Ted Cruz forced from restaurant amid Kavanaugh drama

[lilpixieofterror]

Back then it was "elections have consequences."

Now it’s, “Republicans are illegitimate!” when they lose.

[Terraceth]

No it isn't. You are just a whiny little twit whose candidate got beat fair and square, and all you can do is blame the rules.

While I will agree that Trump won according to the rules we have, and that complaining about that is sour grapes, what is your basis for saying the electoral college is not oudated? You didn't specify. After all, the reason the electoral college exists--according to James Madison's notes from the Constitutional Convention--was because the slaveholding states wanted to be able to utilize their high slave population when it came to electing the president but without actually giving said slaves the right to vote. Slavery no longer exists, and thus the original reason for it is obviated.

Obviously, the original purpose for something no longer existing doesn't mean it's obsolete if a new purpose has arisen in the meantime. What new reason do you think exists that warrants the retention of the electoral college? The most common argument I see is that it prevents states like California from deciding who is the president by themselves, but California still wields a huge amount of power in current system, so I've never really bought that.

(of course, it perhaps goes without saying that the liberals complaining about the electoral college would have a completely different tune had it worked out the other way, with a popular Trump win but a Clinton victory in the electoral college)

That's so California doesn't vote to remove all federal funding from every other state except it and New York. How can Wyoming hope to keep from legally getting railroaded out of the country?

How exactly would this be accomplished? Even assuming you could somehow get every representative from California and New York to vote unanimously on such an arrangement--which seems extremely unlikely--you still wouldn't even be halfway to having enough votes to pass it.

To be honest, I've become increasingly skeptical lately of the necessity of the Senate. While I think it was completely reasonable to create it at the nation's founding, I feel many of the elements and concerns that existed then that gave rise to the Senate aren't really factors anymore. For example, concerns of the large states dominating discourse and shutting out the interests of the smaller states made complete sense at the time, but nowadays representatives generally vote along party lines, not state lines. The Democratic representatives from California will have much more in common with the representatives from the small state of Hawaii than the Republican representatives from their own state.

Certainly, there are no shortage of examples of highly successful countries with a one-chamber legislature with representation decided solely by population (or a two-chamber legislature where the chamber not based on population is much weaker than the one based on population). For the record, I'm not advocating getting rid of the Senate, but I think shifting the power balance more in favor of the House of Representatives is a reasonable idea. I'm not sure of the specifics of how this would be accomplished, but moving the advice and consent powers to the House and giving the House the power to, with sufficient votes, allow a bill or motion to bypass the Senate entirely are possibilities.

[Sparko]

Interesting how they didn’t think it was a problem when their party held a majority in the senate and pushed through Obama care or kept Bill Clinton in office.

I have noticed a pattern with liberals of never considering the other side. They seem to have no understanding, tolerance or empathy for anyone outside of themselves.

Like freedom of speech. They want to pretty much destroy it because they don't want conservatives to have it. They don't think about the fact that they won't have it either. Or the electoral college. One day it might work in their favor and they might lose the popular vote but win the electoral one. They would not have a problem then, would they?

[Bill the Cat]

While I will agree that Trump won according to the rules we have, and that complaining about that is sour grapes, what is your basis for saying the electoral college is not oudated?

Because it continues to protect the states from each other. No other system protects the individual sovereignty of its parts.

You didn't specify. After all, the reason the electoral college exists--according to James Madison's notes from the Constitutional Convention--was because the slaveholding states wanted to be able to utilize their high slave population when it came to electing the president but without actually giving said slaves the right to vote.

And some states from the North counted their free blacks as population without giving them the right to vote. The EC has been adjusted since then to better represent the actual population of each state, so that particular "original reason" is moot.

Slavery no longer exists, and thus the original reason for it is obviated.

No. ONE reason for its existence was removed. Others, and there were others, were modified over time via amendment, making it the most representative form of election while maintaining state sovereignty, which was the overarching intent of the founders in the entire Constitution.

Obviously, the original purpose for something no longer existing doesn't mean it's obsolete if a new purpose has arisen in the meantime.

That assumes there was only one purpose, which is incorrect. Madison explained as much in his letter to George Hay, which proposed a district-based college vote. This would have broken each state's delegates up into its own districts. But the compromise between the federalists and the nationalists rested at the state level, and remains so. His insistence on district-level delegate voting also shows that the purpose of the college was far more than just counting slaves as population.

What new reason do you think exists that warrants the retention of the electoral college?

To maintain our government as a representative republic, not a strict democracy. Which has been one of the reasons cited all along.

The most common argument I see is that it prevents states like California from deciding who is the president by themselves, but California still wields a huge amount of power in current system, so I've never really bought that.

Actually, California only wields proportional power. The EC gives states like Wyoming a voice. A direct popular vote does not.

(of course, it perhaps goes without saying that the liberals complaining about the electoral college would have a completely different tune had it worked out the other way, with a popular Trump win but a Clinton victory in the electoral college)

Naturally.

How exactly would this be accomplished? Even assuming you could somehow get every representative from California and New York to vote unanimously on such an arrangement--which seems extremely unlikely--you still wouldn't even be halfway to having enough votes to pass it.

Add Michigan, Texas, and Pennsylvania, and you are just about there. It may not be easy, but it is absolutely possible under a direct democracy.

To be honest, I've become increasingly skeptical lately of the necessity of the Senate. While I think it was completely reasonable to create it at the nation's founding, I feel many of the elements and concerns that existed then that gave rise to the Senate aren't really factors anymore. For example, concerns of the large states dominating discourse and shutting out the interests of the smaller states made complete sense at the time, but nowadays representatives generally vote along party lines, not state lines. The Democratic representatives from California will have much more in common with the representatives from the small state of Hawaii than the Republican representatives from their own state.

It's a balance to the House's population-based legislative representation. That they vote generally along party lines is unfortunate, but doesn't make either house unnecessary.

Certainly, there are no shortage of examples of highly successful countries with a one-chamber legislature with representation decided solely by population (or a two-chamber legislature where the chamber not based on population is much weaker than the one based on population). For the record, I'm not advocating getting rid of the Senate, but I think shifting the power balance more in favor of the House of Representatives is a reasonable idea. I'm not sure of the specifics of how this would be accomplished, but moving the advice and consent powers to the House and giving the House the power to, with sufficient votes, allow a bill or motion to bypass the Senate entirely are possibilities.

I don't think those countries are representative of their smaller regions. Most end up favoring population centers and their interests over rural regions.

[Cow Poke]

I have noticed a pattern with liberals of never considering the other side.

To a liberal, "compromise" means "agree with me or else".

[Sparko]

To a liberal, "compromise" means "agree with me or else".

not only that but they never seem to consider what will happen to them if the shoe is on the other foot under their new 'rules' - what they want can turn around and bite them in the nether regions quite easily a few months down the road. Like the dems coming up with the "Nuclear option" when it suited them, but not liking it one bit when it is turned against them. Well they should have thought about that in the first place.

[JimL]

Because it continues to protect the states from each other. No other system protects the individual sovereignty of its parts.

Protect them from what? And can you say the same in reverse, does the Senate protect the large states from the small?

And some states from the North counted their free blacks as population without giving them the right to vote. The EC has been adjusted since then to better represent the actual population of each state, so that particular "original reason" is moot.

Oh good, so what is the new reason for keeping the EC and for small populated states like N. Dakota having the same amount of representation in the Senate as do highly populated states Like Texas? Why would the confirmation of SC Justices be dependent upon the will of a minority of the people? You see, it seems it's the large states, the majority of the people who need protection from the minority in the current system. That's not how democracy is supposed to work.

No. ONE reason for its existence was removed. Others, and there were others, were modified over time via amendment, making it the most representative form of election while maintaining state sovereignty, which was the overarching intent of the founders in the entire Constitution.

I haven't seen you name what those other reasons are yet, nor have you explained why it is that states with very small populations have a representative advantage over states with very large populations. Why should the minority population get to decide over the will of the majority the makeup of the SC?

That assumes there was only one purpose, which is incorrect. Madison explained as much in his letter to George Hay, which proposed a district-based college vote. This would have broken each state's delegates up into its own districts. But the compromise between the federalists and the nationalists rested at the state level, and remains so. His insistence on district-level delegate voting also shows that the purpose of the college was far more than just counting slaves as population.

Well, what was Madisons reason then? Be specific please?

To maintain our government as a representative republic, not a strict democracy. Which has been one of the reasons cited all along.

Small states, ie the minority, having a representative advantage over larger states, that is an advantage over the majority, when it comes to electing presidents and confirming SC Justices etc etc. is in no way democratic no matter what you want to call it. Although i'm sure that being in the minority you're happy with the rigged system.

Actually, California only wields proportional power. The EC gives states like Wyoming a voice. A direct popular vote does not.

Wrong, a direct popular vote gives Wyoming a voice, just not as much of a voice as Texas as you would have it. Besides, how about the minority voices of those in states like Wyoming or California, don't you want them to have a voice? It's the same principle!

Naturally.

Ah, actually the electoral college favors republicans, which is why in 3 of the last 5 presidential elections, won by republicans, they lost the popular vote. Again, I'm sure that's what you like about it. Too bad really, republicans really make a mess of things, in both the country and the world.

Add Michigan, Texas, and Pennsylvania, and you are just about there. It may not be easy, but it is absolutely possible under a direct democracy.

Well, that could be done in either scenario anyway now couldn't it.

It's a balance to the House's population-based legislative representation. That they vote generally along party lines is unfortunate, but doesn't make either house unnecessary.

It's not population based, it's gerrymandered. In many red states there are more people who voted democrat than republican, and yet they have more republican representation due to gerrymandering of the districts. The system is rigged in favor of the minority of the overall population both statewise and nationally.

I don't think those countries are representative of their smaller regions. Most end up favoring population centers and their interests over rural regions.

So, you think its just the opposite in those countries as it is here in the U.S. eh?

[lilpixieofterror]

Protect them from what? And can you say the same in reverse, does the Senate protect the large states from the small?




Oh good, so what is the new reason for keeping the EC and for small populated states like N. Dakota having the same amount of representation in the Senate as do highly populated states Like Texas? Why would the confirmation of SC Justices be dependent upon the will of a minority of the people? You see, it seems it's the large states, the majority of the people who need protection from the minority in the current system. That's not how democracy is supposed to work.


I haven't seen you name what those other reasons are yet, nor have you explained why it is that states with very small populations have a representative advantage over states with very large populations. Why should the minority population get to decide over the will of the majority the makeup of the SC?



Well, what was Madisons reason then? Be specific please?



Small states, ie the minority, having a representative advantage over larger states, that is an advantage over the majority, when it comes to electing presidents and confirming SC Justices etc etc. is in no way democratic no matter what you want to call it. Although i'm sure that being in the minority you're happy with the rigged system.



Wrong, a direct popular vote gives Wyoming a voice, just not as much of a voice as Texas as you would have it. Besides, how about the minority voices of those in states like Wyoming or California, don't you want them to have a voice? It's the same principle!



Ah, actually the electoral college favors republicans, which is why in 3 of the last 5 presidential elections, won by republicans, they lost the popular vote. Again, I'm sure that's what you like about it. Too bad really, republicans really make a mess of things, in both the country and the world.



Well, that could be done in either scenario anyway now couldn't it.




It's not population based, it's gerrymandered. In many red states there are more people who voted democrat than republican, and yet they have more republican representation due to gerrymandering of the districts. The system is rigged in favor of the minority of the overall population both statewise and nationally.


So, you think its just the opposite in those countries as it is here in the U.S. eh?

Poor Jimmy, still whining that he doesn’t like the rules and wants them changed so his side can win instead. While apparently ignoring how badly changing the rules have played out for the democrats this past week alone. Be careful about changing the rules up, it could bite you in the end. Democrats lost this battle because they changed the rules and added in a nuclear option so they could push through anything they wanted after winning big in 2008. That decision cost them dearly this week. Haven’t you learned yet that changing the rules for short term gain might bite you in the behind later?

[lilpixieofterror]

I have noticed a pattern with liberals of never considering the other side. They seem to have no understanding, tolerance or empathy for anyone outside of themselves.

Like freedom of speech. They want to pretty much destroy it because they don't want conservatives to have it. They don't think about the fact that they won't have it either. Or the electoral college. One day it might work in their favor and they might lose the popular vote but win the electoral one. They would not have a problem then, would they?

You would think Democrats would have learned their lesson in changing up the rules for short term gain. Their loss on two Supreme Court justices and the tax bill is due to changing up the senate rules in 2008, for short term gains. Changing up the rules for getting rid of the current rules because the win in the popular vote might also blow up in their face. The up and coming generation z is showing a more consertive outlook. Some say they are the most consertive generation since the end of WW2. If this turns out to be true, this could offset my generation since generation z makes up 25% of the population. Again, democrats are trying to change the rules for short term gains, while failing to think beyond the next election.

[Terraceth]

Argh. I had a reply written, clicked Submit Reply, and then got told it had expired. So I clicked Back and the whole thing was deleted. So this is going to be shorter and probably not as well written as what I had before.

No. ONE reason for its existence was removed. Others, and there were others, were modified over time via amendment, making it the most representative form of election while maintaining state sovereignty, which was the overarching intent of the founders in the entire Constitution.

I should have been more clear. Slavery was the reason they went with the electoral college instead of a popular vote. There obviously were various other options on the table that were rejected for different reasons, but the reason a popular vote was rejected really no longer exists.

Actually, California only wields proportional power. The EC gives states like Wyoming a voice. A direct popular vote does not.

Under the electoral college, Wyoming contributes 0.5% of the presidential vote. Under a popular vote, it contributes 0.2%. That's an increase, sure, but I don't see it as an appreciable enough one to say 0.5% gives it a voice whereas 0.2% does not. And ironically, the electoral college gives presidential candidates even less reason to care about Wyoming than a popular vote, because it votes so consistently Republican. Under a popular vote, there'd be at least some votes up for grab and a reason to pay attention to it (it'd obviously be on the backburner, but it'd matter more than it does now in presidential campaigns).

It's a balance to the House's population-based legislative representation. That they vote generally along party lines is unfortunate, but doesn't make either house unnecessary.

Well, I'll go more deeply into my biggest issue with the Senate.

I originally had a larger part talking about some smaller issues, but I'll skip straight to the big one, at least to me: The original 13 colonies were pre-existing entities with fairly obvious borders that decided to give up some autonomy to be part of the larger United States. The Senate, giving them equal representation, was a way to help make sure their individual interests would be heard.

Subsequent states, however, generally were not like this. For the most part, they were basically parts of acquired territories that were divided up into states among thoroughly arbitrary lines. Wisconsin could have just as easily been part of Michigan, or the northern part of Michigan its own independent state. These wouldn't really be less arbitrary than what we ended up with, but we'd end up with a notably different Senate. I mean, heck, part of the reason North and South Dakota are two states was because the politicians in power at the time figured Dakota would elect Senators that would vote their way, and splitting it up into two states would give them 4 more Senators on their side instead of just 2.

How many states a particular territory got divided up into played a big role in the size and substance of the Senate. But as noted, these divisions were mostly arbitrary. There were a few states that really were pre-existing governed entities that decided to sign up to join the United States (e.g. Texas) but mostly they were just part of the US's territory that then had its borders arbitrarily set and then granted two Senators. Worries about getting lost in the new country made sense with the original states, as they were giving up some rights to join the country, but the subsequent states were already part of the country. Ironically, them becoming a state gave them more rights and autonomy, even if the Senate didn't exist!

Other countries I've looked at that had a legislative system like the US's--that is, one chamber has representation based on population, the other gives the same to all states--had the country's borders more or less established by the time they set up their legislature system, and had reasonable historical basis for how to divide up the already existing country into States for the purpose of representation. For example, I believe this was the case with Australia. But the United States, when it set up its legislature, didn't have the full borders it would eventually attain and therefore the territory later added lacked the historical basis that the original states did, leading to the issues I've observed before. Again, everything made sense with the original states. They were already their own entities, had historical basis for their borders, and then they were all joining the new country. But the arbitrary nature of the subsequent states (perhaps there was no non-arbitrary way to create them, but that doesn't mean they aren't arbitrary) results in a Senate that ends up also being arbitrary.

On the plus side, at least the Senate can't be gerrymandered.

[One Bad Pig]

Poor Jimmy, still whining that he doesn’t like the rules and wants them changed so his side can win instead.

Jim's actually doing some arguing here, not just whining. I disagree with it, but it's the best post I've seen from him in months. Kudos to him for arguing his position for once instead of merely flamethrowing.

[Sparko]

Protect them from what? And can you say the same in reverse, does the Senate protect the large states from the small?




Oh good, so what is the new reason for keeping the EC and for small populated states like N. Dakota having the same amount of representation in the Senate as do highly populated states Like Texas? Why would the confirmation of SC Justices be dependent upon the will of a minority of the people? You see, it seems it's the large states, the majority of the people who need protection from the minority in the current system. That's not how democracy is supposed to work.


I haven't seen you name what those other reasons are yet, nor have you explained why it is that states with very small populations have a representative advantage over states with very large populations. Why should the minority population get to decide over the will of the majority the makeup of the SC?



Well, what was Madisons reason then? Be specific please?



Small states, ie the minority, having a representative advantage over larger states, that is an advantage over the majority, when it comes to electing presidents and confirming SC Justices etc etc. is in no way democratic no matter what you want to call it. Although i'm sure that being in the minority you're happy with the rigged system.



Wrong, a direct popular vote gives Wyoming a voice, just not as much of a voice as Texas as you would have it. Besides, how about the minority voices of those in states like Wyoming or California, don't you want them to have a voice? It's the same principle!



Ah, actually the electoral college favors republicans, which is why in 3 of the last 5 presidential elections, won by republicans, they lost the popular vote. Again, I'm sure that's what you like about it. Too bad really, republicans really make a mess of things, in both the country and the world.



Well, that could be done in either scenario anyway now couldn't it.




It's not population based, it's gerrymandered. In many red states there are more people who voted democrat than republican, and yet they have more republican representation due to gerrymandering of the districts. The system is rigged in favor of the minority of the overall population both statewise and nationally.


So, you think its just the opposite in those countries as it is here in the U.S. eh?

Rural states (small population wise) are the bread basket of the country. And industrial centers for resources. Eliminating the senate puts them under the thumb of the urban states. Mob rule.

[lilpixieofterror]

Jim's actually doing some arguing here, not just whining. I disagree with it, but it's the best post I've seen from him in months. Kudos to him for arguing his position for once instead of merely flamethrowing.

Maybe a tiny bit, but it’s still riddled with problems. Democrats won, under the same rules, 10 years ago. All of a sudden, the rules are unfair when it was, ‘Elections have consequences.’ back than. It’s also factually incorrect too. Out of the lowest 10 states by population, 9 are democrats and 2 are independents that vote with the democrats. In reality he doesn’t like the rules of the game and is whining that they need changed, ignoring the fact Democrats have won under the same rules. He might have tried to argue his case better, but the heart is still whining that the rules are unfair when the shoe is on the other foot and democrats are unable to block what Republicans want. In 2009 it was called ‘elections have consequences’ today the very same are saying, ‘It’s unfair.’

[JimL]

Rural states (small population wise) are the bread basket of the country. And industrial centers for resources. Eliminating the senate puts them under the thumb of the urban states. Mob rule.

I didn't suggest eliminating the Senate, but a state like Wyoming with a population of 590 thousand shouldn't have the same representation in the powerful Senate as a state like Texas with a population of 29 million. It's completely ridiculous and it is why the minority of the country gets majority representation when it comes to things like confirming SC justices.

[JimL]

Maybe a tiny bit, but it’s still riddled with problems. Democrats won, under the same rules, 10 years ago. All of a sudden, the rules are unfair when it was, ‘Elections have consequences.’ back than. It’s also factually incorrect too. Out of the lowest 10 states by population, 9 are democrats and 2 are independents that vote with the democrats. In reality he doesn’t like the rules of the game and is whining that they need changed, ignoring the fact Democrats have won under the same rules. He might have tried to argue his case better, but the heart is still whining that the rules are unfair when the shoe is on the other foot and democrats are unable to block what Republicans want. In 2009 it was called ‘elections have consequences’ today the very same are saying, ‘It’s unfair.’

When democrats win, they win in spite of the EC, not because of it, winning the majority vote. Republicans win because of the EC as is proven in 3 of the ladst 5 elections wherein they lost the majority vote, by 3 million in 2016, and still won the election.