No it is actually true and the economy recovered in part because of the tax rate cuts which produced the revenue increases. Again Presidents are not kings and they do not control spending, American Government 101. •Tax cuts had little to do with the explosion of the deficit. The deficits of the1980s are often blamed on the Reagan tax cuts of 1981. But the problem was not government income. Government receipts had almost doubled, rising from $517 billion in 1980 to $1.031 trillion in 1990. •Congress outspent Reagan in every year. Congress typically savaged Reagan’s spending requests as draconian and heartless. Then, the appropriators rewrote the budget for their priorities and spent a cumulative$209 billion above Reagan’s requests from 1982-1989. •Congress spent substantially more on entitlements than Reagan requested. Reagan routinely asked for money-saving entitlement reforms. Congress ignored the reforms and increased benefits and eligibility for entitlements. •Reagan’s budget requests for the military were consistently higher than the levels Congress appropriated. Congress spent about $80 billion less than Reagan requested on the military, but still spent around $390 billion more on domestic programs. •Reagan recission requests were ignored. Reagan asked that $43.4 billion of appropriated funds not be spent. Congress approved only $16.5 billion, leaving $26.8 billion spent. These frustrations have also plagued almost all recent presidents. Congress spent almost a half-trillion dollars of deficit spending above the requests of presidents from 1976 - 1993. •Bill Clinton, on the other hand, is the first president in over twenty years who has outspent Congress. During Clinton’s first two years, the 103rdCongress spent $54 billion less than Clinton requested. The 104th Congress spent $58 billion less than Clinton asked. https://www.ipi.org/docLib/reagandf.pdf-OpenElement.pdf
I posted the OP, therefore I read it. The candidate that got the most votes by the system installed got elected... I'm sure you'll be making this same stupid point when Trump has a possible electoral college victory on Election Eve, before mail in votes are counted... Just go ahead and declare victory now... it will have the same effect as doing it election eve...
FFS, you are wrong on this topic as well as SOL tolling... Good to see you keeping that batting average at .000 SNIP On November 8, 2016, Maine's Question 5, the Ranked Choice Voting Act, passed with 52% support, earning the second-greatest number of votes in the history of initiatives in Maine. Maine's first use of ranked choice voting under this law took place on June 12, 2018, when ranked choice voting was used in Maine's state and federal primary elections. ENDSNIP https://www.fairvote.org/maine_ballot_initiative
Sorry about the comment that you didn't read your own OP. But I am terribly confused. You said, "..... In 2018, former GOP Rep. Bruce Poliquin had a 2,000-vote lead over Democrat Jared Golden but failed to get a majority on the initial ballot. Under the rules of ranked choice voting, the third-party candidates dropped and Golden cleaned up as the second choice among their supporters......." That clearly IMHO says that Poliquin got the most votes but was not elected. No one can have an electoral college victory until the college votes in December
I thought trump/clinton was bad but If trump/biden doesn't spur us to change our broken two party system I don't think anything will. There has never been a lose-lose proposition like this in our countries history.
Don't know how the ranked voting would change that. Better idea for that would be get rid of the primary system entirely and have the parties actually choose their own candidates at the conventions. That would stop the 4 year long campaigns that start the day after the inauguration and the incessant fund raising.
I support one person, one vote. This ranked nonsense takes that theory and shoots it to pieces. This is more akin to one person casting multiple votes...
Nonsense. It is otherwise known as instant-runoff for a reason. Your individual vote never counts more than once. The point is that if you voted for a third party (like a Perot) who will not win, your vote may be reassigned if you express a preference for who your second choice would have been. It gives the voters a way to still vote their conscious by eliminating the spoiler effect which may cause candidates to win with less than 50% of the vote. It likewise eliminates the rationale behind tactical voting. It is absolutely not equivalent in any way with one person casting multiple votes under first past the post rules.
Absolutely a false characterization of the voting mechanism illustrating you either don't know any better or don't care. In instant-runoff you vote once.
That's not the way it reads. It reads that if I vote for X but no one gets a majority then they change my vote to Y which is essentially I, and all like me but not others, voting twice.
Really? "..... " in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, ....." One out of five achieved. Fail. I name the Right Wing, with its uncompromising, instinctive self-interest at the expense of community well-being, as the culprits.
" As long as I am president, I will defend the absolute right of every American citizen to live in security, dignity, and peace...." -Donald Trump (GOP renomination acceptance speech) " Except those crushed by the US neoliberal 'dog eat dog' economic system, which in case you don't know actually mandates a certain level of unemployment as an inflation control (see the NAIRU concept in orthodox economics) . Hence the BLM protests that gained support all around the world. Trump's solution? Wait for the rioting to start - as it will because protesting doesn't change the Right Wing's indifference to generational poverty - then bring in the army..... "security, dignity, and peace...." indeed....
Nooo.... If your vote is "changed" to Y, it means X didn't get enough votes to stay in the race and Y was YOUR second choice. Your vote only counts once... like all people who vote... Except me, because I have several changes of clothes in my trunk for Election Day to allow me to vote multiple times.....
Not fail. The Constitution did in fact form a more perfect union (as a republic). established justice, set up a process to insure domestic Tranquility, provided for the common defense, and set up a process that would promote (not provide) the general welfare, which meant not doing stuff that would materially interfere with the public pursuing their desires.
No that is what happen's, some get their first vote cancelled and a second vote applied. Just have a run off between the top two.
False. All the votes are counted including yours. No one wins a majority and yours not a top two so your second vote is now counted. That's two votes counted.
Here's an example of the tallying for Instant Runoff using votes from right here at PoliticalForum: http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?goto/post&id=1068992191 There's a walk-through of the process at the bottom of that post. The winner of that method is the option that gets a majority, or if no option gets a majority, the last option left standing as other options are eliminated due to not having enough support. Note in the ballot images that only one vote from each ballot is ever considered at any one stage. -Meta
