NationStates Jolt Archive

And let's say that their policies were completely opposite one anothers. How would they determine a proper president without upsetting half the population? This is assuming every elegible voter voted.

And let's say that their policies were completely opposite one anothers. How would they determine a proper president without upsetting half the population? This is assuming every elegible voter voted.

Legitimize the election of the more politically powerful candidate by allowing 9 people, most of which know the candidates personally, to vote on who should be president.

Not like elections really matter anyway. If businesses can manage to get most of the nation to eat really shitty food that will kill you 20 years ahead of time, the government should have no problem convincing you to vote for anyone.

It's actually happened before, and it is decided by Congress.

Yeah, but what about the people who didn't vote for them? Wouldn't they, y'know, get pissed off knowing that the candidate they hate became president because of a mere 9 people? That barely makes a difference at all.

Isn't that what the electoral votes are for, people?

If each candidate gets half of the electoral votes (269), then the House of Representatives votes on the winner.

Yeah, but what about the people who didn't vote for them? Wouldn't they, y'know, get pissed off knowing that the candidate they hate became president because of a mere 9 people? That barely makes a difference at all.

That doesn't matter right now in America. There are a great many people still pissed about the 2000 election, but there are a million distractions in America to keep people from doing anything about it.

The amazing thing about capitalism is it spawns a materialistic compulsive population that is so obsessed with improving their own lives, that they rarely consider things outside of them, and hardly consider the effects of their present actions. Whereas a socialistic nation enforces ignorance and disinformation for a collective good, citizens of capitalistic nations embrace ignorance and disinformation willingly. Therefore, the system as total power no matter what in both governments.

I would always prefer a willingly ignorant population than a population that is forced to be ignorant any day. Thats why I support capitalism and democracy.

The amazing thing about capitalism is it spawns a materialistic compulsive population that is so obsessed with improving their own lives, that they rarely consider things outside of them, and hardly consider the effects of their present actions. Whereas a socialistic nation enforces ignorance and disinformation for a collective good, citizens of capitalistic nations embrace ignorance and disinformation willingly. Therefore, the system as total power no matter what in both governments.

I would always prefer a willingly ignorant population than a population that is forced to be ignorant any day. Thats why I support capitalism and democracy.

Should you not freshen up on your -isms? They seem somewhat mixed up.

Should you not freshen up on your -isms? They seem somewhat mixed up.

I reread my thread and I don't see anything wrong, but that doesn't mean a whole lot, so tell me what I screwed up, as I do follow the mainstream meanings of capitalism, socialism, and materialism.

Meh. People always get upset. Even in widely agreed-upon landslides like Nixon's 1972 re-election and Lyndon Johnson's 1964 election...roughly 40% of the population did not vote for either candidate.

61% (LBJ's percent) is the highest ever recorded. But that's still 39% in opposition.

If the elctoral college is tied 269-269, then the HoR picks the President and the Senate picks the VP. You do mean the US right?

The amazing thing about capitalism is it spawns a materialistic compulsive population that is so obsessed with improving their own lives, that they rarely consider things outside of them, and hardly consider the effects of their present actions. Whereas a socialistic nation enforces ignorance and disinformation for a collective good, citizens of capitalistic nations embrace ignorance and disinformation willingly. Therefore, the system as total power no matter what in both governments.

I would always prefer a willingly ignorant population than a population that is forced to be ignorant any day. Thats why I support capitalism and democracy.

Apologies for my somewhat too strong, inaccurate remark.

I think the only -ism that enforces ignorance is totalitarian. Democracy is just as linked to socialism as to capitalism. However, a full democracy, entirely ruled by a majority, with no restrictions on the individual or corporations, evolves into capitalism, which if left free as well, evolves into a an all-powerful monopoly. There you go, totalitarian state which aims to keep the people happy, buying and not asking questions, because questions can be bad for business. At least in the short run. Consent becomes a commodity, so it must be manufactured. Democracy is worthless without informed voters.

The mainstream definitions differ. So you were probably right. So am I.

Ranting is fun, once on track :p

Depends on what you mean.
If you mean the popular vote in the US, nothing much.
If you mean the electoral vote in the US, it goes to the House, as stated above.
If you mean aome other system, it will depend on their rules.

If the elctoral college is tied 269-269, then the HoR picks the President and the Senate picks the VP. You do mean the US right?

OK here is what the constitution says:

Article 2 Section 1
.... if there be more than one who have such majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Represenstatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President ; and if no Person have Majority, then the five highest on the list the said House shall like in Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes hall be taken by the States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; a quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States and a Majority of all States shall be necessary to a choice. In every Casem after the Choice of President, the Person having the greeatest number of votes shall be the Vice President. But if there should be a remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse them by Ballot the Vice President.

See the House picks the Prez and Senate picks the vice prez. The stuff about the guy who gets the second most votes being vice president has changed.

OK here is what the constitution says:

Article 2 Section 1
.... if there be more than one who have such majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Represenstatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President ; and if no Person have Majority, then the five highest on the list the said House shall like in Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes hall be taken by the States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; a quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States and a Majority of all States shall be necessary to a choice. In every Casem after the Choice of President, the Person having the greeatest number of votes shall be the Vice President. But if there should be a remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse them by Ballot the Vice President.

See the House picks the Prez and Senate picks the vice prez. The stuff about the guy who gets the second most votes being vice president has changed.
When the Constitution was drafted, wasn't the VP the runner-up in the election and then a later amendment allowed the presidential candidate to choose the (potential) VP? If that's the case then shouldn't this be changed?

They Ro-Sham-Bo for it.