More absurdity:
As well as the poll spouting some nonsense that the approval ratings of the current President of the United States are somehow in good shape despite clearly being unsuitable for the position, the poll also notes 2016 Democratic presidential candidate and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's approval rating.
My question is this: Why is Hillary Clinton being treated as though she's still running for president? Supporters of the current president demand that everyone who opposed him "move on" from the election yet they enjoy attacking Clinton at any given opportunity and using her as a deflection for the atrocious policies of the president. This poll that tracks her approval rating makes no sense: She's not running for president; she's a private citizen again. Senator John McCain and former Governor Mitt Romney - President Barack Obama's two Republican opponents - never had this after they lost. Once they were defeated, no one cared about them.
Oh, never mind - I know the reason why Clinton is receiving this negative treatment...it's because she's a woman. She's a woman who ran against the patriarchal system and as a result, she received frequent reminders of her defeat and supposed unpopularity. Misogynists will try to deny this but since McCain and Romney weren't given any similar post-election humiliation...yeah, it's misogyny at fault here.
Showing posts with label John McCain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John McCain. Show all posts
Friday, 10 March 2017
Wednesday, 11 January 2017
"...but Hillary!"
The United States presidential election has been finished for over two months. Since her defeat, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has effectively disappeared from the news, save from the occasional mention. This is consistent with previous major-party losing candidates.
Despite this, her former opponent's supporters - and even her opponent himself - frequently bring up her name, almost always to deflect criticism from the president-elect. In nearly every online discussion I've seen that involves criticising the president-elect, the only defense of his actions by his supporters is to mention Clinton's faults, or the "...but Hillary!" defense.
To me, this is the opposite of when these people constantly brought up President Obama's "57 states" comment. Whereas in that case, they kept bringing it up because they didn't have anything significant to criticize Obama for, here they keep resorting to "...but Hillary!" because they don't have any good reason to defend the president-elect and have no choice but to deflect. They know their candidate is terrible but aren't at the point yet to abandon him.
As recently as the past 24-48 hours, the president-elect briefly attacked Clinton in his disastrous press conference. Could you imagine if President Obama spent eight and four years, respectively, making snide comments about Senator John McCain and former Governor Mitt Romney? At the very least, he would have been slammed for unprofessionalism.
Despite this, her former opponent's supporters - and even her opponent himself - frequently bring up her name, almost always to deflect criticism from the president-elect. In nearly every online discussion I've seen that involves criticising the president-elect, the only defense of his actions by his supporters is to mention Clinton's faults, or the "...but Hillary!" defense.
To me, this is the opposite of when these people constantly brought up President Obama's "57 states" comment. Whereas in that case, they kept bringing it up because they didn't have anything significant to criticize Obama for, here they keep resorting to "...but Hillary!" because they don't have any good reason to defend the president-elect and have no choice but to deflect. They know their candidate is terrible but aren't at the point yet to abandon him.
As recently as the past 24-48 hours, the president-elect briefly attacked Clinton in his disastrous press conference. Could you imagine if President Obama spent eight and four years, respectively, making snide comments about Senator John McCain and former Governor Mitt Romney? At the very least, he would have been slammed for unprofessionalism.
Thursday, 31 May 2012
About the United States Electoral College
During the United States presidential election of 2000, my mother told me that the president was not chosen directly by the people, but rather via the Electoral College. Back then I took her comment literally and thought that there was a college somewhere in the United States where a group of students chose the president. I later learnt that this was not the case.
So what is the Electoral College? Back in 1787 at the Constitutional Convention (a gathering formed to address the challenges of governing the United States and to overcome the difficulties the Articles of Confederation was having in keeping the states united), it was agreed that Congress would choose the president, and a certain amount of electors would be allocated to each state depending on its population size. Delegates from smaller states favored this method, as they were concerned about the populations of bigger states dominating the presidential elections. During that period only some states held direct votes to determine which candidate their presidential electors would give their votes to, unlike today where all states have a popular vote.
There are 538 electoral votes, and a candidate needs 270 to win the election; the 538 figure comes from adding up all members of the House of Representatives (435), the senators (100), and the three electoral votes granted to Washington D.C. after it was allowed to vote in the presidential elections under the 23rd Amendment. It is not necessary to win a majority of the states or even win the largest share of the popular vote to be victorious in a presidential election.
While the people of each state vote to decide who their state's electoral votes will go to, 26 states do not have any laws to prevent "faithless electors". A faithless elector is an elector who votes for a candidate that the people of their state did not vote for. As an example, Texas does not have any laws punishing faithless electors; in 2008, there was nothing legally stopping the the electors of Texas from supporting then-Senator and subsequently President Barack Obama despite the state voting for Senator John McCain. Fortunately, in the absence of laws the vast majority of the presidential electors respect the vote of their state and votes in accordance with the people.
Under the 2010 Census, theoretically a candidate could win the 11 largest states by population while simultaneously losing the smaller 39. The electoral votes of California (55), Texas (38), New York (29), Florida (29), Pennsylvania (20), Illinois (20), Ohio (18), Georgia (16), Michigan (16), North Carolina (15), and New Jersey (14) would carry a candidate to 270 and thus narrowly win the election. However, under the current political demographics of the United States this is unlikely: for example, Vermont is worth three electoral votes, and is a highly liberal state; California and New York are also liberal states, and therefore all three vote the same way.
There are arguments for and against the Electoral College. The main reason I have observed for its preservation is that it ensures the smaller states and rural areas have a voice in the presidential elections: if the the elections were decided on the popular vote only, it has been said that the candidates would campaign hard for votes in the big states and cities at the expense of the smaller places. Regarding arguments against, critics of the Electoral College have stated that under the current political demographics it ensures that roughly 10 "swing states" decide the elections while the remaining 40 are mostly safe states for both major parties. In addition, it has been said that if the governors, senators and House representatives are all decided by a direct vote then the president should be as well.
At the present time all attempts to abolish the Electoral College have been unsuccessful. The last major attempt to fail was during 1969-1971 under Richard Nixon, when a constitutional amendment to have the president directly elected by the people was approved by the House; but in the Senate it was filibustered, put aside by the Senate Majority Leader, and ultimately expired when the Congress of that time came to the end of its term. Currently, a new movement to end the Electoral College and change to a system where the president is directly elected is being worked on by the states themselves, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC). Eight states and D.C. have ratified the agreement, totalling 132 electoral votes among them; should more states ratify and the amount of electoral votes of the states in the agreement surpasses 270, then the NPVIC would come into effect and the next presidential election would be decided by the popular vote rather than the Electoral College. However, it is likely that congressional approval would be sought before the NPVIC overrides the Electoral College.
I hope this post gives useful insight into the Electoral College of the United States; I can say that I certainly learnt some more about the system while doing my research for this piece. Finally, I would like to thank my brother for his help in clarifying a few points for me.
So what is the Electoral College? Back in 1787 at the Constitutional Convention (a gathering formed to address the challenges of governing the United States and to overcome the difficulties the Articles of Confederation was having in keeping the states united), it was agreed that Congress would choose the president, and a certain amount of electors would be allocated to each state depending on its population size. Delegates from smaller states favored this method, as they were concerned about the populations of bigger states dominating the presidential elections. During that period only some states held direct votes to determine which candidate their presidential electors would give their votes to, unlike today where all states have a popular vote.
There are 538 electoral votes, and a candidate needs 270 to win the election; the 538 figure comes from adding up all members of the House of Representatives (435), the senators (100), and the three electoral votes granted to Washington D.C. after it was allowed to vote in the presidential elections under the 23rd Amendment. It is not necessary to win a majority of the states or even win the largest share of the popular vote to be victorious in a presidential election.
While the people of each state vote to decide who their state's electoral votes will go to, 26 states do not have any laws to prevent "faithless electors". A faithless elector is an elector who votes for a candidate that the people of their state did not vote for. As an example, Texas does not have any laws punishing faithless electors; in 2008, there was nothing legally stopping the the electors of Texas from supporting then-Senator and subsequently President Barack Obama despite the state voting for Senator John McCain. Fortunately, in the absence of laws the vast majority of the presidential electors respect the vote of their state and votes in accordance with the people.
Under the 2010 Census, theoretically a candidate could win the 11 largest states by population while simultaneously losing the smaller 39. The electoral votes of California (55), Texas (38), New York (29), Florida (29), Pennsylvania (20), Illinois (20), Ohio (18), Georgia (16), Michigan (16), North Carolina (15), and New Jersey (14) would carry a candidate to 270 and thus narrowly win the election. However, under the current political demographics of the United States this is unlikely: for example, Vermont is worth three electoral votes, and is a highly liberal state; California and New York are also liberal states, and therefore all three vote the same way.
There are arguments for and against the Electoral College. The main reason I have observed for its preservation is that it ensures the smaller states and rural areas have a voice in the presidential elections: if the the elections were decided on the popular vote only, it has been said that the candidates would campaign hard for votes in the big states and cities at the expense of the smaller places. Regarding arguments against, critics of the Electoral College have stated that under the current political demographics it ensures that roughly 10 "swing states" decide the elections while the remaining 40 are mostly safe states for both major parties. In addition, it has been said that if the governors, senators and House representatives are all decided by a direct vote then the president should be as well.
At the present time all attempts to abolish the Electoral College have been unsuccessful. The last major attempt to fail was during 1969-1971 under Richard Nixon, when a constitutional amendment to have the president directly elected by the people was approved by the House; but in the Senate it was filibustered, put aside by the Senate Majority Leader, and ultimately expired when the Congress of that time came to the end of its term. Currently, a new movement to end the Electoral College and change to a system where the president is directly elected is being worked on by the states themselves, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC). Eight states and D.C. have ratified the agreement, totalling 132 electoral votes among them; should more states ratify and the amount of electoral votes of the states in the agreement surpasses 270, then the NPVIC would come into effect and the next presidential election would be decided by the popular vote rather than the Electoral College. However, it is likely that congressional approval would be sought before the NPVIC overrides the Electoral College.
I hope this post gives useful insight into the Electoral College of the United States; I can say that I certainly learnt some more about the system while doing my research for this piece. Finally, I would like to thank my brother for his help in clarifying a few points for me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)