknowledges that it is good for the system to balance those interests in ways not entirely and purely reliant upon population and voter turn-out, then the current system also holds a certain logic. You seem to accept the notion of democracy, and you also seem to accept that there exists a mechanism for constitutional change of which the people could avail themselves if desired, so it's not clear how you can ask, "How is that defensible?" when confronted with the present system. Your task instead is to explain how the alternative would be better, and more specifically, be better for the people of at least 3/4 of the states, such that they would embrace the change.

I have a suspicion that the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, if it were ever to go into action in our lifetimes, would be found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court as it's likely to be composed at that time, regardless of its actual merits, so I would not rely upon such a hope. Besides, even if it were enacted, it could be destroyed by states later pulling out; the sheer instability of such a resolution would itself be sub-optimal. If this is to change, an amendment is the wisest course.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
J.Q.A.



Joined: 09 Feb 2017
Location: Seoul

PostPosted: Sat Jul 08, 2017 6:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Non wrote:
J.Q.A. wrote:
Non wrote:
The Constitution can be changed. If it were changed to to popular vote for president, as it is in most countries, it would still be a constitutional republic. Not a direct democracy--that would be where decisions are made by the people, not their elected representatives. This idea you seem to have that a constitutional republic by definition must appoint it's president via electoral college, and all countries that don't use this system are governed by "mob rule" (a meaningless slur) suggests that you don't really understand the terms you're tossing around.


A. Hamilton would agree with what I'm saying...a pure Democracy is mob rule, or at least devolves into it.


Yeah, you said that already. The bit you quoted from me, right above, refutes it. You need to say something new now, in response to what I just said, not just repeat what I already responded to. If you don't want to do that, that's your right, but then I have no idea why you quoted me. If you didn't understand what I said, I can try to explain it again.

J.Q.A. wrote:
And, you did miss the point of the U.S. being a Republic...to protect the minority, which is why the E.C. is there.


Protect you from what? Not winning? Not getting to dictate policy to the majority? You have basic Constitutional rights that are inviolable. Beyond that, what do you need "protection" from?

You see the problem, I hope. One side or the other has to lose. They don't get to run the show. "Protecting" the losers by letting them win doesn't solve anything, it just shifts the need for "protection" to the other side. Of course, this whole notion that any side needs to be "protected" from being out of power is laughable, but even if we accept it, it doesn't work.

J.Q.A. wrote:
You can dazzle, gnash your teeth, scream and cry...but the point is...ah...heck with it. If you can't figure it out, it is not worth the effort of my fingers.


Perfectly calm here, dude. What the hell does "dazzle" mean in this context? I don't know what you're doing on a message board if you can't or won't articulate what's on your mind, but that's your choice.


No, I don't need to do anything. I don't need to spoon feed you information. I don't need to convince you. I don't need to try and look past your quasi-clever rhetoric that is somehow trying to capture a moral platform. I don't need to be worried about who you think should be on a message board...though, that was cute, I admit.

The answer you seek is less complex than you want or wish it to be.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Revenant



Joined: 27 Jul 2005

PostPosted: Sat Jul 08, 2017 9:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Another person just found themselves no longer welcome to post on Dave's and after I warned in a previously locked thread to be civil. Civil means discussing topics without resorting to personally attacking, insulting(veiled or otherwise), baiting others to attack or insult, etc.

Current events section of course can be a hotly debated issues section, but it doesn't need to devolve into nor groom toxicity amongst posters.

It isn't and won't be tolerated and in the past week a few who couldn't abide by the rules have become no longer welcome here.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International