4 ms·

> That's how it works. Since the 18th century, with little change. How in the world do you consider the 12th and 13th Amendments and the Apportionment Act of 1

> That's how it works. Since the 18th century, with little change. How in the world do you consider the 12th and 13th Amendments and the Apportionment Act of 1911 "little change"?

MrZongle2 9y ago
Would Mrs. Clinton have won in an alternative universe where the aforementioned alternations did not take place?
- dragontamer 9y ago
  Yes. She would have won the Vice Presidency, as Trump became President. Which only demonstrates the supreme idiocy of the original system our founding fathers envisioned. Its a good thing they gave us a mechanism to change the Constitution and the rules. The founding fathers never tried to design a perfect system. They only hoped to make a "more perfect" system, that over time would improve upon itself. And improve itself it has. Vice Presidents and Presidents now run together, instead of being #1 and #2 in the Electoral College. Black people can vote (and be more than 3/5ths a person), slaves have been outlawed, Women can vote. This country is one of continuous self-improvment (or at least, ATTEMPTED self-improvement)
  - MrZongle2 9y ago
    "Yes. She would have won the Vice Presidency, as Trump became President." And what, exactly, would that have changed?
    - dragontamer 9y ago
      For one, Ms. Clinton would be the tiebreaking vote in the Senate. Which means every "close call" vote in the Senate (including the Supreme Court Justice vote, various laws that have been passed this year, etc. etc.) would have only passed at the Pleasure of Ms. Clinton. For another: Mr. Trump delegates a lot of tasks to the Vice President. The Vice President has a lot of power when it comes to implementing the President's policies.
      - MrZongle2 9y ago
        Gorsuch was approved by the Senate by a 54-45, non-party-line vote. As for the remaining tiebreakers, one was the approval of DeVos as Education Secretary, two involve HHS items, and one was to push forward AHCA. So far, none of the above have been groundbreaking. As for your last point: the idea that Trump would delegate anything to VP Clinton in the same manner he delegates items to Pence is utterly absurd.
        dang 9y ago
        It looks like you've been using HN primarily for political and/or ideological battle. That's not a legit use of this site, and we ban accounts that do it. (We have to, because it's destructive of what HN is for.) Would you kindly (re)-read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and fix this?
  - AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
    >This country is one of continuous self-improvment (or at least, ATTEMPTED self-improvement) yes, and last presidential election was such an event.

> That's how it works. Since the 18th century, with little change. How in the world do you consider the 12th and 13th Amendments and the Apportionment Act of 1911 "little change"?

MrZongle2 9y ago

Would Mrs. Clinton have won in an alternative universe where the aforementioned alternations did not take place?

dragontamer 9y ago
Yes. She would have won the Vice Presidency, as Trump became President. Which only demonstrates the supreme idiocy of the original system our founding fathers envisioned. Its a good thing they gave us a mechanism to change the Constitution and the rules. The founding fathers never tried to design a perfect system. They only hoped to make a "more perfect" system, that over time would improve upon itself. And improve itself it has. Vice Presidents and Presidents now run together, instead of being #1 and #2 in the Electoral College. Black people can vote (and be more than 3/5ths a person), slaves have been outlawed, Women can vote. This country is one of continuous self-improvment (or at least, ATTEMPTED self-improvement)
- MrZongle2 9y ago
  "Yes. She would have won the Vice Presidency, as Trump became President." And what, exactly, would that have changed?
  - dragontamer 9y ago
    For one, Ms. Clinton would be the tiebreaking vote in the Senate. Which means every "close call" vote in the Senate (including the Supreme Court Justice vote, various laws that have been passed this year, etc. etc.) would have only passed at the Pleasure of Ms. Clinton. For another: Mr. Trump delegates a lot of tasks to the Vice President. The Vice President has a lot of power when it comes to implementing the President's policies.
    - MrZongle2 9y ago
      Gorsuch was approved by the Senate by a 54-45, non-party-line vote. As for the remaining tiebreakers, one was the approval of DeVos as Education Secretary, two involve HHS items, and one was to push forward AHCA. So far, none of the above have been groundbreaking. As for your last point: the idea that Trump would delegate anything to VP Clinton in the same manner he delegates items to Pence is utterly absurd.
      - dang 9y ago
        It looks like you've been using HN primarily for political and/or ideological battle. That's not a legit use of this site, and we ban accounts that do it. (We have to, because it's destructive of what HN is for.) Would you kindly (re)-read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and fix this?
- AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
  >This country is one of continuous self-improvment (or at least, ATTEMPTED self-improvement) yes, and last presidential election was such an event.