Kemp's voter card said 'invalid' when he tried to vote
Georgia Secretary of State and gubernatorial candidate Brian Kemp (R) received a voter card that said "invalid" when he tried to use it to vote on Election Day.
Kemp went to his home polling place in Winterville, Ga. on Tuesday afternoon, and had to go back and get another card after unsuccessfully trying to vote, according to Georgia's Channel 2 Action News.
At the moment, Kemp is getting the last laugh, because he is proving you can just flat-out cheat and rip people's right to vote away unilaterally and get away with it.
Well, I don't leave this night with the sinking feeling of dread I had 2 years ago, but I'm far from thrilled. The House was the bare necessity, and it was accomplished, and there were good wins, but horrible losses for Democrats. Despite their MASSIVE (nearly 10% nationally) popular vote total, they were only able to accomplish the bare minimum because the system is now completely stacked against them. This country continues to vote overwhelmingly for Democrats as a whole yet we can barely hold on by the skin of our teeth. The electoral system itself has become a Sysophean task to overcome every two years. Democrats were energized and did get out and vote. And it barely mattered.
True. And you know Trump is gonna be screaming about Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters, who will now be able to subpoena his tax returns.
Specifically, Ways and Means can ask for anyone's taxes. It's under their jurisdiction. They will demand the IRS give them Trump's. He will order the IRS not to. Game on.
Seems like it's bad for both sides. Republicans lost the House, and the Democrats didn't regain the Senate. Both sides will be angry.
I think it was just bad for Democracy and Democrats. Republican racism and misogyny doesn't even have to be hidden behind euphemisms anymore. That doesn't bode well for women and minorities.
The radicalization of the Republican party will continue. Trump will spin this as a win for Trumpism because he manufactures his own reality. You see, the ones that lost didn't embrace him enough. It's totally not his fault they just were corrupt, racist, enough.
Republicans will have an easier time ramming through activist judges.
Will they be able to repeal Obamacare with only the Senate? John McCain died a while ago as the last sane Republican.
Well that's "something". Still very concerned with the license to print Judges and government agency heads. We're still in store for awfulness folks. Lifetime appointments of activist judges.
The big thing about Dems holding the House, is that the House holds the purse strings. All appropriations bills have to start there.
The bad thing is that yeah, it's gotten even easier for Trump to pack as many judges as can be crammed in, since appointments are done by Senate.
I knew this was going to be the worst part of the Trump presidency since even before the 2016 election given all those empty seats that Republicans were cockblocking Obama on...An empty SCOTUS seat...the "nuclear option" becoming a thing because of the filibustering on EVERYONE...
They can continue to confirm judges in the Senate, and that is pretty much it. They can't do shit-all legislatively now. A Democratic House protects the ACA, pre-existing conditions, Social Security and Medicare. Flat-out. It's a bulwark against the most radical right-wing legislative priorities. They got their tax cut, but they are prevented from gutting the safety net for another two years, which they surely would have if they had held on.
Moreover, Trump's Administration is uniquely corrupt in nature, and it is the House that is supposed to provide oversight. The Republican Congress not only turned a blind eye to wanton abuses of power, but were practically complicit in them. That is OVER come January. It's not nothing. Trump has been accountable for nothing for two years because of one-party control of the federal government. There is now a check.
Trump may be able to do away with the Mueller investigation (even though it appears that Mueller already has a conclusion on that), but there are dozens more the Democrata in the House want to do. Several Democrats have spoken about "a hundred" investigations they want to make. I think Trump is going to be left hopping, so to speak.
Scott Walker goes down in Wisconsin, which honestly will give me a good night's sleep, and will be music to the ears of the thousands of union workers he has personally screwed over the years.
Moreover, Heller loses in Nevada. If the Democrats can manage to win Arizona, the Senate losses will be minimal and almost (if not entirely) meaningless from where we were previously. Abrams is wisely not yet conceding to the crook Kemp in Georgia in anticipation of a run-off. Kemp's lead is, as predicted, smaller than the number of voters he disenfranchised.
Kemp's blatant attempts to sabotage the election warrant investigations even if he doesn't win. You can't attempt to rig an election and then just walk away scot-free. There's nothing more crucial to the survival of a democracy than the right to vote, and Kemp tried to take that away from his own people.
They can continue to confirm judges in the Senate, and that is pretty much it. They can't do shit-all legislatively now. A Democratic House protects the ACA, pre-existing conditions, Social Security and Medicare. Flat-out. It's a bulwark against the most radical right-wing legislative priorities. They got their tax cut, but they are prevented from gutting the safety net for another two years, which they surely would have if they had held on.
That's a really big thing you're glossing over. America is a country of law and lawyers. Cramming in judges who put party over country is going to cause decades of harm.
Moreover, Trump's Administration is uniquely corrupt in nature, and it is the House that is supposed to provide oversight. The Republican Congress not only turned a blind eye to wanton abuses of power, but were practically complicit in them. That is OVER come January. It's not nothing. Trump has been accountable for nothing for two years because of one-party control of the federal government. There is now a check.
Oh yeah, thanks for reminding me, I wanted to check...
Unfortunately, Nunes got re-elected.
Also, as of 1:58 a.m. Central Time, the Dems have finally got the house.
Technically, the only real qualification one needs to be appointed to a Federal bench is "nominated by the President". The Senate probably won't confirm that person, of course, especially if the person so nominated is not a lawyer, but there is no requirement that the nominee practice law. That would be an incredibly bad idea, though, which is why no one has ever done that.
Never?
Trump nominated a 36 year old conspiracy theory ghost hunter with zero experience to be a lifetime judge almost exactly one year ago. Not exactly 'no one has ever done that'.
Okay, you got me there--I was completely unaware of that nomination.
Specifically, Ways and Means can ask for anyone's taxes. It's under their jurisdiction. They will demand the IRS give them Trump's. He will order the IRS not to. Game on.
Aside from the satisfaction of obtaining his tax returns, I am uncertain what this would accomplish. The House can impeach Trump--multiple times, if they so desire--but that would be a ridiculous waste of time. Still, I wonder how long the new House will wait before impeaching him, maybe March? Anyway, the new House has issues on its plate which need to be addressed other than impeachment--immigration reform, probably some sort of a ban on certain types of guns, etc.
Brian Kemp in Georgia purged at least 350,000 people from the voter rolls in Georgia, leads by only 70,000 and yesterday in African-American precincts there were 3+ hour lines and at one of them the voting machines weren't working because they didn't have power cords. So the answer is Brian Kemp. He got to choose his own electorate.
Also.....I often hear about the Senate balancing out the House, but as I have pointed out on numerous occasions, the House is also not representative of actual population. And tonight proved it. The biggest recent mid-term win in modern history is usually considered 1994 for Republicans. In that election, Republicans won by 7% nationally in the popular vote and picked up 54 seats. Last night the Democrats EASILY eclipsed that number by winning by 9.2%, yet only picked up 30-35 seats. The Senate has gotten completely out of hand, to the point where Democrats literally get 12 million more votes nationally and LOSE 3 seats because rural voters in small states just flat-out have more voting rights than everyone else does. This is true in the Senate AND the House. Protecting small states is one thing, but this continues to balloon out of all proportion, and isn't sustainable. Tell me again why Wyoming and North and South Dakota have two Senators each but the residents of Washington DC (which has a similar population) have NO representation in either branch of the legislature?? Again, Democrats crushed it by any mathematical measure last night, but as long as we continue to hold to this archaic geographical board game that we call a electoral system, everything is going to be walking uphill in the snow in high-heels for them. My vote in North Dakota is just flat-out more valuable for President, House and Senate than anyone living in a more populous one, and until we at the VERY least start weighing the number of House seats by the standard of the lowest population state rather than a set cap, this entire thing will remain ridiculous.
Getting less attention right now is that the Democrats DID absolutely crush Republicans at the State level last night, picking up 333 seats and flat-out taking back control of 7 State legislatures, including getting trifectas in many of them. They made up a full 1/3rd of the losses they had suffered in the last 10 years at that level in one night. It's also worth noting that in Wisconsin, Ohio, and Pennsylvania last night, Democrats went 7 for 8 in national statewide races. Those states two years ago were the only reason Trump slipped into the Presidency.
Ultimately, Trump and the Republicans waged an all-out xenophobic fear-mongering campaign in the final month, and it basically netted them a couple of Senate seats in a chamber of Congress they already controlled. Aside from the South remaining the South in regards to governor's races in Florida and Georgia, everything else, from the House, to statewide races across the country and ESPECIALLY progressive ballot initiatives (which passed even in places like Utah and Idaho) swung to the left. The Florida vote to return voting rights to ex-felons alone may doom the GOP because of the disproportionate amount of African-Americans who have a felony charge on their record for simple drug possession. Even in deep red states, the Medicaid expansion was passed by ballot measure. Michigan has decriminalized recreational marijuana. It wasn't nothing. Democrats continue to struggle in the former Confederacy, but what else is new?? Last night they did manage to essentially take back the midwest.
I also think there are issues with the House vs the Senate. In a Federal Republic it is reasonable to have a substantial part of the Government based on the individual states (ie like the Senate), but there should be at least one substantial part of Government which is decided simply by a federal level popular vote. If you would use proportional representation for this part, it would also alleviate the winner takes all principle which enables gerrymandering in he first place.
And the US does not have this; Senate, House and Presidential Election all proportionally favor small states. As I said, there are logical reasons to have this for parts of the Government, but there needs to be some balance in this as well.
I also think there are issues with the House vs the Senate. In a Federal Republic it is reasonable to have a substantial part of the Government based on the individual states (ie like the Senate), but there should be at least one substantial part of Government which is decided simply by a federal level popular vote. If you would use proportional representation for this part, it would also alleviate the winner takes all principle which enables gerrymandering in he first place.
And the US does not have this; Senate, House and Presidential Election all proportionally favor small states. As I said, there are logical reasons to have this for parts of the Government, but there needs to be some balance in this as well.
I've provided the numbers on Wyoming (the least populace state) and California (the most populace) at least 3 times in the two threads, and don't have time to do so again. But if the argument is going to be that the Senate protects the small states with a certain amount of seats by default no matter what, then the ONLY thing that can even have a chance to equal it out would be basing the amount of Representatives larger states get on the population of the smallest one, and then using simple math to determine how many. But that doesn't happen either. I went back and found my post from the old thread, so I'll just repost it here:
But the Senate is where things have truly gotten out of hand. There are 43 States in this country represented by 86 Senators that each have less population in them than LA County does. Now, some will say "that is what the House of Representatives is for". Except I've done the math on that time after time, and California and New York (as examples) are also woefully underrepresented in THAT body as well in comparison to their smaller counterparts like Wyoming. But, to break it back down:
*California has 53 members of the House
*Wyoming has 1
*California's population is 39.5 million
*Wyoming's is 579,000
*39.5 million divided by 579,000 is roughly 68
*This means that to be anywhere CLOSE to the representation small States like Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota and Montana get in the House, California would have to have 15 more House Seats than they currently do. And that is in the House, which is SUPPOSED to accurately represent population, but clearly doesn't. People in urban areas not only aren't getting sufficient representation in the Senate (which would stand to reason the way things are set up) but they ALSO aren't getting it in the House.
Now let's break down Electoral votes:
*California has 55
*Wyoming has 3
*Based on the above mentioned populations, California would need a whopping 204 Electoral votes to break even. Which is roughly FOUR TIMES as many as they actually have.
The disenfranchisement of people who live where most people actually live is completely and utterly out of hand, and likely not even sustainable. How long can you ask people to live under minority rule with these kind of absurd imbalances in how power is chosen??
The Senate awards every State no matter how big the population 2 Senators. The House ostensibly is supposed to counter that but doesn't. The Electoral votes each State gets aren't even remotely in the same solar system as balanced. And the two of those portions that favor red, rural States (the Senate and the Electoral college) as the ones who ultimately decide who gets put on the Supreme Court (when seats aren't being stolen outright). The entire system is so unbelievably biased against those who live in urban centers that it almost doesn't even seem possible until you really break down the numbers and look at it. It's a wonder Democrats are able to ever attain national power at all. It's like asking someone to go win a marathon with a 10 lb. weight attached to each leg. What possible justification is there in a reasonable argument that my Presidential vote in North Dakota should be worth 4x as much as someone voting in Sacramento??
I also think there are issues with the House vs the Senate. In a Federal Republic it is reasonable to have a substantial part of the Government based on the individual states (ie like the Senate), but there should be at least one substantial part of Government which is decided simply by a federal level popular vote. If you would use proportional representation for this part, it would also alleviate the winner takes all principle which enables gerrymandering in he first place.
And the US does not have this; Senate, House and Presidential Election all proportionally favor small states. As I said, there are logical reasons to have this for parts of the Government, but there needs to be some balance in this as well.
I've provided the numbers on Wyoming (the least populace state) and California (the most populace) at least 3 times in the two threads, and don't have time to do so again. But if the argument is going to be that the Senate protects the small states with a certain amount of seats by default no matter what, then the ONLY thing that can even have a chance to equal it out would be basing the amount of Representatives larger states get on the population of the smallest one, and then using simple math to determine how many. But that doesn't happen either. I went back and found my post from the old thread, so I'll just repost it here:
But the Senate is where things have truly gotten out of hand. There are 43 States in this country represented by 86 Senators that each have less population in them than LA County does. Now, some will say "that is what the House of Representatives is for". Except I've done the math on that time after time, and California and New York (as examples) are also woefully underrepresented in THAT body as well in comparison to their smaller counterparts like Wyoming. But, to break it back down:
*California has 53 members of the House
*Wyoming has 1
*California's population is 39.5 million
*Wyoming's is 579,000
*39.5 million divided by 579,000 is roughly 68
*This means that to be anywhere CLOSE to the representation small States like Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota and Montana get in the House, California would have to have 15 more House Seats than they currently do. And that is in the House, which is SUPPOSED to accurately represent population, but clearly doesn't. People in urban areas not only aren't getting sufficient representation in the Senate (which would stand to reason the way things are set up) but they ALSO aren't getting it in the House.
Now let's break down Electoral votes:
*California has 55
*Wyoming has 3
*Based on the above mentioned populations, California would need a whopping 204 Electoral votes to break even. Which is roughly FOUR TIMES as many as they actually have.
The disenfranchisement of people who live where most people actually live is completely and utterly out of hand, and likely not even sustainable. How long can you ask people to live under minority rule with these kind of absurd imbalances in how power is chosen??
The Senate awards every State no matter how big the population 2 Senators. The House ostensibly is supposed to counter that but doesn't. The Electoral votes each State gets aren't even remotely in the same solar system as balanced. And the two of those portions that favor red, rural States (the Senate and the Electoral college) as the ones who ultimately decide who gets put on the Supreme Court (when seats aren't being stolen outright). The entire system is so unbelievably biased against those who live in urban centers that it almost doesn't even seem possible until you really break down the numbers and look at it. It's a wonder Democrats are able to ever attain national power at all. It's like asking someone to go win a marathon with a 10 lb. weight attached to each leg. What possible justification is there in a reasonable argument that my Presidential vote in North Dakota should be worth 4x as much as someone voting in Sacramento??
The electoral votes are assigned according to the US population, not the difference in population between 2 states. According to some quick math I just did, Wyoming should have 1 EV and California 65. That's according to 2010 census numbers.
I also think there are issues with the House vs the Senate. In a Federal Republic it is reasonable to have a substantial part of the Government based on the individual states (ie like the Senate), but there should be at least one substantial part of Government which is decided simply by a federal level popular vote. If you would use proportional representation for this part, it would also alleviate the winner takes all principle which enables gerrymandering in he first place.
And the US does not have this; Senate, House and Presidential Election all proportionally favor small states. As I said, there are logical reasons to have this for parts of the Government, but there needs to be some balance in this as well.
I've provided the numbers on Wyoming (the least populace state) and California (the most populace) at least 3 times in the two threads, and don't have time to do so again. But if the argument is going to be that the Senate protects the small states with a certain amount of seats by default no matter what, then the ONLY thing that can even have a chance to equal it out would be basing the amount of Representatives larger states get on the population of the smallest one, and then using simple math to determine how many. But that doesn't happen either. I went back and found my post from the old thread, so I'll just repost it here:
But the Senate is where things have truly gotten out of hand. There are 43 States in this country represented by 86 Senators that each have less population in them than LA County does. Now, some will say "that is what the House of Representatives is for". Except I've done the math on that time after time, and California and New York (as examples) are also woefully underrepresented in THAT body as well in comparison to their smaller counterparts like Wyoming. But, to break it back down:
*California has 53 members of the House
*Wyoming has 1
*California's population is 39.5 million
*Wyoming's is 579,000
*39.5 million divided by 579,000 is roughly 68
*This means that to be anywhere CLOSE to the representation small States like Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota and Montana get in the House, California would have to have 15 more House Seats than they currently do. And that is in the House, which is SUPPOSED to accurately represent population, but clearly doesn't. People in urban areas not only aren't getting sufficient representation in the Senate (which would stand to reason the way things are set up) but they ALSO aren't getting it in the House.
Now let's break down Electoral votes:
*California has 55
*Wyoming has 3
*Based on the above mentioned populations, California would need a whopping 204 Electoral votes to break even. Which is roughly FOUR TIMES as many as they actually have.
The disenfranchisement of people who live where most people actually live is completely and utterly out of hand, and likely not even sustainable. How long can you ask people to live under minority rule with these kind of absurd imbalances in how power is chosen??
The Senate awards every State no matter how big the population 2 Senators. The House ostensibly is supposed to counter that but doesn't. The Electoral votes each State gets aren't even remotely in the same solar system as balanced. And the two of those portions that favor red, rural States (the Senate and the Electoral college) as the ones who ultimately decide who gets put on the Supreme Court (when seats aren't being stolen outright). The entire system is so unbelievably biased against those who live in urban centers that it almost doesn't even seem possible until you really break down the numbers and look at it. It's a wonder Democrats are able to ever attain national power at all. It's like asking someone to go win a marathon with a 10 lb. weight attached to each leg. What possible justification is there in a reasonable argument that my Presidential vote in North Dakota should be worth 4x as much as someone voting in Sacramento??
The electoral votes are assigned according to the US population, not the difference in population between 2 states. According to some quick math I just did, Wyoming should have 1 EV and California 65. That's according to 2010 census numbers.
I'd absolutely take a net gain of 10 electoral votes in California and 5 or 6 in New York as a starting point (and at the same time subtracting about 10 from those States where barely anyone lives as they go from 3 to 1). Keep in mind this would also give Texas more as well. The main point of these posts has always been showing how even the House is not representative because there is a cap on the number of Reps, and to show how the imbalance has gotten, to say the least, at tad out of control in one direction. I don't oppose protecting small states, all I'm arguing (and will continue to argue) is that it has gone well beyond that. "Protecting small states" has, in terms of Presidential elections, made the votes of people in small States 4x more powerful than those in large ones. In regards to the Senate, it has made some of them almost 80x more powerful.
I'd absolutely take a net gain of 10 electoral votes in California and 5 or 6 in New York as a starting point (and at the same time subtracting about 10 from those States where barely anyone lives as they go from 3 to 1). Keep in mind this would also give Texas more as well. The main point of these posts has always been showing how even the House is not representative because there is a cap on the number of Reps, and to show how the imbalance has gotten, to say the least, at tad out of control in one direction. I don't oppose protecting small states, all I'm arguing (and will continue to argue) is that it has gone well beyond that. "Protecting small states" has, in terms of Presidential elections, made the votes of people in small States 4x more powerful than those in large ones. In regards to the Senate, it has made some of them almost 80x more powerful.
One the one hand, I agree that House representation is out of alignment with the current population and really needs to be addressed. On the other hand, do we really want national elections to be decided only by people in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, St. Louis, Houston, Miami, and New York City? Do you believe that voters in New York City and Los Angeles have your best interests at heart, given that they do not live in your area?
Comments
Trump voters carry Republicans to victory in Senate, while House teeters on edge
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-voters-carry-republicans-victory-senate-house-teeters-edge-041422472.html?.tsrc=notification-brknewsLoyalty is a one way street with him.
Kemp's voter card said 'invalid' when he tried to vote
Georgia Secretary of State and gubernatorial candidate Brian Kemp (R) received a voter card that said "invalid" when he tried to use it to vote on Election Day.
Kemp went to his home polling place in Winterville, Ga. on Tuesday afternoon, and had to go back and get another card after unsuccessfully trying to vote, according to Georgia's Channel 2 Action News.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/kemps-voter-card-said-invalid-when-he-tried-to-vote/ar-BBPqgbZ?li=BBnb7Kz&fbclid=IwAR2GKVUj3AOP6SeVuCUndMK_w2gKas9qFqwZrnrkR8gwY0XZsREkKsvg7YE
The radicalization of the Republican party will continue. Trump will spin this as a win for Trumpism because he manufactures his own reality. You see, the ones that lost didn't embrace him enough. It's totally not his fault they just were corrupt, racist, enough.
Republicans will have an easier time ramming through activist judges.
Will they be able to repeal Obamacare with only the Senate? John McCain died a while ago as the last sane Republican.
The bad thing is that yeah, it's gotten even easier for Trump to pack as many judges as can be crammed in, since appointments are done by Senate.
I knew this was going to be the worst part of the Trump presidency since even before the 2016 election given all those empty seats that Republicans were cockblocking Obama on...An empty SCOTUS seat...the "nuclear option" becoming a thing because of the filibustering on EVERYONE...
Moreover, Trump's Administration is uniquely corrupt in nature, and it is the House that is supposed to provide oversight. The Republican Congress not only turned a blind eye to wanton abuses of power, but were practically complicit in them. That is OVER come January. It's not nothing. Trump has been accountable for nothing for two years because of one-party control of the federal government. There is now a check.
Moreover, Heller loses in Nevada. If the Democrats can manage to win Arizona, the Senate losses will be minimal and almost (if not entirely) meaningless from where we were previously. Abrams is wisely not yet conceding to the crook Kemp in Georgia in anticipation of a run-off. Kemp's lead is, as predicted, smaller than the number of voters he disenfranchised.
Unfortunately, Nunes got re-elected.
Also, as of 1:58 a.m. Central Time, the Dems have finally got the house.
Trump voters carry Republicans in the Senate, while Pelosi claims victory in the House
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-voters-carry-republicans-victory-senate-house-teeters-edge-041422472.html?.tsrc=notification-brknewsHours before U.S. election day, Facebook pulls dozens of accounts for 'coordinated inauthentic behavior'
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/hours-before-us-election-day-facebook-pulls-dozens-of-accounts-for-coordinated-inauthentic-behavior/ar-BBPo46q?fbclid=IwAR0mzqzU_EyJsBlGo3tI7o7OwNRx3vD0WLSsDuQV3rU85ukvak9QryusSbwAnti-gay marriage county clerk Kim Davis loses reelection in Kentucky
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/anti-gay-marriage-country-clerk-kim-davis-loses-reelection-in-kentucky/ar-BBPqhPe?fbclid=IwAR0mzqzU_EyJsBlGo3tI7o7OwNRx3vD0WLSsDuQV3rU85ukvak9QryusSbwAside from the satisfaction of obtaining his tax returns, I am uncertain what this would accomplish. The House can impeach Trump--multiple times, if they so desire--but that would be a ridiculous waste of time. Still, I wonder how long the new House will wait before impeaching him, maybe March? Anyway, the new House has issues on its plate which need to be addressed other than impeachment--immigration reform, probably some sort of a ban on certain types of guns, etc.
Yeah, right!
Also.....I often hear about the Senate balancing out the House, but as I have pointed out on numerous occasions, the House is also not representative of actual population. And tonight proved it. The biggest recent mid-term win in modern history is usually considered 1994 for Republicans. In that election, Republicans won by 7% nationally in the popular vote and picked up 54 seats. Last night the Democrats EASILY eclipsed that number by winning by 9.2%, yet only picked up 30-35 seats. The Senate has gotten completely out of hand, to the point where Democrats literally get 12 million more votes nationally and LOSE 3 seats because rural voters in small states just flat-out have more voting rights than everyone else does. This is true in the Senate AND the House. Protecting small states is one thing, but this continues to balloon out of all proportion, and isn't sustainable. Tell me again why Wyoming and North and South Dakota have two Senators each but the residents of Washington DC (which has a similar population) have NO representation in either branch of the legislature?? Again, Democrats crushed it by any mathematical measure last night, but as long as we continue to hold to this archaic geographical board game that we call a electoral system, everything is going to be walking uphill in the snow in high-heels for them. My vote in North Dakota is just flat-out more valuable for President, House and Senate than anyone living in a more populous one, and until we at the VERY least start weighing the number of House seats by the standard of the lowest population state rather than a set cap, this entire thing will remain ridiculous.
Getting less attention right now is that the Democrats DID absolutely crush Republicans at the State level last night, picking up 333 seats and flat-out taking back control of 7 State legislatures, including getting trifectas in many of them. They made up a full 1/3rd of the losses they had suffered in the last 10 years at that level in one night. It's also worth noting that in Wisconsin, Ohio, and Pennsylvania last night, Democrats went 7 for 8 in national statewide races. Those states two years ago were the only reason Trump slipped into the Presidency.
Ultimately, Trump and the Republicans waged an all-out xenophobic fear-mongering campaign in the final month, and it basically netted them a couple of Senate seats in a chamber of Congress they already controlled. Aside from the South remaining the South in regards to governor's races in Florida and Georgia, everything else, from the House, to statewide races across the country and ESPECIALLY progressive ballot initiatives (which passed even in places like Utah and Idaho) swung to the left. The Florida vote to return voting rights to ex-felons alone may doom the GOP because of the disproportionate amount of African-Americans who have a felony charge on their record for simple drug possession. Even in deep red states, the Medicaid expansion was passed by ballot measure. Michigan has decriminalized recreational marijuana. It wasn't nothing. Democrats continue to struggle in the former Confederacy, but what else is new?? Last night they did manage to essentially take back the midwest.
And the US does not have this; Senate, House and Presidential Election all proportionally favor small states. As I said, there are logical reasons to have this for parts of the Government, but there needs to be some balance in this as well.
But the Senate is where things have truly gotten out of hand. There are 43 States in this country represented by 86 Senators that each have less population in them than LA County does. Now, some will say "that is what the House of Representatives is for". Except I've done the math on that time after time, and California and New York (as examples) are also woefully underrepresented in THAT body as well in comparison to their smaller counterparts like Wyoming. But, to break it back down:
*California has 53 members of the House
*Wyoming has 1
*California's population is 39.5 million
*Wyoming's is 579,000
*39.5 million divided by 579,000 is roughly 68
*This means that to be anywhere CLOSE to the representation small States like Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota and Montana get in the House, California would have to have 15 more House Seats than they currently do. And that is in the House, which is SUPPOSED to accurately represent population, but clearly doesn't. People in urban areas not only aren't getting sufficient representation in the Senate (which would stand to reason the way things are set up) but they ALSO aren't getting it in the House.
Now let's break down Electoral votes:
*California has 55
*Wyoming has 3
*Based on the above mentioned populations, California would need a whopping 204 Electoral votes to break even. Which is roughly FOUR TIMES as many as they actually have.
The disenfranchisement of people who live where most people actually live is completely and utterly out of hand, and likely not even sustainable. How long can you ask people to live under minority rule with these kind of absurd imbalances in how power is chosen??
The Senate awards every State no matter how big the population 2 Senators. The House ostensibly is supposed to counter that but doesn't. The Electoral votes each State gets aren't even remotely in the same solar system as balanced. And the two of those portions that favor red, rural States (the Senate and the Electoral college) as the ones who ultimately decide who gets put on the Supreme Court (when seats aren't being stolen outright). The entire system is so unbelievably biased against those who live in urban centers that it almost doesn't even seem possible until you really break down the numbers and look at it. It's a wonder Democrats are able to ever attain national power at all. It's like asking someone to go win a marathon with a 10 lb. weight attached to each leg. What possible justification is there in a reasonable argument that my Presidential vote in North Dakota should be worth 4x as much as someone voting in Sacramento??
I'd absolutely take a net gain of 10 electoral votes in California and 5 or 6 in New York as a starting point (and at the same time subtracting about 10 from those States where barely anyone lives as they go from 3 to 1). Keep in mind this would also give Texas more as well. The main point of these posts has always been showing how even the House is not representative because there is a cap on the number of Reps, and to show how the imbalance has gotten, to say the least, at tad out of control in one direction. I don't oppose protecting small states, all I'm arguing (and will continue to argue) is that it has gone well beyond that. "Protecting small states" has, in terms of Presidential elections, made the votes of people in small States 4x more powerful than those in large ones. In regards to the Senate, it has made some of them almost 80x more powerful.
One the one hand, I agree that House representation is out of alignment with the current population and really needs to be addressed. On the other hand, do we really want national elections to be decided only by people in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, St. Louis, Houston, Miami, and New York City? Do you believe that voters in New York City and Los Angeles have your best interests at heart, given that they do not live in your area?