politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why the 5/1 that President Trump will be impeached during his
Options
Comments
-
Yaaaawwwwwnnnnnnn.MarqueeMark said:
The popular vote in the US has no value whatsoever. It's not a metric of winning.SouthamObserver said:
He lost the popular vote. American voters rejected him. The presidency is not a game.matt said:
He's not a loser though, is he (other than in your world). He's a winner by the rules of the game.SouthamObserver said:
What's wrong is that Trump now gets to mould the Supreme Court as a profoundly conservative body, even though he is trailing Clinton by so many votes. The electoral college is what it is and does sort of make sense in the kind of federation that the US is. What may be less fair is the power that someone who loses the popular vote gets to perhaps profoundly affect the lives of all Americans not only for the next four years but quite possibly for the next 20 or even 30. It's a hell of a lot of power for a loser to have.glw said:
I know one thing, if Hilary had won on the same basis Trump won I doubt we would hear a peep from Democrats about how the "system is wrong".david_herdson said:The evidence from SV elections is that AV results would not be greatly different from FPTP.
PR is a whole different ballgame, as would be a move from the Electoral College to a national vote in the US.
It is a metric of whining.
0 -
I agree that it's unfair. But, it would be only marginally less unfair for a candidate who won 48% of the vote to have that power too.SouthamObserver said:
I am not saying Clinton won the election. She lost. But she has comfortably won the popular vote. Trump, who lost it, now has immense power to shape the lives of all Americans for the next 20 to 30 years. It is what it is, but I am not sure it is fair.weejonnie said:
But the loser (Clinton) has no real power. As has been mentioned here, the candidates' plan of campaign was based on the ECV available in each state - and so campaigned where the greatest reward/ effort was obtainable. They would have campaigned differently and the voters (especially the non-voters) would have voted differently as a result. So you just can't apply a 'I won the popular vote so I won the election' argument when manifestly the conclusion does not follow on from the premise.SouthamObserver said:
What's wrong is that Trump now gets to mould the Supreme Court as a profoundly conservative body, even though he is trailing Clinton by so many votes. The electoral college is what it is and does sort of make sense in the kind of federation that the US is. What may be less fair is the power that someone who loses the popular vote gets to perhaps profoundly affect the lives of all Americans not only for the next four years but quite possibly for the next 20 or even 30. It's a hell of a lot of power for a loser to have.glw said:
I know one thing, if Hilary had won on the same basis Trump won I doubt we would hear a peep from Democrats about how the "system is wrong".david_herdson said:The evidence from SV elections is that AV results would not be greatly different from FPTP.
PR is a whole different ballgame, as would be a move from the Electoral College to a national vote in the US.
As an example: Trump won states by less than Clinton (or Obama) won. This could be because Republicans in California (knowing that the state was lost) didn't bother turning out as enthusiastically. They may well have done on a popular vote election. We just don't know.0 -
Philip Hammond has a big lead as the man most trusted to run the economy despite public pessimism about Britain’s prospects over the year ahead, an exclusive poll reveals today.
In a boost to the Chancellor as he prepares his first Autumn Statement next week, Ipsos MORI found that the Government has managed to keep its reputation for economic competence following the Brexit vote.
Mr Hammond is well ahead of Labour rival John McDonnell, with 46 per cent saying he is the most capable Chancellor out of the rivals. Only 28 per cent preferred shadow chancellor.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/half-of-brits-have-dismal-outlook-for-the-economy-poll-finds-a3397771.html0 -
Granted, I have the speech bookmarked to read through. However, the single half-sentence "To that extent, at least, it is accepted that we are [i.e. the Supreme Court is] indeed the guardians of the Constitution", is sufficient to justify my earlier comment, not least because it comes in the very final paragraph of her speech and as such must be regarded as conclusive of her opinion.TheScreamingEagles said:
Please, don't fall for the media hype, look at her quotes in their entirety, she explained how both sides would approach it.david_herdson said:
Going by Lady Hale's comments, at least some of the Supreme Court here seems to have the same ambition.Sean_F said:
It's wrong that the Supreme Court has the political power that it has, and it's wrong that anyone can appoint political partisans to it, but we are where we are.SouthamObserver said:
What's wrong is that Trump now gets to mould the Supreme Court as a profoundly conservative body, even though he is trailing Clinton by so many votes. The electoral college is what it is and does sort of make sense in the kind of federation that the US is. What may be less fair is the power that someone who loses the popular vote gets to perhaps profoundly affect the lives of all Americans not only for the next four years but quite possibly for the next 20 or even 30. It's a hell of a lot of power for a loser to have.glw said:
I know one thing, if Hilary had won on the same basis Trump won I doubt we would hear a peep from Democrats about how the "system is wrong".david_herdson said:The evidence from SV elections is that AV results would not be greatly different from FPTP.
PR is a whole different ballgame, as would be a move from the Electoral College to a national vote in the US.
Oddly, the Leave supporting media focused on one portion of her comments.0 -
Seconded. Herdson/Nabavi and Sean Fear are right on this.matt said:
The Electoral College is the test of winning or losing. It was not a secret. Your posting has become increasingly hysterical.SouthamObserver said:
He lost the popular vote. American voters rejected him. The presidency is not a game.matt said:
He's not a loser though, is he (other than in your world). He's a winner by the rules of the game.SouthamObserver said:
What's wrong is that Trump now gets to mould the Supreme Court as a profoundly conservative body, even though he is trailing Clinton by so many votes. The electoral college is what it is and does sort of make sense in the kind of federation that the US is. What may be less fair is the power that someone who loses the popular vote gets to perhaps profoundly affect the lives of all Americans not only for the next four years but quite possibly for the next 20 or even 30. It's a hell of a lot of power for a loser to have.glw said:
I know one thing, if Hilary had won on the same basis Trump won I doubt we would hear a peep from Democrats about how the "system is wrong".david_herdson said:The evidence from SV elections is that AV results would not be greatly different from FPTP.
PR is a whole different ballgame, as would be a move from the Electoral College to a national vote in the US.
SO is simply wrong.0 -
What an utterly absurd post. If you cannot understand the point I am making best not to engage.matt said:
The Electoral College is the test of winning or losing. It was not a secret. Your posting has become increasingly hysterical.SouthamObserver said:
He lost the popular vote. American voters rejected him. The presidency is not a game.matt said:
He's not a loser though, is he (other than in your world). He's a winner by the rules of the game.SouthamObserver said:
What's wrong is that Trump now gets to mould the Supreme Court as a profoundly conservative body, even though he is trailing Clinton by so many votes. The electoral college is what it is and does sort of make sense in the kind of federation that the US is. What may be less fair is the power that someone who loses the popular vote gets to perhaps profoundly affect the lives of all Americans not only for the next four years but quite possibly for the next 20 or even 30. It's a hell of a lot of power for a loser to have.glw said:
I know one thing, if Hilary had won on the same basis Trump won I doubt we would hear a peep from Democrats about how the "system is wrong".david_herdson said:The evidence from SV elections is that AV results would not be greatly different from FPTP.
PR is a whole different ballgame, as would be a move from the Electoral College to a national vote in the US.
0 -
I honestly don't know where he finds the energy
https://www.boxingnewsandviews.com/2016/11/17/mayweather-and-donald-trump/0 -
0
-
(1) I don't like the side that won this election/referendum and refuse to accept itSean_F said:
It's likely arguing that the Conservatives didn't really win the 2015 election because only 38% voted for them.MaxPB said:
In the national vote tracker, "Others" are up to almost 7m. How many of those Johnson voters would the GOP have squeezed in a PV based election? It is impossible to know. Trump lose Orange County for heaven's sake, if it were a PV based election that would never have happened as the traditional GOP base would have turned out for Trump. They voted Clinton/Johnson in OC because CA is safe Dem, they could register a protest without affecting the national result. In an election where there are no safe states the nature of the race is completely different, those protest votes in traditional GOP areas would have been non-existent.Wulfrun_Phil said:What we know is that Clinton is going to be a stonking 2 million + votes ahead, and yet I'm seeing the kind of kites being flown that would be appropriate only in the context of a result like Florida 2000. Get a sense of perspective.
(2) How can I delegitimise it?
And the same can work in exact reverse if they come up on top. By the same person.0 -
And it completely ignores what I posted earlier about Clinton's shit campaign. In six weeks Clinton made just 16 visits to marginal or hostile states. Trump made more than I can be bothered to count.Sean_F said:
It's likely arguing that the Conservatives didn't really win the 2015 election because only 38% voted for them.MaxPB said:
In the national vote tracker, "Others" are up to almost 7m. How many of those Johnson voters would the GOP have squeezed in a PV based election? It is impossible to know. Trump lose Orange County for heaven's sake, if it were a PV based election that would never have happened as the traditional GOP base would have turned out for Trump. They voted Clinton/Johnson in OC because CA is safe Dem, they could register a protest without affecting the national result. In an election where there are no safe states the nature of the race is completely different, those protest votes in traditional GOP areas would have been non-existent.Wulfrun_Phil said:What we know is that Clinton is going to be a stonking 2 million + votes ahead, and yet I'm seeing the kind of kites being flown that would be appropriate only in the context of a result like Florida 2000. Get a sense of perspective.
0 -
Yes it is. It's just not a trivial game. Games are merely activities carried out according to predetermined rules among known competitors.SouthamObserver said:
He lost the popular vote. American voters rejected him. The presidency is not a game.matt said:
He's not a loser though, is he (other than in your world). He's a winner by the rules of the game.SouthamObserver said:
What's wrong is that Trump now gets to mould the Supreme Court as a profoundly conservative body, even though he is trailing Clinton by so many votes. The electoral college is what it is and does sort of make sense in the kind of federation that the US is. What may be less fair is the power that someone who loses the popular vote gets to perhaps profoundly affect the lives of all Americans not only for the next four years but quite possibly for the next 20 or even 30. It's a hell of a lot of power for a loser to have.glw said:
I know one thing, if Hilary had won on the same basis Trump won I doubt we would hear a peep from Democrats about how the "system is wrong".david_herdson said:The evidence from SV elections is that AV results would not be greatly different from FPTP.
PR is a whole different ballgame, as would be a move from the Electoral College to a national vote in the US.
Complaining that Trump 'lost' is like complaining that Arsenal (for example) 'lost' purely because they conceded more goals, even though they had a greater share of possession and played nicer football than their opponents.0 -
Good. They can piss off.TheScreamingEagles said:*Chortle*
@steve_hawkes: Doubling Down: "Deloitte UK says it will 'reluctantly' move work out of UK if Government limits its ability to sponsor foreign workers."
I can't stand the Big 4, and know far too much about them from my time working there.0 -
The full quotedavid_herdson said:
Granted, I have the speech bookmarked to read through. However, the single half-sentence "To that extent, at least, it is accepted that we are [i.e. the Supreme Court is] indeed the guardians of the Constitution", is sufficient to justify my earlier comment, not least because it comes in the very final paragraph of her speech and as such must be regarded as conclusive of her opinion.TheScreamingEagles said:
Please, don't fall for the media hype, look at her quotes in their entirety, she explained how both sides would approach it.david_herdson said:
Going by Lady Hale's comments, at least some of the Supreme Court here seems to have the same ambition.Sean_F said:
It's wrong that the Supreme Court has the political power that it has, and it's wrong that anyone can appoint political partisans to it, but we are where we are.SouthamObserver said:
What's wrong is that Trump now gets to mould the Supreme Court as a profoundly conservative body, even though he is trailing Clinton by so many votes. The electoral college is what it is and does sort of make sense in the kind of federation that the US is. What may be less fair is the power that someone who loses the popular vote gets to perhaps profoundly affect the lives of all Americans not only for the next four years but quite possibly for the next 20 or even 30. It's a hell of a lot of power for a loser to have.glw said:
I know one thing, if Hilary had won on the same basis Trump won I doubt we would hear a peep from Democrats about how the "system is wrong".david_herdson said:The evidence from SV elections is that AV results would not be greatly different from FPTP.
PR is a whole different ballgame, as would be a move from the Electoral College to a national vote in the US.
Oddly, the Leave supporting media focused on one portion of her comments.
To that extent, at least, it is accepted that we are indeed the guardians of the Constitution: if only we knew what it meant.
In the context of
To what extent can it be exercised in a way which may undermine the exercise of the legislative power of the State? We do not have a written Constitution to tell us the answer. But I doubt whether many written Constitutions would tell us the answer either.0 -
I guess that when the rules were invented judges did not live as long as they do now!MaxPB said:
I would love for the SCOTUS to move to 10 year terms with term limits. Not elected, but then it would allow for a renewal of the SCOTUS more often than just waiting for them to die off or get bored and retire.SouthamObserver said:
I am not saying Clinton won the election. She lost. But she has comfortably won the popular vote. Trump, who lost it, now has immense power to shape the lives of all Americans for the next 20 to 30 years. It is what it is, but I am not sure it is fair.weejonnie said:
But the loser (Clinton) has no real power. As has been mentioned here, the candidates' plan of campaign was based on the ECV available in each state - and so campaigned where the greatest reward/ effort was obtainable. They would have campaigned differently and the voters (especially the non-voters) would have voted differently as a result. So you just can't apply a 'I won the popular vote so I won the election' argument when manifestly the conclusion does not follow on from the premise.SouthamObserver said:
What's wrong is that Trump now gets to mould the Supreme Court as a profoundly conservative body, even though he is trailing Clinton by so many votes. The electoral college is what it is and does sort of make sense in the kind of federation that the US is. What may be less fair is the power that someone who loses the popular vote gets to perhaps profoundly affect the lives of all Americans not only for the next four years but quite possibly for the next 20 or even 30. It's a hell of a lot of power for a loser to have.glw said:
I know one thing, if Hilary had won on the same basis Trump won I doubt we would hear a peep from Democrats about how the "system is wrong".david_herdson said:The evidence from SV elections is that AV results would not be greatly different from FPTP.
PR is a whole different ballgame, as would be a move from the Electoral College to a national vote in the US.
As an example: Trump won states by less than Clinton (or Obama) won. This could be because Republicans in California (knowing that the state was lost) didn't bother turning out as enthusiastically. They may well have done on a popular vote election. We just don't know.
0 -
Trump is into his boxing, good mates with Don King !PlatoSaid said:I honestly don't know where he finds the energy
https://www.boxingnewsandviews.com/2016/11/17/mayweather-and-donald-trump/0 -
My favourite was after the referendum, 17.4m voted to leave the EU, 29.1m didn't vote to leave so we shouldn't leave. Someone posted that picture on fb and it got more likes than I'd like to see in a democratic country.Casino_Royale said:
(1) I don't like the side that won this election/referendum and refuse to accept itSean_F said:
It's likely arguing that the Conservatives didn't really win the 2015 election because only 38% voted for them.MaxPB said:
In the national vote tracker, "Others" are up to almost 7m. How many of those Johnson voters would the GOP have squeezed in a PV based election? It is impossible to know. Trump lose Orange County for heaven's sake, if it were a PV based election that would never have happened as the traditional GOP base would have turned out for Trump. They voted Clinton/Johnson in OC because CA is safe Dem, they could register a protest without affecting the national result. In an election where there are no safe states the nature of the race is completely different, those protest votes in traditional GOP areas would have been non-existent.Wulfrun_Phil said:What we know is that Clinton is going to be a stonking 2 million + votes ahead, and yet I'm seeing the kind of kites being flown that would be appropriate only in the context of a result like Florida 2000. Get a sense of perspective.
(2) How can I delegitimise it?
And the same can work in exact reverse if they come up on top. By the same person.0 -
Wouldn't that mean that a 2-term president with a favourable congressional wind could appoint virtually the entire Court?MaxPB said:
I would love for the SCOTUS to move to 10 year terms with term limits. Not elected, but then it would allow for a renewal of the SCOTUS more often than just waiting for them to die off or get bored and retire.SouthamObserver said:
I am not saying Clinton won the election. She lost. But she has comfortably won the popular vote. Trump, who lost it, now has immense power to shape the lives of all Americans for the next 20 to 30 years. It is what it is, but I am not sure it is fair.weejonnie said:
But the loser (Clinton) has no real power. As has been mentioned here, the candidates' plan of campaign was based on the ECV available in each state - and so campaigned where the greatest reward/ effort was obtainable. They would have campaigned differently and the voters (especially the non-voters) would have voted differently as a result. So you just can't apply a 'I won the popular vote so I won the election' argument when manifestly the conclusion does not follow on from the premise.SouthamObserver said:
What's wrong is that Trump now gets to mould the Supreme Court as a profoundly conservative body, even though he is trailing Clinton by so many votes. The electoral college is what it is and does sort of make sense in the kind of federation that the US is. What may be less fair is the power that someone who loses the popular vote gets to perhaps profoundly affect the lives of all Americans not only for the next four years but quite possibly for the next 20 or even 30. It's a hell of a lot of power for a loser to have.glw said:
I know one thing, if Hilary had won on the same basis Trump won I doubt we would hear a peep from Democrats about how the "system is wrong".david_herdson said:The evidence from SV elections is that AV results would not be greatly different from FPTP.
PR is a whole different ballgame, as would be a move from the Electoral College to a national vote in the US.
As an example: Trump won states by less than Clinton (or Obama) won. This could be because Republicans in California (knowing that the state was lost) didn't bother turning out as enthusiastically. They may well have done on a popular vote election. We just don't know.0 -
I am not complaining. I am observing. I have also said that given the US is a federation of states the electoral college makes sense. My point was about the power that someone who lost the popular vote has to profoundly affect the lives of all Americans not just for the term of his presidency, but for 20 or even 30 years beyond that. It is rare in a democracy for those who lose the popular vote to have such power.david_herdson said:
Yes it is. It's just not a trivial game. Games are merely activities carried out according to predetermined rules among known competitors.SouthamObserver said:
He lost the popular vote. American voters rejected him. The presidency is not a game.matt said:
He's not a loser though, is he (other than in your world). He's a winner by the rules of the game.SouthamObserver said:
What's wrong is that Trump now gets to mould the Supreme Court as a profoundly conservative body, even though he is trailing Clinton by so many votes. The electoral college is what it is and does sort of make sense in the kind of federation that the US is. What may be less fair is the power that someone who loses the popular vote gets to perhaps profoundly affect the lives of all Americans not only for the next four years but quite possibly for the next 20 or even 30. It's a hell of a lot of power for a loser to have.glw said:
I know one thing, if Hilary had won on the same basis Trump won I doubt we would hear a peep from Democrats about how the "system is wrong".david_herdson said:The evidence from SV elections is that AV results would not be greatly different from FPTP.
PR is a whole different ballgame, as would be a move from the Electoral College to a national vote in the US.
Complaining that Trump 'lost' is like complaining that Arsenal (for example) 'lost' purely because they conceded more goals, even though they had a greater share of possession and played nicer football than their opponents.
0 -
Yup, it would also lead to more controversial, legally unsound decisions by the Justices if they knew they had to be reconfirmed shortly.david_herdson said:
Wouldn't that mean that a 2-term president with a favourable congressional wind could appoint virtually the entire Court?MaxPB said:
I would love for the SCOTUS to move to 10 year terms with term limits. Not elected, but then it would allow for a renewal of the SCOTUS more often than just waiting for them to die off or get bored and retire.SouthamObserver said:
I am not saying Clinton won the election. She lost. But she has comfortably won the popular vote. Trump, who lost it, now has immense power to shape the lives of all Americans for the next 20 to 30 years. It is what it is, but I am not sure it is fair.weejonnie said:
But the loser (Clinton) has no real power. As has been mentioned here, the candidates' plan of campaign was based on the ECV available in each state - and so campaigned where the greatest reward/ effort was obtainable. They would have campaigned differently and the voters (especially the non-voters) would have voted differently as a result. So you just can't apply a 'I won the popular vote so I won the election' argument when manifestly the conclusion does not follow on from the premise.SouthamObserver said:
What's wrong is that Trump now gets to mould the Supreme Court as a profoundly conservative body, even though he is trailing Clinton by so many votes. The electoral college is what it is and does sort of make sense in the kind of federation that the US is. What may be less fair is the power that someone who loses the popular vote gets to perhaps profoundly affect the lives of all Americans not only for the next four years but quite possibly for the next 20 or even 30. It's a hell of a lot of power for a loser to have.glw said:
I know one thing, if Hilary had won on the same basis Trump won I doubt we would hear a peep from Democrats about how the "system is wrong".david_herdson said:The evidence from SV elections is that AV results would not be greatly different from FPTP.
PR is a whole different ballgame, as would be a move from the Electoral College to a national vote in the US.
As an example: Trump won states by less than Clinton (or Obama) won. This could be because Republicans in California (knowing that the state was lost) didn't bother turning out as enthusiastically. They may well have done on a popular vote election. We just don't know.0 -
Those 29m including babies. I rarely log on to Facebook these days. It's either unwanted adverts or trendy causes and Guardian links.MaxPB said:
My favourite was after the referendum, 17.4m voted to leave the EU, 29.1m didn't vote to leave so we shouldn't leave. Someone posted that picture on fb and it got more likes than I'd like to see in a democratic country.Casino_Royale said:
(1) I don't like the side that won this election/referendum and refuse to accept itSean_F said:
It's likely arguing that the Conservatives didn't really win the 2015 election because only 38% voted for them.MaxPB said:
In the national vote tracker, "Others" are up to almost 7m. How many of those Johnson voters would the GOP have squeezed in a PV based election? It is impossible to know. Trump lose Orange County for heaven's sake, if it were a PV based election that would never have happened as the traditional GOP base would have turned out for Trump. They voted Clinton/Johnson in OC because CA is safe Dem, they could register a protest without affecting the national result. In an election where there are no safe states the nature of the race is completely different, those protest votes in traditional GOP areas would have been non-existent.Wulfrun_Phil said:What we know is that Clinton is going to be a stonking 2 million + votes ahead, and yet I'm seeing the kind of kites being flown that would be appropriate only in the context of a result like Florida 2000. Get a sense of perspective.
(2) How can I delegitimise it?
And the same can work in exact reverse if they come up on top. By the same person.
Annoying, and it's no fun. And people take any criticism or opposing view very personally.0 -
I think that is the general concensus on your posting on this matter, yes.SouthamObserver said:
Yaaaawwwwwnnnnnnn.MarqueeMark said:
The popular vote in the US has no value whatsoever. It's not a metric of winning.SouthamObserver said:
He lost the popular vote. American voters rejected him. The presidency is not a game.matt said:
He's not a loser though, is he (other than in your world). He's a winner by the rules of the game.SouthamObserver said:
What's wrong is that Trump now gets to mould the Supreme Court as a profoundly conservative body, even though he is trailing Clinton by so many votes. The electoral college is what it is and does sort of make sense in the kind of federation that the US is. What may be less fair is the power that someone who loses the popular vote gets to perhaps profoundly affect the lives of all Americans not only for the next four years but quite possibly for the next 20 or even 30. It's a hell of a lot of power for a loser to have.glw said:
I know one thing, if Hilary had won on the same basis Trump won I doubt we would hear a peep from Democrats about how the "system is wrong".david_herdson said:The evidence from SV elections is that AV results would not be greatly different from FPTP.
PR is a whole different ballgame, as would be a move from the Electoral College to a national vote in the US.
It is a metric of whining.0 -
Thanks for posting btw. Those were truly astonishing figures.MaxPB said:
And it completely ignores what I posted earlier about Clinton's shit campaign. In six weeks Clinton made just 16 visits to marginal or hostile states. Trump made more than I can be bothered to count.Sean_F said:
It's likely arguing that the Conservatives didn't really win the 2015 election because only 38% voted for them.MaxPB said:
In the national vote tracker, "Others" are up to almost 7m. How many of those Johnson voters would the GOP have squeezed in a PV based election? It is impossible to know. Trump lose Orange County for heaven's sake, if it were a PV based election that would never have happened as the traditional GOP base would have turned out for Trump. They voted Clinton/Johnson in OC because CA is safe Dem, they could register a protest without affecting the national result. In an election where there are no safe states the nature of the race is completely different, those protest votes in traditional GOP areas would have been non-existent.Wulfrun_Phil said:What we know is that Clinton is going to be a stonking 2 million + votes ahead, and yet I'm seeing the kind of kites being flown that would be appropriate only in the context of a result like Florida 2000. Get a sense of perspective.
0 -
Hmm, maybe. I'm sure there is a system which would allow for long terms and term limits as well as being fair to the opposition party. Maybe a single 36 year term and a replacement nominated every 4 years so the sitting POTUS only gets to nominate two justices in 8 years.david_herdson said:
Wouldn't that mean that a 2-term president with a favourable congressional wind could appoint virtually the entire Court?MaxPB said:
I would love for the SCOTUS to move to 10 year terms with term limits. Not elected, but then it would allow for a renewal of the SCOTUS more often than just waiting for them to die off or get bored and retire.SouthamObserver said:
I am not saying Clinton won the election. She lost. But she has comfortably won the popular vote. Trump, who lost it, now has immense power to shape the lives of all Americans for the next 20 to 30 years. It is what it is, but I am not sure it is fair.weejonnie said:
But the loser (Clinton) has no real power. As has been mentioned here, the candidates' plan of campaign was based on the ECV available in each state - and so campaigned where the greatest reward/ effort was obtainable. They would have campaigned differently and the voters (especially the non-voters) would have voted differently as a result. So you just can't apply a 'I won the popular vote so I won the election' argument when manifestly the conclusion does not follow on from the premise.SouthamObserver said:
What's wrong is that Trump now gets to mould the Supreme Court as a profoundly conservative body, even though he is trailing Clinton by so many votes. The electoral college is what it is and does sort of make sense in the kind of federation that the US is. What may be less fair is the power that someone who loses the popular vote gets to perhaps profoundly affect the lives of all Americans not only for the next four years but quite possibly for the next 20 or even 30. It's a hell of a lot of power for a loser to have.glw said:
I know one thing, if Hilary had won on the same basis Trump won I doubt we would hear a peep from Democrats about how the "system is wrong".david_herdson said:The evidence from SV elections is that AV results would not be greatly different from FPTP.
PR is a whole different ballgame, as would be a move from the Electoral College to a national vote in the US.
As an example: Trump won states by less than Clinton (or Obama) won. This could be because Republicans in California (knowing that the state was lost) didn't bother turning out as enthusiastically. They may well have done on a popular vote election. We just don't know.0 -
Polling tells us that with 2 candidates those 7 million other votes would in a forced choice have broken about 2.5 million for Trump and more than 2.5 million for Clinton, with the rest not voting. Under AV, to eliminate a Clinton lead of the size she is heading towards you would require those to break about 3.75 million to 1.75 million in favour of Trump, a huge skew in the opposite direction to what people said they were inclined to do when polled.MaxPB said:
In the national vote tracker, "Others" are up to almost 7m. How many of those Johnson voters would the GOP have squeezed in a PV based election? It is impossible to know. Trump lose Orange County for heaven's sake, if it were a PV based election that would never have happened as the traditional GOP base would have turned out for Trump. They voted Clinton/Johnson in OC because CA is safe Dem, they could register a protest without affecting the national result. In an election where there are no safe states the nature of the race is completely different, those protest votes in traditional GOP areas would have been non-existent.Wulfrun_Phil said:What we know is that Clinton is going to be a stonking 2 million + votes ahead, and yet I'm seeing the kind of kites being flown that would be appropriate only in the context of a result like Florida 2000. Get a sense of perspective.
Those 3rd party voters were not just Johnson voters. They were also Green voters. So basing theoretical arguments on Johnson voters alone doesn't really hold either.0 -
Sandpit said:
If the Democrats had had a good candidate they'd have won the election! Bernie Sanders was appealing to the same disaffected as voted for Trump, he'd have held many of the rust belt states that Clinton lost.SouthamObserver said:
I'd be very surprised if Clinton spent a lot of time in either California or New York. She's now more than a million votes ahead of Trump. Just think of how big the lead would be if she had been a good candidate.Wulfrun_Phil said:
Actually, it is possible, because many national polls conducted parallel polls with and without Johnson/Stein on the ballot. And Clinton generally did as well or better in a race with Trump alone.MaxPB said:
Again, how many GOP voters went for Johnson in safe red/blue states that would have voted for Trump if it were a popular vote race rather than EC race? It is impossible to say that a race based on the PV would have resulted in a Clinton victory. If anything this is incredibly damning of her campaign which concentrated on urban NY and CA, places where she was going to win anyway.Wulfrun_Phil said:
OK, if you want to make comparisons with Bush.weejonnie said:
How can you become Less Popular as the vote is counted? Surely every vote for you makes you more popular.tlg86 said:
It must really nark Republican grandees that Trump was able to win where it mattered.SouthamObserver said:If he becomes even more unpopular than he is currently (1 million + behind in the popular vote now) then Republicans in the legislature are going to start to get nervous.
Trump 2016: 60,913,096 votes (nyt - still to call Michigan BTW)
That is 10 million MORE than George W Bush in 2000
Bush in 2000 was 543,000 behind Gore in the popular vote and 15 votes ahead in the Electoral College.
Trump in 2016 is going to be upwards of 2 million behind Clinton in the popular vote and yet likely to end up 74 votes ahead in the Electoral College.
2016 is a failure of epic proportions on any measure of legitimacy or democratic fairness. Ironic that it happened to the benefit of a candidate who claimed the system was fixed against him.
Your comments on the limitations of the Clinton campaign are very much besides the point (not that she did concentrate on NY and CA).
The Republican oppo research would have destroyed Sanders on his anti-American activities and other stupidities.
http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044
0 -
But that takes nothing away from the power of her claim. She is still arguing that the Court rather than parliament is the guardian of the constitution.TheScreamingEagles said:
The full quotedavid_herdson said:
Granted, I have the speech bookmarked to read through. However, the single half-sentence "To that extent, at least, it is accepted that we are [i.e. the Supreme Court is] indeed the guardians of the Constitution", is sufficient to justify my earlier comment, not least because it comes in the very final paragraph of her speech and as such must be regarded as conclusive of her opinion.TheScreamingEagles said:
Please, don't fall for the media hype, look at her quotes in their entirety, she explained how both sides would approach it.david_herdson said:
Going by Lady Hale's comments, at least some of the Supreme Court here seems to have the same ambition.Sean_F said:
It's wrong that the Supreme Court has the political power that it has, and it's wrong that anyone can appoint political partisans to it, but we are where we are.SouthamObserver said:
What's wrong is that Trump now gets to mould the Supreme Court as a profoundly conservative body, even though he is trailing Clinton by so many votes. The electoral college is what it is and does sort of make sense in the kind of federation that the US is. What may be less fair is the power that someone who loses the popular vote gets to perhaps profoundly affect the lives of all Americans not only for the next four years but quite possibly for the next 20 or even 30. It's a hell of a lot of power for a loser to have.glw said:
I know one thing, if Hilary had won on the same basis Trump won I doubt we would hear a peep from Democrats about how the "system is wrong".david_herdson said:The evidence from SV elections is that AV results would not be greatly different from FPTP.
PR is a whole different ballgame, as would be a move from the Electoral College to a national vote in the US.
Oddly, the Leave supporting media focused on one portion of her comments.
To that extent, at least, it is accepted that we are indeed the guardians of the Constitution: if only we knew what it meant.
In the context of
To what extent can it [executive power] be exercised in a way which may undermine the exercise of the legislative power of the State? We do not have a written Constitution to tell us the answer. But I doubt whether many written Constitutions would tell us the answer either.0 -
So when I say that the electoral college is the best way to choose the US president you think I am wrong?Casino_Royale said:
Seconded. Herdson/Nabavi and Sean Fear are right on this.matt said:
The Electoral College is the test of winning or losing. It was not a secret. Your posting has become increasingly hysterical.SouthamObserver said:
He lost the popular vote. American voters rejected him. The presidency is not a game.matt said:
He's not a loser though, is he (other than in your world). He's a winner by the rules of the game.SouthamObserver said:
What's wrong is that Trump now gets to mould the Supreme Court as a profoundly conservative body, even though he is trailing Clinton by so many votes. The electoral college is what it is and does sort of make sense in the kind of federation that the US is. What may be less fair is the power that someone who loses the popular vote gets to perhaps profoundly affect the lives of all Americans not only for the next four years but quite possibly for the next 20 or even 30. It's a hell of a lot of power for a loser to have.glw said:
I know one thing, if Hilary had won on the same basis Trump won I doubt we would hear a peep from Democrats about how the "system is wrong".david_herdson said:The evidence from SV elections is that AV results would not be greatly different from FPTP.
PR is a whole different ballgame, as would be a move from the Electoral College to a national vote in the US.
SO is simply wrong.
0 -
It would be interesting to see what would happen if the Supreme Court simply decided to strike down primary legislation which it ruled conflicted with our Constitution.david_herdson said:
Granted, I have the speech bookmarked to read through. However, the single half-sentence "To that extent, at least, it is accepted that we are [i.e. the Supreme Court is] indeed the guardians of the Constitution", is sufficient to justify my earlier comment, not least because it comes in the very final paragraph of her speech and as such must be regarded as conclusive of her opinion.TheScreamingEagles said:
Please, don't fall for the media hype, look at her quotes in their entirety, she explained how both sides would approach it.david_herdson said:
Going by Lady Hale's comments, at least some of the Supreme Court here seems to have the same ambition.Sean_F said:
It's wrong that the Supreme Court has the political power that it has, and it's wrong that anyone can appoint political partisans to it, but we are where we are.SouthamObserver said:
What's wrong is that Trump now gets to mould the Supreme Court as a profoundly conservative body, even though he is trailing Clinton by so many votes. The electoral college is what it is and does sort of make sense in the kind of federation that the US is. What may be less fair is the power that someone who loses the popular vote gets to perhaps profoundly affect the lives of all Americans not only for the next four years but quite possibly for the next 20 or even 30. It's a hell of a lot of power for a loser to have.glw said:
I know one thing, if Hilary had won on the same basis Trump won I doubt we would hear a peep from Democrats about how the "system is wrong".david_herdson said:The evidence from SV elections is that AV results would not be greatly different from FPTP.
PR is a whole different ballgame, as would be a move from the Electoral College to a national vote in the US.
Oddly, the Leave supporting media focused on one portion of her comments.
0 -
Sky now reporting You Gov Brexit poll:
52% think the government is doing badly
18% think the government is doing well
68% think Britain should leave the EU
62% think it is the most important issue currently facing Britain.
They seemed to emphasise the 52% government doing badly point but not realising that a good percentage of that figure will be from leavers who are frustrated it is not happening fast enough.
And the surprise in the presenters voice when he had to quote 68% want us to leave the EU was noticeable.
Times are changing and if they want to retain their viewers they are going to have to change as well
0 -
Arguing or observing? It is a fact, is it not, that the courts are able to rule on issues pertaining to the constitution?david_herdson said:
But that takes nothing away from the power of her claim. She is still arguing that the Court rather than parliament is the guardian of the constitution.TheScreamingEagles said:
The full quotedavid_herdson said:
very final paragraph of her speech and as such must be regarded as conclusive of her opinion.TheScreamingEagles said:
Please, don't fall for the media hype, look at her quotes in their entirety, she explained how both sides would approach it.david_herdson said:
Going by Lady Hale's comments, at least some of the Supreme Court here seems to have the same ambition.Sean_F said:
It's wrong that the Supreme Court has the political power that it has, and it's wrong that anyone can appoint political partisans to it, but we are where we are.SouthamObserver said:
What's wrong is that Trump now gets to mould the Supreme Court as a profoundly conservative body, even though he is trailing Clinton by so many votes. The electoral college is what it is and does sort of make sense in the kind of federation that the US is. What may be less fair is the power that someone who loses the popular vote gets to perhaps profoundly affect the lives of all Americans not only for the next four years but quite possibly for the next 20 or even 30. It's a hell of a lot of power for a loser to have.glw said:
I know one thing, if Hilary had won on the same basis Trump won I doubt we would hear a peep from Democrats about how the "system is wrong".david_herdson said:The evidence from SV elections is that AV results would not be greatly different from FPTP.
PR is a whole different ballgame, as would be a move from the Electoral College to a national vote in the US.
Oddly, the Leave supporting media focused on one portion of her comments.
To that extent, at least, it is accepted that we are indeed the guardians of the Constitution: if only we knew what it meant.
In the context of
To what extent can it [executive power] be exercised in a way which may undermine the exercise of the legislative power of the State? We do not have a written Constitution to tell us the answer. But I doubt whether many written Constitutions would tell us the answer either.
0 -
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-17/tiny-island-near-france-offers-u-k-post-brexit-migration-ideas
For those wondering about how the Brexit model might shape up, this article on the ''Jersey model'' is interesting.0 -
I think Southam Observer has a good point.
In the UK system, it can be the case that the winning party in a GE has less votes than the losing party, but then Parliament is nonetheless fairly evenly split in seats between the winning and losing parties. Although not exactly representative, both sides still have a strong presence in Parliament.
The US President is a Winner-Takes-All election.
I accept that Trump won the election according to the rules, but it is highly disturbing that he lost the popular vote by so much.
I'd conclude -- along with Southam -- that the current system is untenable.0 -
Why? It's perfectly reasonably to think that a constitutional referendum proposing a major change should have a higher bar to clear. Not at all the same thing as an election for public office.MaxPB said:
My favourite was after the referendum, 17.4m voted to leave the EU, 29.1m didn't vote to leave so we shouldn't leave. Someone posted that picture on fb and it got more likes than I'd like to see in a democratic country.Casino_Royale said:
(1) I don't like the side that won this election/referendum and refuse to accept itSean_F said:
It's likely arguing that the Conservatives didn't really win the 2015 election because only 38% voted for them.MaxPB said:
In the national vote tracker, "Others" are up to almost 7m. How many of those Johnson voters would the GOP have squeezed in a PV based election? It is impossible to know. Trump lose Orange County for heaven's sake, if it were a PV based election that would never have happened as the traditional GOP base would have turned out for Trump. They voted Clinton/Johnson in OC because CA is safe Dem, they could register a protest without affecting the national result. In an election where there are no safe states the nature of the race is completely different, those protest votes in traditional GOP areas would have been non-existent.Wulfrun_Phil said:What we know is that Clinton is going to be a stonking 2 million + votes ahead, and yet I'm seeing the kind of kites being flown that would be appropriate only in the context of a result like Florida 2000. Get a sense of perspective.
(2) How can I delegitimise it?
And the same can work in exact reverse if they come up on top. By the same person.0 -
Indeed. A system is not broken just because it didn't give you the result you wanted.matt said:
The Electoral College is the test of winning or losing. It was not a secret. Your posting has become increasingly hysterical.SouthamObserver said:
He lost the popular vote. American voters rejected him. The presidency is not a game.matt said:
He's not a loser though, is he (other than in your world). He's a winner by the rules of the game.SouthamObserver said:
What's wrong is that Trump now gets to mould the Supreme Court as a profoundly conservative body, even though he is trailing Clinton by so many votes. The electoral college is what it is and does sort of make sense in the kind of federation that the US is. What may be less fair is the power that someone who loses the popular vote gets to perhaps profoundly affect the lives of all Americans not only for the next four years but quite possibly for the next 20 or even 30. It's a hell of a lot of power for a loser to have.glw said:
I know one thing, if Hilary had won on the same basis Trump won I doubt we would hear a peep from Democrats about how the "system is wrong".david_herdson said:The evidence from SV elections is that AV results would not be greatly different from FPTP.
PR is a whole different ballgame, as would be a move from the Electoral College to a national vote in the US.0 -
That's true, but then it's rare for the loser of the popular vote to win the election. I think it's only the fifth time in the 228 years of elections that it's happened.SouthamObserver said:
I am not complaining. I am observing. I have also said that given the US is a federation of states the electoral college makes sense. My point was about the power that someone who lost the popular vote has to profoundly affect the lives of all Americans not just for the term of his presidency, but for 20 or even 30 years beyond that. It is rare in a democracy for those who lose the popular vote to have such power.david_herdson said:
Yes it is. It's just not a trivial game. Games are merely activities carried out according to predetermined rules among known competitors.SouthamObserver said:
He lost the popular vote. American voters rejected him. The presidency is not a game.matt said:
He's not a loser though, is he (other than in your world). He's a winner by the rules of the game.SouthamObserver said:
What's wrong is that Trump now gets to mould the Supreme Court as a profoundly conservative body, even though he is trailing Clinton by so many votes. The electoral college is what it is and does sort of make sense in the kind of federation that the US is. What may be less fair is the power that someone who loses the popular vote gets to perhaps profoundly affect the lives of all Americans not only for the next four years but quite possibly for the next 20 or even 30. It's a hell of a lot of power for a loser to have.glw said:
I know one thing, if Hilary had won on the same basis Trump won I doubt we would hear a peep from Democrats about how the "system is wrong".david_herdson said:The evidence from SV elections is that AV results would not be greatly different from FPTP.
PR is a whole different ballgame, as would be a move from the Electoral College to a national vote in the US.
Complaining that Trump 'lost' is like complaining that Arsenal (for example) 'lost' purely because they conceded more goals, even though they had a greater share of possession and played nicer football than their opponents.
FWIW, I don't think it is a sensible system, even in a federation. FPTP has arguments in its favour for a parliamentary system; I can't really see any equivalent arguments that apply to a nation-wide elected presidency.0 -
One could argue that it's the case in the UK, where almost all governments have majority rule based on a minority of votes. But that doesn't mean the system is undemocratic - a country can choose whatever system of democracy it likes.SouthamObserver said:
I am not complaining. I am observing. I have also said that given the US is a federation of states the electoral college makes sense. My point was about the power that someone who lost the popular vote has to profoundly affect the lives of all Americans not just for the term of his presidency, but for 20 or even 30 years beyond that. It is rare in a democracy for those who lose the popular vote to have such power.david_herdson said:
Yes it is. It's just not a trivial game. Games are merely activities carried out according to predetermined rules among known competitors.SouthamObserver said:
He lost the popular vote. American voters rejected him. The presidency is not a game.matt said:
He's not a loser though, is he (other than in your world). He's a winner by the rules of the game.SouthamObserver said:
What's wrong is that Trump now gets to mould the Supreme Court as a profoundly conservative body, even though he is trailing Clinton by so many votes. The electoral college is what it is and does sort of make sense in the kind of federation that the US is. What may be less fair is the power that someone who loses the popular vote gets to perhaps profoundly affect the lives of all Americans not only for the next four years but quite possibly for the next 20 or even 30. It's a hell of a lot of power for a loser to have.glw said:
I know one thing, if Hilary had won on the same basis Trump won I doubt we would hear a peep from Democrats about how the "system is wrong".david_herdson said:The evidence from SV elections is that AV results would not be greatly different from FPTP.
PR is a whole different ballgame, as would be a move from the Electoral College to a national vote in the US.
Complaining that Trump 'lost' is like complaining that Arsenal (for example) 'lost' purely because they conceded more goals, even though they had a greater share of possession and played nicer football than their opponents.0 -
Sky News is currently unwatchable. Even among non political obsessives it has become noticeable.Big_G_NorthWales said:Sky now reporting You Gov Brexit poll:
52% think the government is doing badly
18% think the government is doing well
68% think Britain should leave the EU
62% think it is the most important issue currently facing Britain.
They seemed to emphasise the 52% government doing badly point but not realising that a good percentage of that figure will be from leavers who are frustrated it is not happening fast enough.
And the surprise in the presenters voice when he had to quote 68% want us to leave the EU was noticeable.
Times are changing and if they want to retain their viewers they are going to have to change as well0 -
It's an appeals body, isn't it? It would have to rule on a case brought by a third party against the government and which had previously been heard by and argued in a lower court.Sean_F said:
It would be interesting to see what would happen if the Supreme Court simply decided to strike down primary legislation which it ruled conflicted with our Constitution.david_herdson said:
Granted, I have the speech bookmarked to read through. However, the single half-sentence "To that extent, at least, it is accepted that we are [i.e. the Supreme Court is] indeed the guardians of the Constitution", is sufficient to justify my earlier comment, not least because it comes in the very final paragraph of her speech and as such must be regarded as conclusive of her opinion.TheScreamingEagles said:
Please, don't fall for the media hype, look at her quotes in their entirety, she explained how both sides would approach it.david_herdson said:
Going by Lady Hale's comments, at least some of the Supreme Court here seems to have the same ambition.Sean_F said:
It's wrong that the Supreme Court has the political power that it has, and it's wrong that anyone can appoint political partisans to it, but we are where we are.SouthamObserver said:
What's wrong is that Trump now gets to mould the Supreme Court as a profoundly conservative body, even though he is trailing Clinton by so many votes. The electoral college is what it is and does sort of make sense in the kind of federation that the US is. What may be less fair is the power that someone who loses the popular vote gets to perhaps profoundly affect the lives of all Americans not only for the next four years but quite possibly for the next 20 or even 30. It's a hell of a lot of power for a loser to have.glw said:
I know one thing, if Hilary had won on the same basis Trump won I doubt we would hear a peep from Democrats about how the "system is wrong".david_herdson said:The evidence from SV elections is that AV results would not be greatly different from FPTP.
PR is a whole different ballgame, as would be a move from the Electoral College to a national vote in the US.
Oddly, the Leave supporting media focused on one portion of her comments.
0 -
''Times are changing and if they want to retain their viewers they are going to have to change as well''
YOu would think so, wouldn't you? its amazing how stupid and stubborn certain people at certain news outlets can be.0 -
Yes, but she shouldn't have done that. It suggests that she will approach the case with preconceptions about what the arguments are or ought to be, rather than listening with a fresh mind to the actual arguments presented to her in court. To avoid any possible taint that she might have pre-judged the case, she should recuse herself from it.TheScreamingEagles said:Please, don't fall for the media hype, look at her quotes in their entirety, she explained how both sides would approach it.
0 -
She's observing, not arguing. There's an awful lot of question marks in her statement. She's viewing herself as the umpire, rather than as a bowler or batsman, to borrow a cricketing analogy.david_herdson said:
But that takes nothing away from the power of her claim. She is still arguing that the Court rather than parliament is the guardian of the constitution.TheScreamingEagles said:
The full quotedavid_herdson said:TheScreamingEagles said:
.david_herdson said:
Going by Lady Hale's comments, at least some of the Supreme Court here seems to have the same ambition.Sean_F said:
.SouthamObserver said:
What's wrong is that Trump now gets to mould the Supreme Court as a profoundly conservative body, even though he is trailing Clinton by so many votes. The electoral college is what it is and does sort of make sense in the kind of federation that the US is. What may be less fair is the power that someone who loses the popular vote gets to perhaps profoundly affect the lives of all Americans not only for the next four years but quite possibly for the next 20 or even 30. It's a hell of a lot of power for a loser to have.glw said:
I know one thing, if Hilary had won on the same basis Trump won I doubt we would hear a peep from Democrats about how the "system is wrong".david_herdson said:The evidence from SV elections is that AV results would not be greatly different from FPTP.
PR is a whole different ballgame, as would be a move from the Electoral College to a national vote in the US.
To that extent, at least, it is accepted that we are indeed the guardians of the Constitution: if only we knew what it meant.
In the context of
To what extent can it [executive power] be exercised in a way which may undermine the exercise of the legislative power of the State? We do not have a written Constitution to tell us the answer. But I doubt whether many written Constitutions would tell us the answer either.
The case raises difficult and delicate issues about the constitutional relationship between Government and Parliament. What is meant by the exercise of the executive power of the State? To what extent can it be exercised in a way which may undermine the exercise of the legislative power of the State?0 -
68% now support Brexit? Watch those voices arguing for a 2nd referendum wither.Big_G_NorthWales said:Sky now reporting You Gov Brexit poll:
52% think the government is doing badly
18% think the government is doing well
68% think Britain should leave the EU
62% think it is the most important issue currently facing Britain.
They seemed to emphasise the 52% government doing badly point but not realising that a good percentage of that figure will be from leavers who are frustrated it is not happening fast enough.
And the surprise in the presenters voice when he had to quote 68% want us to leave the EU was noticeable.
Times are changing and if they want to retain their viewers they are going to have to change as well0 -
And if they die?MaxPB said:
Hmm, maybe. I'm sure there is a system which would allow for long terms and term limits as well as being fair to the opposition party. Maybe a single 36 year term and a replacement nominated every 4 years so the sitting POTUS only gets to nominate two justices in 8 years.david_herdson said:
Wouldn't that mean that a 2-term president with a favourable congressional wind could appoint virtually the entire Court?MaxPB said:
I would love for the SCOTUS to move to 10 year terms with term limits. Not elected, but then it would allow for a renewal of the SCOTUS more often than just waiting for them to die off or get bored and retire.SouthamObserver said:
I am not saying Clinton won the election. She lost. But she has comfortably won the popular vote. Trump, who lost it, now has immense power to shape the lives of all Americans for the next 20 to 30 years. It is what it is, but I am not sure it is fair.weejonnie said:
But the loser (Clinton) has no real power. As has been mentioned here, the candidates' plan of campaign was based on the ECV available in each state - and so campaigned where the greatest reward/ effort was obtainable. They would have campaigned differently and the voters (especially the non-voters) would have voted differently as a result. So you just can't apply a 'I won the popular vote so I won the election' argument when manifestly the conclusion does not follow on from the premise.SouthamObserver said:
What's wrong is that Trump now gets to mould the Supreme Court as a profoundly conservative body, even though he is trailing Clinton by so many votes. The electoral college is what it is and does sort of make sense in the kind of federation that the US is. What may be less fair is the power that someone who loses the popular vote gets to perhaps profoundly affect the lives of all Americans not only for the next four years but quite possibly for the next 20 or even 30. It's a hell of a lot of power for a loser to have.glw said:
I know one thing, if Hilary had won on the same basis Trump won I doubt we would hear a peep from Democrats about how the "system is wrong".
As an example: Trump won states by less than Clinton (or Obama) won. This could be because Republicans in California (knowing that the state was lost) didn't bother turning out as enthusiastically. They may well have done on a popular vote election. We just don't know.
If you want to restrict partisan power, up the thresholds necessary for approval to 2/3rds.0 -
I agree,Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes, but she shouldn't have done that. It suggests that she will approach the case with preconceptions abut what the arguments are or ought to be, rather than listening with a fresh mind to the actual arguments presented to her in court. To avoid any possible taint that she might have pre-judged the case, she should recuse herself from the case.TheScreamingEagles said:Please, don't fall for the media hype, look at her quotes in their entirety, she explained how both sides would approach it.
Just before I left to come here, a unanimous Divisional Court held that the Secretary of State does not have power under the royal prerogative to give notice to withdraw from the European Union.
The court held that just as making a treaty does not change the law of the land, unmaking it cannot do so, but triggering article 50 will automatically have that effect. What has to be done instead is perhaps not so clear. But the case is destined for our Court, so I must say no more.
But then she did say more.0 -
I'm currently swapping from the popular vote to Trump 44-47%. 1.06 instead of 1.01...Pulpstar said:
I was like that but did a 1-50, 50-1 "swap" with funds to the popular vote. Which was safer, but a bit poorer for time value of money.Richard_Nabavi said:
Never mind California, it's those flown-over dudes in Michigan who are holding up over £4K of funds in my Betfair account.Pulpstar said:God Help the USA if ever they have to wait for California to count its votes.
0 -
I am no fan of hers, but I really don't see anything problematic in what she said.Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes, but she shouldn't have done that. It suggests that she will approach the case with preconceptions about what the arguments are or ought to be, rather than listening with a fresh mind to the actual arguments presented to her in court. To avoid any possible taint that she might have pre-judged the case, she should recuse herself from it.TheScreamingEagles said:Please, don't fall for the media hype, look at her quotes in their entirety, she explained how both sides would approach it.
0 -
But it's not a FPTP system. It's an electoral college and the states are perfectly free to determine how they allocate their college votes. They can use FPTP, PR, AV or whatever.david_herdson said:That's true, but then it's rare for the loser of the popular vote to win the election. I think it's only the fifth time in the 228 years of elections that it's happened.
FWIW, I don't think it is a sensible system, even in a federation. FPTP has arguments in its favour for a parliamentary system; I can't really see any equivalent arguments that apply to a nation-wide elected presidency.
Really it's no wonder Remain lost when federalism runs so counter to how most people in this country think.0 -
The Republicans have only won the popular presidential vote once since 1988, but by 2020 there could be a very solid conservative majority on the Supreme Court and one that is set fair for 20 to 30 years. With the best will in the world I cannot see how that is right given the power the Supreme Court has to shape the lives of all Americans. It is what it is, I absolutely accept that - but that does not make it just.david_herdson said:
That's true, but then it's rare for the loser of the popular vote to win the election. I think it's only the fifth time in the 228 years of elections that it's happened.SouthamObserver said:
I am not complaining. I am observing. I have also said that given the US is a federation of states the electoral college makes sense. My point was about the power that someone who lost the popular vote has to profoundly affect the lives of all Americans not just for the term of his presidency, but for 20 or even 30 years beyond that. It is rare in a democracy for those who lose the popular vote to have such power.david_herdson said:
Yes it is. It's just not a trivial game. Games are merely activities carried out according to predetermined rules among known competitors.SouthamObserver said:
He lost the popular vote. American voters rejected him. The presidency is not a game.matt said:
He's not a loser though, is he (other than in your world). He's a winner by the rules of the game.SouthamObserver said:
What'sa loser to have.glw said:
I know one thing, if Hilary had won on the same basis Trump won I doubt we would hear a peep from Democrats about how the "system is wrong".david_herdson said:The evidence from SV elections is that AV results would not be greatly different from FPTP.
PR is a whole different ballgame, as would be a move from the Electoral College to a national vote in the US.
Complaining that Trump 'lost' is like complaining that Arsenal (for example) 'lost' purely because they conceded more goals, even though they had a greater share of possession and played nicer football than their opponents.
FWIW, I don't think it is a sensible system, even in a federation. FPTP has arguments in its favour for a parliamentary system; I can't really see any equivalent arguments that apply to a nation-wide elected presidency.
0 -
So a substantial number of those who think the govt are doing badly, think that because they just wish they'd hurry the F up and get on with leaving.Big_G_NorthWales said:Sky now reporting You Gov Brexit poll:
52% think the government is doing badly
18% think the government is doing well
68% think Britain should leave the EU
62% think it is the most important issue currently facing Britain.
They seemed to emphasise the 52% government doing badly point but not realising that a good percentage of that figure will be from leavers who are frustrated it is not happening fast enough.
And the surprise in the presenters voice when he had to quote 68% want us to leave the EU was noticeable.
Times are changing and if they want to retain their viewers they are going to have to change as well
Not quite the narrative the popular press want us to think.0 -
As she also indicated that it might have the power to do.Sean_F said:
It would be interesting to see what would happen if the Supreme Court simply decided to strike down primary legislation which it ruled conflicted with our Constitution.david_herdson said:
Granted, I have the speech bookmarked to read through. However, the single half-sentence "To that extent, at least, it is accepted that we are [i.e. the Supreme Court is] indeed the guardians of the Constitution", is sufficient to justify my earlier comment, not least because it comes in the very final paragraph of her speech and as such must be regarded as conclusive of her opinion.TheScreamingEagles said:
Please, don't fall for the media hype, look at her quotes in their entirety, she explained how both sides would approach it.david_herdson said:
Going by Lady Hale's comments, at least some of the Supreme Court here seems to have the same ambition.Sean_F said:
It's wrong that the Supreme Court has the political power that it has, and it's wrong that anyone can appoint political partisans to it, but we are where we are.SouthamObserver said:
What's wrong is that Trump now gets to mould the Supreme Court as a profoundly conservative body, even though he is trailing Clinton by so many votes. The electoral college is what it is and does sort of make sense in the kind of federation that the US is. What may be less fair is the power that someone who loses the popular vote gets to perhaps profoundly affect the lives of all Americans not only for the next four years but quite possibly for the next 20 or even 30. It's a hell of a lot of power for a loser to have.glw said:
I know one thing, if Hilary had won on the same basis Trump won I doubt we would hear a peep from Democrats about how the "system is wrong".david_herdson said:The evidence from SV elections is that AV results would not be greatly different from FPTP.
PR is a whole different ballgame, as would be a move from the Electoral College to a national vote in the US.
Oddly, the Leave supporting media focused on one portion of her comments.0 -
A US-style Fox News would make an absolute killing in the UK. The pro-Brexit British Right now seems unanimous in their desire to have their news as a Safe Space.Big_G_NorthWales said:Sky now reporting You Gov Brexit poll:
52% think the government is doing badly
18% think the government is doing well
68% think Britain should leave the EU
62% think it is the most important issue currently facing Britain.
They seemed to emphasise the 52% government doing badly point but not realising that a good percentage of that figure will be from leavers who are frustrated it is not happening fast enough.
And the surprise in the presenters voice when he had to quote 68% want us to leave the EU was noticeable.
Times are changing and if they want to retain their viewers they are going to have to change as well0 -
he like's grabbing pussies.....Theuniondivvie said:Come to daddy.
https://twitter.com/JOE_co_uk/status/7986014893714391040 -
But in the UK it is much easier to overturn legislation, while the Supreme Court is not filled with political appointees and the judges that sit in it have to retire when they reach 70 (or 75 if appointed before a certain date).Dadge said:
One could argue that it's the case in the UK, where almost all governments have majority rule based on a minority of votes. But that doesn't mean the system is undemocratic - a country can choose whatever system of democracy it likes.SouthamObserver said:
I am not complaining. I am observing. I have also said that given the US is a federation of states the electoral college makes sense. My point was about the power that someone who lost the popular vote has to profoundly affect the lives of all Americans not just for the term of his presidency, but for 20 or even 30 years beyond that. It is rare in a democracy for those who lose the popular vote to have such power.david_herdson said:
Yes it is. It's just not a trivial game. Games are merely activities carried out according to predetermined rules among known competitors.SouthamObserver said:
He lost the popular vote. American voters rejected him. The presidency is not a game.matt said:
He's not a loser though, is he (other than in your world). He's a winner by the rules of the game.SouthamObserver said:
What's wrong is that Trump now gets to mould the Supreme Court as a profoundly conservative body, even though he is trailing Clinton by so many votes. The electoral college is what it is and does sort of make sense in the kind of federation that the US is. What may be less fair is the power that someone who loses the popular vote gets to perhaps profoundly affect the lives of all Americans not only for the next four years but quite possibly for the next 20 or even 30. It's a hell of a lot of power for a loser to have.glw said:
I know one thing, if Hilary had won on the same basis Trump won I doubt we would hear a peep from Democrats about how the "system is wrong".david_herdson said:The evidence from SV elections is that AV results would not be greatly different from FPTP.
PR is a whole different ballgame, as would be a move from the Electoral College to a national vote in the US.
Complaining that Trump 'lost' is like complaining that Arsenal (for example) 'lost' purely because they conceded more goals, even though they had a greater share of possession and played nicer football than their opponents.
0 -
Surely she's said enough by now, that she really needs to recuse herself from the A50 appeal?TheScreamingEagles said:
I agree,Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes, but she shouldn't have done that. It suggests that she will approach the case with preconceptions abut what the arguments are or ought to be, rather than listening with a fresh mind to the actual arguments presented to her in court. To avoid any possible taint that she might have pre-judged the case, she should recuse herself from the case.TheScreamingEagles said:Please, don't fall for the media hype, look at her quotes in their entirety, she explained how both sides would approach it.
Just before I left to come here, a unanimous Divisional Court held that the Secretary of State does not have power under the royal prerogative to give notice to withdraw from the European Union.
The court held that just as making a treaty does not change the law of the land, unmaking it cannot do so, but triggering article 50 will automatically have that effect. What has to be done instead is perhaps not so clear. But the case is destined for our Court, so I must say no more.
But then she did say more.0 -
Nope, she's looking at it from both points of view.Sandpit said:
Surely she's said enough by now, that she really needs to recuse herself from the A50 appeal?TheScreamingEagles said:
I agree,Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes, but she shouldn't have done that. It suggests that she will approach the case with preconceptions abut what the arguments are or ought to be, rather than listening with a fresh mind to the actual arguments presented to her in court. To avoid any possible taint that she might have pre-judged the case, she should recuse herself from the case.TheScreamingEagles said:Please, don't fall for the media hype, look at her quotes in their entirety, she explained how both sides would approach it.
Just before I left to come here, a unanimous Divisional Court held that the Secretary of State does not have power under the royal prerogative to give notice to withdraw from the European Union.
The court held that just as making a treaty does not change the law of the land, unmaking it cannot do so, but triggering article 50 will automatically have that effect. What has to be done instead is perhaps not so clear. But the case is destined for our Court, so I must say no more.
But then she did say more.
She's waiting to be persuaded by a good argument from either side.0 -
California is not that left wing. In one proposition they voted to keep the death penalty and in the other voted for it to happen FASTER!0
-
Fox News is virtually the opposite of the current Sky News and neither provide balanced media coverageStark_Dawning said:
A US-style Fox News would make an absolute killing in the UK. The pro-Brexit British Right now seems unanimous in their desire to have their news as a Safe Space.Big_G_NorthWales said:Sky now reporting You Gov Brexit poll:
52% think the government is doing badly
18% think the government is doing well
68% think Britain should leave the EU
62% think it is the most important issue currently facing Britain.
They seemed to emphasise the 52% government doing badly point but not realising that a good percentage of that figure will be from leavers who are frustrated it is not happening fast enough.
And the surprise in the presenters voice when he had to quote 68% want us to leave the EU was noticeable.
Times are changing and if they want to retain their viewers they are going to have to change as well0 -
YBarddCwsc said:
I think Southam Observer has a good point.
In the UK system, it can be the case that the winning party in a GE has less votes than the losing party, but then Parliament is nonetheless fairly evenly split in seats between the winning and losing parties. Although not exactly representative, both sides still have a strong presence in Parliament.
The US President is a Winner-Takes-All election.
I accept that Trump won the election according to the rules, but it is highly disturbing that he lost the popular vote by so much.
I'd conclude -- along with Southam -- that the current system is untenable.
You would need to compare POTUS with the UK PM, where we also have a winner-takes-all approach.
0 -
But why is she even talking about it in public, if it's due to come before her court? It looks terrible.TheScreamingEagles said:
Nope, she's looking at it from both points of view.Sandpit said:
Surely she's said enough by now, that she really needs to recuse herself from the A50 appeal?TheScreamingEagles said:
I agree,Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes, but she shouldn't have done that. It suggests that she will approach the case with preconceptions abut what the arguments are or ought to be, rather than listening with a fresh mind to the actual arguments presented to her in court. To avoid any possible taint that she might have pre-judged the case, she should recuse herself from the case.TheScreamingEagles said:Please, don't fall for the media hype, look at her quotes in their entirety, she explained how both sides would approach it.
Just before I left to come here, a unanimous Divisional Court held that the Secretary of State does not have power under the royal prerogative to give notice to withdraw from the European Union.
The court held that just as making a treaty does not change the law of the land, unmaking it cannot do so, but triggering article 50 will automatically have that effect. What has to be done instead is perhaps not so clear. But the case is destined for our Court, so I must say no more.
But then she did say more.
She's waiting to be persuaded by a good argument from either side.0 -
She is compromised and should stand downTheScreamingEagles said:
Nope, she's looking at it from both points of view.Sandpit said:
Surely she's said enough by now, that she really needs to recuse herself from the A50 appeal?TheScreamingEagles said:
I agree,Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes, but she shouldn't have done that. It suggests that she will approach the case with preconceptions abut what the arguments are or ought to be, rather than listening with a fresh mind to the actual arguments presented to her in court. To avoid any possible taint that she might have pre-judged the case, she should recuse herself from the case.TheScreamingEagles said:Please, don't fall for the media hype, look at her quotes in their entirety, she explained how both sides would approach it.
Just before I left to come here, a unanimous Divisional Court held that the Secretary of State does not have power under the royal prerogative to give notice to withdraw from the European Union.
The court held that just as making a treaty does not change the law of the land, unmaking it cannot do so, but triggering article 50 will automatically have that effect. What has to be done instead is perhaps not so clear. But the case is destined for our Court, so I must say no more.
But then she did say more.
She's waiting to be persuaded by a good argument from either side.0 -
@david_herdson The full context of the half-sentence that causes you qualms is:
"Perhaps significantly, the Government has given up the argument that the issue is not justiciable in our courts. To that extent, at least, it is accepted that we are indeed the guardians of the Constitution: if only we knew what it meant."
The title of the talk was "The Supreme Court: Guardians of the Constitution?" Far from prejudging the case, Lady Hale was giving an ironically anodyne ending to a very milk-and-water speech. Though I tend to agree with @Richard_Nabavi that she would have done better not to touch on the subject at all, so febrile is the atmosphere at present.0 -
I posted a link to her speech down below, she's putting it into the context for the Malaysian audience she was speaking to and their laws and conventions.Sandpit said:
But why is she even talking about it in public, if it's due to come before her court?TheScreamingEagles said:
Nope, she's looking at it from both points of view.Sandpit said:
Surely she's said enough by now, that she really needs to recuse herself from the A50 appeal?TheScreamingEagles said:
I agree,Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes, but she shouldn't have done that. It suggests that she will approach the case with preconceptions abut what the arguments are or ought to be, rather than listening with a fresh mind to the actual arguments presented to her in court. To avoid any possible taint that she might have pre-judged the case, she should recuse herself from the case.TheScreamingEagles said:Please, don't fall for the media hype, look at her quotes in their entirety, she explained how both sides would approach it.
Just before I left to come here, a unanimous Divisional Court held that the Secretary of State does not have power under the royal prerogative to give notice to withdraw from the European Union.
The court held that just as making a treaty does not change the law of the land, unmaking it cannot do so, but triggering article 50 will automatically have that effect. What has to be done instead is perhaps not so clear. But the case is destined for our Court, so I must say no more.
But then she did say more.
She's waiting to be persuaded by a good argument from either side.0 -
I continue to be outraged that news stories are not covered in the way that I think that they should be covered. This clearly proves that those doing the reporting are biased.Stark_Dawning said:
A US-style Fox News would make an absolute killing in the UK. The pro-Brexit British Right now seems unanimous in their desire to have their news as a Safe Space.Big_G_NorthWales said:Sky now reporting You Gov Brexit poll:
52% think the government is doing badly
18% think the government is doing well
68% think Britain should leave the EU
62% think it is the most important issue currently facing Britain.
They seemed to emphasise the 52% government doing badly point but not realising that a good percentage of that figure will be from leavers who are frustrated it is not happening fast enough.
And the surprise in the presenters voice when he had to quote 68% want us to leave the EU was noticeable.
Times are changing and if they want to retain their viewers they are going to have to change as well
I also believe that we should take at face value the reports of those who report on how news outlets they believe are biased are reporting.
0 -
Have you read her speech in full?Big_G_NorthWales said:
She is compromised and should stand downTheScreamingEagles said:
Nope, she's looking at it from both points of view.Sandpit said:
Surely she's said enough by now, that she really needs to recuse herself from the A50 appeal?TheScreamingEagles said:
I agree,Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes, but she shouldn't have done that. It suggests that she will approach the case with preconceptions abut what the arguments are or ought to be, rather than listening with a fresh mind to the actual arguments presented to her in court. To avoid any possible taint that she might have pre-judged the case, she should recuse herself from the case.TheScreamingEagles said:Please, don't fall for the media hype, look at her quotes in their entirety, she explained how both sides would approach it.
Just before I left to come here, a unanimous Divisional Court held that the Secretary of State does not have power under the royal prerogative to give notice to withdraw from the European Union.
The court held that just as making a treaty does not change the law of the land, unmaking it cannot do so, but triggering article 50 will automatically have that effect. What has to be done instead is perhaps not so clear. But the case is destined for our Court, so I must say no more.
But then she did say more.
She's waiting to be persuaded by a good argument from either side.0 -
It is FPTP in all but name, modified only by the different prizes on offer in different states, and the minor variation in Nebraska and Maine.williamglenn said:
But it's not a FPTP system. It's an electoral college and the states are perfectly free to determine how they allocate their college votes. They can use FPTP, PR, AV or whatever.david_herdson said:That's true, but then it's rare for the loser of the popular vote to win the election. I think it's only the fifth time in the 228 years of elections that it's happened.
FWIW, I don't think it is a sensible system, even in a federation. FPTP has arguments in its favour for a parliamentary system; I can't really see any equivalent arguments that apply to a nation-wide elected presidency.
Really it's no wonder Remain lost when federalism runs so counter to how most people in this country think.
I did argue before the EURef that the EU would have more popular legitimacy if the Commission were directly elected from and by the MEPs.0 -
Judges do this all the time.TheScreamingEagles said:
I posted a link to her speech down below, she's putting it into the context for the Malaysian audience she was speaking to and their laws and conventions.Sandpit said:
But why is she even talking about it in public, if it's due to come before her court?TheScreamingEagles said:
Nope, she's looking at it from both points of view.Sandpit said:
Surely she's said enough by now, that she really needs to recuse herself from the A50 appeal?TheScreamingEagles said:
I agree,Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes, but she shouldn't have done that. It suggests that she will approach the case with preconceptions abut what the arguments are or ought to be, rather than listening with a fresh mind to the actual arguments presented to her in court. To avoid any possible taint that she might have pre-judged the case, she should recuse herself from the case.TheScreamingEagles said:Please, don't fall for the media hype, look at her quotes in their entirety, she explained how both sides would approach it.
Just before I left to come here, a unanimous Divisional Court held that the Secretary of State does not have power under the royal prerogative to give notice to withdraw from the European Union.
The court held that just as making a treaty does not change the law of the land, unmaking it cannot do so, but triggering article 50 will automatically have that effect. What has to be done instead is perhaps not so clear. But the case is destined for our Court, so I must say no more.
But then she did say more.
She's waiting to be persuaded by a good argument from either side.
0 -
The system has been "broken" since inception, to say that is now untenable seems unlikely.YBarddCwsc said:I'd conclude -- along with Southam -- that the current system is untenable.
Hillary would have been delighted to win if the positions were switched, and her supporters would not be complaining about a system that they have used with little change for over two centuries.
0 -
They way people are talking you'd think this was a criminal case and she's already decided that Brexit is guilty!Big_G_NorthWales said:
She is compromised and should stand downTheScreamingEagles said:
Nope, she's looking at it from both points of view.Sandpit said:
Surely she's said enough by now, that she really needs to recuse herself from the A50 appeal?TheScreamingEagles said:
I agree,Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes, but she shouldn't have done that. It suggests that she will approach the case with preconceptions abut what the arguments are or ought to be, rather than listening with a fresh mind to the actual arguments presented to her in court. To avoid any possible taint that she might have pre-judged the case, she should recuse herself from the case.TheScreamingEagles said:Please, don't fall for the media hype, look at her quotes in their entirety, she explained how both sides would approach it.
Just before I left to come here, a unanimous Divisional Court held that the Secretary of State does not have power under the royal prerogative to give notice to withdraw from the European Union.
The court held that just as making a treaty does not change the law of the land, unmaking it cannot do so, but triggering article 50 will automatically have that effect. What has to be done instead is perhaps not so clear. But the case is destined for our Court, so I must say no more.
But then she did say more.
She's waiting to be persuaded by a good argument from either side.
This is about constitutional law and I don't see how she has done anything wrong in giving that speech.0 -
''The court held that just as making a treaty does not change the law of the land, unmaking it cannot do so.''
That seems to me to be a curious statement. Does it mean the Treaty of Libson did not change the law of the land? It surely did.....?0 -
I was in California reading about this. The big objection is that time on death row is a cruel and unusual punishment, living out your life as if each month might be your last. it is also very expensive, more expensive than prison, and more expensive than a quick death.nunu said:California is not that left wing. In one proposition they voted to keep the death penalty and in the other voted for it to happen FASTER!
Hence the seemingly contradictory positions.0 -
If Judges wish to dabble in Politics, perhaps it's time they became elected officials?williamglenn said:
They way people are talking you'd think this was a criminal case and she's already decided that Brexit is guilty!Big_G_NorthWales said:
She is compromised and should stand downTheScreamingEagles said:
Nope, she's looking at it from both points of view.Sandpit said:
Surely she's said enough by now, that she really needs to recuse herself from the A50 appeal?TheScreamingEagles said:
I agree,Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes, but she shouldn't have done that. It suggests that she will approach the case with preconceptions abut what the arguments are or ought to be, rather than listening with a fresh mind to the actual arguments presented to her in court. To avoid any possible taint that she might have pre-judged the case, she should recuse herself from the case.TheScreamingEagles said:Please, don't fall for the media hype, look at her quotes in their entirety, she explained how both sides would approach it.
Just before I left to come here, a unanimous Divisional Court held that the Secretary of State does not have power under the royal prerogative to give notice to withdraw from the European Union.
The court held that just as making a treaty does not change the law of the land, unmaking it cannot do so, but triggering article 50 will automatically have that effect. What has to be done instead is perhaps not so clear. But the case is destined for our Court, so I must say no more.
But then she did say more.
She's waiting to be persuaded by a good argument from either side.
This is about constitutional law and I don't see how she has done anything wrong in giving that speech.
0 -
It is the Trumpification of Britain.williamglenn said:
They way people are talking you'd think this was a criminal case and she's already decided that Brexit is guilty!Big_G_NorthWales said:
She is compromised and should stand downTheScreamingEagles said:
Nope, she's looking at it from both points of view.Sandpit said:
Surely she's said enough by now, that she really needs to recuse herself from the A50 appeal?TheScreamingEagles said:
I agree,Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes, but she shouldn't have done that. It suggests that she will approach the case with preconceptions abut what the arguments are or ought to be, rather than listening with a fresh mind to the actual arguments presented to her in court. To avoid any possible taint that she might have pre-judged the case, she should recuse herself from the case.TheScreamingEagles said:Please, don't fall for the media hype, look at her quotes in their entirety, she explained how both sides would approach it.
Just before I left to come here, a unanimous Divisional Court held that the Secretary of State does not have power under the royal prerogative to give notice to withdraw from the European Union.
The court held that just as making a treaty does not change the law of the land, unmaking it cannot do so, but triggering article 50 will automatically have that effect. What has to be done instead is perhaps not so clear. But the case is destined for our Court, so I must say no more.
But then she did say more.
She's waiting to be persuaded by a good argument from either side.
This is about constitutional law and I don't see how she has done anything wrong in giving that speech.
That judge is Mexican he must be biased.
Lady Hale talked about Article 50, she must be biased. Burn her.0 -
Yes and it seems astonishing that any judge should make such comments in public before hearing the caseTheScreamingEagles said:
Have you read her speech in full?Big_G_NorthWales said:
She is compromised and should stand downTheScreamingEagles said:
Nope, she's looking at it from both points of view.Sandpit said:
Surely she's said enough by now, that she really needs to recuse herself from the A50 appeal?TheScreamingEagles said:
I agree,Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes, but she shouldn't have done that. It suggests that she will approach the case with preconceptions abut what the arguments are or ought to be, rather than listening with a fresh mind to the actual arguments presented to her in court. To avoid any possible taint that she might have pre-judged the case, she should recuse herself from the case.TheScreamingEagles said:Please, don't fall for the media hype, look at her quotes in their entirety, she explained how both sides would approach it.
Just before I left to come here, a unanimous Divisional Court held that the Secretary of State does not have power under the royal prerogative to give notice to withdraw from the European Union.
The court held that just as making a treaty does not change the law of the land, unmaking it cannot do so, but triggering article 50 will automatically have that effect. What has to be done instead is perhaps not so clear. But the case is destined for our Court, so I must say no more.
But then she did say more.
She's waiting to be persuaded by a good argument from either side.0 -
On the other hand, the presidency is only 'part' of government, there's checks and balances from both the Senate and Congress.YBarddCwsc said:I think Southam Observer has a good point.
In the UK system, it can be the case that the winning party in a GE has less votes than the losing party, but then Parliament is nonetheless fairly evenly split in seats between the winning and losing parties. Although not exactly representative, both sides still have a strong presence in Parliament.
The US President is a Winner-Takes-All election.
I accept that Trump won the election according to the rules, but it is highly disturbing that he lost the popular vote by so much.
I'd conclude -- along with Southam -- that the current system is untenable.0 -
Which comments?Big_G_NorthWales said:
Yes and it seems astonishing that any judge should make such comments in public before hearing the caseTheScreamingEagles said:
Have you read her speech in full?Big_G_NorthWales said:
She is compromised and should stand downTheScreamingEagles said:
Nope, she's looking at it from both points of view.Sandpit said:
Surely she's said enough by now, that she really needs to recuse herself from the A50 appeal?TheScreamingEagles said:
I agree,Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes, but she shouldn't have done that. It suggests that she will approach the case with preconceptions abut what the arguments are or ought to be, rather than listening with a fresh mind to the actual arguments presented to her in court. To avoid any possible taint that she might have pre-judged the case, she should recuse herself from the case.TheScreamingEagles said:Please, don't fall for the media hype, look at her quotes in their entirety, she explained how both sides would approach it.
Just before I left to come here, a unanimous Divisional Court held that the Secretary of State does not have power under the royal prerogative to give notice to withdraw from the European Union.
The court held that just as making a treaty does not change the law of the land, unmaking it cannot do so, but triggering article 50 will automatically have that effect. What has to be done instead is perhaps not so clear. But the case is destined for our Court, so I must say no more.
But then she did say more.
She's waiting to be persuaded by a good argument from either side.0 -
Suppose I have a game of tennis. I win 14 games, my opponent wins 12. However, he wins the match 0-6, 6-4, 6-4. Is the tennis scoring system broken and untenable?0
-
Oh dear...what a car crash...
http://order-order.com/2016/11/17/beebs-bannon-bashing-backfires/
Too much reading the Guardian from Justin Webb....Loads of seriously nasty stuff to go after Bannon for, banging on and on about him being anti-Jewish based on one single sentence in his ex-wifes divorce proceedings about how she claimed he didn't like the whiny kids at a Jewish school rather backfired...0 -
Her whole speechTheScreamingEagles said:
Which comments?Big_G_NorthWales said:
Yes and it seems astonishing that any judge should make such comments in public before hearing the caseTheScreamingEagles said:
Have you read her speech in full?Big_G_NorthWales said:
She is compromised and should stand downTheScreamingEagles said:
Nope, she's looking at it from both points of view.Sandpit said:
Surely she's said enough by now, that she really needs to recuse herself from the A50 appeal?TheScreamingEagles said:
I agree,Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes, but she shouldn't have done that. It suggests that she will approach the case with preconceptions abut what the arguments are or ought to be, rather than listening with a fresh mind to the actual arguments presented to her in court. To avoid any possible taint that she might have pre-judged the case, she should recuse herself from the case.TheScreamingEagles said:Please, don't fall for the media hype, look at her quotes in their entirety, she explained how both sides would approach it.
Just before I left to come here, a unanimous Divisional Court held that the Secretary of State does not have power under the royal prerogative to give notice to withdraw from the European Union.
The court held that just as making a treaty does not change the law of the land, unmaking it cannot do so, but triggering article 50 will automatically have that effect. What has to be done instead is perhaps not so clear. But the case is destined for our Court, so I must say no more.
But then she did say more.
She's waiting to be persuaded by a good argument from either side.0 -
One rule for Judges, another rule for councillors asked to decide on planning matters....Big_G_NorthWales said:
Yes and it seems astonishing that any judge should make such comments in public before hearing the caseTheScreamingEagles said:
Have you read her speech in full?Big_G_NorthWales said:
She is compromised and should stand downTheScreamingEagles said:
Nope, she's looking at it from both points of view.Sandpit said:
Surely she's said enough by now, that she really needs to recuse herself from the A50 appeal?TheScreamingEagles said:
I agree,Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes, but she shouldn't have done that. It suggests that she will approach the case with preconceptions abut what the arguments are or ought to be, rather than listening with a fresh mind to the actual arguments presented to her in court. To avoid any possible taint that she might have pre-judged the case, she should recuse herself from the case.TheScreamingEagles said:Please, don't fall for the media hype, look at her quotes in their entirety, she explained how both sides would approach it.
Just before I left to come here, a unanimous Divisional Court held that the Secretary of State does not have power under the royal prerogative to give notice to withdraw from the European Union.
The court held that just as making a treaty does not change the law of the land, unmaking it cannot do so, but triggering article 50 will automatically have that effect. What has to be done instead is perhaps not so clear. But the case is destined for our Court, so I must say no more.
But then she did say more.
She's waiting to be persuaded by a good argument from either side.
0 -
Nick Cohen on fine form:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/11/a-warning-for-trumps-new-apologists-cowardice-must-always-be-paid-for/
The reference to 'Stepford Students' is surely aimed at at Brendan, who's been curiously accommodating about the rise of Trump:
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/a-trumpocalypse-oh-do-grow-up/18957#.WC2oRS2LS1s0 -
It's unusual to the point being unheard-of that a judge should make any comment at all about a case he or she will be hearing. The issue isn't what she said, it's the fact that she said anything at all.TheScreamingEagles said:It is the Trumpification of Britain.
That judge is Mexican he must be biased.
Lady Hale talked about Article 50, she must be biased. Burn her.0 -
In Tennis you could also win many more rounds/rallies whatever and still lose the game in theory (ie you win every game on your serve 40-0, and lose every game at love on their serve, and then lose the tiebreak closely).SandyRentool said:Suppose I have a game of tennis. I win 14 games, my opponent wins 12. However, he wins the match 0-6, 6-4, 6-4. Is the tennis scoring system broken and untenable?
0 -
I hadn't expected to see my comments about the febrile atmosphere confirmed so quickly. Some of our regular posters have gone full-on fruitloop on the subject.0
-
On the electoral college.
The founding fathers designed the system to stop the more populous states railroading the smaller states.
Trump winning the electoral college but losing the popular vote was what they designed the system to deal with.
If you're complaining about that, then surely you'll have to complain about every state getting two senators.
I mean everyone accepts that little old Wyoming gets the same number of senators as California, despite California's population being 66 times the size of Wyoming0 -
Judges = ?
Councillors = Code of conduct
"In addition to any declaring personal or prejudicial interests, members of a planning committee need to avoid any appearance of bias or of having predetermined their views before taking a decision on a planning application. The Standards Board has provided guidance on predetermination, predisposition and bias. Avoidance of bias or predetermination is a principle of natural justice which the decisionmaker is expected to embrace by the courts. "0 -
Congress includes the Senate. There are also checks and balances from the Court and the states.Slackbladder said:
On the other hand, the presidency is only 'part' of government, there's checks and balances from both the Senate and Congress.YBarddCwsc said:I think Southam Observer has a good point.
In the UK system, it can be the case that the winning party in a GE has less votes than the losing party, but then Parliament is nonetheless fairly evenly split in seats between the winning and losing parties. Although not exactly representative, both sides still have a strong presence in Parliament.
The US President is a Winner-Takes-All election.
I accept that Trump won the election according to the rules, but it is highly disturbing that he lost the popular vote by so much.
I'd conclude -- along with Southam -- that the current system is untenable.0 -
Or Jurors.TCPoliticalBetting said:
One rule for Judges, another rule for councillors asked to decide on planning matters....Big_G_NorthWales said:
Yes and it seems astonishing that any judge should make such comments in public before hearing the caseTheScreamingEagles said:
Have you read her speech in full?Big_G_NorthWales said:
She is compromised and should stand downTheScreamingEagles said:
Nope, she's looking at it from both points of view.Sandpit said:
Surely she's said enough by now, that she really needs to recuse herself from the A50 appeal?TheScreamingEagles said:
I agree,Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes, but she shouldn't have done that. It suggests that she will approach the case with preconceptions abut what the arguments are or ought to be, rather than listening with a fresh mind to the actual arguments presented to her in court. To avoid any possible taint that she might have pre-judged the case, she should recuse herself from the case.TheScreamingEagles said:Please, don't fall for the media hype, look at her quotes in their entirety, she explained how both sides would approach it.
Just before I left to come here, a unanimous Divisional Court held that the Secretary of State does not have power under the royal prerogative to give notice to withdraw from the European Union.
The court held that just as making a treaty does not change the law of the land, unmaking it cannot do so, but triggering article 50 will automatically have that effect. What has to be done instead is perhaps not so clear. But the case is destined for our Court, so I must say no more.
But then she did say more.
She's waiting to be persuaded by a good argument from either side.0 -
Interestingly you will find that the difference in average scores per round of professional golfers doesn't necessarily correlate to how successful they are across their career...essentially because it is all about putting 4 good rounds together in a row.Slackbladder said:
In Tennis you could also win many more rounds/rallies whatever and still lose the game in theory (ie you win every game on your serve 40-0, and lose every game at love on their serve, and then lose the tiebreak closely).SandyRentool said:Suppose I have a game of tennis. I win 14 games, my opponent wins 12. However, he wins the match 0-6, 6-4, 6-4. Is the tennis scoring system broken and untenable?
There are many cases were you can compare a guy who has many tours wins vs a total flop and find over the course of their career their average round is basically the same.0 -
Off topic:
Flying by the seat of your pants...
http://www.skyliner-aviation.de/viewphoto.main?LC=nav2&picid=9796
0 -
I presume that if either party thinks Lady Hale is compromised they can apply to the Supreme Court for an order that she be recused? That would settle the question wouldn't it?Richard_Nabavi said:
It's unusual to the point being unheard-of that a judge should make any comment at all about a case he or she will be hearing. The issue isn't what she said, it's the fact that she said anything at all.TheScreamingEagles said:It is the Trumpification of Britain.
That judge is Mexican he must be biased.
Lady Hale talked about Article 50, she must be biased. Burn her.
0 -
Not of itself. It required the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008 to incorporate its provisions into UK law. The UK government couldn't ratify the treaty until the Act had been passed.taffys said:''The court held that just as making a treaty does not change the law of the land, unmaking it cannot do so.''
That seems to me to be a curious statement. Does it mean the Treaty of Libson did not change the law of the land? It surely did.....?0 -
Just like most levels in America.jcesmond said:
If Judges wish to dabble in Politics, perhaps it's time they became elected officials?williamglenn said:
They way people are talking you'd think this was a criminal case and she's already decided that Brexit is guilty!Big_G_NorthWales said:
She is compromised and should stand downTheScreamingEagles said:
Nope, she's looking at it from both points of view.Sandpit said:
Surely she's said enough by now, that she really needs to recuse herself from the A50 appeal?TheScreamingEagles said:
I agree,Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes, but she shouldn't have done that. It suggests that she will approach the case with preconceptions abut what the arguments are or ought to be, rather than listening with a fresh mind to the actual arguments presented to her in court. To avoid any possible taint that she might have pre-judged the case, she should recuse herself from the case.TheScreamingEagles said:Please, don't fall for the media hype, look at her quotes in their entirety, she explained how both sides would approach it.
Just before I left to come here, a unanimous Divisional Court held that the Secretary of State does not have power under the royal prerogative to give notice to withdraw from the European Union.
The court held that just as making a treaty does not change the law of the land, unmaking it cannot do so, but triggering article 50 will automatically have that effect. What has to be done instead is perhaps not so clear. But the case is destined for our Court, so I must say no more.
But then she did say more.
She's waiting to be persuaded by a good argument from either side.
This is about constitutional law and I don't see how she has done anything wrong in giving that speech.
0 -
Why is she incapable of seeing that herself?Carolus_Rex said:
I presume that if either party thinks Lady Hale is compromised they can apply to the Supreme Court for an order that she be recused? That would settle the question wouldn't it?Richard_Nabavi said:
It's unusual to the point being unheard-of that a judge should make any comment at all about a case he or she will be hearing. The issue isn't what she said, it's the fact that she said anything at all.TheScreamingEagles said:It is the Trumpification of Britain.
That judge is Mexican he must be biased.
Lady Hale talked about Article 50, she must be biased. Burn her.
Ah, now wait we have had 3 judges heading up the child abuse enquiry and 2 not realising that they were not independent enough.
0 -
I don't think it is. I have heard plenty of judges give talks on cases that they are to hear and about ones they are hearing.Richard_Nabavi said:
It's unusual to the point being unheard-of that a judge should make any comment at all about a case he or she will be hearing. The issue isn't what she said, it's the fact that she said anything at all.TheScreamingEagles said:It is the Trumpification of Britain.
That judge is Mexican he must be biased.
Lady Hale talked about Article 50, she must be biased. Burn her.0 -
'I hadn't expected to see my comments about the febrile atmosphere confirmed so quickly. Some of our regular posters have gone full-on fruitloop on the subject. ''
Hang on a minute. We were assured by remainers that Britain WAS independent and sovereign. That we merely needed to put the red article 50 button and, hey presto, we would be catapulted free of the EU in a trice.
Now it appears that assertion was a rank lie.
A certain amount of consternation is warranted, on that basis,0 -
The whole anti-Semitism smear is beyond rediculous.FrancisUrquhart said:Oh dear...what a car crash...
http://order-order.com/2016/11/17/beebs-bannon-bashing-backfires/
Too much reading the Guardian from Justin Webb....Loads of seriously nasty stuff to go after Bannon for, banging on and on about him being anti-Jewish based on one single sentence in his ex-wifes divorce proceedings about how she claimed he didn't like the whiny kids at a Jewish school rather backfired...
Those on the left have turned a blind eye to anti-Semitism for so long they clearly do not know what it looks like.0 -
Equaly late, but true. However the conversation then moved on to whether we were going to pen another bottle of wine, and if so, which one.Morris_Dancer said:King Cole, ah, right. But surely he could get it resprayed a new colour, if he wanted to?
0 -
Yep, brazen - but completely unsurprising - hypocrisy. It's evident on here too. Many posters who have been rightly critical of Labour over anti-Semitism have been remarkably quiet about the blatant racism of President Trump's most senior adviser, for example. Max called it out yesterday, but I can't remember many others doing it.Stark_Dawning said:Nick Cohen on fine form:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/11/a-warning-for-trumps-new-apologists-cowardice-must-always-be-paid-for/
The reference to 'Stepford Students' is surely aimed at at Brendan, who's been curiously accommodating about the rise of Trump:
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/a-trumpocalypse-oh-do-grow-up/18957#.WC2oRS2LS1s
0 -
Before we depart to another thread. "Fishing" thank you for an informative article.0
-
No, this is a terrible idea, even worse than the Electoral College. I mean, there might be a case for protecting the rights of minority groups from the tyranny of the majority, but state lines don't capture anything relevant. America has all kinds of cultural and political divides, but it isn't divided by state.TheScreamingEagles said:
I mean everyone accepts that little old Wyoming gets the same number of senators as California, despite California's population being 66 times the size of Wyoming0
This discussion has been closed.