I think you misunderstand. I'm not comparing them culturally, only their voting behavior.

And I would say the French and Germans are about the same. I would say the same thing about most European immigrants, especially French and Greeks, which is that they are basically socialists--although perhaps statist is a better term. The whole world is to the left of the USA right now practically, but it is only the Latinos that are coming in droves (Puerto Ricans legally at least).

The root of the problem as I see it can best be described as voting for short term handouts rather than long term prosperity.

Go back to 4th grade, do not pass go, do not collect $200. We're a Republic, not a Democracy.

Yes, I'm aware that we're technically a representative republic.  A true democracy would involve voting on every little thing while we elect people to handle the issues for us.  It still has nothing to do with why the archaic electoral college(used only by the USA) is a good thing.  Every vote should have equal impact.  Your vote for president shouldn't be less meaningful just because of which state you live in.

They tend to shed or not have a lot of the social conservative beliefs. The culture tends towards collectivism.

There's basically no TRUE democracy in the world.  Doesn't mean that our system of govt doesn't borrow from the idea.  I think some of you guys just don't like the idea of a popular election because it would give more power to highly populous liberal states.  Also note that I said 'the USA is a democratic country'.  Not that the USA is a democracy.  Do you disagree with the USA being a country that uses the democratic process?  Wouldn't shock me as I've seen members on here who still believe that only land owners or those who pay taxes should have the right to vote.

This is where my money is.

And yet you keep referencing Democracy.   Why?



Consensus does not make fact nor does the fact the USA is alone in our use of the electoral college (or a body of like kind) mean anything other than to say we are the only country to use such a body.

You could take a room of 10 people and convince 9 of them to agree to something that was not true and that agreement would mean nothing apart from the fact that 9 people agreed to something that was not true.





Why should this be the case?  Because you believe it should?   You need to actually present an argument to back up your assertion.

Because it's fair?
I guess fairness isn't really a word in politics, but from an ethical standpoint our system is currently a joke.

Maybe you can give an example of why we SHOULDN'T let the popular vote decide the presidency.

^^^^^^^ Agrees!


It's like two different worlds already.

Fair?  By whose definition?

Define "fair" for me please.




Fair is a word that does not belong in the lexicon of anyone over the age of 10.  

Fair is a word that means so many different things to EVERYBODY that it has no real meaning.

What is fair for you is different than what I think is fair for me and that goes for everybody.



So you make an assertion (We should go to popular vote to elect the President) and when pressed for an argument you ask me to defned your position?

That's not how this works.

What reasons do you have for us to go to a direct/popular vote for our elections?   If "fair" is all you have then please define "fair" for me so I can understand what you mean when you use the word.

Really? You want somebody who loses in 31 States to be the President? I don't think so.

As you can see here, if you live in a state such as Wyoming your vote has roughly 5x the electoral college impact of the vote from somebody in California.  In order to be a fair system California would need MANY more electoral votes to have an equivalent population to electoral vote ratio.  There's absolutely no rational reason why an individual in wyoming should have a bigger impact in an election than an individual in a populous state.

Isn't one of the ideals behind our nation the saying that "all men are created equal"?  

I think we found another DU Leftard.

Wanting to get rid of the electoral college makes me a DU leftard?  Ok then

Maybe conservatives are just having issues winning the popular vote because of how they stubbornly cling to social issues that nobody under 30 gives a crap about.  The only reason to want the current system is if you're having trouble attracting the popular vote.  Looking at the chart I posted it appears that most of the GOP strongholds are rural states with a low population to electoral vote ratio while the liberal strongholds have a high population to electoral vote ration.   Clearly advantageous to conservatives to keep the current system.  If it was changed I doubt we'd ever see a republican president again at the current rate.  (not that we will anyway).  If Jeb is the best the GOP can do then get ready for Hillary or Sanders

Not necessarily.  We could just remove their status as a territory.

I would like to point out that you have not defined "fair" for me.  

Please define "fair" for me please.




That is a FEATURE of the Electoral College; not a BUG.

This was done on PURPOSE to ensure that Wyoming wasn't marginalized completely.  



There is that word again.

Please define "fair" for me.

The Electoral College was meant to PROTECT the STATES to ensure the STATES could operate as more or less separate government entities (with a few restrictions and caveats).

Take that away and now Florida, California, New York, and few other states get to dictate what kind of government Wyoming is going to have.

That's not "fair" for Wyoming in my view.




That same argument could be made for the US Senate:  why on earth does Wyoming get 2 senators when California, a the most populous state in the nation, only gets 2 senators?

The reason is because the system was built that way.   The Senate was meant to be the chamber of congress that represented the states where all states have equal representation.  

The President was meant to be elected by the votes of the electoral college made up of delegates appointed by the states themselves.    There are important reasons for this.

The founders did not want the people of one or handful of cities to shape and mold the political landscape of EVERY STATE.  




No, it's not but that doesn't really matter because that is not what you are pushing.

What you are pushing is the ability for California, New York, Illinois, and Florida to select the President of the United States and cut out all the rest.

The idea that you would argue equality with one hand while pushing an argument that would marginalize the vast majority of America is simply stunning to me.

Pushing 'democracy' as a cure for political ills is notably progressive. Duping the majority of fuzzy-minded and inattentive voters while crying "democracy now!" is a classic Leftist tactic.

You also seem to fail to understand the basic structure of the USA. Each state is sovereign over most domestic matters, delegating only certain powers to the Federal government. The union consists of 50 States, not 300-some milllion individuals. But if you believed in the constitution, you'd know that already.

And why SHOULD a small rural state with more cattle than people have much say in a presidential election?  And isn't the current system rather flawed in the sense that it completely marginalizes those who live in a solidly red or blue state?

IE:  I live in UT and my vote in the presidential election is effectively 100% meaningless because such an overwhelming majority of the state votes straight R.  Likewise a republican in California would have their vote completely nullified.

For all you know the effects of removing the EC wouldn't be too dramatic.  All of the marginalized Conservatives in Solid blue states would suddenly have their vote count in the presidential election.  According to the popular vote most of the recent elections have been incredibly close.  "The exception being mittens of course"

If you have your way they will have NO say in a presidential election.   So much for equality.



California and New York both went Republican in the 1980s.   Times change and states change.   That's the beauty of the system and one of the reasons we need to keep the electoral college.

Wouldn't be too dramatic?   Then why did you say this?




Which is it?

Oh and why have you not defined "fair" for me yet?

lol

Actually you bring up a key part of why this is such an issue.  The presidential election is far too impactful when it comes to state matters and a large part of this is due to federal govt overreach.  If the president actually stuck to his job and didn't meddle with issues like gun control, epa mandates, executive orders, drug legalization and abortion/birth control then our current system would mostly be fine.  The problem we have is that the president has such a huge say in State matters and too much power in general.  By wielding the federal agencies at his disposal he has a vast amount of influence.

Note the "at the current rate" part.  If conservatives stop alienating everybody by bringing up social issues they might do considerably better.  That means shutting the fuck up about abortion, planned parenthood, banning blowjobs, gay marriage, and the evils of legalizing cannabis.  Statements equating Obama's Iran deal to the holocaust also aren't especially flattering.

You got that right.

I did and it doesn't matter because the "current rate" is not what you think it is (see Congressional control and State Governors, State Legislatures, etc).





They have majorities in the HoR and Senate they have not seen since Herbert Hoover.    Things are not as you make them out to be.

Oh and you have yet to define "fair" for me.  Why is this?

So you argue the main problem we have is that the Government is not following the Constitution so the solution to that problem is to change the Constitution the Federal government is not following?

Right...

I'm confused. Our existing government is doing a bad job of living within the constitution, so we need go away from the constitution? Is that your argument? Are you sure you're not visiting from DU?

We were not founded as a democracy, and while we have devolved into one, we should not be one.  The principle of majoritarianism, and the egalitarian ideas underlying modern democracy, are simply wrong.  The majority's will is not sacrosanct, and should never be treated as such, especially in an age where the franchise is universal.  The majority rarely supports liberty (it is almost always the minority, often select minorities/aristocracy/nobility, which has defended and advanced the cause of liberty, whether for advantageous reasons or on principle).  It often acts in error, a fact magnified when the masses constitute the bulk of the electorate.  Not only that, but the principle of majority rule means that everyone else is effectively shut out of the political process, which is unacceptable.  Democracy, in general, has a bad track record; the only major exception seems to be Switzerland, but even that country had and still has checks on true majority rule of the populace (some of which resemble, in impact, the electoral college here).  We are also supposed to be a federal country composed of sovereign states in a voluntary federal union, and national majority rule directly undermines this, whether we are speaking of the executive or of the legislature.  Federalism, of course, aside from respecting the sovereignty of the several States, is also an extension of the principle of subsidiarity, which is an essential concept for the sake of good, liberal, and small government.

If you support liberty, small government, and good government, and if you respect the sovereignty of the States, I challenge you to show me how majoritarianism and the democracy it entails in governmental form are conducive to and not destructive of these ends.  Political theory and history would seem to run against you, there.  Of course, if  you don't believe in such things, your position becomes slightly more understandable, but it is certainly not commendable nor is it the sort that anyone should follow, and I would challenge you to defend your lack of belief in such things.

The Presidency is, as designed, an elective monarchy sans regal titles.  The President is meant to be someone sufficiently acceptable to the members of the Union, to include populous and non-populous States, and thus able to exercise power with the sort of consensus monarchs tend to have, and who is not beholden to any one particular group or interest, whether it is the majority of the people, the States, or some other group or entity.  Furthermore, he is meant to be able to check the people when they err in the legislature, which does mean going against their will (and likewise with regard to the States via the Senators they used to choose themselves).  The electoral college is an excellent means, when used as designed, to accomplish this end, and it is a standard feature of elective monarchies, such as the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth or the Holy Roman Empire.

No, I cannot agree to that.  Geographic interests and minority interests are important, not just those of the majority of the massive body of the people, concentrated in their cities.  They need a voice that can check the rest, and all need a chief magistrate who is not especially beholden to any one side and can thus rule more justly.  Structuring government to accomplish that is a much higher priority than the foolish notion of equality.  In order to accomplish that, one has to go against democratic principles, which is not a bad thing in itself considering how bad a form of government democracy is.

No, it's not one of our founding ideals.  And in reality, all men are NOT created equal.  Inequality is what God and nature gives us; equality can never be truly achieved, and it can only be approximated by massive and brutal force.  And if you look at our constitution and the original State constitutions, it is plainly obvious that are government was not founded on the basis of egalitarian notions.

I bet you don't like our Senate and are fond of Reynolds vs. Sims and Baker vs. Carr as well.

Let's be real.  Is anything ever going to get done about federal overreach?  It seems like even the SCOTUS supports it.  Just look at the abomination called the 'commerce clause' and some of the history behind it.

Changing the constitution to help contain our runaway govt by holding it more accountable to the will of the people seems like one of the few options right now.  Insulating the government from the will of the people only worked well when the federal govt stayed within their bounds.

The will of the people, increasingly powerful through removals of checks and balances by law or in practice, is what got us in its mess.  The masses are the problem, not the solution.

Basically it comes down to the age old debate between elite and popular democracy.  While I agree that elite democracy has its merits, it only works when those at the top have good intentions, FOLLOW THE RULES and there's accountability+transparency.  Right now the elites at the top are doing whateverthefucktheywant and have very little accountability/transparency.  Seems like Elite Democracy has been messing up so maybe it's time to give Popular Democracy a go?

We do not have an "elite democracy."  The term is oxymoronic, anyways, when using the word in the modern sense.  If we had a majority rule system in which only elites could vote, such as was the case in some ancient democracies, the term might make some sense, but it does not.  And I also never said I supported democracy in any form.  It's a bad form of government, PERIOD.  I believe in a federal regimen mixtum.  We do not have anything close to that anymore.  Popular democracy got us where we are and is the problem; it has been tried, and it has, as can be predicted theoretically and by an examination of history, failed.  Why in the hell should we give it even more chances and expand upon it?  What good do you think you'd actually achieve?  How do you think in the context of the EC this would make things better?  You never answered my original questions and challenges, so I'm not sure I should expect an answer, but I'd really like to see one.

I feel that the people are somewhat to blame, but not in the way you see it.  The people no longer vote out bad or corrupt politicians like they should.  Just look at congress with its all-time-low approval ratings.  Despite the universal loathing for congress the people of this nation continue to vote the incumbents back into office.  The result is you get spineless yes men like Bohner.  You could say that the laziness of the voters has contributed to the current mess.  The voters fail to punish the politicians when they overstep their bounds.

However, this does not diminish the blame on the Elites who've abused their powers either.

Natural elitism is good and necessary for a good society and polity.  What we have is not true, natural elitism, but a false elitism, one that derives its power from the popular will.  We have what we have because the people wanted it.  That they are also fickle does not change the fact.  The masses and their leaders are the worst people into whom you can award power, and removing the EC just gives them even more power.

And again, you have failed to satisfactorily answer any of my questions, which are essential to the defence of your position.

 
How many Science Fictions stories start out that way.

I don't mean this as a dig, but it amazes me - nay, it absolutely floors me - that some people still hold onto that particular falsehood.

Affirmative.  Hispanics as a whole have been shown to prefer big government programs and social services more than most other cultures.  They may be religious and conservative in that aspect, but they love their big government and social programs.

How many of them coming into the country are doing it legally... I'm going to guess not very many. This is the goal of the left, to bring in only people they know who will vote for Democrats. This country will be under Communism in 10 years.

More than likely 2016 will be the last time I vote.

1. People are fucking retarded.




 

Ummmm...

 

Puerto Rico is an American Territory and they are American Citizens. Are you suffering from water in the head or something?

In the less European Latin American countries, though, there are common threads which lead to similar politics among those countries, and there are common cultural threads outside of language among nearly all Hispanophone countries.

And on that argument, there are common threads amongst the US, Canada, the UK and the rest of Europe. An up swell in Socialist Dogma and youth voting for leftists.

Right now Marxism is becoming popular again amongst the youth all across the world. Why? Shitty economy, no jobs, crushing college debt, etc.... Because I see a shit ton of idiot Anglo Youth going gaga for Bernie Sanders and the same in other Anglo Countries right now....


This is a generational issue. Right now the Boricua fleeing PR are mostly young college aged folks. Guess what they're doing just like the Anglo American Citizens.

The English-speaking countries are very close, culturally, but they do have a more significant contrast with the Continent.  The Latin American countries with strong non-European admixtures seems to have a lot of cultural and political traits in common.  The Hispanophone world is very diverse, to be sure, much more so than most Americans seem to realize (which made for some interesting discussion in the Pancho Villa thread), but there are things about it which allow for generalizations to be made, especially in the case I mentioned.  The non-linguistic Spanish inheritance is usually pretty obvious as well, and serves as another common trait (although there may be differences of degree).  The more European Latin American countries and Spain seem to have the greater contrasts compared to the rest.

there is no possible peaceful way out of this mess

No, we don't think that. We think that people coming into this country in droves illegally, and who are helped by their government in doing so, are invaders.

Once again.... Puerto Ricans are American Citizens.

The topic of discussion is Puerto Ricans moving to Florida and changing the political demographics. No different than Californians changing the political demographics of Colorado.