@WarChiefZeke But is it better if Croatia is able override Germany, when Germany has its own separate needs that Croatia neither experiences nor cares about? The majority of people have no say over what happens and the majority of people just get steamrolled by the minority. Do you not see the moral issue here?
@WarChiefZeke But is it better if Croatia is able override Germany, when Germany has its own separate needs that Croatia neither experiences nor cares about? The majority of people have no say over what happens and the majority of people just get steamrolled by the minority. Do you not see the moral issue here?
Wyoming can't ever steamroll California on it's own. It's just not possible. Maybe the Democrats should try swaying a few of the 'little guys' you're so intimidated by.
The problem is that 52-48% or even 53-47% is nowhere near a mandate, and that's the real reason we're seeing these anomalies. Neither party is overwhelmingly popular. With good reason in my opinion. Out of 100 votets, 53 voted Democrat, 47 Republican. In a crowd that's pretty insignificant and even with a show of hands it would be hard to tell who had the largest following...
A large state can't be over-ridden by a small state, it takes a large coalition of small states to do so. And if a large coalition of small states are united in interest for a common cause, maybe they have legitimate concerns that need addressing. Small states don't vote together all the time so they are never just over-riding big states like such except on the rarest of occasions. The opposite, however, is the norm, so giving them a bit of representation once in a while seems more than reasonable to me, it seems the only fair way to go.
Lest I be accused of ONLY cherry-picking Wyoming, I have now also selected 10 states at random (a full 20% of the country). North, South, East and West, and compared how their vote is weighted to California. Here are the results:
South Carolina-1.3x
Oklahoma-1.3x
New Hampshire-2.2x
Idaho-1.7x
Minnesota-1.7x
New Mexico-1.7x
Alabama-1.3x
Wisconsin-1.2x
Indiana-1.2x
Oregon-1.2x
Having just 20% more voting power than another citizen is itself an inequity. I would not be okay with knowing that my neighbor's vote counted 20% more than mine or less than mine.
Trying to boil down electoral votes to individual voting power is not accurate. Everyone's vote counts for 1. It's the individual states that have more or less power, and the least populated states never have more than the average or highly populated state, they only are less behind.
This is complete nonsense. Their vote, when they are living in the state, is absolutey counting for more. I have proven so by taking the total population of the states being compared, dividing them by the number of electoral votes each state receives in a Presidential election, and then seeing how many citizens in each state account for one electoral vote. And in every single case I have ran, California has to use up AT LEAST 200,000 more of their residents to get to an electoral vote than ANY other state I have done the math on, with the one exception being Texas, in which they and California are basically spot-on equal in how they are getting screwed. It isn't just SOME states California has less of a vote for President in, it's practically ALL of them. How their vote is counted in the state is meaningless in this discussion when other states have a significant statistical advantage in how many electoral votes are awarded. It's not the way the votes go into the 50 individual pools. It's how those pools themselves are valued. What you are arguing is a distinction without a difference.
Trying to boil down electoral votes to individual voting power is not accurate. Everyone's vote counts for 1. It's the individual states that have more or less power, and the least populated states never have more than the average or highly populated state, they only are less behind.
It is accurate. Everyone's vote counts for one, but everyone's representation from voting isnt equivalent on a 1 to 1 basis. This means their voting power (which is what we've been talking about this whole time) is not equal.
It's been mathematically demonstrated more times than I care to admit. This isnt a philosophical question with more than one answer.
Is the vote of a citizen in California, as a proportion of the value of EVs afforded to California, approximately equivalent to the vote of a citizen in Wyoming, as a proportion of the value of EVs afforded to Wyoming?
The answer is no. This is the literal starting point of the discussion. I dont see anyway to answer the above question differently. It does not matter what your political/religious/educational background is. It's a question of mathematics. California's population divided by their EVs compared against Wyoming's population divided by their EVs. Are these two numbers equivalent? No.
Should your neighbor's 1 vote count 1.5x as much because they're in a certain tax bracket? Even if you two technically share the "Same number of votes"? Fundamentally, this is the equivalent situation of living in one state vs another, as it applies to presidential elections.
This is complete nonsense. Their vote, when they are living in the state, is absolutey counting for more. I have proven so by taking the total population of the states being compared, dividing them by the number of electoral votes each state receives in a Presidential election, and then seeing how many citizens in each state account for one electoral vote. And in every single case I have ran, California has to use up AT LEAST 200,000 more of their residents to get to an electoral vote than ANY other state I have done the math on, with the one exception being Texas, in which they and California are basically spot-on equal in how they are getting screwed. It isn't just SOME states California has less of a vote for President in, it's practically ALL of them. How their vote is counted in the state is meaningless in this discussion when other states have a significant statistical advantage in how many electoral votes are awarded. It's not the way the votes go into the 50 individual pools. It's how those pools themselves are valued.
This. We all agree California has more say in every function of government (EXCEPT the senate) - but they're proportionally handicapped. It's neither equitable nor fair.
The only side you ever hear in this debate is how Democrats need to "speak to rural voters". You never, ever hear about how Republicans need to speak to voters in urban areas. It never comes up. You think the left looks down on rural areas, holds them in contempt?? Yeah, maybe. But have you ever heard what not just right-wing media but ELECTED politicians say about California and New York?? Or how conservatives in Wisconsin talk about Madison?? They constantly imply those places aren't the "real America". The dynamic swings BOTH ways, yet the conversation is only ever about one how one side needs to reach out. The next time I hear someone talking about how Republicans need to reach out to voters in Seattle will be the first time.
When I hear people say they don't want "New York and California deciding the election", all I hear is that people are A-ok artificially devaluing the vote of 10s of millions of people because they choose to live in a city instead of a town with no stop-lights and a cafe with 3 employees that closes at 2pm. The right is worried about rural areas being trampled on?? Well guess what, I'm sick and tired of the places where the VAST majority of Americans actually live being given less voting rights. And, for the record, I grew up in a town with no stop-lights.
Lest I be accused of ONLY cherry-picking Wyoming, I have now also selected 10 states at random (a full 20% of the country). North, South, East and West, and compared how their vote is weighted to California. Here are the results:
South Carolina-1.3x
Oklahoma-1.3x
New Hampshire-2.2x
Idaho-1.7x
Minnesota-1.7x
New Mexico-1.7x
Alabama-1.3x
Wisconsin-1.2x
Indiana-1.2x
Oregon-1.2x
Having just 20% more voting power than another citizen is itself an inequity. I would not be okay with knowing that my neighbor's vote counted 20% more than mine or less than mine.
Trying to boil down electoral votes to individual voting power is not accurate. Everyone's vote counts for 1. It's the individual states that have more or less power, and the least populated states never have more than the average or highly populated state, they only are less behind.
This is complete nonsense. Their vote, when they are living in the state, is absolutey counting for more. I have proven so by taking the total population of the states being compared, dividing them by the number of electoral votes each state receives in a Presidential election, and then seeing how many citizens in each state account for one electoral vote. And in every single case I have ran, California has to use up AT LEAST 200,000 more of their residents to get to an electoral vote than ANY other state I have done the math on, with the one exception being Texas, in which they and California are basically spot-on equal in how they are getting screwed. It isn't just SOME states California has less of a vote for President in, it's practically ALL of them. How their vote is counted in the state is meaningless in this discussion when other states have a significant statistical advantage in how many electoral votes are awarded. It's not the way the votes go into the 50 individual pools. It's how those pools themselves are valued. What you are arguing is a distinction without a difference.
You're misunderstanding me. The math is absolutely correct. The conclusions you are drawing from it, that they have massive unjustified voting power, is total nonsense.
Unless you count having the ability to even slightly affect the trajectory of their own government as having massive unjustified voting power.
Again, how is consolidating voting power into the few large cities rather than consolidating voting power into the population of each state going to better serve the interests of the whole country? Please explain.
The President is supposed to represent the country as a whole, not the 9 states that hold half the U.S population. The rest of us matter too, and should have a say in our own destiny.
The only side you ever hear in this debate is how Democrats need to "speak to rural voters". You never, ever hear about how Republicans need to speak to voters in urban areas. It never comes up. You think the left looks down on rural areas, holds them in contempt?? Yeah, maybe. But have you ever heard what not just right-wing media but ELECTED politicians say about California and New York?? Or how conservatives in Wisconsin talk about Madison?? They constantly imply those places aren't the "real America". The dynamic swings BOTH ways, yet the conversation is only ever about one how one side needs to reach out. The next time I hear someone talking about how Republicans need to reach out to voters in Seattle will be the first time.
When I hear people say they don't want "New York and California deciding the election", all I hear is that people are A-ok artificially devaluing the vote of 10s of millions of people because they choose to live in a city instead of a town with no stop-lights and a cafe with 3 employees that closes at 2pm. The right is worried about rural areas being trampled on?? Well guess what, I'm sick and tired of the places where the VAST majority of Americans actually live being given less voting rights. And, for the record, I grew up in a town with no stop-lights.
The cities need the rural areas more than the rural areas need the city. Cities can't feed themselves after all. Not enough land...
The only side you ever hear in this debate is how Democrats need to "speak to rural voters". You never, ever hear about how Republicans need to speak to voters in urban areas. It never comes up. You think the left looks down on rural areas, holds them in contempt?? Yeah, maybe. But have you ever heard what not just right-wing media but ELECTED politicians say about California and New York?? Or how conservatives in Wisconsin talk about Madison?? They constantly imply those places aren't the "real America". The dynamic swings BOTH ways, yet the conversation is only ever about one how one side needs to reach out. The next time I hear someone talking about how Republicans need to reach out to voters in Seattle will be the first time.
When I hear people say they don't want "New York and California deciding the election", all I hear is that people are A-ok artificially devaluing the vote of 10s of millions of people because they choose to live in a city instead of a town with no stop-lights and a cafe with 3 employees that closes at 2pm. The right is worried about rural areas being trampled on?? Well guess what, I'm sick and tired of the places where the VAST majority of Americans actually live being given less voting rights. And, for the record, I grew up in a town with no stop-lights.
The cities need the rural areas more than the rural areas need the city. Cities can't feed themselves after all. Not enough land...
Not only that but it's my experience that many city folk don't even like rural folk that much and have very negative stereotypes about them. Imagine being ruled over permanently by people who don't even like you, let alone understand you or care about your needs or the fact that your whole town is dying of opioids.
Rural whites life expectancy are going down as suicides are sky high in that demographic, higher than any other. The best solution to this problem is massive political disenfranchisement of them, because the system is privileging them too much.
The only side you ever hear in this debate is how Democrats need to "speak to rural voters". You never, ever hear about how Republicans need to speak to voters in urban areas. It never comes up. You think the left looks down on rural areas, holds them in contempt?? Yeah, maybe. But have you ever heard what not just right-wing media but ELECTED politicians say about California and New York?? Or how conservatives in Wisconsin talk about Madison?? They constantly imply those places aren't the "real America". The dynamic swings BOTH ways, yet the conversation is only ever about one how one side needs to reach out. The next time I hear someone talking about how Republicans need to reach out to voters in Seattle will be the first time.
When I hear people say they don't want "New York and California deciding the election", all I hear is that people are A-ok artificially devaluing the vote of 10s of millions of people because they choose to live in a city instead of a town with no stop-lights and a cafe with 3 employees that closes at 2pm. The right is worried about rural areas being trampled on?? Well guess what, I'm sick and tired of the places where the VAST majority of Americans actually live being given less voting rights. And, for the record, I grew up in a town with no stop-lights.
The cities need the rural areas more than the rural areas need the city. Cities can't feed themselves after all. Not enough land...
Not only that but it's my experience that many city folk don't even like rural folk that much and have very negative stereotypes about them. Imagine being ruled over permanently by people who don't even like you, let alone understand you or care about your needs or the fact that your whole town is dying of opioids.
Rural whites life expectancy are going down as suicides are sky high in that demographic, higher than any other. The best solution to this problem is massive political disenfranchisement of them, because the system is privileging them too much.
This is modern conservative political rhetoric 101. Bottomless aggrievement and straw-men pulled out of thin fucking air.
Not sure how it's a straw man, I wasn't addressing you nor your arguments so I wasn't even intending to represent them let alone misrepresent them.
What I said is absolutely true though and maybe highlights how morally repugnant these latest moves by Democrat governors are. These folk need help, not to be stepped on.
The only side you ever hear in this debate is how Democrats need to "speak to rural voters". You never, ever hear about how Republicans need to speak to voters in urban areas. It never comes up. You think the left looks down on rural areas, holds them in contempt?? Yeah, maybe. But have you ever heard what not just right-wing media but ELECTED politicians say about California and New York?? Or how conservatives in Wisconsin talk about Madison?? They constantly imply those places aren't the "real America". The dynamic swings BOTH ways, yet the conversation is only ever about one how one side needs to reach out. The next time I hear someone talking about how Republicans need to reach out to voters in Seattle will be the first time.
When I hear people say they don't want "New York and California deciding the election", all I hear is that people are A-ok artificially devaluing the vote of 10s of millions of people because they choose to live in a city instead of a town with no stop-lights and a cafe with 3 employees that closes at 2pm. The right is worried about rural areas being trampled on?? Well guess what, I'm sick and tired of the places where the VAST majority of Americans actually live being given less voting rights. And, for the record, I grew up in a town with no stop-lights.
The cities need the rural areas more than the rural areas need the city. Cities can't feed themselves after all. Not enough land...
This idea that people who grow food are inherently better Americans than those who don't is pretty much a good encapsulation of our entire political discourse. Let's see how their food gets delivered if we get rid of those "socialist" interstate highways. Or how much use a couple thousand tons of sugar beets are to them with no one to sell them to. Because I know what a full grain bin where the harvest sits and rots because it can't be sold both looks and smells like. And for the record, the destruction of the American family farm occurred overwhelmingly during the '80s under St. Ronnie. As well as the decline of manufacturing. Springsteen and Mellencamp weren't singing about it because they were bright, sunny topics that would move records.
Again, how is consolidating voting power into the few large cities rather than consolidating voting power into the population of each state going to better serve the interests of the whole country? Please explain.
The President is supposed to represent the country as a whole, not the 9 states that hold half the U.S population. The rest of us matter too, and should have a say in our own destiny.
This is misleading, and you've repeated the line ad-nauseam. I dont know where the idea that being given proportionate representation with the rest of the country means "You have no say in your destiny".
FWIW - the bold part is the straw-man. No one ever argued that anyone doesnt matter, and no one ever argued that you shouldnt have a say in your own destiny. It's only that you deserve equal say in your destiny as anyone else. That is not the status quo.
If 50% of the population lives in 9 states, than that 50% of the population is entitled to 50% of the representation in the country. As it stands, they do not get remotely close to 50% of that representation (They get 18% in the senate, they get around 50% in the house of representatives, and probably around 40% in the electoral college). Representation that is based on population is the literal foundation of representative democracy.
The Electoral College was never intended to empower smaller states--that was the purpose of the Senate, and only the Senate. The Electoral College was designed to prevent the popular election of presidents on the grounds that ordinary citizens wouldn't be informed enough to make that judgment, a premise that we no longer even accept as valid.
The Electoral College today is a fundamentally alien system from the one intended by the framers of the Constitution, and the notion that the Electoral College is there to protect the interests of small states is found nowhere in the writings of the Founding Fathers. That idea is a completely modern invention.
Again, how is consolidating voting power into the few large cities rather than consolidating voting power into the population of each state going to better serve the interests of the whole country? Please explain.
The President is supposed to represent the country as a whole, not the 9 states that hold half the U.S population. The rest of us matter too, and should have a say in our own destiny.
This is misleading, and you've repeated the line ad-nauseam. I dont know where the idea that being given proportionate representation with the rest of the country means "You have no say in your destiny".
FWIW - the bold part is the straw-man. No one ever argued that anyone doesnt matter, and no one ever argued that you shouldnt have a say in your own destiny. It's only that you deserve equal say in your destiny as anyone else. That is not the status quo.
If 50% of the population lives in 9 states, than that 50% of the population is entitled to 50% of the representation in the country. As it stands, they do not get remotely close to 50% of that representation (They get 18% in the senate, they get around 50% in the house of representatives, and probably around 40% in the electoral college). Representation that is based on population is the literal foundation of representative democracy.
You're gonna have a bad time if you're appealing to foundational principles. The foundational principles of this country are basically the worldview i'm stating, not yours
The Electoral College was never intended to empower smaller states--that was the purpose of the Senate, and only the Senate. The Electoral College was designed to prevent the popular election of presidents on the grounds that ordinary citizens wouldn't be informed enough to make that judgment, a premise that we no longer even accept as valid.
The Electoral College today is a fundamentally alien system from the one intended by the framers of the Constitution, and the notion that the Electoral College is there to protect the interests of small states is found nowhere in the writings of the Founding Fathers. That idea is a completely modern invention.
Not exactly my guy, if you're gonna quote the founder intentions do so fairly. They didn't want someone elected on the basis of popular majority alone because anyone who can simply learn how to be popular can be popular enough to win but not fit for office. This is made all the easier when you have about a dozen counties to visit before securing the popular vote. Having the consensus we have in the Electoral College is entirely consistent with the principles they espoused consistently about our Republic, which was about compromise in decision making and equal representation among groups, not majority tyrannies which they felt were unjust and unfair to minority rights, and often are.
The Electoral College was never intended to empower smaller states--that was the purpose of the Senate, and only the Senate. The Electoral College was designed to prevent the popular election of presidents on the grounds that ordinary citizens wouldn't be informed enough to make that judgment, a premise that we no longer even accept as valid.
The Electoral College today is a fundamentally alien system from the one intended by the framers of the Constitution, and the notion that the Electoral College is there to protect the interests of small states is found nowhere in the writings of the Founding Fathers. That idea is a completely modern invention.
Not exactly my guy, if you're gonna quote the founder intentions do so fairly. They didn't want someone elected on the basis of popular majority alone because anyone who can simply learn how to be popular can be popular enough to win but not fit for office. This is made all the easier when you have about a dozen counties to visit before securing the popular vote. Having the consensus we have in the Electoral College is entirely consistent with the principles they espoused consistently about our Republic, which was about compromise in decision making and equal representation among groups, not majority tyrannies which they felt were unjust and unfair to minority rights, and often are.
The idea that we are talking about what the founders thought about "minority rights" when the country they founded not only didn't have ANY rights at all for those who didn't own land, but where an entire race of people were literal property is, quite frankly, laughable to the point of absurdity. This country didn't give two shits about the minority rights of anyone, even on a perfunctory level, until 1964. You have to drag the majority of this country kicking and screaming for DECADES to get them to stop openly fighting against these rights, and then they'll eventually just skulk away and tolerate them as long as they don't make too much noise anymore. This country doesn't care about minority rights. Never has, never will.
"They liked slavery" is not an argument against the electoral college, any of their ideas not connected to slavery, or really, anything else. It's the lowest and most absurd form of ad hom.
But regarding minority rights, they meant the rights of political minorities, and that's a direct quote. And we can apply this to everyone:
"In a pure democracy,[a common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert results from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."
It's not complicated. They wanted compromise, the minorities to have the ability to safeguard their rights from the majority even if the majority technically makes the decisions. That is a perfectly sensible way to govern, and the Electoral College is consistent with that goal.
"They liked slavery" is not an argument against the electoral college, any of their ideas not connected to slavery, or really, anything else. It's the lowest and most absurd form of ad hom.
But regarding minority rights, they meant the rights of political minorities, and that's a direct quote. And we can apply this to everyone:
"In a pure democracy,[a common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert results from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."
The claim that now pointing out that many of the Founding Fathers who owned slaves just MIGHT not have actually cared about minority rights is an ad hominem attack is officially the most ridiculous thing I have heard all year. The wrote the goddamn 3/5th Compromise into the Constitution. In other words, the Southern, rural states were (wait for it) given actual credit in regards to representation in the House of Representatives for people that they OWNED, but gave no rights to. Ad hominem?? Crack a book. Or Wikipedia:
The Three-Fifths Compromise gave a disproportionate representation of slave states in the House of Representatives relative to the voters in free states until the American Civil War. In 1793, for example, Southern slave states had 47 of the 105 members but would have had 33, had seats been assigned based on free populations. In 1812, slave states had 76 out of 143 instead of the 59 they would have had; in 1833, 98 out of 240 instead of 73. As a result, Southern states had disproportionate influence on the presidency, the speakership of the House, and the Supreme Court in the period prior to the Civil War. Along with this must be considered the number of slave and free states, which remained mostly equal until 1850, safeguarding the Southern bloc in the Senate as well as Electoral College votes.
But sure, slavery had nothing to do with it. It had EVERYTHING to do with it. And notice the words. Disproportionate, safeguarding, Electoral College. Sound familiar to anything we have been discussing the last two days??
Don't ever come to this forum while I'm here and expect to get away with this one. Obama had his pick stolen. It can never be given back. MY vote and the vote of millions of others was rendered partially meaningless by a unprecedented theft of a President's Constitutional power. So right up until the moment when a Democratic Senate refuses to hold a hearing on a Republican President's Supreme Court pick, anyone on the political right can go jump into the frickin' ocean when making arguments about the Supreme Court. The vote of nearly 60 million people in 2012 was partially nullified.
There's no relevant link between slavery and the Electoral College. Is the Electoral College promoting the slave trade? Is the Electoral College only relevant function to promote slavery in some way? All of it is nonsense. Tbh and with all due respect I can't believe we're even having this conversation.
The 3/5th's compromise wasn't some special Electoral College invention, it applied across all of government. It is as much an argument against the EC as against taxes, and the House/Senate.
The 3/5 compromise, as despicable as it was, doesn't really relate to the Electoral College, as much as I object to that as well. It's not clear to me that the Electoral College was designed to increase the power of slaveowning states; there were other mechanisms to do that.
Incidentally, we shouldn't confuse the terms "minority" and "majority" here. These days, we typically use minority to refer to ethnic minorities, but that's not the word they used back in the 18th century; they just used Negros and Indians to refer to the primary ethnic minorities of the day. If you see "minority" show up in the writings of the Founding Fathers, odds are it's not referring to ethnic minorities, nor would the Founders closely associate the two terms.
The Supreme Court does need reform; the lifespans of Supreme Court justices are just too random, and the lifetime appointment incentivizes people to nominate younger judges in lieu of more experienced judges. Likewise, justices can time their retirements based on presidential elections and manipulate the process as well. A 10-year or 20-year, one-time appointment, with a new seat every 2 years, would be just as effective at insulating the Supreme Court from political pressures and also make the composition of the court less dependent on lifespans and retirement times.
I have mixed feelings about Gorsuch, but Kavanaugh is a criminal and Garland still deserves a hearing, just like every other nominee in American history received.
Oh look, an honest to god poll tax in 2019. This despite an OVERWHELMING ballot referendum being passed less than 6 months ago that mandates these rights be restored:
GERMAN POLITICIANS CALL TRUMP'S AMBASSADOR A 'BRAT' AND 'TOTAL DIPLOMATIC FAILURE,' DEMAND IMMEDIATE EXPULSION
Reminder that Trump is the worst and the conservative right wing criminals he is using are the worst and hurting our reputation world wide.
Why? Well the first thing he did while in office was telling german companies to "wind down operations in Iran immediately." Lead to huge criticism, was a breach of diplomatic protocol.
Than he went on Breitbart and said his goal was to empower conservatives in Europe. Lead to huge criticism, was a severe breach of diplomatic protocol. Just imagine for a second the german Ambassador to the US saying he want's throw out Republicans and empower leftwing Democrats. Yeaaahhhhh.
He has been on Tucker Carson's show to criticise Merkel. Multiple times. Lead to huge criticism, was a breach of diplomatic protocol. Effectively calling for regime change in Germany.
Than he went on to threaten sanctions on any companies taking part in NS2, even writing letters directly to the companies. Lead to huge criticism, was a unbelievable breach of diplomatic protocol.
Now he complained about Germany's military budget calling the current contribution "unacceptable". Not really breaching protocol, but just behaving like a spoiled brat trying to interfere with the German government once again.
You're gonna have a bad time if you're appealing to foundational principles. The foundational principles of this country are basically the worldview i'm stating, not yours
I suppose it's to my credit then that I didnt state "The foundational principles of the American System".
I think the juxtaposition of the two clearly highlights that while I appreciate the foresight that the founding fathers had, they also really (really, REALLY) botched some things in the process. I think we'd all be wise, as a society, to stop deifying them like they were somehow infallible.
I mentioned the other day how the US government and especially the Supreme Court is currently the most illegitimate it's every been here's why. Remember that America got to this point not because Republicans won national elections fair and square but because they won rigged elections and are exploiting anti-democratic forces that need to be amended in the U.S. Constitution. They have used these well meaning things that people in the 1700s might have envisioned as safeguards to balance power in ways the founders would not intend.
Donald Trump would not be president if not for the Electoral College. Mitch McConnell would not be Senate Majority Leader if not for the malapportioned Senate.
Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are the only members of the Supreme Court in U.S. history who were nominated by the loser of the popular vote and confirmed by a bloc of senators who represent less than half of the nation.
The Republican “majority” in the current Senate represents 15 million fewer people than the Democratic “minority.”
The Republican “majority” in the Senate that confirmed Gorsuch and Kavanaugh represented almost 40 million fewer people than the Democratic “minority.”
The Republican “majority” that refused to hold a confirmation hearing on Chief Judge Merrick Garland’s nomination to the Supreme Court represented 20 million fewer people than the Democratic “minority.”
These forces are now poised to abuse their offices to reduce fair representation through tyranny of the minority.
In 2018, Democratic Wisconsin state assembly candidates won 54 percent of the popular vote, beating their Republican counterparts by 8 percentage points. Yet Republicans won 63 of the state’s 99 assembly seats due to gerrymandering. The Supreme Court recently passed on hearing a lawsuit and left Wisconsin’s gerrymander in place.
Even before Kavanaugh’s arrival, the Supreme Court’s Republican majority was working to gut American democracy. Citizens United v. FEC (2010) released a torrent of money into our elections. Shelby County v. Holder (2013) gutted much of the Voting Rights Act. A more obscure case, Abbott v. Perez (2018), held that white lawmakers enjoy such a strong presumption of racial innocence that it is virtually impossible to prove that they acted with racist intent when they wrote an election law that undercuts voters of color.
Next week Wisconsin and other gerrymandered states will remain sham democracies because the Supreme Court will almost certainly vote 5-4 to hold that two partisan gerrymandering are totally cool and totally legal: Rucho v. Common Cause and Lamone v. Benisek
Chief Justice Roberts was open about his reluctance to strike down partisan gerrymanders when the issue was before him last term, and Roberts is, as a far right wackaloon, the least conservative of the court’s Republicans. Barring a miracle, Rucho and Benisek will build on cases like Citizens United, Shelby County, and Perez. Democracy does not fare well in the Roberts Court.
This tyranny of the minority is going to get worse without needed reforms. According to a University of Virginia analysis, just under half the country will live in only eight states by 2040 — so half the country will have just 16 senators while the other half has 84. About 70 percent of the country will live in only 16 states.
Comments
Wyoming can't ever steamroll California on it's own. It's just not possible. Maybe the Democrats should try swaying a few of the 'little guys' you're so intimidated by.
The problem is that 52-48% or even 53-47% is nowhere near a mandate, and that's the real reason we're seeing these anomalies. Neither party is overwhelmingly popular. With good reason in my opinion. Out of 100 votets, 53 voted Democrat, 47 Republican. In a crowd that's pretty insignificant and even with a show of hands it would be hard to tell who had the largest following...
This is complete nonsense. Their vote, when they are living in the state, is absolutey counting for more. I have proven so by taking the total population of the states being compared, dividing them by the number of electoral votes each state receives in a Presidential election, and then seeing how many citizens in each state account for one electoral vote. And in every single case I have ran, California has to use up AT LEAST 200,000 more of their residents to get to an electoral vote than ANY other state I have done the math on, with the one exception being Texas, in which they and California are basically spot-on equal in how they are getting screwed. It isn't just SOME states California has less of a vote for President in, it's practically ALL of them. How their vote is counted in the state is meaningless in this discussion when other states have a significant statistical advantage in how many electoral votes are awarded. It's not the way the votes go into the 50 individual pools. It's how those pools themselves are valued. What you are arguing is a distinction without a difference.
It is accurate. Everyone's vote counts for one, but everyone's representation from voting isnt equivalent on a 1 to 1 basis. This means their voting power (which is what we've been talking about this whole time) is not equal.
It's been mathematically demonstrated more times than I care to admit. This isnt a philosophical question with more than one answer.
Is the vote of a citizen in California, as a proportion of the value of EVs afforded to California, approximately equivalent to the vote of a citizen in Wyoming, as a proportion of the value of EVs afforded to Wyoming?
The answer is no. This is the literal starting point of the discussion. I dont see anyway to answer the above question differently. It does not matter what your political/religious/educational background is. It's a question of mathematics. California's population divided by their EVs compared against Wyoming's population divided by their EVs. Are these two numbers equivalent? No.
Should your neighbor's 1 vote count 1.5x as much because they're in a certain tax bracket? Even if you two technically share the "Same number of votes"? Fundamentally, this is the equivalent situation of living in one state vs another, as it applies to presidential elections.
This. We all agree California has more say in every function of government (EXCEPT the senate) - but they're proportionally handicapped. It's neither equitable nor fair.
When I hear people say they don't want "New York and California deciding the election", all I hear is that people are A-ok artificially devaluing the vote of 10s of millions of people because they choose to live in a city instead of a town with no stop-lights and a cafe with 3 employees that closes at 2pm. The right is worried about rural areas being trampled on?? Well guess what, I'm sick and tired of the places where the VAST majority of Americans actually live being given less voting rights. And, for the record, I grew up in a town with no stop-lights.
You're misunderstanding me. The math is absolutely correct. The conclusions you are drawing from it, that they have massive unjustified voting power, is total nonsense.
Unless you count having the ability to even slightly affect the trajectory of their own government as having massive unjustified voting power.
The President is supposed to represent the country as a whole, not the 9 states that hold half the U.S population. The rest of us matter too, and should have a say in our own destiny.
The cities need the rural areas more than the rural areas need the city. Cities can't feed themselves after all. Not enough land...
Not only that but it's my experience that many city folk don't even like rural folk that much and have very negative stereotypes about them. Imagine being ruled over permanently by people who don't even like you, let alone understand you or care about your needs or the fact that your whole town is dying of opioids.
Rural whites life expectancy are going down as suicides are sky high in that demographic, higher than any other. The best solution to this problem is massive political disenfranchisement of them, because the system is privileging them too much.
This is modern conservative political rhetoric 101. Bottomless aggrievement and straw-men pulled out of thin fucking air.
What I said is absolutely true though and maybe highlights how morally repugnant these latest moves by Democrat governors are. These folk need help, not to be stepped on.
This idea that people who grow food are inherently better Americans than those who don't is pretty much a good encapsulation of our entire political discourse. Let's see how their food gets delivered if we get rid of those "socialist" interstate highways. Or how much use a couple thousand tons of sugar beets are to them with no one to sell them to. Because I know what a full grain bin where the harvest sits and rots because it can't be sold both looks and smells like. And for the record, the destruction of the American family farm occurred overwhelmingly during the '80s under St. Ronnie. As well as the decline of manufacturing. Springsteen and Mellencamp weren't singing about it because they were bright, sunny topics that would move records.
This is misleading, and you've repeated the line ad-nauseam. I dont know where the idea that being given proportionate representation with the rest of the country means "You have no say in your destiny".
FWIW - the bold part is the straw-man. No one ever argued that anyone doesnt matter, and no one ever argued that you shouldnt have a say in your own destiny. It's only that you deserve equal say in your destiny as anyone else. That is not the status quo.
If 50% of the population lives in 9 states, than that 50% of the population is entitled to 50% of the representation in the country. As it stands, they do not get remotely close to 50% of that representation (They get 18% in the senate, they get around 50% in the house of representatives, and probably around 40% in the electoral college). Representation that is based on population is the literal foundation of representative democracy.
The Electoral College today is a fundamentally alien system from the one intended by the framers of the Constitution, and the notion that the Electoral College is there to protect the interests of small states is found nowhere in the writings of the Founding Fathers. That idea is a completely modern invention.
You're gonna have a bad time if you're appealing to foundational principles. The foundational principles of this country are basically the worldview i'm stating, not yours
Not exactly my guy, if you're gonna quote the founder intentions do so fairly. They didn't want someone elected on the basis of popular majority alone because anyone who can simply learn how to be popular can be popular enough to win but not fit for office. This is made all the easier when you have about a dozen counties to visit before securing the popular vote. Having the consensus we have in the Electoral College is entirely consistent with the principles they espoused consistently about our Republic, which was about compromise in decision making and equal representation among groups, not majority tyrannies which they felt were unjust and unfair to minority rights, and often are.
The idea that we are talking about what the founders thought about "minority rights" when the country they founded not only didn't have ANY rights at all for those who didn't own land, but where an entire race of people were literal property is, quite frankly, laughable to the point of absurdity. This country didn't give two shits about the minority rights of anyone, even on a perfunctory level, until 1964. You have to drag the majority of this country kicking and screaming for DECADES to get them to stop openly fighting against these rights, and then they'll eventually just skulk away and tolerate them as long as they don't make too much noise anymore. This country doesn't care about minority rights. Never has, never will.
But regarding minority rights, they meant the rights of political minorities, and that's a direct quote. And we can apply this to everyone:
"In a pure democracy,[a common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert results from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."
Almost certain something like that will happen once the Electoral College is gone and they don't have to answer to those pesky little people anymore.
The claim that now pointing out that many of the Founding Fathers who owned slaves just MIGHT not have actually cared about minority rights is an ad hominem attack is officially the most ridiculous thing I have heard all year. The wrote the goddamn 3/5th Compromise into the Constitution. In other words, the Southern, rural states were (wait for it) given actual credit in regards to representation in the House of Representatives for people that they OWNED, but gave no rights to. Ad hominem?? Crack a book. Or Wikipedia:
The Three-Fifths Compromise gave a disproportionate representation of slave states in the House of Representatives relative to the voters in free states until the American Civil War. In 1793, for example, Southern slave states had 47 of the 105 members but would have had 33, had seats been assigned based on free populations. In 1812, slave states had 76 out of 143 instead of the 59 they would have had; in 1833, 98 out of 240 instead of 73. As a result, Southern states had disproportionate influence on the presidency, the speakership of the House, and the Supreme Court in the period prior to the Civil War. Along with this must be considered the number of slave and free states, which remained mostly equal until 1850, safeguarding the Southern bloc in the Senate as well as Electoral College votes.
But sure, slavery had nothing to do with it. It had EVERYTHING to do with it. And notice the words. Disproportionate, safeguarding, Electoral College. Sound familiar to anything we have been discussing the last two days??
Don't ever come to this forum while I'm here and expect to get away with this one. Obama had his pick stolen. It can never be given back. MY vote and the vote of millions of others was rendered partially meaningless by a unprecedented theft of a President's Constitutional power. So right up until the moment when a Democratic Senate refuses to hold a hearing on a Republican President's Supreme Court pick, anyone on the political right can go jump into the frickin' ocean when making arguments about the Supreme Court. The vote of nearly 60 million people in 2012 was partially nullified.
The 3/5th's compromise wasn't some special Electoral College invention, it applied across all of government. It is as much an argument against the EC as against taxes, and the House/Senate.
Incidentally, we shouldn't confuse the terms "minority" and "majority" here. These days, we typically use minority to refer to ethnic minorities, but that's not the word they used back in the 18th century; they just used Negros and Indians to refer to the primary ethnic minorities of the day. If you see "minority" show up in the writings of the Founding Fathers, odds are it's not referring to ethnic minorities, nor would the Founders closely associate the two terms.
The Supreme Court does need reform; the lifespans of Supreme Court justices are just too random, and the lifetime appointment incentivizes people to nominate younger judges in lieu of more experienced judges. Likewise, justices can time their retirements based on presidential elections and manipulate the process as well. A 10-year or 20-year, one-time appointment, with a new seat every 2 years, would be just as effective at insulating the Supreme Court from political pressures and also make the composition of the court less dependent on lifespans and retirement times.
I have mixed feelings about Gorsuch, but Kavanaugh is a criminal and Garland still deserves a hearing, just like every other nominee in American history received.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/434746-florida-house-committee-approves-bill-requiring-felons-to-pay-all-court
GERMAN POLITICIANS CALL TRUMP'S AMBASSADOR A 'BRAT' AND 'TOTAL DIPLOMATIC FAILURE,' DEMAND IMMEDIATE EXPULSION
Reminder that Trump is the worst and the conservative right wing criminals he is using are the worst and hurting our reputation world wide.
Why? Well the first thing he did while in office was telling german companies to "wind down operations in Iran immediately." Lead to huge criticism, was a breach of diplomatic protocol.
Than he went on Breitbart and said his goal was to empower conservatives in Europe. Lead to huge criticism, was a severe breach of diplomatic protocol. Just imagine for a second the german Ambassador to the US saying he want's throw out Republicans and empower leftwing Democrats. Yeaaahhhhh.
He has been on Tucker Carson's show to criticise Merkel. Multiple times. Lead to huge criticism, was a breach of diplomatic protocol. Effectively calling for regime change in Germany.
Than he went on to threaten sanctions on any companies taking part in NS2, even writing letters directly to the companies. Lead to huge criticism, was a unbelievable breach of diplomatic protocol.
Now he complained about Germany's military budget calling the current contribution "unacceptable". Not really breaching protocol, but just behaving like a spoiled brat trying to interfere with the German government once again.
https://www.newsweek.com/germany-trump-ambassador-brat-failure-1368713
I suppose it's to my credit then that I didnt state "The foundational principles of the American System".
I think the juxtaposition of the two clearly highlights that while I appreciate the foresight that the founding fathers had, they also really (really, REALLY) botched some things in the process. I think we'd all be wise, as a society, to stop deifying them like they were somehow infallible.
This tyranny of the minority is going to get worse without needed reforms. According to a University of Virginia analysis, just under half the country will live in only eight states by 2040 — so half the country will have just 16 senators while the other half has 84. About 70 percent of the country will live in only 16 states.