CA 55
TX 38
FL and NY 29
IL and PA 20
OH 18
GA and MI 16
NC 15
NJ 14
VA 13
WA 12
AZ/IN/MA/TN 11
MD/MN/MI/WI 10
AL/CO/SC 9
KY and LA 8
CT/OK/OR 7
AR/IA/KS/MS/NV/UT 6
NB/NM/WV 5
HI/ID/ME/NH/RI 4
AK/DE/DC/MT/ND/SK/VT/WY 3
Winning from the least populous up means a candidate would have to carry every State from New Jersey on down to surpass 270; that's 41 States (we count DC as a State for this purpose). Interestingly, winning from the most populous down means carrying CA to NJ; this puts you at 270 exactly and 11 States.
In recent elections, the majority of Presidential candidate focus has been spent in Nevada (not sure why), Colorado, New Mexico, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire/Vermont, and Florida. The other States barely get any attention.
Which is why the argument that "candidates will only campaign in big cities" which is frequently used to defend the Electoral College is ridiculous. Because they are spending exactly ZERO time in Los Angeles and New York now, yet no one thinks THAT is a problem for some reason. The idea that in 2019, in an age of instant media access on multiple devices 24/7, that it is going to make a lick of difference WHERE a candidate announces a policy position or lands a hard zinger on their opponent is simply no longer realistic. People aren't standing at the train station hoping to get a glimpse of the candidate anymore. The whole "some places won't get enough attention" argument is completely bogus when 5 or 6 states have been getting the bulk of the attention for 20 years anyway. It's yet another example of people (supposedly) caring very much about certain places with lower populations being at risk of not getting enough love, yet they completely ignore the fact that the biggest population centers in the country like LA, NY, Houston and Chicago are essentially ignored and have been for decades. It's created a situation where lines were drawn on a map (in some cases hundreds of years ago) is exponentially more important than the actual voting. With the Urban/Rural divide nearly totally entrenched, not amount of campaign skill or brilliant stump speeches can overcome the fact that those smaller rural states just flat-out out have more power, thus anyone who lives in them does as well. We are a tiered citizenry, and the less people live in your state, the higher your tier is.
Off the top of my head I can say we were never intended to be a true democracy. In that way, things are working as intended.
Edit:
Sorry JJ, I meant this as an answer to @smeagolheart's earlier question about 'We the people' having their say...
This may be true, but when the popular vote/EC winner was the same for over a century, we could maintain the illusion that it was and people could live with it because it seems, for lack of a better word, fair. But if we enter a scenario where 3 out of 6 elections in a 20-year period have someone who gets less votes (and likely a staggeringly high amount of less votes if it happens in 2020), I don't know how people can reasonably expect these questions not to be asked, because at that point it's just going to (justifiably) seem that the clear majority of voters have absolutely no say in who is elected President. How long do we imagine that can go on before people won't accept it anymore?? Especially if it is clearly benefitting only one party??
CA 55
TX 38
FL and NY 29
IL and PA 20
OH 18
GA and MI 16
NC 15
NJ 14
VA 13
WA 12
AZ/IN/MA/TN 11
MD/MN/MI/WI 10
AL/CO/SC 9
KY and LA 8
CT/OK/OR 7
AR/IA/KS/MS/NV/UT 6
NB/NM/WV 5
HI/ID/ME/NH/RI 4
AK/DE/DC/MT/ND/SK/VT/WY 3
Winning from the least populous up means a candidate would have to carry every State from New Jersey on down to surpass 270; that's 41 States (we count DC as a State for this purpose). Interestingly, winning from the most populous down means carrying CA to NJ; this puts you at 270 exactly and 11 States.
In recent elections, the majority of Presidential candidate focus has been spent in Nevada (not sure why), Colorado, New Mexico, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire/Vermont, and Florida. The other States barely get any attention.
Which is why the argument that "candidates will only campaign in big cities" which is frequently used to defend the Electoral College is ridiculous. Because they are spending exactly ZERO time in Los Angeles and New York now, yet no one thinks THAT is a problem for some reason. The idea that in 2019, in an age of instant media access on multiple devices 24/7, that it is going to make a lick of difference WHERE a candidate announces a policy position or lands a hard zinger on their opponent is simply no longer realistic. People aren't standing at the train station hoping to get a glimpse of the candidate anymore. The whole "some places won't get enough attention" argument is completely bogus when 5 or 6 states have been getting the bulk of the attention for 20 years anyway. It's yet another example of people (supposedly) caring very much about certain places with lower populations being at risk of not getting enough love, yet they completely ignore the fact that the biggest population centers in the country like LA, NY, Houston and Chicago are essentially ignored and have been for decades. It's created a situation where lines were drawn on a map (in some cases hundreds of years ago) is exponentially more important than the actual voting. With the Urban/Rural divide nearly totally entrenched, not amount of campaign skill or brilliant stump speeches can overcome the fact that those smaller rural states just flat-out out have more power, thus anyone who lives in them does as well. We are a tiered citizenry, and the less people live in your state, the higher your tier is.
Off the top of my head I can say we were never intended to be a true democracy. In that way, things are working as intended.
Edit:
Sorry JJ, I meant this as an answer to @smeagolheart's earlier question about 'We the people' having their say...
This may be true, but when the popular vote/EC winner was the same for over a century, we could maintain the illusion that it was and people could live with it because it seems, for lack of a better word, fair. But if we enter a scenario where 3 out of 6 elections in a 20-year period have someone who gets less votes (and likely a staggeringly high amount of less votes if it happens in 2020), I don't know how people can reasonably expect these questions not to be asked, because at that point it's just going to (justifiably) seem that the clear majority of voters have absolutely no say in who is elected President. How long do we imagine that can go on before people won't accept it anymore?? Especially if it is clearly benefitting only one party??
Well, honestly, it could go on for a long time (if that's not a rhetorical question). I dont think there's going to be a revolution anytime soon. We have it too good in this country...
Why is having the person most people didn't want become President a good idea? I certainly can't imagine a good answer for that, maybe someone has a better imagination than I do. Why is using an artificial arbitrary game to rig the vote better than just letting "We the People" have their say?
It would take a Constitutional Amendment to do away with the Electoral College. States may adjust the rules or laws regards its Electors and how they are to cast their ballots but the system itself will take at least 10 years to remove, even if there were a resolution to do so in place right now which could pass a supermajority in both Houses of Congress. Alternatively, a Convention in three-fourths of the States (38 of them) will suffice.
It’s easier to throw money at large cities to garner votes. For example:
“If I am elected, I will make sure that the rapid transportation plan that cost 25 billion will receive all the federal funding needed.”
This happens in Ontario all the time where Toronto gets the brunt of the spending because that is where the vote is. But something like maintaining a rail line to the north to transport mined minerals doesn’t, even though the latter would create jobs and stimulate the economy more.
There are also states that split the electoral vote are there not? So those states may need to be taken into consideration for an easier top up.
Only Maine and Nebraska do this. Relatively insignificant in the EV math. The whole exercise is kind of pointless to do in a vacuum anyways, as Trump is not going to win certain small states (say Vermont) that would help in this lowest-votes-but-EC-victory.
It’s easier to throw money at large cities to garner votes. For example:
“If I am elected, I will make sure that the rapid transportation plan that cost 25 billion will receive all the federal funding needed.”
This happens in Ontario all the time where Toronto gets the brunt of the spending because that is where the vote is. But something like maintaining a rail line to the north to transport mined minerals doesn’t, even though the latter would create jobs and stimulate the economy more.
“If I am elected, I will make sure that the rapid transportation plan that cost 25 billion will receive all the federal funding needed.” <- Politicians lie. Like all the time. Trump said we wouldn't be the laughingstock of the world anymore when he became President and spoiler alert we are.
It's just as easy to throw money at small states when that's what you need to be elected. It might not get as much press because nationally there's so few people there. So instead of promising to throw money where people actually live instead we have things like the Transportation Secretary throwing $78 million dollars to a river city of 59,809 people in the 26th most populous state and ignoring the rest of the US.
Look, corruption can happen anyway even if you have the right set up in your government, the solution to corruption is not diluting people's votes. Corruption and voting rights are two separate issues.
Why is having the person most people didn't want become President a good idea? I certainly can't imagine a good answer for that, maybe someone has a better imagination than I do. Why is using an artificial arbitrary game to rig the vote better than just letting "We the People" have their say?
It would take a Constitutional Amendment to do away with the Electoral College. States may adjust the rules or laws regards its Electors and how they are to cast their ballots but the system itself will take at least 10 years to remove, even if there were a resolution to do so in place right now which could pass a supermajority in both Houses of Congress. Alternatively, a Convention in three-fourths of the States (38 of them) will suffice.
It would take an amendment to do away with the de jure electoral college. But you can still organize on the state level to have your state's electors vote for the national popular vote winner. In fact, 15 states and DC have already agreed to join this measure. Including red, blue and purple states. The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. It's the most realistic way to make a more democratic presidential election.
Off the top of my head I can say we were never intended to be a true democracy. In that way, things are working as intended.
Edit:
Sorry JJ, I meant this as an answer to @smeagolheart's earlier question about 'We the people' having their say...
"What we were intended to be" is an argument from authority. It's not a good argument about how our government should be elected. There are higher democratic norms than "the founders did it." Such as one person, one vote. Which the EC (not to mention the Senate) abrogates.
Moreover, the electoral college has already broken in a far more significant way from its original intention. It was never originally tied to the popular vote. Even the vice president's election has changed from its original conception. Moving to a national popular vote from the current system, is actually a less modest change than those past changes.
Off the top of my head I can say we were never intended to be a true democracy. In that way, things are working as intended.
Edit:
Sorry JJ, I meant this as an answer to @smeagolheart's earlier question about 'We the people' having their say...
"What we were intended to be" is an argument from authority. It's not a good argument about how our government should be elected. There are higher democratic norms than "the founders did it." Such as one person, one vote. Which the EC (not to mention the Senate) abrogates.
Moreover, the electoral college has already broken in a far more significant way from its original intention. It was never originally tied to the popular vote. Even the vice president's election has changed from its original conception. Moving to a national popular vote from the current system, is actually a less modest change than those past changes.
It's not me you have to convince.
I never said anything about the EC. I merely said we were never intended to be a true democracy. If we were, it would have spelled out one person, one vote in the Constitution when it was written down. We've amended the Constitution many times to extend voting rights so it has changed over time. The way to get rid of the EC is through the States, as @Mathsorcerer has pointed out. Good luck with that.
This is pretty clearly wrong, and the answer of "this is just not how democracy works" just seems like more snide condescension than anything resembling a refutation of what he was trying to express.
Why couldn't people be motivated to vote against the left if they are spoken down to, treated as lesser than, unclean, immoral, and dumb by them? What is impossible about that? Nothing. That is, in fact, a way that democracy can work.
What's condescending, imo, is treating half of the electorate like they don't have any agency. The irony of your construction is that left-of-center folks are responsible not only for their own votes and their political party, but also responsible for the votes of the *other* major party.
How is this construction, where conservatives are helplessly driven to support Trump because lefty people hurt their feelings, not true condescension?
When you cast your vote for somebody, that's your responsibility and nobody else's. Anybody who passes the buck on that, again, doesn't understand or even respect democratic government, imo.
You're just wrong here. Way too simplistic, way too partisan, way too self-righteous.
A few things can be true at once:
- People hold responsibility for who they vote for.
- Political parties are responsible for their message.
- If political parties don't provide a convincing message, they are responsible for their failure.
Long as you agree with these premises your conclusion is simply inaccurate. There is more "responsibility" to throw around than at just the average, powerless voter. It's just not that simple, unless you see the world in astonishingly black and white terms. People are responsible for their vote choices, sure. but those choices are surrounded by contexts beyond their control, which other people- and institutions- hold responsibility for shaping. They should accept that, instead of trying to invent ways to make themselves out to be blameless saints, elevated above all the bad people who hold all that responsibility some are so conveniently left out of.
As an aside, nothing I said implies people don't have agency, quite the opposite. I proposed a scenario in which people are free to do as they will based upon the attitudes they are presented with.
But by all means, continue to point fingers at everyone else from your high horse, far be it from me to correct the mistakes of my political rivals.
Well, as @DinoDin points out some States have already adopted a "wait and see" strategy--those States will report actual vote counts but not post EC votes until the overall national numbers are compiled. Of course, this means that we may not actually find out who won until mid-December but that is a compromise I suspect many would find acceptable.
There is more "responsibility" to throw around than at just the average, powerless voter.
No. There isn't. That's what democracy is. The voters are not powerless.
I also love your line about "the mistakes of my political rivals." If you think the left-of-center political party is losing the people of America, you haven't paid attention to the actual vote counts of the past two elections.
I never said anything about the EC. I merely said we were never intended to be a true democracy. If we were, it would have spelled out one person, one vote in the Constitution when it was written down. We've amended the Constitution many times to extend voting rights so it has changed over time. The way to get rid of the EC is through the States, as @Mathsorcerer has pointed out. Good luck with that.
You're here. So I'm talking to you. And people are becoming convinced. These things don't happen overnight.
Again, though, what we were "intended to be" isn't relevant for what's right. The obvious example -- we were also "intended to be" a slavery-based economy, at least in some parts.
There is more "responsibility" to throw around than at just the average, powerless voter.
No. There isn't. That's what democracy is. The voters are not powerless.
I also love your line about "the mistakes of my political rivals." If you think the left-of-center political party is losing the people of America, you haven't paid attention to the actual vote counts of the past two elections.
Actually, the left of center political party has lost a vote count once in the last 30 years (2004). Democratic Presidential candidates are, by any measure imaginable, FAR more popular for over the past quarter century. We all know that doesn't mean jack-shit at the end of the day given how this is structured, but it doesn't make it any less true. And shit, if the Bush Administration doesn't fall asleep at the switch and ignore what we now know in hindsight were massive red-alert warning signs the entire summer and allow 9/11 to take place, then marshal the fear over that event into the biggest foreign policy disaster since Vietnam, they probably wouldn't have won that one either.
The Supreme Court has 5 activist judges. God help us all if Trump puts another corrupt politician in a robe on the bench.
These corrupt guys are totally bought and paid for by conservative lobbyists.
Their new trick is to vote however Trump wants them to or the most sellout way, and just justify it that "you got no standing". There is no justice system, there's a legal system lol and two tiers of justice. (In)justice for the rich, and punishment to the poor.
Moreover, since it always gets brought up, let's discuss this idea of the Electoral College stopping the "tyranny of the majority". There is a WORLD of difference between minority rights (which applies to groups of people who have historically been denied rights others were granted) and the rights of the minority (as in a certain group of voters in a numerical sense).
The former is meant to take certain things out of the purview of people's votes ENTIRELY. Things such as making sure African-Americans can eat at any restaurant a white person can or that gay people can marry who they choose. They are meant to remove the ability of a majority to take away their fundamental rights as human beings living in this country by not allowing such things to be put up for a vote. The later is simply saying a group of people who can't win in a numerical sense should be granted extra voting power other people don't have because they deserve it more. There is no specific policy or history of discrimination one can point to to justify the extra voting power citizens of Cheyenne have in relation to citizens of Sacramento. It's not based on the idea that if the residents of California had their way they would unilaterally vote to confiscate the land of Wyoming farmers. Because all "rights" in that sense shouldn't be allowed to be put up for a vote in the first place. And comparing the two of them as if they are equal is insulting on numerous levels.
Any hypothetical tyrannical oppression cities are apparently just waiting to rain down on folks in rural areas if we go to "one person one vote" shouldn't be up for a vote in the first place. Not living in a city is not a classification that needs protection, much less so much protection that they are literally made super-citizens in regards to their electoral power. Of course, at the core of this in America is the bottomless well of projection that assumes that if certain groups of people are granted political power, they will engage in the same repressive tactics that were historically used against them. Which says WAY more about the people afraid of this scenario than anything else. And what makes it even more insidious is just HOW MUCH the political agenda of the numerical minority IS aimed explicitly at taking rights away from others.
Many people have the same set of reactions about the Suprme Court. When they approve of a decision the Court makes thier response is "I am glad to see that the Court is protection our rights or striking down a bad law" but when they do not approve their response is "those Justices are just rogue activists". Ginsberg herself told NPR this week that she thought Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, both Trump appointees, were "vey decent and very smart individuals". She also reiterated that the Court is not partisan and that the Justices all work well together.
In this instance, money which was already allocated to the military falls under the purvue of the CiC and the JCoS, not Congress. The House may vote on a budget and reduce or restrict future money, but money already allocated is out of their hands.
There is still no clear indication how they are going to handle Falcon Lake. Wall on the Mexican side? Wall on the U. S. side? Fence the lake off down the middle? *shrug* All I know is that you don't go fishing on Falcon Lake alone and when you do go you make certain to go well-armed and packing a radio. There is too much cartel activity on that lake.
Many people have the same set of reactions about the Suprme Court. When they approve of a decision the Court makes thier response is "I am glad to see that the Court is protection our rights or striking down a bad law" but when they do not approve their response is "those Justices are just rogue activists". Ginsberg herself told NPR this week that she thought Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, both Trump appointees, were "vey decent and very smart individuals". She also reiterated that the Court is not partisan and that the Justices all work well together.
In this instance, money which was already allocated to the military falls under the purvue of the CiC and the JCoS, not Congress. The House may vote on a budget and reduce or restrict future money, but money already allocated is out of their hands.
There is still no clear indication how they are going to handle Falcon Lake. Wall on the Mexican side? Wall on the U. S. side? Fence the lake off down the middle? *shrug* All I know is that you don't go fishing on Falcon Lake alone and when you do go you make certain to go well-armed and packing a radio. There is too much cartel activity on that lake.
I am predicting right now that the 5 Supreme Court Justices who just said it is perfectly fine for the Executive Branch to bypass Congressional approval completely will vote the EXACT opposite way the moment a Democrat gets into office and tries to apply the same standard to say, reallocating money to fight climate change. This is nearly a 100% certainly. I would bet everything I own on this scenario playing out. I barely would even consider this a prediction or a bet. It's just that blatantly obvious it's what will happen. It's like predicting the sun will rise tomorrow.
Odd news about "scam PAC's," organizations which pose as political action committees but don't actually do any political activism, campaign ads, or lobbying. You know those emails or phone calls you sometimes get from political groups telling you about some new scandal and saying that "we need your donation to stop the bad guys?" Apparently some of those organizations aren't real PAC's; they just take donations and keep the money for themselves instead of using it to win elections. The Conservative Majority Fund has effectively stolen nearly $10 million from its donors.
The Federal Election Committee can't do much about it. It's very much illegal for a charity group to, for example, ask for donations to help earthquake victims and then just keeping the money as profit, but campaign finance laws are so weak that a fake PAC can actually get away with the same scam.
@Balrog99 So, what is the free crap you constantly go on about? I've never seen a single liberal in this thread talk about giving stuff away for free. I've seen a bunch of people talk about using taxes to fund healthcare. Is that what you mean? Because taxes aren't free, we pay those. Not that I haven't asked this a bunch of times before and never got a response. I don't suppose you have some substance to your bias?
@Balrog99 So, what is the free crap you constantly go on about? I've never seen a single liberal in this thread talk about giving stuff away for free. I've seen a bunch of people talk about using taxes to fund healthcare. Is that what you mean? Because taxes aren't free, we pay those. Not that I haven't asked this a bunch of times before and never got a response. I don't suppose you have some substance to your bias?
Free shit like the $20/hr minimum wage proposed, reparations, free college, pay off everybody's college loans, "a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage" (and Hoover was a Republican).
In Canada, we have Human Rights Tribunals which awards people X amount of money if their Human Rights have been violated.
This of course cost the Canadian tax payer money, but if these violations were committed by the government, then the tax payer who elected that government should have to pay. If it is a company or business, these fines (and followed recommendations) can be extremely costly to breach.
I can see reparations taking on the same model. A person needs to prove that their Human Rights were infringed upon. Cory Booker’s families house hunting story (where the Realtor would only show them houses in Black neighbourhoods) would be a good example of this.
Free college, (or I prefer free college if a person obtains a certain GPA for programs that are in need in the job market) is something to strive for IMO. An educated work force can stimulate the economy and job market and would eventually pay for itself.
I am iffy about paying off college loans though and agree with you about the minimum wage.
A couple of weeks ago one of the conservative radio talk show hosts was really getting on my nerves with his mischaracterization of a progam we have in Texas. There is a university fund which is managed by the State--the money comes from mineral rights and land use rights--and this fund just issued a new program offering to cover the tution cost at various universities in the State for famlies with lower income. Note: this type of program is *not* "socialism" but is *is* "responsible capitalism", which is why it works--it is an investment in the future. Anyway, he was making it sound like "omg they are giving free college to poor people" and this got on my nerves so much I actually called his show to correct him. The number one way for families to climb the economic ladder is for the kids to stay in school and manage to get into university; this program will pay their way...and it does to raise anyone's taxes because they money is already there!
A couple of weeks ago one of the conservative radio talk show hosts was really getting on my nerves with his mischaracterization of a progam we have in Texas. There is a university fund which is managed by the State--the money comes from mineral rights and land use rights--and this fund just issued a new program offering to cover the tution cost at various universities in the State for famlies with lower income. Note: this type of program is *not* "socialism" but is *is* "responsible capitalism", which is why it works--it is an investment in the future. Anyway, he was making it sound like "omg they are giving free college to poor people" and this got on my nerves so much I actually called his show to correct him. The number one way for families to climb the economic ladder is for the kids to stay in school and manage to get into university; this program will pay their way...and it does to raise anyone's taxes because they money is already there!
Did he happen to mention where he thinks the money should go instead?? If the state is charging for mineral rights and land-use rights, the money exists and ostensibly must be used for SOMETHING, so I would think if you are going to make this argument, you'd at least have to have some alternative idea for where the money should go.
Note: If a child can't get INTO college in the first place, I'm they are not going to be recipients of what amounts to a grant. So it's impossible to say they haven't "earned" it. It's not like they are mailing checks to high school drop-outs or kids getting a D- in English. And what is this obsession lately with the idea that college SHOULD cost alot of money?? Who in their right mind thinks it should be harder and more costly for kids to go to college?? It strikes me as nothing but gatekeeping. Underneath it all, this guy doesn't WANT poor kids going to college, or if they do, to make sure they sufficiently "earn" it according to his arbitrary personal scale.
CA 55
TX 38
FL and NY 29
IL and PA 20
OH 18
GA and MI 16
NC 15
NJ 14
VA 13
WA 12
AZ/IN/MA/TN 11
MD/MN/MI/WI 10
AL/CO/SC 9
KY and LA 8
CT/OK/OR 7
AR/IA/KS/MS/NV/UT 6
NB/NM/WV 5
HI/ID/ME/NH/RI 4
AK/DE/DC/MT/ND/SK/VT/WY 3
Winning from the least populous up means a candidate would have to carry every State from New Jersey on down to surpass 270; that's 41 States (we count DC as a State for this purpose). Interestingly, winning from the most populous down means carrying CA to NJ; this puts you at 270 exactly and 11 States.
In recent elections, the majority of Presidential candidate focus has been spent in Nevada (not sure why), Colorado, New Mexico, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire/Vermont, and Florida. The other States barely get any attention.
Because the calculus is to totally ignore safe states on either side, and go for the ones that can go either way. You go after enough of those to add to your safe states to flip you over 270.
All those states are, more or less, question marks about where their undecided majorities lean.
Basically, plot all the states as to which way they lean or expected to lean, start adding from one end or the other until you hit 270.
Better as a Democrat to campaign in a state that is 49.5% Democrat leaning and adds +3 votes than to campaign in a state that is 48.5% Democrat leaning and +9 votes.
I still say the the BEST thing to do is to eliminate the first-past-the-post, winner-take-all aspect of the electoral college.
There's literally a law of political science that says that that is what gives rise to a two party system. Duverger's Law
So, make a call that electoral college electors will be decided proportional to the % popular vote in each state.
That's all that needs to be done. It eliminates "safe states", it eliminates "battleground states", candidates have to appeal to people in every state. 40% of Californians get represented as Republicans. 43% of Texas gets represented as Democrats. 48% of Florida gets represented as Democrats. ALL PEOPLE'S votes actually matter, instead of whoever the hell it was that was the +1 vote of 50%+1.
"But the Democrats will win every election". Yeah, and tell me why that's a bad thing. If Republicans want to win, they need to step up their game and say why voting for them is good for the American public at large.
And this doesn't require a constitutional amendment, as the constitution lays out that states will decide how their electors vote.
Yeah maybe Republicans would come back from the sellout fascist cliff they are on if they actually had to win people's votes instead of rigging elections through gerrymandering and voter suppression.
Nah, that's too much work it's easier to cheat.
But if they did come back, then they would be almost just like the Corporate Democrats we have today. Which might cause Dems to actually move away from the center and to the left.
A couple of weeks ago one of the conservative radio talk show hosts was really getting on my nerves with his mischaracterization of a progam we have in Texas. There is a university fund which is managed by the State--the money comes from mineral rights and land use rights--and this fund just issued a new program offering to cover the tution cost at various universities in the State for famlies with lower income. Note: this type of program is *not* "socialism" but is *is* "responsible capitalism", which is why it works--it is an investment in the future. Anyway, he was making it sound like "omg they are giving free college to poor people" and this got on my nerves so much I actually called his show to correct him. The number one way for families to climb the economic ladder is for the kids to stay in school and manage to get into university; this program will pay their way...and it does to raise anyone's taxes because they money is already there!
Did he happen to mention where he thinks the money should go instead?? If the state is charging for mineral rights and land-use rights, the money exists and ostensibly must be used for SOMETHING, so I would think if you are going to make this argument, you'd at least have to have some alternative idea for where the money should go.
Note: If a child can't get INTO college in the first place, I'm they are not going to be recipients of what amounts to a grant. So it's impossible to say they haven't "earned" it. It's not like they are mailing checks to high school drop-outs or kids getting a D- in English. And what is this obsession lately with the idea that college SHOULD cost alot of money?? Who in their right mind thinks it should be harder and more costly for kids to go to college?? It strikes me as nothing but gatekeeping. Underneath it all, this guy doesn't WANT poor kids going to college, or if they do, to make sure they sufficiently "earn" it according to his arbitrary personal scale.
I for one never said University or College should be expensive. I frankly think it's totally ridiculous what they charge now. Ans these are 'supposedly' liberal institutions! Instead of free college for all, whuch will allow those damned colleges to charge the taxpayers whatever they want, how about doing something about their predatory pricing instead?
Comments
This may be true, but when the popular vote/EC winner was the same for over a century, we could maintain the illusion that it was and people could live with it because it seems, for lack of a better word, fair. But if we enter a scenario where 3 out of 6 elections in a 20-year period have someone who gets less votes (and likely a staggeringly high amount of less votes if it happens in 2020), I don't know how people can reasonably expect these questions not to be asked, because at that point it's just going to (justifiably) seem that the clear majority of voters have absolutely no say in who is elected President. How long do we imagine that can go on before people won't accept it anymore?? Especially if it is clearly benefitting only one party??
Well, honestly, it could go on for a long time (if that's not a rhetorical question). I dont think there's going to be a revolution anytime soon. We have it too good in this country...
It would take a Constitutional Amendment to do away with the Electoral College. States may adjust the rules or laws regards its Electors and how they are to cast their ballots but the system itself will take at least 10 years to remove, even if there were a resolution to do so in place right now which could pass a supermajority in both Houses of Congress. Alternatively, a Convention in three-fourths of the States (38 of them) will suffice.
“If I am elected, I will make sure that the rapid transportation plan that cost 25 billion will receive all the federal funding needed.”
This happens in Ontario all the time where Toronto gets the brunt of the spending because that is where the vote is. But something like maintaining a rail line to the north to transport mined minerals doesn’t, even though the latter would create jobs and stimulate the economy more.
Only Maine and Nebraska do this. Relatively insignificant in the EV math. The whole exercise is kind of pointless to do in a vacuum anyways, as Trump is not going to win certain small states (say Vermont) that would help in this lowest-votes-but-EC-victory.
“If I am elected, I will make sure that the rapid transportation plan that cost 25 billion will receive all the federal funding needed.” <- Politicians lie. Like all the time. Trump said we wouldn't be the laughingstock of the world anymore when he became President and spoiler alert we are.
It's just as easy to throw money at small states when that's what you need to be elected. It might not get as much press because nationally there's so few people there. So instead of promising to throw money where people actually live instead we have things like the Transportation Secretary throwing $78 million dollars to a river city of 59,809 people in the 26th most populous state and ignoring the rest of the US.
Look, corruption can happen anyway even if you have the right set up in your government, the solution to corruption is not diluting people's votes. Corruption and voting rights are two separate issues.
https://www.businessinsider.com/elaine-chao-diverted-federal-grants-to-kentucky-report-2019-6
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/10/mcconnell-elaine-chao-1358068
It would take an amendment to do away with the de jure electoral college. But you can still organize on the state level to have your state's electors vote for the national popular vote winner. In fact, 15 states and DC have already agreed to join this measure. Including red, blue and purple states. The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. It's the most realistic way to make a more democratic presidential election.
"What we were intended to be" is an argument from authority. It's not a good argument about how our government should be elected. There are higher democratic norms than "the founders did it." Such as one person, one vote. Which the EC (not to mention the Senate) abrogates.
Moreover, the electoral college has already broken in a far more significant way from its original intention. It was never originally tied to the popular vote. Even the vice president's election has changed from its original conception. Moving to a national popular vote from the current system, is actually a less modest change than those past changes.
It's not me you have to convince.
I never said anything about the EC. I merely said we were never intended to be a true democracy. If we were, it would have spelled out one person, one vote in the Constitution when it was written down. We've amended the Constitution many times to extend voting rights so it has changed over time. The way to get rid of the EC is through the States, as @Mathsorcerer has pointed out. Good luck with that.
You're just wrong here. Way too simplistic, way too partisan, way too self-righteous.
A few things can be true at once:
- People hold responsibility for who they vote for.
- Political parties are responsible for their message.
- If political parties don't provide a convincing message, they are responsible for their failure.
Long as you agree with these premises your conclusion is simply inaccurate. There is more "responsibility" to throw around than at just the average, powerless voter. It's just not that simple, unless you see the world in astonishingly black and white terms. People are responsible for their vote choices, sure. but those choices are surrounded by contexts beyond their control, which other people- and institutions- hold responsibility for shaping. They should accept that, instead of trying to invent ways to make themselves out to be blameless saints, elevated above all the bad people who hold all that responsibility some are so conveniently left out of.
As an aside, nothing I said implies people don't have agency, quite the opposite. I proposed a scenario in which people are free to do as they will based upon the attitudes they are presented with.
But by all means, continue to point fingers at everyone else from your high horse, far be it from me to correct the mistakes of my political rivals.
No. There isn't. That's what democracy is. The voters are not powerless.
I also love your line about "the mistakes of my political rivals." If you think the left-of-center political party is losing the people of America, you haven't paid attention to the actual vote counts of the past two elections.
You're here. So I'm talking to you. And people are becoming convinced. These things don't happen overnight.
Again, though, what we were "intended to be" isn't relevant for what's right. The obvious example -- we were also "intended to be" a slavery-based economy, at least in some parts.
Actually, the left of center political party has lost a vote count once in the last 30 years (2004). Democratic Presidential candidates are, by any measure imaginable, FAR more popular for over the past quarter century. We all know that doesn't mean jack-shit at the end of the day given how this is structured, but it doesn't make it any less true. And shit, if the Bush Administration doesn't fall asleep at the switch and ignore what we now know in hindsight were massive red-alert warning signs the entire summer and allow 9/11 to take place, then marshal the fear over that event into the biggest foreign policy disaster since Vietnam, they probably wouldn't have won that one either.
These corrupt guys are totally bought and paid for by conservative lobbyists.
Their new trick is to vote however Trump wants them to or the most sellout way, and just justify it that "you got no standing". There is no justice system, there's a legal system lol and two tiers of justice. (In)justice for the rich, and punishment to the poor.
The former is meant to take certain things out of the purview of people's votes ENTIRELY. Things such as making sure African-Americans can eat at any restaurant a white person can or that gay people can marry who they choose. They are meant to remove the ability of a majority to take away their fundamental rights as human beings living in this country by not allowing such things to be put up for a vote. The later is simply saying a group of people who can't win in a numerical sense should be granted extra voting power other people don't have because they deserve it more. There is no specific policy or history of discrimination one can point to to justify the extra voting power citizens of Cheyenne have in relation to citizens of Sacramento. It's not based on the idea that if the residents of California had their way they would unilaterally vote to confiscate the land of Wyoming farmers. Because all "rights" in that sense shouldn't be allowed to be put up for a vote in the first place. And comparing the two of them as if they are equal is insulting on numerous levels.
Any hypothetical tyrannical oppression cities are apparently just waiting to rain down on folks in rural areas if we go to "one person one vote" shouldn't be up for a vote in the first place. Not living in a city is not a classification that needs protection, much less so much protection that they are literally made super-citizens in regards to their electoral power. Of course, at the core of this in America is the bottomless well of projection that assumes that if certain groups of people are granted political power, they will engage in the same repressive tactics that were historically used against them. Which says WAY more about the people afraid of this scenario than anything else. And what makes it even more insidious is just HOW MUCH the political agenda of the numerical minority IS aimed explicitly at taking rights away from others.
In this instance, money which was already allocated to the military falls under the purvue of the CiC and the JCoS, not Congress. The House may vote on a budget and reduce or restrict future money, but money already allocated is out of their hands.
There is still no clear indication how they are going to handle Falcon Lake. Wall on the Mexican side? Wall on the U. S. side? Fence the lake off down the middle? *shrug* All I know is that you don't go fishing on Falcon Lake alone and when you do go you make certain to go well-armed and packing a radio. There is too much cartel activity on that lake.
I am predicting right now that the 5 Supreme Court Justices who just said it is perfectly fine for the Executive Branch to bypass Congressional approval completely will vote the EXACT opposite way the moment a Democrat gets into office and tries to apply the same standard to say, reallocating money to fight climate change. This is nearly a 100% certainly. I would bet everything I own on this scenario playing out. I barely would even consider this a prediction or a bet. It's just that blatantly obvious it's what will happen. It's like predicting the sun will rise tomorrow.
Democratic Party - vote for us and you'll get free shit!
Truth - Neither party cares about anything other than winning the next election...
They aren't the same. Free shit's better than propaganda and lies and alternative fact world.
The Federal Election Committee can't do much about it. It's very much illegal for a charity group to, for example, ask for donations to help earthquake victims and then just keeping the money as profit, but campaign finance laws are so weak that a fake PAC can actually get away with the same scam.
The trouble is it's not free. Never has been, never will be...
Free shit like the $20/hr minimum wage proposed, reparations, free college, pay off everybody's college loans, "a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage" (and Hoover was a Republican).
In Canada, we have Human Rights Tribunals which awards people X amount of money if their Human Rights have been violated.
This of course cost the Canadian tax payer money, but if these violations were committed by the government, then the tax payer who elected that government should have to pay. If it is a company or business, these fines (and followed recommendations) can be extremely costly to breach.
I can see reparations taking on the same model. A person needs to prove that their Human Rights were infringed upon. Cory Booker’s families house hunting story (where the Realtor would only show them houses in Black neighbourhoods) would be a good example of this.
Free college, (or I prefer free college if a person obtains a certain GPA for programs that are in need in the job market) is something to strive for IMO. An educated work force can stimulate the economy and job market and would eventually pay for itself.
I am iffy about paying off college loans though and agree with you about the minimum wage.
Did he happen to mention where he thinks the money should go instead?? If the state is charging for mineral rights and land-use rights, the money exists and ostensibly must be used for SOMETHING, so I would think if you are going to make this argument, you'd at least have to have some alternative idea for where the money should go.
Note: If a child can't get INTO college in the first place, I'm they are not going to be recipients of what amounts to a grant. So it's impossible to say they haven't "earned" it. It's not like they are mailing checks to high school drop-outs or kids getting a D- in English. And what is this obsession lately with the idea that college SHOULD cost alot of money?? Who in their right mind thinks it should be harder and more costly for kids to go to college?? It strikes me as nothing but gatekeeping. Underneath it all, this guy doesn't WANT poor kids going to college, or if they do, to make sure they sufficiently "earn" it according to his arbitrary personal scale.
Because the calculus is to totally ignore safe states on either side, and go for the ones that can go either way. You go after enough of those to add to your safe states to flip you over 270.
All those states are, more or less, question marks about where their undecided majorities lean.
Basically, plot all the states as to which way they lean or expected to lean, start adding from one end or the other until you hit 270.
Better as a Democrat to campaign in a state that is 49.5% Democrat leaning and adds +3 votes than to campaign in a state that is 48.5% Democrat leaning and +9 votes.
I still say the the BEST thing to do is to eliminate the first-past-the-post, winner-take-all aspect of the electoral college.
There's literally a law of political science that says that that is what gives rise to a two party system. Duverger's Law
So, make a call that electoral college electors will be decided proportional to the % popular vote in each state.
That's all that needs to be done. It eliminates "safe states", it eliminates "battleground states", candidates have to appeal to people in every state. 40% of Californians get represented as Republicans. 43% of Texas gets represented as Democrats. 48% of Florida gets represented as Democrats. ALL PEOPLE'S votes actually matter, instead of whoever the hell it was that was the +1 vote of 50%+1.
"But the Democrats will win every election". Yeah, and tell me why that's a bad thing. If Republicans want to win, they need to step up their game and say why voting for them is good for the American public at large.
And this doesn't require a constitutional amendment, as the constitution lays out that states will decide how their electors vote.
Nah, that's too much work it's easier to cheat.
But if they did come back, then they would be almost just like the Corporate Democrats we have today. Which might cause Dems to actually move away from the center and to the left.
I for one never said University or College should be expensive. I frankly think it's totally ridiculous what they charge now. Ans these are 'supposedly' liberal institutions! Instead of free college for all, whuch will allow those damned colleges to charge the taxpayers whatever they want, how about doing something about their predatory pricing instead?