Yup.
It's terrible and the founders knew it quickly and tried to fix it after only a couple of elections.
They fixed some of the worst parts but enough people have benefited from it at key moments to kill real reform.
Imagine the united states without electoral.college
- Thread starter dirtydaveiii
- Start date
It's terrible and the founders knew it quickly and tried to fix it after only a couple of elections.
They fixed some of the worst parts but enough people have benefited from it at key moments to kill real reform.
its fine and has worked this long for them and will continue to work
are you American? if not why do you care?
we also have a system where the one with the most votes overall does not win
Last edited:
You realy think Al Gore would not have gone into Afghanistan? Iraq I can see, possibly, but Afghanistan was a foregone conclusion after 9/11. And if you think he would have withstood the pressure that the Military Industrial Complex would have brought forward you haven't been paying attention.
Obama cowtowed as well. Biden is a one termer, and despite protestations to the contrary knows it. Thats why he thumbed his nose. He had nothing to lose. And besides that the arms dealers are now gearing up for the Cold War with China.
Antifa, Q-Anon are not in existance due to what you think. They are both the result of dissatisfaction with the govt and mass income inequality. Redirected towards the culture war. Their equivalent was inevitable.
Al gore would have went after the taliban but the occupation of Afghanistan would have been far from a forgone conclusion. Most certainly the democrats wouls have pulled out when the rest of nato did. As for Iraq you must not have been alive for 9/11 or you must be too old to remember but every country in thr world was against the American invasion. Canadians were assaulted and their property vandalized because we saw how corrupt this invasion was. It was less justified than the American capture of modern day Texas.
As for disproportionate incomes you don't think the GOP is solely responsible for that?
When do you think NATO pulled out of Afghanistan?
You're aware that Obama was a Democrat right?
Except the 56 countries that financially and militarily supported the invasion. So either you are misinformed or being disingenuous. As to the Dems pulling out of Afghanistan Obama had a clear majority in the beginning and stayed for 8 years. He didn't even deal with Guantanimo did he? And ended out with the appelation of "Drone Strike King" for how many he authorized. The party as a whole continued to financially and morally support the war and Military budget increases every year with about yhe same dissent ratio as the Libertarian GOP wing.
Al Gore would done mostly the same in Afghanistan.
And what ifs are subjective and useless other than as mental masterbation. Especially with politics.
As for income inquality ask Sinema and Manchin. And Nancy worth over 100 million. Its a shell game for the donors now. Obama had a Super Majority and did nothing.
I think it’s fair to think about what would have happened if Gore had become pres in 2000 without bringing up the electoral college. It was so close it could have went either way.
1. Regarding Afghanistan .. I think it still happens. I don’t thing Iraq happens. Many have argued that the resources used for Irag hampered the Afghan effort at a critical juncture, so it’s quite possible this conflict would have ended up differently.
2. The US Swings from blue to red. Some other issue would have arose and it’s very unlikely the dems hold all of 2004 , 2008 and 2012. Basically the first half of the 2010 decade would have likely been red for part of it.
3. This could have certainly meant no Trump and a less ugly GOP, but I still think things would be ugly today even if it was less so. That is because social media exists and the one thing it has done more than any other tool is flame political divide which was always an issue.
1. Regarding Afghanistan .. I think it still happens. I don’t thing Iraq happens. Many have argued that the resources used for Irag hampered the Afghan effort at a critical juncture, so it’s quite possible this conflict would have ended up differently.
2. The US Swings from blue to red. Some other issue would have arose and it’s very unlikely the dems hold all of 2004 , 2008 and 2012. Basically the first half of the 2010 decade would have likely been red for part of it.
3. This could have certainly meant no Trump and a less ugly GOP, but I still think things would be ugly today even if it was less so. That is because social media exists and the one thing it has done more than any other tool is flame political divide which was always an issue.
Of course.
It is incredibly hard to reform a system because there is always someone benefiting from the status quo and also someone else genuinely unsure about if the new thing is going to really help.
"Better the devil you know" and all that.
That's the big question in the counterfactual.
Before even getting into "would Gore have gone into Iraq after Afghanistan?" and "would Gore even have gone into Afghanistan?" you need to address "does the 9/11 attack succeed at all under Gore?".
Those are three inflection points right there and any one of them changes things pretty dramatically.
That's before you get to the 2008 financial crisis and whether or not it plays out the same.
(I think that still happens no matter what the war footing and since it happens during the election, it tanks whoever the Dems run in 2008. Not sure it means President McCain though, since he may not be a contender in a less "war on terror" world.)
Point of clarification - the US Electoral college came about as a compromise for small states v large states population wise. Thus one house of gov't each state would have equal representation.
I believe Al Gore would have gone into Afghanistan.
He might not have ignored the brief on bin laden determined to attack USA however (Bush II was focusing back to russia).
However, the GOP would have crucified Gore, definitely blame him Gorefor 9/11 and try to impeach him. They would not have called for unity and getting behind the president. They would hammer away, say the attack would have never happened if George Bush was elected, and Bush would ramp up his tough on terrorism stance, and maybe McCain would have got the 2004 R nomination. But make no mistake the R's would have exploited 9/11 it for all they could in order to win in 2004.
The US Supreme Court would be very different.
The R's would not have been able to gerrymander their way into minority rule at the state or house of representatives level because of a more liberal supreme court. And the voting rights act would have not been gutted. .
I believe Al Gore would have gone into Afghanistan.
He might not have ignored the brief on bin laden determined to attack USA however (Bush II was focusing back to russia).
However, the GOP would have crucified Gore, definitely blame him Gorefor 9/11 and try to impeach him. They would not have called for unity and getting behind the president. They would hammer away, say the attack would have never happened if George Bush was elected, and Bush would ramp up his tough on terrorism stance, and maybe McCain would have got the 2004 R nomination. But make no mistake the R's would have exploited 9/11 it for all they could in order to win in 2004.
The US Supreme Court would be very different.
The R's would not have been able to gerrymander their way into minority rule at the state or house of representatives level because of a more liberal supreme court. And the voting rights act would have not been gutted. .
The US does have a FPTP system. (Plurality vote is still what happens.)
If the US had a Parliamentary system, you basically just have the House of Representatives, since that works the same way.
And yes, the GOP has a malapportion advantage there (one they are making worse with aggressive gerrymandering) but the Dems have held their own despite the structural problems.
The issue is that if the only vote that matters is the Congressional one, it changes what people focus on so you can't just look at past elections and say "that's how it would play out".
Ticket splitting used to be a big thing in the US and if it went parliamentary that goes away. (It is less common now, so you could say that more recent elections are a good indicator.)
Not really.
The proportion of representatives was part of that compromise.
The electoral college was because the founders couldn't agree how to do it. Some really didn't want direct popular election, but they also didn' t really want the Congress voting for President directly (they pitched it but enough people didn' t like it that it wasn't gonna fly). So electing a whole OTHER group of people who would actually vote for President is what they came up with.
And, of course, the runner up was Vice President.
After the first election without Washington they realized the system they came up with was incredibly shitty but were only able to change the part that was OBVIOUSLY shitty to EVERYONE (the VP thing).
I do think the GOP would have maybe refused to unite the country after 9/11 if it happened.
The Supreme Court is trickier.
Would the Senate (almost certainly still Repiblican) have gone with the "we refuse to even consider a nominee" under Frist?
The gerrymandering would still have happened to a large extend because the REDMAP project didn't require the Supreme Court.
But a non-Roberts court doesn't gut voting rights, I agree.
It's not fine, it has only "worked" in that it failed to elect the popular vote winner only about 10% of the time and has consistently been something people wanted to fix for centuries.
Yes.
I also have a real interest in voting systems and election systems, so this has always interested me.
Yes, and people complain about that with good reason as well.
Straight plurailty with uni-member regional districts is generally a shitty system, even if you want to argue that direct election of local representation is important.
Because Bin Ladin had a beef with the USA, not Bush. The planning would have moved forward either way. And remember it was the CIA that dropped the intel ball. The analysis would still have been the same people, with the same "garbage in garbage out" projections.
The key to the attack's success was it's audacity, originality, and the willingness of the hijackers to die. Especially the latter. You really can't stop fanatics.
The progressives, while I agree with some of their policies, do not represent the mainstream of the American people. While the pendulum swings I believe it swings between moderate left and moderate right. All the progressives do is drive voters toward what used to be the GOP
Trudeau did win the popular vote in the 2015 Elections. Unlike Trump who handily lost the popular votes in BOTH his elections and like a Banana Republican, could not accept the fact that he was a total loser in the 2020 Elections, when a record number of Americans turned up to elect his opponent!!
Did not the Democrats pull out of Afghanistan? When the lat right wingers hate the facts, then all they do is resort to child like insults!!
