What's the stupidest thing a nation has ever done?

[JayH]

What is example of the flaw in the democratic process of elections in USA?

A candidate you favor not winning is not an example of a flaw.

One simple example is the gerrymander.

One only half serious answer is-- allowing people that can't chew gum and fart at the same time the right to vote !

The biggest flaw was a process that allowed a cretin like Trump to ever run--let alone get elected. !!

[msmob]

What is example of the flaw in the democratic process of elections in USA?

The candidate with the most votes - losing ?

[calmissile]

The candidate with the most votes - losing ?

Perhaps you have not heard of the Electoral College which was implemented to avoid the big cities controlling the politics of the country and leaving out the rural population.  We have been using this system since the beginning and are satisfied with it.  Since you are not an American, I suspect you prefer the parliamentary system.  No problem, you have your system, we have ours!

[2tallbill]

The candidate with the most votes - losing ?

In the USA we don't have a democracy we have a constitutional republic.
The founding fathers had to devise a system where small states could
have a say in elections and in passing laws. That's how the electoral
college and two senators per state came about. If they didn't do it this
way the small states wouldn't have joined the union.

There are 538 electors in the electoral college and each state has the
same amount of electors as they do congressmen (for both the house
and the senate).

Even though Wyoming is the least populous state it has three electors.
Two senators and one Representative in the House. Wyoming and North
Dakota has more electors per capita than California. That's how a president
can be elected with less actual votes than somebody else.

Candidates know this and they campaign accordingly.
 
Regarding Gerrymandering. Liberals generally concentrate in big cities,
the big cities have a liberal politicians who represent them. The rest of the
population lives outside the cities and generally vote more conservatively.

In Detroit they are 74% democrat and only 24% republican. Trump won
the state of Michigan by winning most of the votes outside the liberal
confab of Detroit. If the liberals would spread themselves out more they
would have more house seats and win more electoral votes, but they don't.
They all congregate in small dense areas.

[Anotherkiwi]

Perhaps you have not heard of the Electoral College which was implemented to avoid the big cities controlling the politics of the country and leaving out the rural population.  We have been using this system since the beginning and are satisfied with it.  Since you are not an American, I suspect you prefer the parliamentary system.  No problem, you have your system, we have ours!

This is why you have a problem, Doug.  In 1776 there were only five cities with more than 10,000 inhabitants, Philadelphia (40,000) and New York (25,000) being the largest.  The total population was estimated at 2.5 million, meaning that approximately 95% lived in rural areas, so the collegiate system would seem to have made plenty of sense.  Now the rural population's proportion is down to under 20% of the total, and yet you still have exactly the same system to make sure that they are not disenfranchised by the bully boys from the cities - who now outnumber them four to one and SHOULD have the bigger say.

[BillyB]

the bully boys from the cities - who now outnumber them four to one and SHOULD have the bigger say.

The bully boys always had a bigger say. That will not change since they will always own a higher number of voters. Those in the rural areas have land and they benefit America in different ways. The electoral college helps them out.


Back in the old days, Republicans owned the cities in America and the liberals the rural areas. Look how America voted throughout history and the shift. It's reversed now. If the Democrats think it's unfair, it's best they go and woo the rural areas by supporting their positions instead of complaining the electoral college isn't fair. It worked for them in the past just fine.

One only half serious answer is-- allowing people that can't chew gum and fart at the same time the right to vote !

What do you call the group of people who denies others the right to vote? I call them radicals. Your goal isn't to deny stupid and misinformed people to vote. Your goal is to deny all those who think differently than you the right to vote. A government that will give you everything you want can someday take everything you got. Be careful what you wish for.


You posted an article showing an intelligent man saying Brexit is bad. Moby says a wealthy neighborhood with intelligent people say Brexit is bad. Liberals will even point out that teachers and professors of universities prove they own the smartest voters but those people couldn't get a better paying job in the private sector.


Truth is the most intelligent and wisest people, on average, vote to the right. The majority of the emotional, uneducated, naïve, and misinformed people vote on the left. This holds true in America, the EU, and in the UK. Look at the chart in the link below. Scroll to the middle to see how people in different age categories voted on Brexit. The youngest people voted to remain in the EU. As people get older, more informed, more intelligent and wiser, they voted to leave the EU. They are old enough to see the before and after results of the UK by itself and with the EU to vote the way they did. 


http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-36616028


As people get older and wiser, they tend to move to the right. I had liberal beliefs when I was young. I was jealous of the rich. Now I wouldn't go into their house to steal but I would happily support a policy by the government to tax them heavy and give some of what they got to me. It would essentially be a legal way to steal from them and for me to easily get ahead in life. I had selfish thoughts like most young people. Fortunately for America, like those young adults, I was too lazy to vote. I ended up realizing if I worked hard, I'd get ahead in life and ahead of my competition just fine.


Jay, you hinted a certain category of people shouldn't vote. The stupid people shouldn't vote and stupid is more associated with young people. A legal way to take away their vote is to reclassify the age of an adult. We could say the age of an adult is 25 yo. Do you want to make this happen? You do understand conservative politicians and policies will benefit from this change. Trump and the Brexit vote would've won by a much wider margin.

[fathertime]

Regarding Gerrymandering. Liberals generally concentrate in big cities,
the big cities have a liberal politicians who represent them. The rest of the
population lives outside the cities and generally vote more conservatively.

Yes, but that doesn't address some of the ridiculous gerrymandering that goes on, in order to make sure certain segments of the population are disenfranchised as much as possible.

[fathertime]

The candidate with the most votes - losing ?

In trump's case he lost by several million votes and may lose the popular vote by more next time if he hasn't already left the office...and it has been pretty rare that a sitting president running for a second term isn't reelected.  The good news is he is a very weak president thus far, and doesn't represent enough people  to get very much done YET. 

I don't see him changing much to the positive, if he did, he would have had more support. 

Fathertime! 

[Jumper]

In trump's case he lost by several million votes and may lose the popular vote by more next time if he hasn't already left the office...and it has been pretty rare that a sitting president running for a second term isn't reelected.  The good news is he is a very weak president thus far, and doesn't represent enough people  to get very much done YET. 

I don't see him changing much to the positive, if he did, he would have had more support. 

Fathertime!

If the best that's offered up.as an alternative next election, is no better than last, the result will not change.

I've never seen so much crying over a campaign loss in my life.


 Most politicians ,regardless affiliated party, are not ethical or truly public servants. That's the view of the common man.
Whether he is correct or not doesn't matter.perception is everything.and that's the perception DC has earned itself..
Perception  drives our politics,our economy and market.

That perception will remain a huge problem with DC.
 Noone ,especially our media , wants to address the long loss of the publics trust.

I know of a few great senators and representatives  but they are the minority, and the public trust isn't built by such a small minority.

Let's have some real change.

And frankly whatever anyone likes ,that's what people voted for, they dint care who it was ,Ronald McDonald could have won, and I'd have voted for him, (whoever was wearing the clown suit at the time)

I'm glad people are riled up by the election results,  about time! Start giving a damn.

Term limits, and a road clearly paved back to true public service is what's needed.
Career politicians were never the intent, you were supposed to do your public service and at the end of term,  go back to your real  job!

[calmissile]

 

[2tallbill]

Yes, but that doesn't address some of the ridiculous gerrymandering that goes on, in order to make sure certain segments of the population are disenfranchised as much as possible.

Your map doesn't show the red and the blue and your graphic looks gerrymandered
But look at the whole map. ONLY Houston is blue which is the blue city in the South
Eastern part of the state. ALL the area around it is red/
Here it is

[fathertime]

If the best that's offered up.as an alternative next election, is no better than last, the result will not change.

I've never seen so much crying over a campaign loss in my life.


 Most politicians ,regardless affiliated party, are not ethical or truly public servants. That's the view of the common man.
Whether he is correct or not doesn't matter.perception is everything.and that's the perception DC has earned itself..
Perception  drives our politics,our economy and market.

That perception will remain a huge problem with DC.
 Noone ,especially our media , wants to address the long loss of the publics trust.

I know of a few great senators and representatives  but they are the minority, and the public trust isn't built by such a small minority.

Let's have some real change.

And frankly whatever anyone likes ,that's what people voted for, they dint care who it was ,Ronald McDonald could have won, and I'd have voted for him, (whoever was wearing the clown suit at the time)

I'm glad people are riled up by the election results,  about time! Start giving a damn.

Term limits, and a road clearly paved back to true public service is what's needed.
Career politicians were never the intent, you were supposed to do your public service and at the end of term,  go back to your real  job!

It was a harbinger when John Scott (A Hockey Goon) was voted into the all star game earlier in the year.  It was completely obvious he didn't belong there, I don't believe he even had a goal to that point in the year.   Apparently the public believed their needed to be massive change so your point about Ronald McDonald is probably true. 

I think the people are annoyed by the election results in part because it appears that Trump is representing many of the people in a way they don't want to be represented.  Unless something changes, many of those people will arise for the next election and vote against trump.  He could continue to animate the public and easily be seen as the next bad guy to remove, and maybe it will be the next 'Ronald McDonald' that is elected.  Or maybe it will be a more mainstream politician 

Insofar as life long candidates, that doesn't bother me and I don't see it as a major problem.  If that is what an individual wants to do, and they are a good/fair representative then I say give them the option to run again.  If the politician gets too detached though, hopefully they are voted out. 

Fathertime! 

[fathertime]

Your map doesn't show the red and the blue and your graphic looks gerrymandered
But look at the whole map. ONLY Houston is blue which is the blue city in the South
Eastern part of the state. ALL the area around it is red/
Here it is

Yes, but creating the extremely odd shaped districts like the one depicted earlier is a form of disenfranchising people is abusive and designed to dilute voters enough to get a particular party's representative elected when it otherwise wouldn't happen.  I don't think there is a good case for gerrymandering so it should be combated when it crops up.

Fathertime! 

Fathertime! 

[Jumper]

It was a harbinger when John Scott (A Hockey Goon) was voted into the all star game earlier in the year.  It was completely obvious he didn't belong there, I don't believe he even had a goal to that point in the year.   Apparently the public believed their needed to be massive change so your point about Ronald McDonald is probably true. 

I think the people are annoyed by the election results in part because it appears that Trump is representing many of the people in a way they don't want to be represented.  Unless something changes, many of those people will arise for the next election and vote against trump.  He could continue to animate the public and easily be seen as the next bad guy to remove, and maybe it will be the next 'Ronald McDonald' that is elected.  Or maybe it will be a more mainstream politician 

Insofar as life long candidates, that doesn't bother me and I don't see it as a major problem.  If that is what an individual wants to do, and they are a good/fair representative then I say give them the option to run again.  If the politician gets too detached though, hopefully they are voted out. 

Fathertime!

It likely doesn't bother you as you are unlikely to have sat thru even a state legislative session .

I've run a non profit for 23 years, and have made many of the state's legislative sessions during that time, had legislation introduced and passed,effected other bills that were not in the best interest of the organization I'm president of ,as well as work with several lobbyist etc.

In that time I have seen countless asinine bills brought to the floor,with all kinds of other unrelated  crapola piggybacke in on it ,sponsored by  state reps that lack the education to form a coherent sentence 90 percent of the time when asked a simple  question regarding a bill they sponsored.Many can't speak well enough to be understood ordering lunch.
They sponsor bill after bill to the tune of thousands a session ,mostly to justify their position to their constituents in hopes of not losing the only thing they know how to do.
Which is nothing.

<Rant off> but trust me if anyone here had  real experience in state legislation,  much less DC, they would be far more jaded than me, and want immediate term limits and the majority of them all gone.period.

You are welcome to join me in Springfield il this fall to witness the stupidity yourself.I have to be there,misery loves company.

[Anotherkiwi]

... but trust me if anyone here had  real experience in state legislation,  much less DC, they would be far more jaded than me, and want immediate term limits and the majority of them all gone.period.

I read a novella a couple of years ago that was based on this scenario.  The hero eventually set up his own political party that had, amongst its stated aims, the intention of limiting any successful candidate to just one term in the congress or senate.  He rode a wave of popularity into his state senate and, true to his word, stayed there for only one term.  One of his party faithful, who had liked the experience so much, stood for a second term - so was expelled from the party.    That's my kind of politics!

[ML]

I am for term limits, but not one term and then out, particularly for our 2 year congressmen.

It takes time to understand the intricacies of some of the issues.
Imagine the Foreign Relations Committee (for instance) consisting of members who have all been in Congress for less than 2 years.

One and out situations lead to unelected bureaucrats running the government.

[Anotherkiwi]

I am for term limits, but not one term and then out, particularly for our 2 year congressmen.

It takes time to understand the intricacies of some of the issues.
Imagine the Foreign Relations Committee (for instance) consisting of members who have all been in Congress for less than 2 years.

One and out situations lead to unelected bureaucrats running the government.

Is that any worse than the situation you have at the moment, with unelected billionaires running so many Departments within the US Government (e.g. Education and the EPA for starters)?

I've raised this point twice already, and nobody has been able to come back with any sort of answer, let alone one that might make sense - how can most (all?) of your Cabinet be people who have no political or ordinary life experience, have NOT been elected to govern, and who have become known to the majority of the general public only because Trump has appointed them to these positions?

[Jumper]

Kiwi, that's the cabinet.
And every administration appoints those positions, to lay that part of our system on any particular administration is like saying why did we let Obama do so, or Clinton,or Bush etc etc.
  Similar to the exact same restrictions on entry visas that the prior administration put on 10 or 11 middle east countries in 2011 ,that were again implemented this year with the following  media hysterics,where were they the last several times the exact same thing occured and was implemented?
Where was the outrage then? 

Anyway, as ML stated,I'm for term limits obviously,  but agree many elected positions need more than one term allowed.
My frustrations are at being involved in ,and watching ridiculous  bills introduced by representatives that you would not let educate second graders,as they lack the common sense and education to do so,merely because they have somehow manipulated a life long career in politics.
  They are so far removed from reality,  and the vision of public servants that are founding fathers are collectively rolling in their graves.
They fought amongst themselves  horribly, but they did implement a government that was not intended to become all incompomsing bueacracy.
 We have a state agency in charge of maintaining elevator,boiler,and amusement ride safety.
That one at least makes some sense,but all the inspections, the certifications of those inspectors, etc,etc are done by private enterprise anyway to meet the private biz insurance requirements for those businesses regardless.
So that entire staff and their cost is
questionable at best, and that's on an agency that at least makes some sense, a thousand others at the state level do not, then multiply that by 10 for the federal level.

Basic political positions are not the problem.The basic fundamental set up of a balanced judicial, executive,and legislative branch is not a problem.An appointed cabinet, or committee  within a branch is not the problem.
 Liberal vs conservative is not the problem.

The problems as i see it :
A judicial branch,so influenced by politics and self interest , and often unwilling to enforce current legislation ,is one.
 
A host of self serving career politicians introducing bill after legislative bill, merely to keep their positions is another.

The largest problem by far is a floundering inept bureaucracy run amok, *too big to fail * as one of, if not ,the single largest employer.

I doubt the average citizen has even the slightest idea of the complete scope of the tiniest details of everything covered by some bureaucratic agency at all the levels of  local,city,county,then state and federal levels.
It's completely asinine.

[BillyB]

your Cabinet be people who have no political or ordinary life experience, have NOT been elected to govern,

Lifelong politicians like Obama and Hillary had no ordinary life experience either. Intelligent people on both sides of the fence rarely live ordinary lives. They've accomplished something before getting to be POTUS or in POTUS's Cabinet

[GQBlues]

...
The problems as i see it :
A judicial branch,so influenced by politics and self interest , and often unwilling to enforce current legislation ,is one.
 
A host of self serving career politicians introducing bill after legislative bill, merely to keep their positions is another.

The largest problem by far is a floundering inept bureaucracy run amok, *too big to fail * as one of, if not ,the single largest employer.

Good post, jumper. I agree.


I will add to your list above, and likely the biggest problem as I see it, are the lobbyists and special interest groups that finance our 'public servants' campaign to their offices and hover over them throughout their terms making sure that 'payback' comes fast and furious and to be continued.


This latest democratic party revelation i.e. Donna Brazile's tell all, easily proves this.  http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774


When a politician amass financial support from lobbyists/special interest groups to buy and guarantee his/her own way through their party's primary, then *finance* intentional fabrication, promote and propagate false reports/intelligence for the lone intent to publically smear your opposing candidate - and have the *bought media* flood the public's gullibility all the way through - then our elections and governments are no longer ran by the people, of the people and for the people.

[Jumper]

We've long been headed to becoming a banana Republic GQ. Sad really.

I mentioned prior I work directly with a lobbyist.
It's an expensive yet basically mandatory way to accomplish anything within the legislature.

I completely agree that shoukd not be the case.
However I'm tasked to work within that system, at the state level, so
it's part of the entire messed up process.

I do wish more people would become actively involved in how their state and federal government actually works.  Seen in person is far different than studying the process,it would easily show whom among the representatives actually shoukd be there,,and I believe it woukd force real change,but alas apathy is far easier.

I used to simply complain, but actively enough that  a state rep, told me to get involved instead of lip service if I wanted to effect anything positively.
It stung a bit as I felt that's what he was elected to do.After a bit of reflection I realized he was absolutely  right, so I volunteered and got more involved in the legislative process. Its going on 23 years now ,I'm glad I did.However it's made me far more jaded about the scene.
I'm far more disappointed in the publics general apathy them the system though.

And that's just one dumb dirt bikers opinion.

[Anotherkiwi]

Kiwi, that's the cabinet.
And every administration appoints those positions, to lay that part of our system on any particular administration is like saying why did we let Obama do so, or Clinton,or Bush etc etc.
...
Where was the outrage then? 

The outrage this time is perhaps because the appointees are rather more obviously financial cronies of the President, rather than being people whose worth in their appointed position is reasonably clear from day one.

However, you're still not answering my question, which is WHY these people are appointed, rather than being elected by the people that they now govern.  Seriously, what is the difference between them and (for example) the CEO of New York City Council (or whatever that position might be called) - someone else who is not beholden to the electorate, but who also wields staggering financial power?

It has been stated various times on this forum that the USA is not a democracy.  This is obviously true, since a real democracy ELECTS the people who will govern it.  WHY does your President have the power to APPOINT Cabinet Ministers (Secretaries), rather than having to work with those people who have actually been elected?  Is this some other ancient holdover from the War of Independence?

And Moby - apologies for continuing this  conversation, but I think it needs an answer.

[Anotherkiwi]

Lifelong politicians like Obama and Hillary had no ordinary life experience either. Intelligent people on both sides of the fence rarely live ordinary lives. They've accomplished something before getting to be POTUS or in POTUS's Cabinet

You misunderstand me, Billy.  What I mean is that they have no understanding of the way that "ordinary" people, like you, me and most members of this forum, live.  They therefore come up with all sorts of schemes which sound wonderful on paper, and may be wonderful for billionaires, but aren't necessarily going to be that good for the "ordinary" person.

As far as intelligence goes, I know many, MANY intelligent people whose lives you would probably consider extremely "ordinary."  That doesn't mean that they haven't accomplished "something" - it just means that whatever they have accomplished may not necessarily be recognised as such by other people.

[msmob]

GRRR..

Aren't there enough threads about 'Tramp' without spoiling this one, too ?

[2tallbill]

The outrage this time is perhaps because the appointees are rather more obviously financial cronies of the President, rather than being people whose worth in their appointed position is reasonably clear from day one.

I've been watching US politics for a while and this has been happening since
before I was born. Obama gave out Ambassadorships to his top fundraisers
who had never even been to the country before. All presidents do this, Joe
Kennedy made a ton of money in the stock market often times using practices
which are now illegal and got out just before the crash of the Great Depression.
He was appointed the first Chief of the Securities and exchange commission by
FDR.

Hiring successful people to do things is much smarter than hiring failures,
communists and idiots which other administrations have done.