The Reason for Voting--I can't find a reason to vote.

[Jagella]

I've heard many times that we should vote in an election. Democracy won't work unless the voters get to the polls and cast their ballots! Or so we are told. In my opinion, voting is a waste of time.

Let's take a look at democracy or "majority rule." In what way is the majority fit to rule? I often disagree with the majority and find the majority's opinion to be foolish or even dangerous. The support for capital punishment is one example of such majority barbarism. The mob rules is no basis for sound government.

Even if I accepted democracy as a good basis for government, I should point out that we don't have a democracy. We have what's supposed to be a republic and a republic in name only. Who really rules America isn't the majority or those who are supposed to represent the majority. The wealthy rule America. Our current president is a billionaire, for example.

In any case, I don't vote and haven't voted since I voted for Obama in 2008. I've found that who is president makes no difference for me or anybody else I know. And if you want to tell me that I have no right to complain if I don't vote, then that's not a problem for me because I don't complain. Why complain about the jerks in office who were put there by the voters? Actually it is the voters who have no right to complain. They put the jerks in office, after all.

So what would I like for a government? I think we should rigorously train and educate our nation's leaders. Those interested in a leadership position would need to attend courses in which they are taught how to govern. They would take exams and those that make the best scores would be chosen to lead. They would be tested for physical and mental health, general intelligence and problem solving abilities, and the technicalities of government.

Anyway, that's the way I look at it.

[McCulloch]

Honest question. In what way is Trump 'inexperienced'?

Every other president elected to the White House, has had public service experience. Every one had been a Representative, Senator, State Governor, Senior Cabinet Post, General or Vice President. Some of them have served in more than one of these roles. Donald Trump has not done any public service. He had no diplomatic or military experience. He has never before represented the public in any capacity.

Your country has elected someone to the top elected position who has never been elected to any other post. You have appointed the commander in chief of the armed services who has never served in the military. You have appointed the top diplomat in the country a man with no diplomatic experience.

[rikuoamero]

Honest question. In what way is Trump 'inexperienced'?

Every other president elected to the White House, has had public service experience. Every one had been a Representative, Senator, State Governor, Senior Cabinet Post, General or Vice President. Some of them have served in more than one of these roles. Donald Trump has not done any public service. He had no diplomatic or military experience. He has never before represented the public in any capacity.

Your country has elected someone to the top elected position who has never been elected to any other post. You have appointed the commander in chief of the armed services who has never served in the military. You have appointed the top diplomat in the country a man with no diplomatic experience.

Methinks one doesn't know that I am a proud son of the Emerald Isle, the Land of Saints and scholars. So I could not have voted for Trump.
As for why you say he is inexperienced, is this a rule you'd like to see implemented? Government office restricted only to those with government or military experience? There have been presidents before with no military experience. I don't know about no prior Government experience for past prez's...

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 12 by rikuoamero]

Sorry to butt in, just dropping my $0.05 Canadian.

For most top positions like CEO, General, President, etc. one normally expects people to 'rise through the ranks' at least a little bit. These positions require experience that any joe shmoe off the street is not going to have.

What seems to have happened in the US is that a CEO who has experience running companies (and not all of them very well) seems to think that running a country requires the same skillset. As I think we have all witnessed, this is sadly not true. If the US were a dictatorship, Trump would be having a grand ole time, but he is quickly learning that democracies are not fortune 500 companies.

[McCulloch]

Honest question. In what way is Trump 'inexperienced'?

Every other president elected to the White House, has had public service experience. Every one had been a Representative, Senator, State Governor, Senior Cabinet Post, General or Vice President. Some of them have served in more than one of these roles. Donald Trump has not done any public service. He had no diplomatic or military experience. He has never before represented the public in any capacity.

Your country has elected someone to the top elected position who has never been elected to any other post. You have appointed the commander in chief of the armed services who has never served in the military. You have appointed the top diplomat in the country a man with no diplomatic experience.

Methinks one doesn't know that I am a proud son of the Emerald Isle, the Land of Saints and scholars. So I could not have voted for Trump.
As for why you say he is inexperienced, is this a rule you'd like to see implemented? Government office restricted only to those with government or military experience? There have been presidents before with no military experience. I don't know about no prior Government experience for past prez's...

I do wonder why a party that should have known better decided to nominate a noob. Then I wonder at the why the American voters (less than half of them anyway) voted for the guy who did his best during the campaign to prove that he was completely inadequate to the task. I did not suggest any rules. I have merely pointed out that your forty-fifth president is by far, the least experienced president in your history.

But, since you have asked, I have a few suggestions that would make your democracy better.

• Before a candidate's name be put on the presidential ballot, he or she must disclose any potential conflicts of interest and recent tax returns.
• End gerrymandering by taking the decisions regarding electoral boundaries away from politicians. It is not that hard to do. Every other western democracy has done it.
• Change the Electoral College winner take all policy. States should appoint electors in proportion to the actual votes in the state. I would say eliminate the Electoral College all together but that would require a Constitutional Ammendment. Those are notoriously hard to do.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 14 by McCulloch]

I have merely pointed out that your forty-fifth president is by far, the least experienced president in your history.

McC...I'm Irish. As in, I'm in Ireland. He's not my president. Don't know how to say it any plainer than that.

Before a candidate's name be put on the presidential ballot, he or she must disclose any potential conflicts of interest and recent tax returns.

Agree

End gerrymandering by taking the decisions regarding electoral boundaries away from politicians. It is not that hard to do. Every other western democracy has done it.

Change the Electoral College winner take all policy. States should appoint electors in proportion to the actual votes in the state. I would say eliminate the Electoral College all together but that would require a Constitutional Ammendment. Those are notoriously hard to do.

This then means the more populous states will be able to dominate the elections, while lesser populated states have little to no influence.

[McCulloch]

McC...I'm Irish. As in, I'm in Ireland. He's not my president. Don't know how to say it any plainer than that.

Sorry about that. Americans of Irish ancestry also claim to be Irish. But they use the term Indian to describe indigenous people not people from India and won't use the term American to refer to North or South Americans not living in their country. Terminology can be confusing. Please interpret you and your comments to be directed at the OP.

Change the Electoral College winner take all policy. States should appoint electors in proportion to the actual votes in the state. I would say eliminate the Electoral College all together but that would require a Constitutional Ammendment. Those are notoriously hard to do.

This then means the more populous states will be able to dominate the elections, while lesser populated states have little to no influence.

No. I would not change the number of electors for any specific state. Right now in 48 of the 50 states, if a party gets 51% of the votes in that state, all of its electors are pledged to that party. I suggest that if a party gets 51% of the votes in a state then about 51% of the electors for that state should be pledged to that party.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 16 by McCulloch]

Americans of Irish ancestry also claim to be Irish.

Really? Let me guess..."I'm Irish, because my great great great great grand mother came here fleeing the Famine of 1845, even though neither myself nor anyone I know from the family has ever visited Ireland" is a common thing?

Sorry about that.

No apologies needed. Water under the bridge. I simply didn't know that tendency for Irish Americans to say they're still Irish.

No. I would not change the number of electors for any specific state. Right now in 48 of the 50 states, if a party gets 51% of the votes in that state, all of its electors are pledged to that party. I suggest that if a party gets 51% of the votes in a state then about 51% of the electors for that state should be pledged to that party.

I suppose at that point, you're going to pull a King Solomon and cut one of the electors in half?

[Jagella]

I like voting. There's two people running to be leader. I get to vote my say in which one I want. I'll take that over a school exam any day.

OK. That's one reason to vote. LOL

How can you fairly score whose most qualified to lead when there's such polarizing views on how it's best to lead in the first place.

Like I've said elsewhere, we can choose who's qualified to practice medicine and law. In the same way we need to educate and test our leaders. A president, for instance, needs to understand the US Constitution, the constitutions of other nations, the cultures of America and other nations, economics, basic science, religion, American history, military history, the role of the armed forces and weaponry, and other subjects. Whoever can demonstrate the most knowledge of these issues and apply this knowledge for the favor of America, should be in a leadership position.

Jagella

[Jagella]

Trump won the election constitutionally. Is that fact an indicator of what's wrong with our Constitution?

I'm not sure that this indicates that something is "wrong" with our Constitution. But it might indicate that our free democracy might be far more fragile than we would like to believe.

A man I know told me I should have voted in the last presidential election, but if I had voted for Trump, then I'm sure he would have disapproved! So yes, the partisan politics in America demonstrates to me that people don't really want democracy--they want leaders that they like. To heck with voting when it results in elected officials that we feel deserve to be ridiculed. In that way I agree that democracy might be fragile.

I also do not "hate" Trump.

I don't tell anybody who to hate or love. That's up to them.

I'm from Pennsylvania.

I live in Williamsport.

Jagella

[Jagella]

No difference? One side wants to bring your healthcare and educational systems into exclusive for profit businesses while the other wants to gradually nudge the USA towards these as universal services as most other developed countries did in the twentieth century.

So far I've experienced no differences under Trump. It's just like under Obama. I think it's unlikely that Trump's proposed cuts to LIHEAP, Medicaid, and food stamps will pass. If he does succeed in cutting funding to those programs, then it won't make too much difference to me because the government has been cutting help to the poor for a long time--under presidents who were democrats as well as presidents who were republicans.

Jagella