Hillary Clinton: misogyny 'certainly' played a role in 2016 election loss

Did you miss the 2000 elections?

 

Other nations are inferior and backwards such as the UK limiting free speech.

the EC works well for us and Hillary was defeated and as this thread has shown her idiotic claim of misogyny being to blame is nothing more than cry baby bullshit

 

Yet another false victory for a Replicant PotUS, who was defeated in the popular vote by a margin of 0.5% - only to get elected by the cockamamie Electoral College.

Dubya went on to fight a useless war in Iraq and bring down upon the nation the Great Recession before leaving office.

Satisfied ... ?

 

Piffle 'n drivel, drivel 'n piffle.

Moving right along ...

 

The point is, that how the "greatest democracy in the World" set up it's democracy. And they did so because the US is a nation made up of unified States. It only seemed fitting that the leader of a Federal office should be elected by the States it is comprised of.

 

Yes that is what her claims are.

Piffle and drivel

 

That is not at all the point.

The point is that America has a "false democracy". How many times must I repeat at simple rule - only the popular-vote can elect an authentic head of government?

Your state governor, who is the Executive, is elected by means of the popular vote, quite independent of the Legislature. There is even more reason to do the same for the PotUS.

Amendment 14 of the Constitution was instituted because it was thought that since the nation was young and most people could neither read nor write, they could be "manipulated". The Electoral College was a "safeguard".

It is obvious that such is no longer the case, and the Electoral College (that has "wrongly elected" 6 presidents, the latest before Hillary being Al Gore) should be done away with - it is no longer a necessity. Ditto "gerrymandering" which should also be made illegal in both local/state elections.

Till then, the US deserves the rating of "flawed democracy" on the Economist's "Democracy Index".

 

More nonsense from someone who likely has no civics education underlining the necessity of the "popular vote" and only the "popular vote" in the election and authentification of a sitting Head of government.

Which is the rule that most of the world observes, with the singular exception of Uncle Sam ...

 

by William C. Kimberling, Deputy Director FEC National Clearinghouse on Election Administration
In order to appreciate the reasons for the Electoral College, it is essential to understand its historical context and the problem that the Founding Fathers were trying to solve. They faced the difficult question of how to elect a president in a nation that:

• was composed of thirteen large and small States jealous of their own rights and powers and suspicious of any central national government
  
• contained only 4,000,000 people spread up and down a thousand miles of Atlantic seaboard barely connected by transportation or communication (so that national campaigns were impractical even if they had been thought desirable)
  
• believed, under the influence of such British political thinkers as Henry St. John Bolingbroke, that political parties were mischievous if not downright evil, and
  
• felt that gentlemen should not campaign for public office (The saying was "The office should seek the man, the man should not seek the office.").

How, then, to choose a president without political parties, without national campaigns, and without upsetting the carefully designed balance between the presidency and the Congress on one hand and between the States and the federal government on the other?


Origins of the Electoral College
The Constitutional Convention considered several possible methods of selecting a president.

One idea was to have the Congress choose the president. This idea was rejected, however, because some felt that making such a choice would be too divisive an issue and leave too many hard feelings in the Congress. Others felt that such a procedure would invite unseemly political bargaining, corruption, and perhaps even interference from foreign powers. Still others felt that such an arrangement would upset the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches of the federal government.

A second idea was to have the State legislatures select the president. This idea, too, was rejected out of fears that a president so beholden to the State legislatures might permit them to erode federal authority and thus undermine the whole idea of a federation.

A third idea was to have the president elected by a direct popular vote. Direct election was rejected not because the Framers of the Constitution doubted public intelligence but rather because they feared that without sufficient information about candidates from outside their State, people would naturally vote for a "favorite son" from their own State or region. At worst, no president would emerge with a popular majority sufficient to govern the whole country. At best, the choice of president would always be decided by the largest, most populous States with little regard for the smaller ones.

Finally, a so-called "Committee of Eleven" in the Constitutional Convention proposed an indirect election of the president through a College of Electors.

The function of the College of Electors in choosing the president can be likened to that in the Roman Catholic Church of the College of Cardinals selecting the Pope. The original idea was for the most knowledgeable and informed individuals from each State to select the president based solely on merit and without regard to State of origin or political party.

The structure of the Electoral College can be traced to the Centurial Assembly system of the Roman Republic. Under that system, the adult male citizens of Rome were divided, according to their wealth, into groups of 100 (called Centuries). Each group of 100 was entitled to cast only one vote either in favor or against proposals submitted to them by the Roman Senate. In the Electoral College system, the States serve as the Centurial groups (though they are not, of course, based on wealth), and the number of votes per State is determined by the size of each State's Congressional delegation. Still, the two systems are similar in design and share many of the same advantages and disadvantages.

The similarities between the Electoral College and classical institutions are not accidental. Many of the Founding Fathers were well schooled in ancient history and its lessons.


The First Design
In the first design of the Electoral College (described in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution):

• Each State was allocated a number of Electors equal to the number of its U.S. Senators (always 2) plus the number of its U.S. Representative (which may change each decade according to the size of each State's population as determined in the decennial census). This arrangement built upon an earlier compromise in the design of the Congress itself and thus satisfied both large and small States.
  
• The manner of choosing the Electors was left to the individual State legislatures, thereby pacifying States suspicious of a central national government.
  
• Members of Congress and employees of the federal government were specifically prohibited from serving as an Elector in order to maintain the balance between the legislative and executive branches of the federal government.
  
• Each State's Electors were required to meet in their respective States rather than all together in one great meeting. This arrangement, it was thought, would prevent bribery, corruption, secret dealing, and foreign influence.
  
• In order to prevent Electors from voting only for a "favorite son" of their own State, each Elector was required to cast two votes for president, at least one of which had to be for someone outside their home State. The idea, presumably, was that the winner would likely be everyone's second favorite choice.

• The electoral votes were to be sealed and transmitted from each of the States to the President of the Senate who would then open them before both houses of the Congress and read the results.
  
• The person with the most electoral votes, provided that it was an absolute majority (at least one over half of the total), became president. Whoever obtained the next greatest number of electoral votes became vice president - an office which they seem to have invented for the occasion since it had not been mentioned previously in the Constitutional Convention.
  
• In the event that no one obtained an absolute majority in the Electoral College or in the event of a tie vote, the U.S. House of Representatives, as the chamber closest to the people, would choose the president from among the top five contenders. They would do this (as a further concession to the small States) by allowing each State to cast only one vote with an absolute majority of the States being required to elect a president. The vice presidency would go to whatever remaining contender had the greatest number of electoral votes. If that, too, was tied, the U.S. Senate would break the tie by deciding between the two.

In all, this was quite an elaborate design. But it was also a very clever one when you consider that the whole operation was supposed to work without political parties and without national campaigns

while maintaining the balances and satisfying the fears in play at the time. Indeed, it is probably because the Electoral College was originally designed to operate in an environment so totally different from our own that many people think it is anachronistic and fail to appreciate the new purposes it now serves. But of that, more later.


The Second Design
The first design of the Electoral College lasted through only four presidential elections. For in the meantime, political parties had emerged in the United States. The very people who had been condemning parties publicly had nevertheless been building them privately. And too, the idea of political parties had gained respectability through the persuasive writings of such political philosophers as Edmund Burke and James Madison.

One of the accidental results of the development of political parties was that in the presidential election of 1800, the Electors of the Democratic-Republican Party gave Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr (both of that party) an equal number of electoral votes. The tie was resolved by the House of Representatives in Jefferson's favor - but only after 36 tries and some serious political dealings which were considered unseemly at the time. Since this sort of bargaining over the presidency was the very thing the Electoral College was supposed to prevent, the Congress and the States hastily adopted the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution by September of 1804.

To prevent tie votes in the Electoral College which were made probable, if not inevitable, by the rise of political parties (and no doubt to facilitate the election of a president and vice president of the same party), the 12th Amendment requires that each Elector cast one vote for president and a separate vote for vice president rather than casting two votes for president with the runner-up being made vice president. The Amendment also stipulates that if no one receives an absolute majority of electoral votes for president, then the U.S. House of Representatives will select the president from among the top three contenders with each State casting only one vote and an absolute majority being required to elect. By the same token, if no one receives an absolute majority for vice president, then the U.S. Senate will select the vice president from among the top two contenders for that office. All other features of the Electoral College remained the same including the requirements that, in order to prevent Electors from voting only for "favorite sons", either the presidential or vice presidential candidate has to be from a State other than that of the Electors.

In short, political party loyalties had, by 1800, begun to cut across State loyalties thereby creating new and different problems in the selection of a president. By making seemingly slight changes, the 12th Amendment fundamentally altered the design of the Electoral College and, in one stroke, accommodated political parties as a fact of life in American presidential elections.

It is noteworthy in passing that the idea of electing the president by direct popular vote was not widely promoted as an alternative to redesigning the Electoral College. This may be because the physical and demographic circumstances of the country had not changed that much in a dozen or so years. Or it may be because the excesses of the recent French revolution (and its fairly rapid degeneration into dictatorship) had given the populists some pause to reflect on the wisdom of too direct a democracy.


The Evolution of the Electoral College
Since the 12th Amendment, there have been several federal and State statutory changes which have affected both the time and manner of choosing Presidential Electors but which have not further altered the fundamental workings of the Electoral College. There have also been a few curious incidents which its critics cite as problems but which proponents of the Electoral College view as merely its natural and intended operation.

 

Sorry but there is no evidence in that misogyny played a role in Hillary's lose, just as there was no evidence it played a role in Gore's loss (or anyone else's loss).

 

Interesting commentary, and thank you.

I remain convinced nonetheless, as does apparently the rest of the world, that ONLY the popular-vote matters in a truly Free Democracy. (Keyword = "free", as in '"independent, self-governing, self-governed, self-ruling, self-legislating, self-determining, self-directing, non-aligned".)

I will remind you that gerrymandering began also in the beginning of the the 19th century, and it too was/is a perversion of "fair voting practices".

The US is not a "true democracy" and the Economist is right to call it so ...

 

Name me another example of a democracy in the rest of the world that is comprised of several States and still uses the over-all popular vote.

 

France, Germany, Italy, Spain ... etc., etc., etc.

All European Union countries have subdivisions equivalent to "states" (that is, with legislatures). It is a condition for joining the EU ...

 

Well at least you didn't cite the UK (because if you had we'd be talking about Brexit). But just to be fair, subdivisions in France Germany, and Spain are not even close to the equivalent of a State located in the United States. Instead they are considered regions. Their laws are not independent, their healthcare is not independent, and education system is not independent. A closer comparison would be of one individual US State to that of one entire European nation. That is the reason that European nation call themselves "States" while we call ourselves the United States.

I also think it's important to remind you that we're getting off-topic here by having this discussion on a thread about misogyny playing a role in the 2016 election.

 

The fact is our population in America tends to center around a few select mega cities and it's not fair for those cities to decide the fate of the rest of the country. Why should my vote not count just because the 10 million people living inside Losangeles feel Hillary is right for this country? Does that mean I have to go by whatever they want? That's not fair and many states in America our suffering from lack of jobs. If Losangeles feels that is not a problem then they will not consider that when electing a president and Trump never even campaign in states he knew were already going to vote for Hillary. He could have received more votes then Hillary but he chose not to waste the extra millions of dollars and instead played his campaign at a fraction of Hillary's cost and he did so by connecting with many Americans and winning the EC.

Then again there is no popular vote for the country. There is 50 individual state wide popular votes to see who will claim each state and Trump won in a landslide claiming 30 of the 50 states, more than 2,000 counties and destroying more than 200 democratic strongholds that Obama held and some of them had not voted for a GOP in almost 50 years. States like Michigan had not voted for a GOP since the 80's.

Bill Clinton never won the majority of votes for his elections but still won the EC and I never heard any complaining about it then. Nobody cares untill someone they don't like wins. Trump won in a landslide. Most of America was "RED". America has spoken.

 

I will type slowly so maybe you "get it" more better!

As a Straight, White, 68 year old man, I did not see Moi in the Hillary campaign.
Although the biggest pool of talent is among Straight, White Men - Hillary's Democratic Party believes it is okay to treat me as the new N Word. It is okay. Even P.C.
Now why would I vote Democratic Party that is so obviously racist, genderist, and anti straight white men?
It is as bad as Romney writing off 47% or a bit more, of the electorate.
One does not run for office and write off any voter as "unworthy". Duh-Uh. Save it for after the election.

Hillary and her lesbian, gay, colored, Black, Latino coalition made it clear, Straight, White Men not included.
And had they not treated straight, white men as N words, who knows. . .

Stop Blaming Straight White Men
for stupid decisions made without them. ​

End Typing slowly.

Moi

r > g

asked for the current Dairy War.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/is-it-true-part-deux.495478/page-5#post-1067402566
Support dairy.
Stop Creeping ism
Lord Bless President Trump and American Milk
Across an immense, unguarded, ethereal border, Canadians, cool and unsympathetic,
regard our America with envious eyes and slowly and surely draw their plans against us.​

 

Uh yeah, Hillary is such a genius that she didn't realized that a fringe regional candidate can't win the presidency by simply running up her popular vote total on the CA coastal strip. Maybe she should have drunk a little less and cracked open a civics book a few more times?

Do you think maybe she was too dumb to be president? I mean, campaigning in AZ and Iowa while she was loosing WI, MI and PA.

Or deep down she knew she wasn't up to the job so she subconsciously self-sabotaged and thew the election? How else does one explain her cascading comedy of blunders?

 

Camille Paglia is brilliant.

What impact, if any, do you think Hillary Clinton’s loss in 2016 had on feminism? Former Texas state senator Wendy Davis said Clinton faced a "misogynistic climate" during the election. Do you agree with this?

Misogyny played no significant role whatever in Hillary Clinton’s two defeats as a presidential candidate. This claim is such a crock! What a gross exploitation of feminism—in the service of an unaccomplished woman whose entire career was spent attached to her husband’s coat tails. Hillary was handed job after job but produced no tangible results in any of them of them—except for her destabilization of North Africa during her rocky tenure as secretary of state. And for all her lip service to women and children, what program serving their needs did Hillary ever conceive and promote? She routinely signed on to other people’s programs or legislative bills but spent the bulk of her time in fundraising and networking for her own personal ambitions. Beyond that, I fail to see how authentic feminism can ever be ascribed to a woman who turned a blind eye to the victims of her husband’s serial abuse and workplace seductions. The hypocrisy of feminist leaders was on full display during the Monica Lewinsky scandal, which incontrovertibly demonstrated Bill Clinton’s gross violation of basic sexual harassment policy. Although I had voted for him twice, I was the only feminist at the time who publicly condemned Clinton for his squalid and unethical behavior with an intern whose life (it is now clear) he ruined. Gloria Steinem’s slick casuistry during that shocking episode did severe damage to feminism, from which it has never fully recovered.

http://freebeacon.com/culture/promi...aglia-says-hillary-clinton-exploits-feminism/

 

What part of representative democracy do you not understand? Last time I checked, no one claims the US is a true democracy. Oh and there are as many idiots out there today as there were during the American Revolution. In fact many many more. Watters World should be required viewing for you.

 

Yeah, because the Economist calls it a "Democracy Index" and the index is constituted of parameters that define a democracy, you think it's irrelevant.

Ever take a course in the subject of "Civics"?

Methinks not ...

 

How many countries' leaders are voted in by the people? I think France may be the only one.
Are you post on English sites demanding they change their Parliamentary ways?

 

Look beyond the three mile limit, will you?

Just because a National Leader is the head of the party that wins the most votes in parliament (Congress) does not mean that said leader "was not elected by the voters". The majority vote of parliament party members accords the head of that party the leadership of the nation as Prime Minister.

Meaning First Minister of the ministering leading party in parliament. Changing names and calling the First Minister "President" does nothing to alter the authority vested in that individual ...

 

You do realize don't you, that we're not changing the way we do it? But please be free to move out to a country of your choosing anytime.

 

American civics? Yes. French civics? No. We don't care how you do things there.

 

I was responding to your comment about how it was done abroad.

You brought up the matter, not me ...