In reply to Jay:
I don't know if your post was serious or not. If it was in jest, then I found it funny. If it was serious, then I don't know how to respond to it without violating the house rules.
In reply to Jay:
I don't know if your post was serious or not. If it was in jest, then I found it funny. If it was serious, then I don't know how to respond to it without violating the house rules.
nderwater wrote: The New York Times had some really great interactive election tools as the election results were coming in (see http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/president) including this map, which illustrates up the nation-wide city-vs-rural results pretty succinctly:
Not to flounder, but...
Looking at that map, it looks like the electoral college results more evenly reflect the voting across the country with distributed red than the focused centers of popular vote that are blue.
I think the electoral college serves still serves a purpose and prevents a large population center from being able to over come the rest of the country. I'd prefer to see the "winner take all" approach to the electoral votes go away, but I'll take the current method over relying purely on the popular vote.
While an extreme example, it could be possible for an extremely biased vote in a couple large urban areas to overcome a tight vote in the rest of the country if popular vote was used.
I did not do the math, so all numbers in the following statement are fabricated for the purpose of providing a general example:
Margins of 1% in favor of candidate A in 90% of the country could potentially be defeated by candidate B winning 90% of the popular vote in 10% of the country if they were large enough concentrations of voters like NYC, Miami, LA, etc.
In the example the popular vote may note really reflect the voting of the country. The electoral college helps dampen out the potential for a small number of regions to overpower the rest of the country.
EastCoastMojo wrote: I don't understand why we can't get a None Of The Above option on the ballot. Get a None vote majority and they have to scrap all the current candidates and start over.
I have long advocated this. Every time I've explained my reasoning in detail to anyone, they all think it is a brilliant idea.
Bottom line why it would work- it would one day make a horrible mess of an election cycle, but it would only happen once. After that, the political parties would understand their absolute need to endorse viable and reasonable candidates, or become meaningless and die.
Bottom line why we won't get it- Breaking the political stranglehold is not in the best interest of any politician anywhere.
Term limits have been talked about for how long? We really need term limits. We need to eliminate the "career politician" and have real people in Washington.
1988RedT2 wrote: Term limits have been talked about for how long? We really need term limits. We need to eliminate the "career politician" and have real people in Washington.
Think about this from an HR standpoint. For the garbage a Senator goes through, they don't get paid a lot. Many of us on here get paid as much as a senator or more, with much less stress, much less hatred and much less garbage. So, If we enact term limits and reduce their benefits(which we eseentially will by limiting their terms), How do you keep and attract talent?
Why would anyone want to go into politics if they can go to Google and program for a living for $90-150K RIGHT OUT OF COLLEGE, if there was no sort of payoff.
So we attract dudes who are generally independently weathly, because that's all who can afford to be a senator(granted there are some guys who do it for love of country etc..)
So.. Long story short, to enact term limits, I'd probably want to juice the Salaries of Senators by 10x. Make it a good job with good pay. Make people really compete for it, get top talent.
1988RedT2 wrote: Term limits have been talked about for how long? We really need term limits. We need to eliminate the "career politician" and have real people in Washington.
We also need to make them live by the same rules we do.
and
We need to ____ the lobbyists and any politician that becomes one. You fill in the blank.
I just hired an entry level engineer, with masters. She makes double what a Minnesota state senator makes.
Who has the more important job? Think about it.
The engineer makes decisions to avoid fatal failures on a regular basis.
Well-paid politicians may not reflect the preferences of a struggling electorate, but they are a lot harder to corrupt than poorly-paid ones!
chaparral wrote: The engineer makes decisions to avoid fatal failures on a regular basis. Well-paid politicians may not reflect the preferences of a struggling electorate, but they are a lot harder to corrupt than poorly-paid ones!
Maybe, I'm thinking too much from a business mindset, but if you want to manage someones performance...
no such thing as a free lunch, you want more out of something.. fine. but give people incentive to do that.
Minnesota state senators make $30K a year. $30K.... Someone who effects your roads, your kids schools etc.. at the same salary as someone who works in an Amazon warehouse.. Amazon pays $15/hr with full benefits and a stock bonus.
http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/ss/sseloffcomp.pdf <-- I'd love to try and put my money where my mouth is and become a legislator. I can't afford it.
But do they get the pension and retirement of a senator or representitive?
In reply to Appleseed:
Mm state senators get aregular goverment employee retirement and pension package, same as a dot worker.
Amazon gives full benefits, free college tuition(jr colege), 401k, health etc. I was in their health plan. It's way better than any other I've ever experienced. The 401k is weak but the stock performance makes up for that now. yes, floor employees are compensated in stock.
From a direct financial standpoint, working for amazon in a fulfillment center is better than being a state senator. I can't feed my family with better pension benefits.
guess I should stop complaining. Texas pays it's people $7k per year. What kind of a person are you hiring for those kind of wages?
https://ballotpedia.org/Comparison_of_state_legislative_salaries
Seacrest out.
Fueled by Caffeine wrote: ..Amazon gives full benefits, free college tuition(jr colege), 401k, health etc...
Does Amazon let you LEGALLY trade stocks/options with inside information on upcoming laws / regulations? If you don't make any money doing that, you can just get the companies that are affected by legislation to pay you big money to talk to other congressmen.
If you are a congressman and are not cashing in, you are not paying attention (or, just might be a good person?)
Fueled by Caffeine wrote: guess I should stop complaining. Texas pays it's people $7k per year. What kind of a person are you hiring for those kind of wages? https://ballotpedia.org/Comparison_of_state_legislative_salaries Seacrest out.
Ours apparently pays per day ($188) plus a per-diem ($154/day)- and it looks like state legislative sessions are limited to (in even years- this is confusing as all hell...) 60 days- so assuming they're only paid on days they're in session and get the max per-diem, they'd make $20K at most per year. On odd years sessions are limited to 30 days- so they'd make half that.... O_o
I don't think politics was ever intended to be a full time job or a career.
aircooled wrote:Fueled by Caffeine wrote: ..Amazon gives full benefits, free college tuition(jr colege), 401k, health etc...Does Amazon let you LEGALLY trade stocks/options with inside information on upcoming laws / regulations? If you don't make any money doing that, you can just get the companies that are affected by legislation to pay you big money to talk to other congressmen. If you are a congressman and are not cashing in, you are not paying attention (or, just might be a good person?)
1st question: Yes. You can trade during open trading periods usually after Quarterly results are presented.
2nd question: That's kinda my point. You're asking people to have other jobs, other interests and get paid little money for their work. I can't live on $30K/yr... I'd have to be a Surgeon or Dr. or Lawyer or college professor or freelance kinda guy who has enough business that I can do work outside the times that the legislator should be in session............ or. I'd have to look for "other" ways to make cash. My point is that by giving these guys little wages, maybe.. just maybe.. we're kinda getting what we deserve. That said.. some politicians are good folks who live off these salaries, but.. We're paying for mystery meat and expecting filet mignon.
Toyman01 wrote: I don't think politics was ever intended to be a full time job or a career.
edited because I posted the wrong link. Sorry about that. I don't disagree with you, but the current setup doesn't allow for anyone holding a normal job to even do the work. I think we all want a more inclusive government, we need all voices at the table, it makes us stronger as a whole... but man. I feel the current structure only allows those who have a certain level of wealth to be able to govern. Should only rich folks be legislators? Sounds silly to me.
I've floundered enough...
Fueled by Caffeine wrote:aircooled wrote: ...Does Amazon let you LEGALLY trade stocks/options with inside information on upcoming laws / regulations?..1st question: Yes. You can trade during open trading periods usually after Quarterly results are presented....
Clearly NOT the same thing. That's not insider information, that's publicly released information.
Trading on information what the Quarterly result will be BEFORE they are released is very much illegal. Trading on information about if a bill (that will impact an industry or company) will pass, or be presented, before it is, IS legal... but only if you are a congressman (only ones that would know of course).
I am not sure about their staff (who should have some information), but I know congress decided that they should not be prosecuted for it (who watches the watchman).
P.S. is this technically a political discussion, or a government / finance discussion? (I just sort of assume it's the political party and people discussions that are the issue)
In reply to aircooled:
I think this is a discussion about the mechanics of government, rather than the politics of government.
One tends to stay pretty civil. The other doesn't seem to stay on the tracks no matter how much we try.
GameboyRMH wrote:1988RedT2 wrote: As a firm proponent of state's rights, I have come to appreciate the value of the Electoral College. It ensures that each state has a proportionate voice in the selection of the President. It also helps to minimize the impact of foreign influence and moral decay so prevalent in the major cities on our East and West coasts. A quick look at "red" and "blue" states will illustrate just how pronounced the divide is in terms of geography. http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-the-united-states-get-rid-of-the-electoral-college/the-electoral-college-serves-the-interests-of-all-peopleSounds like you're not exactly a proponent of states' rights. You're a proponent of certain sparsely populated states' rights because you happen to disagree with the ideology of some of the more densely populated states. Technically, you're a selective states' rights supremacist.1988RedT2 wrote: It also helps to minimize the impact of foreign influence and moral decay so prevalent in the major cities on our East and West coasts.My eyes are at 15krpm...
Actually the system has been gerrymandered since the late 1800's to make it closer, if it hadn't of been, and winner take all wasn't the rule of the day in 48 states, this election would have been 4xx to sub 100 in Trumps favor.....Clinton really only won populated areas, which is precisely why our founding fathers created the EC. They knew a nation as diverse as ours was then couldn't stay united with leaders elected by only the big three cities at the time(Boston, NYC, & Philadelphia)
The system did work as it was intended to, and the very close overall popular vote should be an indicator to it working.....had it been a 15 million vote advantage to one cantidate & the EC went otherwise, I would agree with you it needs canned, but it wasn't.
Fueled by Caffeine wrote: I think we all want a more inclusive government, we need all voices at the table, it makes us stronger as a whole... but man. I feel the current structure only allows those who have a certain level of wealth to be able to govern. Should only rich folks be legislators? Sounds silly to me.
Seems like only rich people can afford to even run for office these days, or people with rich backers whom they then owe favors to once elected.
Honestly, I want my leaders to have success outside of politics though. That's typically a sign of knowledge and some understanding of the way the world works. A successful small business owner will likely make a better political leader than the college dropout who tends bar down the street, even if that bartender is literally a genius. Good ideas can come from anywhere of course, but it takes organization, drive and some level of discipline to lead well, and not everybody has those traits.
In reply to Fueled by Caffeine:
Don't elected officials get to cash out their campaign accounts when they retire?
failboat wrote: Thanks for the discussion guys. But I am torn on where I stand about the Electoral College. I do think its a problem when states decide to award ALL their electoral votes to whoever leads the popular vote. We cant split up the electoral votes proportionally? Or does that further cause an issue when you take into account densely populated areas vs rural?
Proportionately versus the current norm of winner take all(within the state) would have yielded an even larger EC win for Trump.
The current push towards destroying EC by binding states by law to award them all to national level popular vote is also wrong.....an entire state's majority involved with that could vehemently oppose someone and still watch as all their EC votes went to them. That seems like a brilliant idea, until it goes very wrong.
it could be broken down from statewide to congressional district wide. Considering that electors are chosen to equal the number of congressmen and senators each state has. Depending on how the district votes, would determine how the elector votes.
Might want to think hard before tossing the Electoral College in favor of the popular vote.
Clinton won the popular vote by about 200,000 votes. There were 8 different states in which her lead was 200,000 or more. So, if we relied on the popular vote alone, any one of those 8 states could be making decisions for the entire country. (Clinton won CA by more than 2.5 million- it took the entire rest of the country to overturn that!)
There were also 15 states that Trump won by 200,000 or more. Do we want the decisions for the country made by Tennessee? How about Alabama?
Worse than that, there were CITIES that had more than 200,000 spread. So, do we want Detroit MI, New York NY, or Berkeley CA making all the decisions for the country? How about Provo UT, or Lubbock TX?
But here's the worst of all...
The largest percentage spread of any area this election was neither a State nor a city. It was the District of Columbia- 3 electoral votes. Clinton won 93% of the vote in DC, and topped Trump by more than 200,000 votes. So, if we HAD decided by the popular vote, ALL of the decisions for the entire nation would have been made by Washington DC.
Hooray for Cronyism!!!
Be careful what you wish for....
You'll need to log in to post.
