In today’s reality a handful of even larger cities than in the 1790’s and 1800’s would have the ability to disenfranchise a vast swath of the voting public.
I don’t think it’s out of touch with modern reality. There are very good reasons for the system we have, namely without it the ~4 largest cities in the country would effectively elect the president.
Trump won 2,623 counties.
Clinton won 489 counties.
If we required states to allocate the electoral votes based on the percentages of the voters wanting any particular candidate (some have, some refuse) Trump would have received even more electoral votes because the Democratic states with the largest electoral votes refuse to abandon the winner take all system.
[quote=“ombugge, post:161, topic:44935, full:true”]
…based on an electoral system suitable for the late 1790’s and early 1800’s, but totally out of touch with today’s reality…[/quote]
How about countries with no elected president at all, where the King or the Queen are just the result of the royal parents’ sexual activity?
A thing called “Degressive Proportionality” is widely used today, even if recently introduced, it has its merits.
Countries having elected lower and upper houses of parliament, with nearly equal powers, as the USA with the House and the Senate, use it to balance the population differences at the sunny California beaches and in the rainy Vermont hills. The House is elected countrywide nearly proportionally; each state sends two senators to DC.
Even the praised postwar European Union had to moderate the huge population discrepancies between member states; from Germany with 81 millions to Malta with 400,000 inhabitants.
The ‘Council of the European Union’ is a sort of upper house, where the member states declare their wills and wishes. With differentiated quorums, they hope to forbid ‘dictatorships’ by the big or by the small member states. Sometimes unanimity is necessary, sometimes a double quorum with say 55% of the member states and 65% of the overall population.
In the ‘European Parliament’, the lower house, the number of seats a member state has is biased in favor of the small members. In Germany, one seat stands for 843,000 inhabitants while 70,000 Maltese have the same right.
So far for today’s reality…
Isn’t it true that the Presidency is the only political office that is directly elected by all votes in the country, while Senators are elected by individual States and Congressmen/women in individual Congressional constituencies (sometimes gerrymandered)??
Yes the “one person, one vote” principle give an unproportional power to elect the President to voters in the big states and cities and may not be “fair” to the small and largely agrarian States.
But it is very much in tune with the democratic principle of “majority rules”. The checks and balance should come from the Congress, Senate, the Courts and the fourth estate, being the press. (Now also the “fifth estate”, being social media and all kinds of bloggers etc.)
I know that this is a contentious subject and not likely to be solved here, so let’s let it rest.
The remaining Kingdoms of Western Europe, (+ Japan, Malaysia and a few other countries) are all Constitutional Kingdoms, where the King/Queen is the largely ceremonial “Head of State”, with no political power. (Different from the Middle East Kingdoms, Bhutan and Brunei)
BTW; Canada, Australia, New Zealand and a number of other former British Colonies (incl. Papua New Guinea) also have the Queen of Britain as their Head of State,
All European Kingdoms are governed by the Westminster System of Parliament, where the Head of Government is the Prime Minister, appointed by the King/Queen, but on the recommendation of a majority in the Parliament. If the Prime Minister no longer command a majority he/she will notify the King/Queen of his/her resignation and a new Prime Minister will be selected by the sitting Parliament by the same process. (No need for re-election)
The Upper and Lower Chambers of Parliament is selected different in different countries, mostly in an election by the people. Except in the UK, where part of the House of Lords are hereditary and partly appointed by the Prime Minister (Government) from among noted public and private figures, many of them former politicians as a reward for their past service. (This MAY be revised soon)
As to the arrangement in the European Union, it is a different matter.
With 28 (soon 27) sovereign states trying to make all decisions by consensus. A difficult task and a work in progress.
Sorry about this lecture, as I know that many here is fully conversant on how things work, in Europe and the rest of the world. But from my experience, I find that many Americans know little or nothing about things outside USA and just assume that things have to be the same, or similar, otherwise “no good”.
Some I have discussed politic with believe that European style “Social Democracy” is a contradiction in terms; “How can it be democratic if socialistic”???
Did you know that every Norwegian, man, woman and child is a Millionaire?? (In NOK at least): http://www.reuters.com/article/us-no…-idUSKBN18T283
herr Bugge, I suggest you cease adding to this thread because nobody cares anymore
Wow are you still adding to this thread? Once again you are making generalization and assumptions about Americans that reeks of a pretty misguided superiority complex. Especially on this web site where all of us have worked literally all over the world and have been lectured many times by folks such as yourself about how wonderful they are and why, and how bad we are and why. After doing a little bit of research (it really didn’t take much), I find, that when I’m not feeling real positive about my own government all I have to do is remember those little “lessons” men like you have given me in to the nuances, nuts and bolts, and foibles of various countries in Europe, and I feel MUCH better about being a citizen of my country. I won’t list all those lovely faults of yours and other European governments (although I usually start with Belgian, and then work my way down to Norway cuz, WOW do you guys make me feel better about my government). Everyone in Norway is a millionaire because you NEED to be to afford to live there, and everyone else is shipped out to I dunno where. Enjoy the suicide rates! Peace…
I’m glad for you that you are proud of your country and feel good about your Government, although the Congress is so partisan that they cannot agree about anything and the present Administration is too preoccupied with explaining Presidential tweets and dismantling whatever the previous administration did to get anything done of their own.
With the US largely having abdicated the throne of “World Leadership”, the UK in political turmoils and Europe too divided to lead, the stage is set for China to take the lead. The “Asian Century” has begun.
As for “Norwegians being millionaires”; maybe you should open the link before commenting.
This refers to the Oil Fund, which is still growing despite the low oil price.
The Government cannot dip into this fund as they please, as only 3% of the yield can be withdrawn per year by Law.
Actually most Norwegian are Millionaires in NOK terms,outside the Oil Fund, but that is not in disposable income. With most people owning their own homes and in many cases a second home abroad, and/or a cottage in the mountains, or by the sea.
In USD terms there are also many Millionaires in Norway. Norway had the most Millionaires per capita back in 2007, but it does not rank among the top in that league anymore: https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/11/01/the-country-with-the-highest-percentage-of-million.aspx
If you wonder why Norwegians are “rich” and Americans not so rich, maybe this will explain it for you: http://abcnews.go.com/Business/norwegians-millionaires-norways-sovereign-wealth-fund/story?id=21488085
Like I said earlier, you should be proud of your country and let me be proud of my two “home countries”, Norway with it’s accomplishment in Marine Technology and management of it’s oil wealth and Singapore for it’s development, from a colonial backwater to the third richest country in the world in terms of GDP (PPP) per capita in a matter of 50 years, ahead of Norway and without natural resources.
Hopefully he can keep up the frenetic pace.
The Aasta Hansteen spar has arrived in Norway and will be discharged from Dockwise Vanguard in the nearest few days (weather permitting).
Here is an article from TU with video of the Loadout in Korea the discharging in Hoylandsbygd and the intended upending operation in Klosterfjorden: https://www.tu.no/artikler/na-naermer-det-seg-den-spektakulaere-snuoperasjonen-av-aasta-hansteen-skroget/396048
Update: She has arrived. Picture with updated report: https://www.tu.no/artikler/na-naermer-det-seg-den-spektakulaere-snuoperasjonen-av-aasta-hansteen-skroget/396048
The upending of the Aasta Hansteen Spare has commenced: http://sysla.no/offshore/na-heves-aasta-hansteen/
The Spare will be towed to Stord in upright position, at a draft of 160 m., where the deck will be mated by “Float-over” and the completed assembly towed to the field for installation sometime later this year.
First Oil is due late 2018.
The one and only Gas fire power plant in Norway will be dismantled and scrapped, unless somebody wants to buy for export for re-use somewhere where Gas is seen as a clean alternative for power generation: http://www.hegnar.no/Nyheter/Energi/2017/07/Kaarstoe-kraftverket-skal-rives
Built in 2007 at a cost of NOK 2.0 Bn. and hardly used. Link with full specs here: http://naturkraft.no/about-karsto-gas-power-plants/
In Norway Gas is regarded as a dirty fuel (relative to Hydro power, that is) and frowned upon by Naturalists and even the Government. The Kaasto Gas Power Station was built as backup to the normal electric supply. It was seen as a “necessary evil”, but has proven not to be needed and more of a problem for the Authorities: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kårstø_Power_Station
MS Lofoten is 53 years old and still going strong: https://www.hurtigrutenresan.se/en-us/our-ships/ms-lofoten/
Despite being old, without stabilizers and with vintage standard of amenities, this ship has a large following of people from all over the world that have made the trip on this ship many times and would not dream of joining any of the other 10, more modern and comfortable, ships in the service.
She is serving the Hurtigruten (Coastal Express) and making regular 11-day roundtrip Bergen-Kirkenes-Bergen, with 34 stops each way year around and every day:
Here is the impression of an Aussie blogger from a spring roundtrip on MS Lofoten: http://www.adventureliesinfront.com/crossing-the-arctic-circle-on-the-hurtigruten-ms-lofoten-in-norway/