Ted Cruz forced from restaurant amid Kavanaugh drama

[Sparko]

good article on the electoral college (written during the last election)

https://reason.com/archives/2016/11/...e-electoral-co

[rogue06]

The MSM is starting to stir into action trying to squelch the use of the term "mob" to describe the unbalanced and deranged rabble that the political party they have become the propaganda wing for is increasingly pandering to. You actually had the chief news reader on CNN Newsroom, Brooke Baldwin, freak out when a guest used it and started calling it the "m-word"

[One Bad Pig]

The MSM is starting to stir into action trying to squelch the use of the term "mob" to describe the unbalanced and deranged rabble that the political party they have become the propaganda wing for is increasingly pandering to. You actually had the chief news reader on CNN Newsroom, Brooke Baldwin, freak out when a guest used it and started calling it the "m-word"

[Cow Poke]

The MSM is starting to stir into action trying to squelch the use of the term "mob" to describe the unbalanced and deranged rabble that the political party they have become the propaganda wing for is increasingly pandering to. You actually had the chief news reader on CNN Newsroom, Brooke Baldwin, freak out when a guest used it and started calling it the "m-word"

Yeah, I saw a bunch of video clips of the MSM referring to the Tea Party as "mobs", but resolutely denying the "resistance" nutters are "mobs". No surprise, eh?

[Sparko]

Hey JimL, how would you like it if China and India had all the power in the United Nations because they have more people than other countries do?

[lilpixieofterror]

You mistake tyranny with democracy.

[Terraceth]

good article on the electoral college (written during the last election)

I feel like some of the arguments raised here aren't very good:

This seems a non sequitur. The claim is that it's done so "that every part of the nation has some kind of say over the next executive." But that is also true in a popular vote system; votes from the smaller states are still counted. The relative "worth" of votes might shift a little by area compared to the electoral college, but nevertheless under a popular vote system, every part of the nation does have some kind of say over the next executive.

This paragraph does not make sense. It says the electoral college impels politicians to consider all Americans, but its defense is to appeal to the issue of the Senate, which is a different thing entirely. This paragraph offers provides a possible defense of the Senate, but says nothing about the electoral college. It'd be like if I were trying to defend the doctrine of the Trinity and then instead gave a

Indeed, I would say the electoral college, contrary to this paragraph, allows candidates to ignore many parts of the country. Under the electoral college system, no presidential candidate, Democrat or Republican, has the slightest reason to care about anyone in the solidly blue or red states, because barring something insane happening, they'll vote for the same party they're expected to. As I noted before, Wyoming might not matter much to a presidential candidate in a popular vote race, but it'd matter more to them than it does under the electoral college because some amount of votes, however small, could actually be gained or lost.

It's also worth remembering that the dynamics of this election would be completely different if the popular vote actually mattered. The election is geared toward winning states, not people. There is no guarantee that Hillary Clinton would have won. There are tons of conservatives in blue states, for instance, who do not vote because they understand that the majority around them have a different political outlook. A direct national election would mean focusing on blue-state Republicans and red-state liberals. I'm not sure that setup works out for Democrats exactly as they imagine.

This is all true.

[JimL]

OK, you can scream and kick and pitch a little sissy hissy - until the system changes, it is what it is, and both sides campaign to win the majority of the electoral college votes. That is how presidential elections are won.

Whine on!

Yeah, we know that's how it's done CP, that's the point of the discussion, i.e that it is an unjust system which favors the minority, in other words it favors republicans.

[JimL]

That is what the house of Representatives is for. It allows equal representation of the people by population. The Senate allows equal representation to the states regardless of population. That is the whole reason we have two houses in congress. It was a compromise. Allowing the states to have an equal say without some states bullying others, and having a system where the population can have a say without being beat up by the states.

The Senate, not the House determines the electoral college as well as the confirmation of Judges. The current 51 Republican Senators represent only 143 million people while the 49 Democrat Senators represent 183 million people. In other words Democrats Represent, in the Senate, 40 million more people than do republicans and yet that republican minority gets to determine the makeup of the Supreme Court. That is ridiculous. The EC is also way out of whack when it comes to fairness. For instance, in comparison with their populations, the voters in small states like Wyoming get a 3.6 to 1 advantage over voters in California when it comes to electoral college representation.

And btw, the EC was far from a happy compromise by the Founding Fathers. Madison hated it and it just barely passed. When the minority vote keeps winning Presidential elections, and when the minority gets to determine the makeup of the courts, particularly the SC, then there is something wrong with the system whether you want to call it a democracy or a republic.


Oh, and btw, the House republican majority also represents a minority which they accomplish by both illegal gerrymandering as well as their voter suppression tactics.

[lilpixieofterror]

The Senate, not the House determines the electoral college as well as the confirmation of Judges. The current 51 Republican Senators represent only 143 million people while the 49 Democrat Senators represent 183 million people. In other words Democrats Represent, in the Senate, 40 million more people than do republicans and yet that republican minority gets to determine the makeup of the Supreme Court. That is ridiculous. The EC is also way out of whack when it comes to fairness. For instance, in comparison with their populations, the voters in small states like Wyoming get a 3.6 to 1 advantage over voters in California when it comes to electoral college representation.

And btw, the EC was far from a happy compromise by the Founding Fathers. Madison hated it and it just barely passed. When the minority vote keeps winning Presidential elections, and when the minority gets to determine the makeup of the courts, particularly the SC, then there is something wrong with the system whether you want to call it a democracy or a republic.


Oh, and btw, the House republican majority also represents a minority which they accomplish by both illegal gerrymandering as well as their voter suppression tactics.

[lilpixieofterror]

Yeah, we know that's how it's done CP, that's the point of the discussion, i.e that it is an unjust system which favors the minority, in other words it favors republicans.

[JimL]

If you ever get around to answering my actual post, rather than throwing your usual idiocy against the wall to see if it sticks, or to avoid the points I made, then maybe I'll respond to you in kind. Otherwise you are not worth the time Lilpix.

[One Bad Pig]

If you ever get around to answering my actual post, rather than throwing your usual idiocy against the wall to see if it sticks, or to avoid the points I made, then maybe I'll respond to you in kind. Otherwise you are not worth the time Lilpix.

CEPG0BtWoAAlovd.jpg

[Sparko]

The Senate, not the House determines the electoral college as well as the confirmation of Judges. The current 51 Republican Senators represent only 143 million people while the 49 Democrat Senators represent 183 million people. In other words Democrats Represent, in the Senate, 40 million more people than do republicans and yet that republican minority gets to determine the makeup of the Supreme Court. That is ridiculous. The EC is also way out of whack when it comes to fairness. For instance, in comparison with their populations, the voters in small states like Wyoming get a 3.6 to 1 advantage over voters in California when it comes to electoral college representation.

And btw, the EC was far from a happy compromise by the Founding Fathers. Madison hated it and it just barely passed. When the minority vote keeps winning Presidential elections, and when the minority gets to determine the makeup of the courts, particularly the SC, then there is something wrong with the system whether you want to call it a democracy or a republic.


Oh, and btw, the House republican majority also represents a minority which they accomplish by both illegal gerrymandering as well as their voter suppression tactics.

Wrong the electoral votes are determined by adding the number of representatives to the two senators.

[lilpixieofterror]

If you ever get around to answering my actual post, rather than throwing your usual idiocy against the wall to see if it sticks, or to avoid the points I made, then maybe I'll respond to you in kind. Otherwise you are not worth the time Lilpix.