Republicans have not won over a margin of Americans this large since 1992 -- 28 years ago.
There are still people on the right who seem CONVINCED that Democrats are now in favor of the Electoral College just because Biden won it this time. If they bothered to ask a SINGLE person they could learn this isn't the case. I saw the same thing about how we were "for" it in 2012. They seem to be pretending like Obama and Biden didn't win BOTH the EC and popular vote, and they must be doing it on purpose, because I can't imagine they are actually that dense.
So I picked up a copy of the Star Tribune today as a sort of souvenir, just like I picked up the Time Magazine after the election in 2008. The Star Tribune is a reasonably good paper, and I don't know if I can even attribute the headline for this story to them, since there are so many wire services included. But what stuck out to me was a story headed with "Trump unlucky to concede in traditional manner". Umm, no. He has made it abundantly clear (at least to this point) that he doesn't intend to concede AT ALL. So why do major American newspapers feel the need to equivocate about it?? Even now, why does he STILL have to be whitewashed and babied to the point of normalization?? Isn't this part of what got us here??
Republicans have not won over a margin of Americans this large since 1992 -- 28 years ago.
There are still people on the right who seem CONVINCED that Democrats are now in favor of the Electoral College just because Biden won it this time. If they bothered to ask a SINGLE person they could learn this isn't the case. I saw the same thing about how we were "for" it in 2012. They seem to be pretending like Obama and Biden didn't win BOTH the EC and popular vote, and they must be doing it on purpose, because I can't imagine they are actually that dense.
I am a pansy boy librul CNN beta soyboy and I love the electoral college.
I still find it incredible that there's a faction in the GOP base that honestly and unironically uses "you probably drink soy milk" as an insult for their political enemies.
I'm as confident as i'll ever be in anything that Biden does not want to seriously change things by doing things like court packing and ending the Electoral College and putting the country into a one party dictatorship. His messaging is clearly conveying the fact one of unity, of Republicans and Democrats getting along. I think it's a fools errand after 4 years of labeling Republicans as nazis, fascists, cultists, freaks, moral reprobates, idiots, and more, but okay. I suppose it *is* better than nothing. You can stop that sort of messaging from the top but it doesn't just cleanly go away in the rest of society once you put it out there so strongly. It also just doesn't fit with his history to support radical structural changes to the system.
And with the EC especially I can't see any other outcome but a lawsuit, that heads to the Supreme Court, which is filled with people who believe in interpreting the Constitution as it was meant at the time. Sure he could try to pack the court before that but he is giving off the very opposite sort of vibes right now. To me, that question is merely academic at this point and the EC survives for another generation.
I can see why the people who say Dems don't have a mandate even when they win the EC and popular vote think the way they do. When Dems win big they nearly always play the centrist route, because that is what the people outside the Big Two democratic strongholds, who will always Vote Blue No Matter Who, want. Giving a blank check to their most radical activists would almost guarantee a failure in the next election, so they are almost always suppressed in one way or another, their influence barely felt.
To put it another way, it is not that they don't have a mandate, but that their mandate is basically centrism.
Biden cannot pack the court on his own. Whether that is even possible hinges on Senate control. If Democrats fail to retake the Senate, then it's at least two years where it can't happen. Biden also cannot change the Electoral College on his own.
And the Democratic party cannot change the EC even with control of both houses of congress. That's something that has to be done on a state by state level either by process of Constitutional Amendment (the harder path) or by changing individual state constitutions via something like NPVIC (the easier route imo). The second route doesn't at all hinge on holding federal offices.
Arizona, at long last, looks out of Trump's reach. It actually had a few batches of drops left that were a net positive for Biden, and it has all but sealed the deal. It also now assures that any legal challenges would have to be successful in 4 or 5 separate states, two of them run by Republican Secretaries of State. AP and FOX finally vindicated, but it took awhile.
It's worth keeping in mind that if the electoral college was abolished, we wouldnt suddenly see a scenario in which Republicans never win the presidency again. Instead, the GOP would be forced to actually adjust their position on deeply unpopular opinions and stop moving further and further right. They'd become a center right party rather than a sprint to the right party.
That party would win plenty of elections.
Keep in mind, the Democrats are a center-left party with a progressive wing. The opposite is not necessarily true for the GOP. Maybe it was in the past, but not right now.
So, considering at this point every HOUR lost in regards to starting to make the new Administration's plans for the pandemic could cost lives, this petulant nonsense is literally going to kill people, but ok. Obama instructed his staff to provide FULL cooperation to the Trump team transition. Of course, they didn't really HAVE a transition team. Biden does. And they can't even get to work. To the end, these people will continue to inflict material harm on this country:
There isn't any solid legal or working theory about how the election was "stolen" from them other than phrases and buzzwords meant to cause a Pavlovian response in the base. As I said before, they would have to somehow prove systematic fraud in 5 states, and they can't come up with anything more serious than "stop the count" as their starting point. Unserious, reckless, and self-serving to the very end. Newest rumors out of the White House are that Kushner and others are actually pushing him to do RALLIES to specifically push the narrative of a fraudulent election, and Mark Meadows is urging him to concede. If this guy goes around the country for the next two months absolutely whipping his people into a frenzy, someone is going to get killed. Maybe multiple people.
Inside the White House, they admit it's bullshit, and the ENTIRE thing is about soothing Trump's ego:
President Donald Trump has promised legal action in the coming days as he refused to concede his loss to Democrat Joe Biden, making an aggressive pitch for donors to help finance any court fight.
Trump and his campaign have leveled accusations of large-scale voter fraud in Pennsylvania and other states that broke for Biden, so far without proof.
But senior officials, campaign aides and allies told The Associated Press that overwhelming evidence of fraud isn’t really the point.
The strategy to wage a legal fight against the votes tallied for Biden in Pennsylvania and other places is more to provide Trump with an off-ramp for a loss he can’t quite grasp and less about changing the election’s outcome, the officials said. They spoke to AP on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal strategy.
Trump aides and allies also acknowledged privately the legal fights would — at best – forestall the inevitable, and some had deep reservations about the president's attempts to undermine faith in the vote. But they said Trump and a core group of loyalists were aiming to keep his base of supporters on his side even in defeat.
Someone tell me again why we should "reach out" when there is serious work to be done, serious people want to get started doing it, and instead, Republicans are going to act like spoiled toddlers for 75 days, significantly hindering the ability to hit the ground running against a crisis that is getting worse by the hour.
So no, I am not going to empathetic to Trump supporters in their time of grief. Because it isn't about them personally, it's about what they continue to support, even when the writing is on the wall. And the real-world consequences of doing so. We don't have time for this shit. But we are going to sit through it anyway. It's all nonsense meant to placate the emotional needs of one man. There isn't a single ounce of good faith or ACTUAL concern about voting integrity in this anywhere. I know it, and THEY know it too.
It's fair to wonder if Trump's strategy here ends up costing the GOP votes in Georgia. I would generally say the Democrats might expect at best 1 of the run off race\s, but Trump acting like a gigantic child will get old pretty fast here. If he still is complaining or issuing legal challenges in late December or early January... maybe the races will be closer than they ought to be.
Of course, he also sets precedents for future presidents to act like irrational children during the hand-off period - and that's tremendously dangerous, especially when there's a growing authoritarian streak in one of the major parties.
Unhinged crazy person Kim Guilfoyle, current girlfriend to Donald Trump Jr, offered lap dances to whoever gave the highest donation at Republican fundraisers. This did not go over very well.
• some donors were horrified by what they described as Guilfoyle’s lack of professionalism: She frequently joked about her sex life
Senior campaign officials, meanwhile, had been getting reports that Guilfoyle had been berating her staff. Appearing together at fundraisers, Guilfoyle and her boyfriend, Donald Trump Jr., would banter in sexually suggestive ways that made some donors uncomfortable.
During a December donor event at Trump Hotel in Washington, Guilfoyle offered to give a lap dance to whoever raised the most money, according to two people who were present and another person who was familiar with the episode.
And at an event in Jackson Hole, Wyo., earlier this year, Guilfoyle and the younger Trump joked about how she raised money while in hot tubs. Another attendee presented a slightly different version, saying that whoever in the audience raised the most money would be offered a hot tub party with Guilfoyle.
It's worth keeping in mind that if the electoral college was abolished, we wouldnt suddenly see a scenario in which Republicans never win the presidency again. Instead, the GOP would be forced to actually adjust their position on deeply unpopular opinions and stop moving further and further right. They'd become a center right party rather than a sprint to the right party.
That party would win plenty of elections.
Keep in mind, the Democrats are a center-left party with a progressive wing. The opposite is not necessarily true for the GOP. Maybe it was in the past, but not right now.
This is the key. The extreme divide right now between urban and rural is merely a product of the current issue platforms of the two parties. There is nothing about democratic norms that requires a country bend over backwards to award representation to a political party's platform. All these things are malleable.
The whole freaking core argument for democracy over autocracy is that the government has to respond to the desires of the population. Skewing away from that is skewing towards autocracy not towards democracy.
This tweet has gone viral on U.K. twitter, the new administration have Mr Johnson’s card marked. According to a Team Biden source, if you think Biden hates Johnson, wait until you hear what Harris has to say ...
It's worth keeping in mind that if the electoral college was abolished, we wouldnt suddenly see a scenario in which Republicans never win the presidency again. Instead, the GOP would be forced to actually adjust their position on deeply unpopular opinions and stop moving further and further right. They'd become a center right party rather than a sprint to the right party.
That party would win plenty of elections.
Keep in mind, the Democrats are a center-left party with a progressive wing. The opposite is not necessarily true for the GOP. Maybe it was in the past, but not right now.
In other words, they would have to represent the same voters the Democratic Party represents. A two party system for them, a zero party system for the rest of the nation. Entire states will disagree at all levels with the federal government and have no power to change it. No matter which way you spin it the failure in representation remains the same.
It is depressingly predictable that once liberals feel they will gain an advantage from this they will never stop pushing for it with any and all sorts of sophistry. An insatiable desire to win at the expense of the country and it's people. A disgusting display of personal greed.
I almost wish they would just push it through just so it would spark the inevitable revolt and secession movements from the newly annexed states. As if people are going to seriously agree to a democratic system where they don't get to have a say.
I wonder what happens to the forgotten states whose votes would no longer matter. Since their votes no longer matter I imagine quality of life declines, as the federal government fails to care about the issues happening in their irrelevant part of the world. If they are dying, nobody is hearing them scream. With no electoral power, there is no longer any political incentive to care, and with no political incentive, it simply won't happen.
I suppose the mass sacrifice of the small people is worth a higher chance of an Elizabeth Warren Presidency to many.
England has the reverse problem, voters in Scotland, Wales and NI provide balance so that Tories and Labour can win nationally. If the union breaks up, England looks like being permanently Tory, but why should Scotland, which is broadly to the left of England, be shackled to disastrous Tory rule? I want Scotland to stay in the union but if they can escape (and rejoin the EU) I would understand and wish them well.
If I had a dime for every time I have seen someone on the right say "Biden's popular vote win total wouldn't exist if you don't count California and New York" in the last three days, I could probably retire. While the argument is being made about small population areas being hypothetically ignored, it's an article of faith on the right that highly populated urban areas don't even count as "real America". That's why they are literally arguing for their votes to not even be counted in the total. And it's been this way for a LONG TIME. It's not that they don't believe in all voting, but they absolutely don't believe "those people" should be able to do it.
Every time the Democrats win OR lose an election, the autopsy is the same. That they need to find a way to speak to rural voters who are abandoning them. The Republicans are NEVER called upon to learn how to "understand" people who live in urban areas, or moderate their positions. Ever. It's another part of the total asymmetry we've been discussing.
For four years, I watched as network newscasts and major national newspapers ran story after story after story about Trump voters in small towns. Dozens of them. Probably hundreds if we're being realistic. I kept a sharp eye out for even a SINGLE such segment or profile of Hilary Clinton voters. I asked others to keep an eye out for one and point me to it if they saw it. And in nearly 1500 days, not ONE such example materialized. And I could be knocked over with a feather if any such panels of Biden voters take place now.
England has the reverse problem, voters in Scotland, Wales and NI provide balance so that Tories and Labour can win nationally. If the union breaks up, England looks like being permanently Tory, but why should Scotland, which is broadly to the left of England, be shackled to disastrous Tory rule? I want Scotland to stay in the union but if they can escape (and rejoin the EU) I would understand and wish them well.
The only comparison I can make to the U.S and European elections is that the United States is big. Far bigger than any one western European country. The size and cultural differences alike make it a lot like holding an election between multiple countries. State power and autonomy is extremely important in running a United States successfully. Were a handful of regions to run things for everyone else, the rest would suffer for it.
But yeah, if Scotland wants independence and votes for it, they deserve it. Didn't they vote against it though? I have a friend in Scotland who supported the independence vote and iirc that was what I heard.
They had their independence vote a couple of years before the Brexit vote on the understanding it was to settle the issue for a generation. A lot of the arguments around them not leaving were that having independence would mean applying to join the EU on their own and having to use the euro.
Some want to hold them to the once in a generation agreement (English Brexiters amongst them), others feel that the situation had fundamentally changed and there should be another vote due to Brexit.
The pandemic is really showing up the north south divide and the “quality” of the leadership in Westminster.
The idea that the U.K. can flee its “oppressors” and be an independent nation but Scotland cannot doesn’t really hold water.
It's worth keeping in mind that if the electoral college was abolished, we wouldnt suddenly see a scenario in which Republicans never win the presidency again. Instead, the GOP would be forced to actually adjust their position on deeply unpopular opinions and stop moving further and further right. They'd become a center right party rather than a sprint to the right party.
That party would win plenty of elections.
Keep in mind, the Democrats are a center-left party with a progressive wing. The opposite is not necessarily true for the GOP. Maybe it was in the past, but not right now.
In other words, they would have to represent the same voters the Democratic Party represents. A two party system for them, a zero party system for the rest of the nation. Entire states will disagree at all levels with the federal government and have no power to change it. No matter which way you spin it the failure in representation remains the same.
It is depressingly predictable that once liberals feel they will gain an advantage from this they will never stop pushing for it with any and all sorts of sophistry. An insatiable desire to win at the expense of the country and it's people. A disgusting display of personal greed.
I almost wish they would just push it through just so it would spark the inevitable revolt and secession movements from the newly annexed states. As if people are going to seriously agree to a democratic system where they don't get to have a say.
I wonder what happens to the forgotten states whose votes would no longer matter. Since their votes no longer matter I imagine quality of life declines, as the federal government fails to care about the issues happening in their irrelevant part of the world. If they are dying, nobody is hearing them scream. With no electoral power, there is no longer any political incentive to care, and with no political incentive, it simply won't happen.
I suppose the mass sacrifice of the small people is worth a higher chance of an Elizabeth Warren Presidency to many.
A few points:
- the electoral college is a minor part of the whole democratic apparatus. Changing it would thus be a minor step, not the major change suggested above.
- individual states have it in their hands now to base electoral college votes on the popular will in their state. While that may not be quite what Democrats are looking for, I'd be surprised if many rejected it as a compromise solution. That would help, if only to a small extent, to address what I think is a far more worrying neglect of Republican voters than those based in the smaller states, i.e. the huge numbers in places like California. That neglect has been as much or more by the Republican party than the Democratic one and, if addressing it helped pull the Republicans as a party slightly back towards the center, I would regard that as a good thing.
- I agree with @jjstraka34 that the above analysis is based on the assumption that the majority of the people in the US should not be regarded as full citizens. I do agree with you that in a federal country there is a need for states rights and other ways to control or influence local outcomes. However, the general presumption that, in a democratic country, basing policies on what most people want is some form of tyranny ... seems an odd starting point to me.
- the idea that the party in power should govern only in their own interests is particularly corrosive for democracy. I know that Biden is going to be up against it to try and bring people back together, but the fact he's expressed a desire to do that and govern in everyone's interests is so, so much better than the alternative.
Every 4 years it is the same conversation over and over again about the Electoral College. It’s almost on par with the thoughts and prayers after gun violence discussion.
Nothing is going to change because those who are in power aren’t going to relinquish those powers. And even if one or two state governors do, you need all 50, or a constitutional amendment, to actually pull it off.
- the electoral college is a minor part of the whole democratic apparatus. Changing it would thus be a minor step, not the major change suggested above.
I find this hard to take seriously, given the fact that it is written in the Constitution and the fact that changes it creates a tidal wave of other changes to the system of government. The change in the EC would ripple across every state, the House and Senate, the Executive Branch and the Supreme Court. It is a fundamental, seismic change and any opinion which takes the opposite approach isn't really worth much.
I agree with @jjstraka34 that the above analysis is based on the assumption that the majority of the people in the US should not be regarded as full citizens.
What a joke. "You don't see them as full citizens" isn't an argument, it's an accusation. It says nothing about which is the better model of representation to ensure the entire country has some measure of electoral power and instead boils things down to thought terminating clichés.
Why should states where vast majorities disagree with everything you think and believe be governed by you? You can't argue that they will actually have any sort of electoral power and thus representation under the model you want, because they won't, so this question is always ignored. Is your status as a "full citizen" lessened by your inability to dictate laws to people you do not live with? Or is your status as a full citizen lessened by your inability to impact your own government and country? The answer is obvious. The ones who are not full citizens here are the ones who you want to have no say in their own lives and the laws they live under, not the other way around. If and when they decide your government is illegitimate for this reason, should you get the changes you want, it will be entirely justified.
As if the people with the most electoral power and the most influence in the government out of anyone else in the Union are the ones who are not full citizens and are not represented enough. Even as they rule over others, they claim victimhood and repression, as they deny the ways they victimize and repress others.
individual states have it in their hands now to base electoral college votes on the popular will in their state.
The biggest flaw in the EC is that electors don't have to follow the popular vote in their state and can essentially do what they want. Trump is exploring this option now to just "win" states he never won the election in. This law is the same principle. Your electoral votes belong to your state and they should have to follow the popular vote of your state, by law. The fact that so many blue states are doing this is simply a way to prevent them being "flipped" by Republicans by them winning the popular vote there.
I can't imagine anything more undemocratic than this and can't imagine how you can possibly support what is obviously a subversion of a state election.
@WarChiefZeke "Why should states where vast majorities disagree with everything you think and believe be governed by you?"
Why should states that where vast minorities disagree with everything you think govern you? This argument works both ways, and I've never seen a conservative able to explain this away...
"I find this hard to take seriously, given the fact that it is written in the Constitution and the fact that changes it creates a tidal wave of other changes to the system of government."
I mean, the Constitution has been changed, what, 33 times? In the past. "But it was written this way!" isn't an argument.
Why should states that where vast minorities disagree with everything you think govern you? This argument works both ways, and I've never seen a conservative able to explain this away...
Because to win the EC means to win a majority of the people in a large amount of states. It is a good indicator that the person in question has broad support across a wide variety of places and people, rather than merely being popular with the 55% who live in one area at the expense of the 45% who live elsewhere, the exact kind of scenario the EC is supposed to prevent. A consensus based coalition that stretches across a large part of the country. I find that the ideal scenario to ensure democratic representation to a vast territory.
I have done the math on who has the most electoral power in regards to both the House, Senate and Electoral College, and presented it here, at length, at least three separate times. And I based it on the power of the vote of an individual citizen of each state. I even directly compared it to the populations of the 13 original colonies that became the first states, and why the situations are simply no longer remotely analogous. I put more work into it than anyone should for an internet message board, and I'm not doing it again. Suffice to say, California, New York and Texas were not at the top of the list. I wasn't using my feelings or opinion when doing so, I was simply using the populations of each state, their number of House members, their number of Senators, their number of electoral votes, and a calculator.
The response I got was basically "I don't care what the numbers are, it's just OBVIOUS these other states have more outsized power". It was the same argument I got back on a liberal blog back during the Ferguson unrest when I presented numbers that proved policing is not a particularly dangerous job compared to DOZENS of others, which was "I don't care what your numbers say, everyone just KNOWS policing is more dangerous." So, I'm just not gonna do it anymore. It's pointless.
Comments
There are still people on the right who seem CONVINCED that Democrats are now in favor of the Electoral College just because Biden won it this time. If they bothered to ask a SINGLE person they could learn this isn't the case. I saw the same thing about how we were "for" it in 2012. They seem to be pretending like Obama and Biden didn't win BOTH the EC and popular vote, and they must be doing it on purpose, because I can't imagine they are actually that dense.
I am a pansy boy librul CNN beta soyboy and I love the electoral college.
Please Republicans never get rid of it!
And with the EC especially I can't see any other outcome but a lawsuit, that heads to the Supreme Court, which is filled with people who believe in interpreting the Constitution as it was meant at the time. Sure he could try to pack the court before that but he is giving off the very opposite sort of vibes right now. To me, that question is merely academic at this point and the EC survives for another generation.
I can see why the people who say Dems don't have a mandate even when they win the EC and popular vote think the way they do. When Dems win big they nearly always play the centrist route, because that is what the people outside the Big Two democratic strongholds, who will always Vote Blue No Matter Who, want. Giving a blank check to their most radical activists would almost guarantee a failure in the next election, so they are almost always suppressed in one way or another, their influence barely felt.
To put it another way, it is not that they don't have a mandate, but that their mandate is basically centrism.
And the Democratic party cannot change the EC even with control of both houses of congress. That's something that has to be done on a state by state level either by process of Constitutional Amendment (the harder path) or by changing individual state constitutions via something like NPVIC (the easier route imo). The second route doesn't at all hinge on holding federal offices.
That party would win plenty of elections.
Keep in mind, the Democrats are a center-left party with a progressive wing. The opposite is not necessarily true for the GOP. Maybe it was in the past, but not right now.
There isn't any solid legal or working theory about how the election was "stolen" from them other than phrases and buzzwords meant to cause a Pavlovian response in the base. As I said before, they would have to somehow prove systematic fraud in 5 states, and they can't come up with anything more serious than "stop the count" as their starting point. Unserious, reckless, and self-serving to the very end. Newest rumors out of the White House are that Kushner and others are actually pushing him to do RALLIES to specifically push the narrative of a fraudulent election, and Mark Meadows is urging him to concede. If this guy goes around the country for the next two months absolutely whipping his people into a frenzy, someone is going to get killed. Maybe multiple people.
Inside the White House, they admit it's bullshit, and the ENTIRE thing is about soothing Trump's ego:
President Donald Trump has promised legal action in the coming days as he refused to concede his loss to Democrat Joe Biden, making an aggressive pitch for donors to help finance any court fight.
Trump and his campaign have leveled accusations of large-scale voter fraud in Pennsylvania and other states that broke for Biden, so far without proof.
But senior officials, campaign aides and allies told The Associated Press that overwhelming evidence of fraud isn’t really the point.
The strategy to wage a legal fight against the votes tallied for Biden in Pennsylvania and other places is more to provide Trump with an off-ramp for a loss he can’t quite grasp and less about changing the election’s outcome, the officials said. They spoke to AP on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal strategy.
Trump aides and allies also acknowledged privately the legal fights would — at best – forestall the inevitable, and some had deep reservations about the president's attempts to undermine faith in the vote. But they said Trump and a core group of loyalists were aiming to keep his base of supporters on his side even in defeat.
Someone tell me again why we should "reach out" when there is serious work to be done, serious people want to get started doing it, and instead, Republicans are going to act like spoiled toddlers for 75 days, significantly hindering the ability to hit the ground running against a crisis that is getting worse by the hour.
So no, I am not going to empathetic to Trump supporters in their time of grief. Because it isn't about them personally, it's about what they continue to support, even when the writing is on the wall. And the real-world consequences of doing so. We don't have time for this shit. But we are going to sit through it anyway. It's all nonsense meant to placate the emotional needs of one man. There isn't a single ounce of good faith or ACTUAL concern about voting integrity in this anywhere. I know it, and THEY know it too.
Of course, he also sets precedents for future presidents to act like irrational children during the hand-off period - and that's tremendously dangerous, especially when there's a growing authoritarian streak in one of the major parties.
Unhinged crazy person Kim Guilfoyle, current girlfriend to Donald Trump Jr, offered lap dances to whoever gave the highest donation at Republican fundraisers. This did not go over very well.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/07/this-f-ing-virus-inside-donald-trumps-2020-undoing-434716
• some donors were horrified by what they described as Guilfoyle’s lack of professionalism: She frequently joked about her sex life
Senior campaign officials, meanwhile, had been getting reports that Guilfoyle had been berating her staff. Appearing together at fundraisers, Guilfoyle and her boyfriend, Donald Trump Jr., would banter in sexually suggestive ways that made some donors uncomfortable.
During a December donor event at Trump Hotel in Washington, Guilfoyle offered to give a lap dance to whoever raised the most money, according to two people who were present and another person who was familiar with the episode.
And at an event in Jackson Hole, Wyo., earlier this year, Guilfoyle and the younger Trump joked about how she raised money while in hot tubs. Another attendee presented a slightly different version, saying that whoever in the audience raised the most money would be offered a hot tub party with Guilfoyle.
This is the key. The extreme divide right now between urban and rural is merely a product of the current issue platforms of the two parties. There is nothing about democratic norms that requires a country bend over backwards to award representation to a political party's platform. All these things are malleable.
The whole freaking core argument for democracy over autocracy is that the government has to respond to the desires of the population. Skewing away from that is skewing towards autocracy not towards democracy.
This tweet has gone viral on U.K. twitter, the new administration have Mr Johnson’s card marked. According to a Team Biden source, if you think Biden hates Johnson, wait until you hear what Harris has to say ...
Oh god those pants.
In other words, they would have to represent the same voters the Democratic Party represents. A two party system for them, a zero party system for the rest of the nation. Entire states will disagree at all levels with the federal government and have no power to change it. No matter which way you spin it the failure in representation remains the same.
It is depressingly predictable that once liberals feel they will gain an advantage from this they will never stop pushing for it with any and all sorts of sophistry. An insatiable desire to win at the expense of the country and it's people. A disgusting display of personal greed.
I almost wish they would just push it through just so it would spark the inevitable revolt and secession movements from the newly annexed states. As if people are going to seriously agree to a democratic system where they don't get to have a say.
I wonder what happens to the forgotten states whose votes would no longer matter. Since their votes no longer matter I imagine quality of life declines, as the federal government fails to care about the issues happening in their irrelevant part of the world. If they are dying, nobody is hearing them scream. With no electoral power, there is no longer any political incentive to care, and with no political incentive, it simply won't happen.
I suppose the mass sacrifice of the small people is worth a higher chance of an Elizabeth Warren Presidency to many.
Every time the Democrats win OR lose an election, the autopsy is the same. That they need to find a way to speak to rural voters who are abandoning them. The Republicans are NEVER called upon to learn how to "understand" people who live in urban areas, or moderate their positions. Ever. It's another part of the total asymmetry we've been discussing.
For four years, I watched as network newscasts and major national newspapers ran story after story after story about Trump voters in small towns. Dozens of them. Probably hundreds if we're being realistic. I kept a sharp eye out for even a SINGLE such segment or profile of Hilary Clinton voters. I asked others to keep an eye out for one and point me to it if they saw it. And in nearly 1500 days, not ONE such example materialized. And I could be knocked over with a feather if any such panels of Biden voters take place now.
The only comparison I can make to the U.S and European elections is that the United States is big. Far bigger than any one western European country. The size and cultural differences alike make it a lot like holding an election between multiple countries. State power and autonomy is extremely important in running a United States successfully. Were a handful of regions to run things for everyone else, the rest would suffer for it.
But yeah, if Scotland wants independence and votes for it, they deserve it. Didn't they vote against it though? I have a friend in Scotland who supported the independence vote and iirc that was what I heard.
Some want to hold them to the once in a generation agreement (English Brexiters amongst them), others feel that the situation had fundamentally changed and there should be another vote due to Brexit.
The pandemic is really showing up the north south divide and the “quality” of the leadership in Westminster.
The idea that the U.K. can flee its “oppressors” and be an independent nation but Scotland cannot doesn’t really hold water.
A few points:
- the electoral college is a minor part of the whole democratic apparatus. Changing it would thus be a minor step, not the major change suggested above.
- individual states have it in their hands now to base electoral college votes on the popular will in their state. While that may not be quite what Democrats are looking for, I'd be surprised if many rejected it as a compromise solution. That would help, if only to a small extent, to address what I think is a far more worrying neglect of Republican voters than those based in the smaller states, i.e. the huge numbers in places like California. That neglect has been as much or more by the Republican party than the Democratic one and, if addressing it helped pull the Republicans as a party slightly back towards the center, I would regard that as a good thing.
- I agree with @jjstraka34 that the above analysis is based on the assumption that the majority of the people in the US should not be regarded as full citizens. I do agree with you that in a federal country there is a need for states rights and other ways to control or influence local outcomes. However, the general presumption that, in a democratic country, basing policies on what most people want is some form of tyranny ... seems an odd starting point to me.
- the idea that the party in power should govern only in their own interests is particularly corrosive for democracy. I know that Biden is going to be up against it to try and bring people back together, but the fact he's expressed a desire to do that and govern in everyone's interests is so, so much better than the alternative.
Nothing is going to change because those who are in power aren’t going to relinquish those powers. And even if one or two state governors do, you need all 50, or a constitutional amendment, to actually pull it off.
I find this hard to take seriously, given the fact that it is written in the Constitution and the fact that changes it creates a tidal wave of other changes to the system of government. The change in the EC would ripple across every state, the House and Senate, the Executive Branch and the Supreme Court. It is a fundamental, seismic change and any opinion which takes the opposite approach isn't really worth much.
What a joke. "You don't see them as full citizens" isn't an argument, it's an accusation. It says nothing about which is the better model of representation to ensure the entire country has some measure of electoral power and instead boils things down to thought terminating clichés.
Why should states where vast majorities disagree with everything you think and believe be governed by you? You can't argue that they will actually have any sort of electoral power and thus representation under the model you want, because they won't, so this question is always ignored. Is your status as a "full citizen" lessened by your inability to dictate laws to people you do not live with? Or is your status as a full citizen lessened by your inability to impact your own government and country? The answer is obvious. The ones who are not full citizens here are the ones who you want to have no say in their own lives and the laws they live under, not the other way around. If and when they decide your government is illegitimate for this reason, should you get the changes you want, it will be entirely justified.
As if the people with the most electoral power and the most influence in the government out of anyone else in the Union are the ones who are not full citizens and are not represented enough. Even as they rule over others, they claim victimhood and repression, as they deny the ways they victimize and repress others.
The biggest flaw in the EC is that electors don't have to follow the popular vote in their state and can essentially do what they want. Trump is exploring this option now to just "win" states he never won the election in. This law is the same principle. Your electoral votes belong to your state and they should have to follow the popular vote of your state, by law. The fact that so many blue states are doing this is simply a way to prevent them being "flipped" by Republicans by them winning the popular vote there.
I can't imagine anything more undemocratic than this and can't imagine how you can possibly support what is obviously a subversion of a state election.
Why should states that where vast minorities disagree with everything you think govern you? This argument works both ways, and I've never seen a conservative able to explain this away...
"I find this hard to take seriously, given the fact that it is written in the Constitution and the fact that changes it creates a tidal wave of other changes to the system of government."
I mean, the Constitution has been changed, what, 33 times? In the past. "But it was written this way!" isn't an argument.
________
HOO BOY, the butthurt grows:
Because to win the EC means to win a majority of the people in a large amount of states. It is a good indicator that the person in question has broad support across a wide variety of places and people, rather than merely being popular with the 55% who live in one area at the expense of the 45% who live elsewhere, the exact kind of scenario the EC is supposed to prevent. A consensus based coalition that stretches across a large part of the country. I find that the ideal scenario to ensure democratic representation to a vast territory.
The response I got was basically "I don't care what the numbers are, it's just OBVIOUS these other states have more outsized power". It was the same argument I got back on a liberal blog back during the Ferguson unrest when I presented numbers that proved policing is not a particularly dangerous job compared to DOZENS of others, which was "I don't care what your numbers say, everyone just KNOWS policing is more dangerous." So, I'm just not gonna do it anymore. It's pointless.