Trump WAS the president

Sly

Elite Member
Oct 18, 2002
28,748
878
Sly:
Electoral college voting system if implemented per constitution could be the savior of the union in a federal system.
Currently only 2 out of 50 states excessive the right of proportional representation ( Nebraska and Maine). Others elect delegates to the college as a whole package, albeit provided that states amend their constitution prior to election date of nov 3 , they could devise their own system of delegate selection, which generally falls under domain of state legislatures.
Ironically, this is a borrowed Theoretical socialist concept used to manage federal system . By the time socialist governments were borne in early 20th century, this concept
Never worked for them and hardly implemented ( except early few years of soviet revolution).
I agree with maziar on the argument of the system giving a say to less industrialized and less populated areas of states.
Thank you for your interesting explanation.

However the whole concept of democracy is that the majority should rule. The minorities will have a say by casting their votes. But letting the minority rule from time to time is way more than just "giving them a say". It would end up outside the concept of democracy, wouldn't it?
 

Sly

Elite Member
Oct 18, 2002
28,748
878
20 years ago IRIB showed women on their series wearing a plain roosari now they wear 2 roosaris on top of each other or a black chador.
Now they show western films/series with women wearing no hijab at all. I guess you haven't been to Iran in a long time dude.
 

rahim

Elite Member
Oct 23, 2003
3,151
2,674
behbahan
Sly:
Theoretically, majority speaks. In terms of representation in the parliament. The whole system is designed with balance in mind. In this system, president supposedly is only one of the 3 pillars of power.
Pros and cons are supposed to balance each other.
Again, the most capitalist nation in the world, has to defer to socialist concept to retain their balance.

Most of red states are known to be welfare states, meaning that they exist based on the charity of wealthier blue states. For example California Gets 40 cents back in federal funds for every dollar that they send to the feds while some south East or mid west states get almost double of their tax sent to the feds.
These measures were deemed necessary to keep the union intact to avoid another civil war.
The concept of Keeping the union mandates Giving extra privilege to the less influential.
Ironically recipients of these extra advantages are in the forefront of opposition to provide an extra hand to the minorities in personal level.
For them social measures as long as it benefits them and is not called socialist like Medicare, affordable care act, even their professional sports leagues are ok, but got forbid if they stick that label on a politician. Such as how trump was successfully able to get Cuban American votes in Florida to win the states.
 

Sly

Elite Member
Oct 18, 2002
28,748
878
Sly:
Theoretically, majority speaks. In terms of representation in the parliament. The whole system is designed with balance in mind. In this system, president supposedly is only one of the 3 pillars of power.
Pros and cons are supposed to balance each other.
Again, the most capitalist nation in the world, has to defer to socialist concept to retain their balance.

Most of red states are known to be welfare states, meaning that they exist based on the charity of wealthier blue states. For example California Gets 40 cents back in federal funds for every dollar that they send to the feds while some south East or mid west states get almost double of their tax sent to the feds.
These measures were deemed necessary to keep the union intact to avoid another civil war.
The concept of Keeping the union mandates Giving extra privilege to the less influential.
Ironically recipients of these extra advantages are in the forefront of opposition to provide an extra hand to the minorities in personal level.
For them social measures as long as it benefits them and is not called socialist like Medicare, affordable care act, even their professional sports leagues are ok, but got forbid if they stick that label on a politician. Such as how trump was successfully able to get Cuban American votes in Florida to win the states.
Interesting about the tax system. It's also good to help out the so called "less fortunate" states and make them to be seen or as you said, "have a say". But to go as far as letting them have a president in the country while the majority of the people vote for another candidate.......... do you think changing that and going for the majority's votes would trigger a civil war even in today's America? I mean even people in those "less fortunate" states should know we live in the 21:st century.
 

Zob Ahan

Elite Member
Feb 4, 2005
17,476
2,231
Now they show western films/series with women wearing no hijab at all. I guess you haven't been to Iran in a long time dude.
Nice try but foreign movies were always exempt from their stupid laws. And I was there less than a year ago.
 

ChaharMahal

Elite Member
Oct 18, 2002
16,563
261
20 years ago there was coed preschools now it is illegal. 20 years ago IRIB showed women on their series wearing a plain roosari now they wear 2 roosaris on top of each other or a black chador.
I hope you are high smoking something, otherwise your judgement comes under serious question.

in 1998, I was going to high school in Iran. We were not even allowed to wear jeans back then.

20 years, IRIB TV would not show singers sing and would they would show a canary instead. today they would actually show instruments.

20 years ago people were stopped on the street and asked whom are they walking side by side with. Today IRI is crying about how to mange "Ezdevaj Sefid".

20 years ago, There was debate about Iran's flag bearer in Olympic being a woman, Today IRI send out female soccer team all-be-it in "Hijab".

20 years ago the only female in the country that could speak about female sports was Atoosa Hejazi. Today IRI has accepted female athletics as a reality.

Noe of these changes are because of IRI, they are despite of them. but to suggest IRI is more religous today flies in the face of anything that is easily palpable on the street.
 

Zob Ahan

Elite Member
Feb 4, 2005
17,476
2,231
I hope you are high smoking something, otherwise your judgement comes under serious question.

in 1998, I was going to high school in Iran. We were not even allowed to wear jeans back then.

20 years, IRIB TV would not show singers sing and would they would show a canary instead. today they would actually show instruments.

20 years ago people were stopped on the street and asked whom are they walking side by side with. Today IRI is crying about how to mange "Ezdevaj Sefid".

20 years ago, There was debate about Iran's flag bearer in Olympic being a woman, Today IRI send out female soccer team all-be-it in "Hijab".

20 years ago the only female in the country that could speak about female sports was Atoosa Hejazi. Today IRI has accepted female athletics as a reality.

Noe of these changes are because of IRI, they are despite of them. but to suggest IRI is more religous today flies in the face of anything that is easily palpable on the street.
 

Pooya

Administrator
Staff member
Sep 23, 2004
35,398
1,454
Vancouver, Canada
www.IranSportsPress.com
Thank you for your interesting explanation.

However the whole concept of democracy is that the majority should rule. The minorities will have a say by casting their votes. But letting the minority rule from time to time is way more than just "giving them a say". It would end up outside the concept of democracy, wouldn't it?
What you saying here is CORRECT however, this works in a country that the population is more or less evenly spread. Imagine if they switched to popular vote, then Presidential candidates would only focus on California, NY , FL etc. and they would not give a shit about others. Electrol has its own problems, but honestly for a country like USA, it is not a bad thing.

In another question, Sly, I can not tell if you are serious or not, are you "seriously" trying to say, things have improved Iran compared to 20 years ago?
 

Sly

Elite Member
Oct 18, 2002
28,748
878
Imagine if they switched to popular vote, then Presidential candidates would only focus on California, NY , FL etc. and they would not give a shit about others.
Not necessarily but I get your point.

In another question, Sly, I can not tell if you are serious or not, are you "seriously" trying to say, things have improved Iran compared to 20 years ago?
Socially, yes. Economically, no. I don't know if you were born or how old you were during the beginning years of the revolution and during the Iran-Iraq war time. If you weren't around, you should know what you see in Iran today is not even close to a peanut of what people experienced back then. and I'm not talking about the war but the way people were treated by the regime. If you are interested I can come up with a few examples which would make you go wow.

Edited: Don't get me wrong. I don't mean the improvements were made by IRI. But no matter how you try, you cannot stop the people from achieving freedom and human rights. At some point they were forced to let go of some of their policies.
 
Last edited:

ChaharMahal

Elite Member
Oct 18, 2002
16,563
261
People in the United States are not idiots.

A big portion of the population recognizes that the electoral College or even the primary system is sub-optimal for the modern day; They just can't change it. because those who will be hurt it by It are just not willing to come to the table. go to a large company and try to change out their chat application, even that takes years. now imagine if you wanted to change something in a country of 340 milllion with a 240 year old government.

It is not so much the electoral College that is holding the country back, The bigger issues is the senate. It is the gerrymandering that occurs in every state after each census. It is the sheer corruption of K street lobbyist writing all legislation that goes on the floor of the house or senate (or in state legislatures).

Every congressman in American spends two days out of their 7 days calling rich people and begging for money for the next reelection. how could that person possibly represent the will of the people.

The system is flushed with money.95% of members of congress are paid and owned by multiple industry lobbyists.

Everybody knows the Problem. Mccain-Finegold tried to fix the problem but the supreme court insisted that money equals speech and thus you cannot regulate how much money is spent on politics.
 
Likes: Pooya and Sly

Sly

Elite Member
Oct 18, 2002
28,748
878
People in the United States are not idiots.

A big portion of the population recognizes that the electoral College or even the primary system is sub-optimal for the modern day; They just can't change it. because those who will be hurt it by It are just not willing to come to the table. go to a large company and try to change out their chat application, even that takes years. now imagine if you wanted to change something in a country of 340 milllion with a 240 year old government.

It is not so much the electoral College that is holding the country back, The bigger issues is the senate. It is the gerrymandering that occurs in every state after each census. It is the sheer corruption of K street lobbyist writing all legislation that goes on the floor of the house or senate (or in state legislatures).

Every congressman in American spends two days out of their 7 days calling rich people and begging for money for the next reelection. how could that person possibly represent the will of the people.

The system is flushed with money.95% of members of congress are paid and owned by multiple industry lobbyists.

Everybody knows the Problem. Mccain-Finegold tried to fix the problem but the supreme court insisted that money equals speech and thus you cannot regulate how much money is spent on politics.
I cannot buy defending a system that is over 200 years old but THAT I can buy. and it's very unfortunate that the people who get hurt by a change will have to decide too for a change to happen. That will only take America further away from a true democracy (despite all the propaganda made about the country being the most democratic in the world).
 

Behrooz_C

Elite Member
Dec 10, 2005
16,650
1,566
A small island west of Africa
No, it's not! It takes time. Things wont change over night. Something you pro-revolution guys need to understand.
Things will never change under IR. You still haven't understood what kind of people are in charge, what kind of mentality. That is to your discredit.The most important institutions haven't changed one bit and won't change. The most important institutions running the country have got worse, not better and will get even worse, thank to your reformist friends.

But now that I know the most important thing to you is whether roosari is pushed back a little more compared to 1360, I know our criteria is very different.