The Democracy Game.

[Mindful]

he 2009 Wimbledon final, in which Roger Federer defeated Andy Roddick in five sets, was the longest Grand Slam final in history in terms of games played, with a total of 77. Imagine if Roddick's supporters had claimed that, given the final score of 5-7, 7-6, 7-6, 3-6, 16-14, he deserved the victory because he won more games. It's a ludicrous suggestion because, as everyone knows, the game of tennis doesn't work that way and, though it was true that Roddick edged Federer in total games won by 39 to 38, ultimately, neither player was trying to win more games, but three sets. That is the game they play and unless there is agreement about the rules of the game, there can be no game at all.

http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm?frm=189251&sec_id=189251

 

[Mindful]

^ ^ No less ludicrous than this is the suggestion that Hillary Clinton should be President of the United States because she got more votes than Donald Trump, and yet, more than a year after the election, it is still frequently made. That is simply not the way American federal elections work. Maybe you don't like the way American elections work. For that matter, maybe you don't like the rules of tennis (maybe you think 1, 2, 3 would make more sense than 15, 30, 40). But changing the rules of elections or sports is a separate matter entirely. Neither Clinton nor Trump were trying to win the popular vote; they were campaigning to win the electoral college. Had they been trying to win the popular vote, both candidates would have campaigned very differently, and who can say what the result would have been in that case? In practical terms, it certainly would have meant spending most of their time campaigning in more populated areas, such as New York, Los Angeles and Chicago, instead of travelling across the whole country. And this is precisely what the electoral college exists to prevent. Maybe it's not perfect, maybe it needs to be changed, but without it, or something else in its place, the large cities would be deciding for the whole country, resulting in the various different concerns of the rest of the country being ignored. This is its function, and both candidates agreed to it by entering the race in the first place.

 

[Mindful]

^^ America's system of democracy is as ingenious as it is convoluted, and every aspect of it is directed towards fair representation of the concerns of both the individuals and the many regions that comprise the nation. Each state is represented by two senators serving six-year terms, and by a number of Representatives proportional to the population serving two-year terms. If only the Senate existed, the citizens of the more populous states, such as California, would be underrepresented in Congress, and conversely, if only the House of Representatives existed, the smaller states such as Alaska and Montana, with only one representative each to California's 53, would be underrepresented in Congress. The resultant makeup of the bicameral legislature ensures that the concerns of individuals are heard as well as the concerns of the states. This, the Legislative Branch of government, is balanced by the Executive Branch (the President and his staff, serving four-year terms) and the Judicial Branch (the Supreme Court; justices serve for life following Presidential nomination and Senate confirmation). And we haven't even touched upon state or local governments. Elections in the U.S. are pretty much nonstop. It must make Americans yearn for one consolidated election to decide everything. Would that it were so simple.

I don't argue that it's perfect, nor even that it's the best form of democracy in the world—in fact I don't think it is—but it is not stupid, and far too often people mock it in complete ignorance of its democratic intentions. They need to be reminded of Chesterton's fence.

 

[frigidweirdo]

he 2009 Wimbledon final, in which Roger Federer defeated Andy Roddick in five sets, was the longest Grand Slam final in history in terms of games played, with a total of 77. Imagine if Roddick's supporters had claimed that, given the final score of 5-7, 7-6, 7-6, 3-6, 16-14, he deserved the victory because he won more games. It's a ludicrous suggestion because, as everyone knows, the game of tennis doesn't work that way and, though it was true that Roddick edged Federer in total games won by 39 to 38, ultimately, neither player was trying to win more games, but three sets. That is the game they play and unless there is agreement about the rules of the game, there can be no game at all.

http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm?frm=189251&sec_id=189251

The problem isn't that people don't understand the rules, the issue is that people don't like the rules.

Tennis is tennis and it works like that. You don't like tennis you can play football, chess, golf, whatever suits you.

But politics isn't a game. It's people's lives.

You're saying because the system is the system (and it's convenient for you) it shouldn't be changed because it's the system.

Er... what? You shouldn't change the system because it's the system?

 

[Mindful]

he 2009 Wimbledon final, in which Roger Federer defeated Andy Roddick in five sets, was the longest Grand Slam final in history in terms of games played, with a total of 77. Imagine if Roddick's supporters had claimed that, given the final score of 5-7, 7-6, 7-6, 3-6, 16-14, he deserved the victory because he won more games. It's a ludicrous suggestion because, as everyone knows, the game of tennis doesn't work that way and, though it was true that Roddick edged Federer in total games won by 39 to 38, ultimately, neither player was trying to win more games, but three sets. That is the game they play and unless there is agreement about the rules of the game, there can be no game at all.

The Democracy Game

The problem isn't that people don't understand the rules, the issue is that people don't like the rules.

Tennis is tennis and it works like that. You don't like tennis you can play football, chess, golf, whatever suits you.

But politics isn't a game. It's people's lives.

You're saying because the system is the system (and it's convenient for you) it shouldn't be changed because it's the system.

Er... what? You shouldn't change the system because it's the system?

I didn't say it. Can't you read?

 

[cnm]

No less ludicrous than this is the suggestion that Hillary Clinton should be President of the United States because she got more votes than Donald Trump, and yet, more than a year after the election, it is still frequently made.

I haven't seen anyone making that suggestion. Nor does your author give any examples. Another straw man intended for destruction meets a violent end.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

he 2009 Wimbledon final, in which Roger Federer defeated Andy Roddick in five sets, was the longest Grand Slam final in history in terms of games played, with a total of 77. Imagine if Roddick's supporters had claimed that, given the final score of 5-7, 7-6, 7-6, 3-6, 16-14, he deserved the victory because he won more games. It's a ludicrous suggestion because, as everyone knows, the game of tennis doesn't work that way and, though it was true that Roddick edged Federer in total games won by 39 to 38, ultimately, neither player was trying to win more games, but three sets. That is the game they play and unless there is agreement about the rules of the game, there can be no game at all.

The Democracy Game

The problem isn't that people don't understand the rules, the issue is that people don't like the rules.

Tennis is tennis and it works like that. You don't like tennis you can play football, chess, golf, whatever suits you.

But politics isn't a game. It's people's lives.

You're saying because the system is the system (and it's convenient for you) it shouldn't be changed because it's the system.

Er... what? You shouldn't change the system because it's the system?

The thing is your side never complains about the rules until you lose!

When Gore lost in 2000 there was a legit argument about the system but it was not the Electoral College that actually elected Bush jr. but the USSC when it stopped the recount which caused the change from ballot to machines.

In 2016 Clinton lost not because of fake Russian News but because of Jill Stein and Bernie Sanders and Clinton lost too many States to say the system failed!

Just because someone win the Popular vote because of California Slanted vote does not mean under our system Clinton should be President.

Many like you argue it is a unfair system and even some scream it is racist but alas none of you ever screamed that when Obama won twice with the system we have.

In the end it is the sore loser that when they lose they want to change the rules of the game so you can win easier next time but the System and rules are not the problem but it is your political party failure to take into account that third party candidates can drain votes away at State levels costing you State Electoral College votes.

So in 2020 my advice to you and your political party is run a better candidate, do not pretend to run a fair primary when you are rigging it and focus on winning key states and not the popular vote on the National level and if not enjoy four more years of Trump because I will not be here!

 

[cnm]

If only the Senate existed, the citizens of the more populous states, such as California, would be underrepresented in Congress, and conversely, if only the House of Representatives existed, the smaller states such as Alaska and Montana, with only one representative each to California's 53, would be underrepresented in Congress.

What nonsense arguments. He doesn't even mention the effect of the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929, fixing the number of Representatives at 435, from which a lot of the controversy flows. I shudder to think from where he picks the argument that prairie may be under represented with fewer representatives than present while ignoring that it is presently over represented.

A typical Bat post, someone else's ludicrous opinions.

 

[Mindful]

No less ludicrous than this is the suggestion that Hillary Clinton should be President of the United States because she got more votes than Donald Trump, and yet, more than a year after the election, it is still frequently made.

I haven't seen anyone making that suggestion. Nor does your author give any examples. Another straw man intended for destruction meets a violent end.

Do you think it's possible for you to cease trawling and trolling me around the Internet? This is 'upstairs', had you not noticed.

Any excuse to make a personal attack on me, regardless of the topic.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

No less ludicrous than this is the suggestion that Hillary Clinton should be President of the United States because she got more votes than Donald Trump, and yet, more than a year after the election, it is still frequently made.

I haven't seen anyone making that suggestion. Nor does your author give any examples. Another straw man intended for destruction meets a violent end.

Either you do not read this board or you are lying because many of Clinton voters still claim she should be President because of the Popular vote!

 

[Mindful]

No less ludicrous than this is the suggestion that Hillary Clinton should be President of the United States because she got more votes than Donald Trump, and yet, more than a year after the election, it is still frequently made.

I haven't seen anyone making that suggestion. Nor does your author give any examples. Another straw man intended for destruction meets a violent end.

Either you do not read this board or you are lying because many of Clinton voters still claim she should be President because of the Popular vote!

He's not here to discuss the issue, but to spitball at me. It's what he does.

 

[cnm]

Oh. I understand now. Should have known. Ffs.

Andrew Mahon is a Canadian-British writer and classical bass-baritone based in London.
http://www.newenglishreview.org​

 

[Mindful]

Oh. I understand now. Should have known. Ffs.

Andrew Mahon is a Canadian-British writer and classical bass-baritone based in London.
http://www.newenglishreview.org​

I smell flamebait.

 

[cnm]

Either you do not read this board or you are lying because many of Clinton voters still claim she should be President because of the Popular vote!

Show me where it is frequently made. I imagine you too are a bass-baritone.

 

[cnm]

He's not here to discuss the issue, but to spitball at me. It's what he does.

Note every post of mine but this one has addressed the issue or the article while exactly none of yours have.

 

[Mindful]

He's not here to discuss the issue, but to spitball at me. It's what he does.

Note every post of mine but this one has discussed the issue or the article while exactly none of yours have.

I've not got into it yet, giving the others chance to air theirs first.

You're not right in the head, with this obsession on me.