Help me understand this

  • Thread starter Thread starter TemporaryCircumstances
  • Start date Start date
  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
435+100=535+3 (D.C.)= 538÷2= 269

So a candidate has to get at least 270+ electoral votes to win.
A candidate will get to that number faster by aiming to get the approval of states with say 55 electoral votes rather than states with 3 or 5
 
TemporaryCircumstances said:
435+100=535+3 (D.C.)= 538÷2= 269

So a candidate has to get at least 270+ electoral votes to win.
A candidate will get to that number faster by aiming to get the approval of states with say 55 electoral votes rather than states with 3 or 5
Click to expand...

Yeah, that is true. In theory the smaller states matter, but I doubt candidates worry too much about losing the smaller states. I don't think any voting system is perfect.

In Canada, we have the parliamentary system. It's closer to a popular vote system than the electoral college, but it still has issues. One thing I like about the US system is that you can vote for different parties for your senator, congressman, and president. You can't in a parliamentary system. The way it works is you vote for your member of Parliament for your district. The party with the highest number of elected MP's wins the election and becomes the government.

Unless you had a true popular vote system, you are always going to have some issues.
 
TemporaryCircumstances said:
(Bill of Rights and our Constitution limits what the president can do)

And then why can't the Supreme Court step in and rule his actions unconstitutional
Click to expand...

You assume the bill of rights would survive any ammendment process that would eliminate the electoral college or change how the government is organized to facilitate a change toward democracy. The constitution guarantees a republican form of government.
 
PinkDiamond said:
Yeah, that is true. In theory the smaller states matter, but I doubt candidates worry too much about losing the smaller states. I don't think any voting system is perfect.

In Canada, we have the parliamentary system. It's closer to a popular vote system than the electoral college, but it still has issues. One thing I like about the US system is that you can vote for different parties for your senator, congressman, and president. You can't in a parliamentary system. The way it works is you vote for your member of Parliament for your district. The party with the highest number of elected MP's wins the election and becomes the government.

Unless you had a true popular vote system, you are always going to have some issues.
Click to expand...

True, but it's really just a matter of finding a way with the least amount of issues.
 
TemporaryCircumstances said:
435+100=535+3 (D.C.)= 538÷2= 269

So a candidate has to get at least 270+ electoral votes to win.
A candidate will get to that number faster by aiming to get the approval of states with say 55 electoral votes rather than states with 3 or 5
Click to expand...

I live in a state they fight over..... we have 13 votes. Not a big state.
 
Tommy379 said:
You assume the bill of rights would survive any ammendment process that would eliminate the electoral college or change how the government is organized to facilitate a change toward democracy. The constitution guarantees a republican form of government.
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court was put in place to make sure our Country could not turn corrupt by the leaders and their decision making.
 
Tommy379 said:
Who nominates and appoints the supreme court? How would that go in a democracy?
Click to expand...

Yes, but say,
Trump got elected.
He would only get to nominate one.
Every other Supreme Court Judge has been nominated by previous Presidents who weren't corrupt.
So, if Trump was corrupt and tried to take over the system he would still only have one Supreme Court Judge on his side
 
TemporaryCircumstances said:
(Bill of Rights and our Constitution limits what the president can do)

And then why can't the Supreme Court step in and rule his actions unconstitutional
Click to expand...

Because the Supreme Court has judicial appointees by presidents who rule in favor of party line ideology and not by the actual Constitution of the United States by its original intent. We had 2 strict constitutionalists on the SCOTUS and one has just "died." All we have truly left is Clarence Thomas. Scalia was the other. The balance of power on the SCOTUS is currently in a dead heat with some of the more conservative judges more apt to bow to political pressure as well. This problem is also seen in the legislative branch with representatives and senators that do not seek the will of the people, but instead pen policy by political ideology.

TemporaryCircumstances said:
Yes, but say,
Click to expand...
TemporaryCircumstances said:
Trump got elected.
He would only get to nominate one.
Every other Supreme Court Judge has been nominated by previous Presidents who weren't corrupt.
So, if Trump was corrupt and tried to take over the system he would still only have one Supreme Court Judge on his side
Click to expand...


The last two Obama appointees have been quite corrupt. Kagan and Sotomayor are hard leaning liberals. Kagan was instrumental in parts of the ACA and did not recuse herself when the SCOTUS had to rule on it. Ginsberg is another hard leaning liberal that does not recuse herself when cases where her decisions may be compromised are being examined. Kennedy is an odd justice where he sometimes jumps lines. It's hard to say which direction he may rule, but more often than not it's slightly to the left. SCOTUS justices are not supposed to rule by party ideology. They are supposed to rule by Constitutional Law as per the original intent of the founders. Sadly, the liberal stance is to bend the constitution to their will and understanding.
 
Last edited:
Hi Natania.

Here's a picture describing our electoral process in a nutshell.

02e1e019b663272030cc3936bd9f65e2.jpg
 
NarrowRoadDisciple said:
Because the Supreme Court has judicial appointees by presidents who rule in favor of party line ideology and not by the actual Constitution of the United States by its original intent. We had 2 strict constitutionalists on the SCOTUS and one has just "died." All we have truly left is Clarence Thomas. Scalia was the other. The balance of power on the SCOTUS is currently in a dead heat with some of the more conservative judges more apt to bow to political pressure as well. This problem is also seen in the legislative branch with representatives and senators that do not seek the will of the people, but instead pen policy by political ideology.



The last two Obama appointees have been quite corrupt. Kagan and Sotomayor are hard leaning liberals. Kagan was instrumental in parts of the ACA and did not recuse herself when the SCOTUS had to rule on it. Ginsberg is another hard leaning liberal that does not recuse herself when rulings where her decisions may be compromised are being examined.
Click to expand...

True........
 
TemporaryCircumstances said:
Where are you getting this from?
And no, no one fights over Texas cuz everyone knows states like that aren't ever changing
Click to expand...

They don't fight over those states. Do you see hillary or trump campaigning in them the past month? They are in Virginia, Colorado, Wisconsin, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania. Hillary done gave up on Ohio and probably florida. The last month of the election, the little states get to say "who ya daddy?"
 
TemporaryCircumstances said:
Yes, but say,
Trump got elected.
He would only get to nominate one.
Every other Supreme Court Judge has been nominated by previous Presidents who weren't corrupt.
So, if Trump was corrupt and tried to take over the system he would still only have one Supreme Court Judge on his side
Click to expand...

Everyone of those judges are allowed to retire or die. Obama got to put two in, Trump may get three. If everything was left to popular vote, the Supreme Court would just follow the popular whims.
 
Doesn't Ohio typically elect the president? Has a president ever won an election without winning Ohio?
 
Tommy379 said:
They don't fight over those states. Do you see hillary or trump campaigning in them the past month? They are in Virginia, Colorado, Wisconsin, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania. Hillary done gave up on Ohio and probably florida. The last month of the election, the little states get to say "who ya daddy?"
Click to expand...

I suppose I understand your point
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back