Obama orders full review of elections hacking

[Papageorgio]

[

So no democratic election for the PM. It's the party that holds the majority in Parliament?

Of course not. Our PM only has one vote in Parliament, too, which is a good thing. You guys give far too much power to one person. BTW, we know who the party leader is before the election. So going into the election we know, depending on what party wins, who will be the PM. Since MMP was introduced in 1996 there has been no majority in Parliament.

Who selects your PM? You said the party selects the PM. What party?

 

[Dr Grump]

Who selects your PM? You said the party selects the PM. What party?

The party selects the leader. If the party wins, that leader becomes the PM.

 

[Papageorgio]

If the CIA has "proof" can the President make an executive order to invalidate an election and force a do-over?

Proof? Of what? To remove the President you would need to start impeachment proceedings.

 

[Lewdog]

If the CIA has "proof" can the President make an executive order to invalidate an election and force a do-over?

Proof? Of what? To remove the President you would need to start impeachment proceedings.

He's not President until the Electoral College casts their votes.

 

[Papageorgio]

Who selects your PM? You said the party selects the PM. What party?

The party selects the leader. If the party wins, that leader becomes the PM.

So if the party nominates a person, then if that person gets enough votes they become PM?

 

[Dr Grump]

Who selects your PM? You said the party selects the PM. What party?

The party selects the leader. If the party wins, that leader becomes the PM.

So if the party nominates a person, then if that person gets enough votes they become PM?

no, the party votes for the leader. For example, if National has 55 MPs, they have an election within the caucus and the one who wins (say 28 to 27) leads the party. If the party wins the election, he or she becomes the PM.

 

[Papageorgio]

If the CIA has "proof" can the President make an executive order to invalidate an election and force a do-over?

Proof? Of what? To remove the President you would need to start impeachment proceedings.

He's not President until the Electoral College casts their votes.

How can a President invalidate an election? I think that would be unconstitutional. What is the criteria? What is the precedent?

 

[Papageorgio]

Who selects your PM? You said the party selects the PM. What party?

The party selects the leader. If the party wins, that leader becomes the PM.

So if the party nominates a person, then if that person gets enough votes they become PM?

no, the party votes for the leader. For example, if National has 55 MPs, they have an election within the caucus and the one who wins (say 28 to 27) leads the party. If the party wins the election, he or she becomes the PM.

So party's run for office not people?

 

[Lewdog]

If the CIA has "proof" can the President make an executive order to invalidate an election and force a do-over?

Proof? Of what? To remove the President you would need to start impeachment proceedings.

He's not President until the Electoral College casts their votes.

How can a President invalidate an election? I think that would be unconstitutional. What is the criteria? What is the precedent?

I asked a question. I didn't make a statement. Trump is not President until the Electoral College casts their votes. If it can be proven by the CIA that the election was compromised by a foreign entity, can someone invalidate it, like the President?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If the CIA has "proof" can the President make an executive order to invalidate an election and force a do-over?

Proof? Of what? To remove the President you would need to start impeachment proceedings.

He's not President until the Electoral College casts their votes.

How can a President invalidate an election? I think that would be unconstitutional. What is the criteria? What is the precedent?

I asked a question. I didn't make a statement. Trump is not President until the Electoral College casts their votes. If it can be proven by the CIA that the election was compromised by a foreign entity, can someone invalidate it, like the President?

No, a President doesn't have that kind of power.

 

[Dr Grump]

So party's run for office not people?

No. It is similar to your congress critters in that MPs - including the PM - have to win their electoral seat. If they don't they are toast. Although the party elects their leader (doesn't the Congresscritters to likewise with regard to House majority and minority leaders), they better make sure they pick a good one. Two of our most popular PMs in recent history were Helen Clark and John Key. They as people, went a long way to their parties winning their respective elections. Your party chooses a dud leader, they'll lose the election for sure.

 

[Kondor3]

Obama orders full review of elections hacking

That, and $3.50, will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks...

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

When our country was formed, it was thought that representation should equate the population, so it was done with the US Congress. The problem was that those who would live in less populated states would be run by those populated states as far as representation goes, so they created the Senate to have two representatives no matter what size your state is.

Do you think it's fair that California has the same amount of Senators as Rhode Island?

The founders wanted everybody to have representation. Since we couldn't have a structure for voting like we do our representatives, the electoral college was something of a similar compromise. With the EC, you do have representation by population and have equality across the states. Without the EC, those tiny blue sections would be in control over the entire country which is mostly red. Would that be fair?

They don't need more senators, they have more congress critters. That aside, of course everybody should have fair representation. And the only way that can happen is on a per head of population basis.

And no, with the EC you don't have equality amongst the states. You are penalising those who live in cities, just because they live in cities. How is that fair. As it stands, when one Californian elector goes to Washington in January he or she is representing 750,000 Californians. When the Alaskan does the same he or she is representing 222,000 Alaskans. In fact, the 3 Alaskan electors are representing just over 660,000 people So, currently as it stands there will be 3 votes representing 660,000 people while 1 will be representing 750,000. Any way you look at it, that is an inherently unfair and unbalanced system.

Yes, it is true that they don't need more Senators because of the Congress. But imagine what it would be like without a Senate. It would almost be a pure Democracy where mob rules. That's the same thing you would be doing by removing the Electoral College. There would be no presidential representation for many of our states. They wouldn't matter and it certainly would be no point for all those people in those red states to vote.

 

[Papageorgio]

If the CIA has "proof" can the President make an executive order to invalidate an election and force a do-over?

Proof? Of what? To remove the President you would need to start impeachment proceedings.

He's not President until the Electoral College casts their votes.

How can a President invalidate an election? I think that would be unconstitutional. What is the criteria? What is the precedent?

I asked a question. I didn't make a statement. Trump is not President until the Electoral College casts their votes. If it can be proven by the CIA that the election was compromised by a foreign entity, can someone invalidate it, like the President?

Nothing in the Constitution addresses the issue. My question was in regards to your question, I had no answer and asked further questions.

 

[Dr Grump]

Yes, it is true that they don't need more Senators because of the Congress. But imagine what it would be like without a Senate. It would almost be a pure Democracy where mob rules. That's the same thing you would be doing by removing the Electoral College. There would be no presidential representation for many of our states. They wouldn't matter and it certainly would be no point for all those people in those red states to vote.

So the minority should rule? That's why I love our system of govt. our old one was shit, so we changed it.

Currently a Repub vote in Cali is pointless. Ditto a Dem vote in Texas. The system is broken. It needs amending or revamping. Too many disenfranchised people from both sides of the spectrum.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yes, it is true that they don't need more Senators because of the Congress. But imagine what it would be like without a Senate. It would almost be a pure Democracy where mob rules. That's the same thing you would be doing by removing the Electoral College. There would be no presidential representation for many of our states. They wouldn't matter and it certainly would be no point for all those people in those red states to vote.

So the minority should rule? That's why I love our system of govt. our old one was shit, so we changed it.

Currently a Repub vote in Cali is pointless. Ditto a Dem vote in Texas. The system is broken. It needs amending or revamping. Too many disenfranchised people from both sides of the spectrum.

It's either mob rule or equal representation. You can't have both.

 

[Papageorgio]

So party's run for office not people?

No. It is similar to your congress critters in that MPs - including the PM - have to win their electoral seat. If they don't they are toast. Although the party elects their leader (doesn't the Congresscritters to likewise with regard to House majority and minority leaders), they better make sure they pick a good one. Two of our most popular PMs in recent history were Helen Clark and John Key. They as people, went a long way to their parties winning their respective elections. Your party chooses a dud leader, they'll lose the election for sure.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Lewdog]

Yes, it is true that they don't need more Senators because of the Congress. But imagine what it would be like without a Senate. It would almost be a pure Democracy where mob rules. That's the same thing you would be doing by removing the Electoral College. There would be no presidential representation for many of our states. They wouldn't matter and it certainly would be no point for all those people in those red states to vote.

So the minority should rule? That's why I love our system of govt. our old one was shit, so we changed it.

Currently a Repub vote in Cali is pointless. Ditto a Dem vote in Texas. The system is broken. It needs amending or revamping. Too many disenfranchised people from both sides of the spectrum.

...and the in the current Electoral System, only a handful of states really matter. 5-10 states out of the entire country determine the outcome of the election almost every single year. Republicans simply don't like the PV system because there are more voting Democrats in the country than Republicans.

 

[Dr Grump]

It's either mob rule or equal representation. You can't have both.

Well, you haven't got equal representation at the moment. I just pointed out that an Alaskan EC vote is worth three times that of one from Californian one...

And it's not mob rule. One of the shittiest system is our old one (which Britain still uses) called First Past the Post. I would hardly call that a 'mob rule' country.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It's either mob rule or equal representation. You can't have both.

Well, you haven't got equal representation at the moment. I just pointed out that an Alaskan EC vote is worth three times that of one from Californian one...

And it's not mob rule. One of the shittiest system is our old one (which Britain still uses) called First Past the Post. I would hardly call that a 'mob rule' country.

Oh yes, it would be mob rule. Think of it!

If a presidential candidate only has to win the populated places over, people that don't live in populated places have no representation. Neither candidate would care about them. They could go to hell for all they care.

Through policy, city people would be able to drain resources from those less populated states. If we had a liberal majority in the Supreme Court, they could make guns illegal in all states. People out in the middle of nowhere depend on their guns for protection. They protect their herds, protect their crops, protect themselves.

After all, a President makes decisions on behalf of people and land in our country. Idaho is a state with 1.5 million people. New York City has a population of 9 million people. It would take six Idaho's to equal that one city alone.