Coalition of the Confused

Hosted by Jenifer (Zarknorph)

Confused malcontents swilling Chardonnay while awaiting the Zombie Apocalypse.

  • 931
    MEMBERS
  • 53603
    MESSAGES
  • 17
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

World War III - are we stewing in it?   General Confusion

Started 12/6/18 by Jenifer (Zarknorph); 10003 views.
bml00

From: bml00

1/18/20

Thank you , the General believe me is very sorely missed and the actions of the US was correct , it is possible there is going to be a repeat soon on another VERY high ranking official in the region

BM

Jenifer (Zarknorph)
Host

From: Jenifer (Zarknorph)

1/18/20

I've tried to wrap my head around the college voting system - had plenty of detailed explanations, but it still eludes me.

All I can say is it is based on population.  Without the electoral college, every single election would be determined by about 4 states - New york, California, Florida and Texas.

The constitution needs to be updated, desperately.  If not, Americans will spend another 200 years arguing about how to interpret it.

RGoss99

From: RGoss99

1/18/20

As to your last point I totally agree. But the key to the problema is that by accepted definition the U.S. "states" are not states, just called such for political reasons at the time the Constitution was written.

According to popular belief, every voter is equal, but the system is rigged to make that false. I accept your point that in theory some big states could control every election, but the number is closer to 10, but the electoral college makes it worse.

For exasmple if one man equals one vote, then Trump, and Bush II, would not have won election because in both cases the majority voted for the other candidate. There are 3 areas that make the U.S. undemocratic_ House, Senate, President. all of these based on the false concept that a state has a valid status justifying its common goal. This was true of the original 13 colonies, each was based on a specific settlement with 3 of four natural borders: the sea, and the divisions of the coast between them, the only unnatural border was how far inland, which was vague, but basicly the watershed, which its citizens, as they expanded tended to ignore. Then there is Texas, California, and Hawaii which have a history of being actually independent states, who lost their sovereignty when incorporated into the U.S.

As you say, population is probably a valid criteria for representation. So every  10 years "states" gain or lose a representive based on population shift. The rub is that no matter how small each state gets a guaranteed representative. This would be valid if the states were real, not federal entities with straight line borders which ignore common interests, culture, industry, climate and need. As a result, but just fractionally the Little states with 1 or 2 reps, have more clout then states such as California which have the largest population. Not a serious problema as a result, but still a contradiction.

Next comes the senate where each state regardless of size or population gets two senators. Here is Wisconsin, which has no natural borders compares with California which pretty much does and has a unique population different from its neighbors (Oregon, Nevada, Arizona). A senator from California (population 39.5) needs 7 California votes to equal one vote for a senator from Wisconsin (population 5.8 million). 

For president, the electoral college combines the false concept of state with population, as each state gets at least three electoral votes, 2 automaticly, and one for population. So California gets 55 electoral votes (2 automaticly plus 53 for population) and Wisconsin gets 10 (2 guaranteed plus 8 for population) This means that  for president it takes 11 California votes to equal 9 Wisconsin votes.

A further fault of the state concept is that to get all the electoral votes from one state all a president needs if 51% of that state´s votes. So Wisconsin with 5.8 million votes votes 3 million Republican, then 2.8 Democrats have no say as to president simply because there is an artificial line on the map separating them from democrats in the next state. This results in jerrymandering in local elections and could be solved by the E.U. and other counties solution called proportional representation. I know how this Works in Scotland, so here is an easy example. Scotland general votes left, so in an all Scottish election for its 8 E.U. seats, the odds are that the left Will get all 8 seats, leaving the right unrepresented in Europe because the right is a minority in all 8 districts. However about 15% of Scotland is right so that they can be represented, if 85% of Scotland votes left they should only get 7 seats. My county, Fife has the largest right vote which means that the conservative gets the fife seat and represents all the Scottish conservatives in the E.U. nad while the Fife winner is the weakest, he loses his seat to the conservatives, which means the 7 leftist, represent all the leftists in Scotland. This is the system in most of Europe, the U.K. being the exception. In Spain this Works on the country, regional, province, and municipal level - eliminating the possibility of rearranging the precincts after the 10 year census, to keep the majority party in office. Here I am making up the numbers, but the opposite system Works in the U.S. using L.A. County as an example. Imagine the county as a circle with 5 supervisor districts each pie shaped. The center tends to be spanish speaking (majory of L.A. city population speaks Spanish at home), Since L.A. city is he center and the districts are pie shaped, this means that the Anglo speaking suburbs win all 5 seats because the spanish speakers are divided by 5 making them a minority in each. There is a court case and a change is ordered creating a 6th district. But the existing anglo culture controls the borders, so they créate the new district as a circle within a circle in L.A. so this guarantees one hispanic seat, but creates the same problema in that this draws off the hispanics in the other 5 districts making them even more of a minority vote in each. As a result L.A. county which is 1/3 Spanish speaking at home, gets 1 seat and the Anglo speakers get 5. when they should only get 4 by population.

BerrySteph

From: BerrySteph

1/18/20

Jenifer (Zarknorph) said:

Of course not.  That was kinda my point. Everyone has their knickers in a twist over the lack of full disclosure about what this guy was planning. To FULLY disclose would be disclosing how they got the information.

There is every reason to think he was murdered while engaged in a diplomatic effort to assist "peace".

Israel has a proven record for killing such people in their cause of "Eternal Conflict" (something that Israel and BM quite suddenly embraced in 2011 - maybe in their delight at seeing Syria ablaze).

We know they've done it at least twice, 2012 and 1948.

Wilfully and maliciously broken every ceasefire as well.

BerrySteph

From: BerrySteph

1/18/20

Jenifer (Zarknorph) said:

I've tried to wrap my head around the college voting system - had plenty of detailed explanations, but it still eludes me. All I can say is it is based on population. 

There's nothing very strange about it - happens the same in Parliamentary systems. (Maybe not as bad - only gone "wrong" once in the UK since the war).

Jenifer (Zarknorph) said:

All I can say is it is based on population.  Without the electoral college, every single election would be determined by about 4 states - New york, California, Florida and Texas. 

Don't understand but I'm not bothered enough to challenge that.

Jenifer (Zarknorph) said:

The constitution needs to be updated, desperately.  If not, Americans will spend another 200 years arguing about how to interpret it.

The Constitution of the US is the worst of anywhere in the West - and always has been.

Worse than that of the USSR - at least that one dissolved relatively bloodlessly after 70 years.

The US Constitution splintered very messily after 80 years - and then was not fixed!

BerrySteph

From: BerrySteph

1/18/20

RGoss99 said:

the key to the problema is that by accepted definition the U.S. "states" are not states, just called such for political reasons at the time the Constitution was written. ... House, Senate, President. all of these based on the false concept that a state has a valid status justifying its common goal. This was true of the original 13 colonies, each was based on a specific settlement with 3 of four natural borders: the sea, and the divisions of the coast between them, the only unnatural border was how far inland, which was vague, but basicly the watershed, which its citizens, as they expanded tended to ignore. Then there is Texas, California, and Hawaii which have a history of being actually independent states, who lost their sovereignty when incorporated into the U.S. ...The rub is that no matter how small each state gets a guaranteed representative. This would be valid if the states were real, not federal entities with straight line borders which ignore common interests, culture, industry, climate and need ... Wisconsin, which has no natural borders compares with California which pretty much does and has a unique population different from its neighbors (Oregon, Nevada, Arizona). A senator from California (population 39.5) needs 7 California votes to equal one vote for a senator from Wisconsin (population 5.8 million).  ... for president it takes 11 California votes to equal 9 Wisconsin votes. 

Your historical concept is fascinating but I'm not sure its very important. The UK  has no straight line artificial borders but the electoral system works much the same.

Strikingly, the UK had a referendum on "improving" the electoral system and it was rejected quite strongly by the voters.

RGoss99 said: In Spain this Works on the country, regional, province, and municipal level - eliminating the possibility of rearranging the precincts after the 10 year census, to keep the majority party in office. Here I am making up the numbers, but the opposite system Works in the U.S. using L.A. County as an example. Imagine the county as a circle with 5 supervisor districts each pie shaped. The center tends to be spanish speaking (majory of L.A. city population speaks Spanish at home), Since L.A. city is he center and the districts are pie shaped, this means that the Anglo speaking suburbs win all 5 seats because the spanish speakers are divided by 5 making them a minority in each. There is a court case and a change is ordered creating a 6th district. But the existing anglo culture controls the borders, so they créate the new district as a circle within a circle in L.A. so this guarantees one hispanic seat, but creates the same problema in that this draws off the hispanics in the other 5 districts making them even more of a minority vote in each. As a result L.A. county which is 1/3 Spanish speaking at home, gets 1 seat and the Anglo speakers get 5. when they should only get 4 by population.

Gerrymandering is a massive problem in the US - but I think that's a cultural problem, little or nothing to with the other things.

bml00

From: bml00

1/18/20

Are the Americans up in arms about their Constitution , are there demo's and riots about this , no , there is one little nothing on earth who is up night and day banging on about his anti Americanism .

Let the British put Britain right , the Israelis try to sort out Israel and the Australians the same for Australia

Wasting space will solve nothing .

Watching in the streets of London or the Provinces the poverty , the homeless , the addicts , the incredible rise in the murder rate , knifings , theft etc that something is wrong with Britain , sort that out and let the US worry about the US etc

BerrySteph

From: BerrySteph

1/18/20

bml00 said:

Let the British put Britain right

The British are groaning under Occupied Westminster.

Zionists gloating over having delivered our government to their puppets.

In reply toRe: msg 104
bml00

From: bml00

1/18/20

OCCUPIED WESTIMISTER that must account for the homeless, the drugs , the alcohol , the Murder rate , the rise of gang warfare and according to the unemployed numbnuts it is the fault of the Jews

By the way Boris Johnson is a committed ZIONIST

BM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kxDCv85FXc

BerrySteph

From: BerrySteph

1/18/20

bml00 said:

By the way Boris Johnson is a committed ZIONIST

So what have you done to blackmail him?

Promised him Holocaust II starting in the Middle East?

TOP