Ted Cruz forced from restaurant amid Kavanaugh drama

[Sparko]

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

Ignore the Mob—Long Live the Electoral College

This week, anti-Trump protesters hit the streets in big cities around the country, chanting "This is what democracy looks like!" Yes. That's the problem.

For many Democrats, the greatest political system is the one that instills their party with the most power. Now that it looks like Hillary Clinton will "win" the fictional popular vote over Donald Trump, people—not just young people who've spent their entire lives being told America is a democracy, but people who know better—are getting hysterical about the Electoral College. Not only is it "unfair" and "undemocratic" but like anything else progressives dislike these days it's also a tool of "white supremacy" and "sexism."
...

If it needs repeating, in the United States of America, we have an Electoral College, wherein the president and vice president aren't elected directly by the voters, but rather by electors who are chosen through the popular votes from each state. Your state's portion of electors equals the number of members in its congressional delegation—one for each member in the House of Representatives plus two for your senators. We have 51 separate elections. This is done so that every part of the nation has some kind of say over the next executive. The president, after all, is not a monarch. He does not make laws. Not even President Barack Obama was supposed to do that. Voters need to view the system as a whole to understand why this is "fair."

Diffused democracy weakens the ability of politicians to scaremonger and use emotional appeals to take power. It blunts the vagaries of the electorate. So, naturally, the left has been attacking the Electoral College for years—including talk of a national "compact" to circumvent smaller states.

Need it be repeated again, the Electoral College, and other mechanisms that balance democracy, create moderation and compromise—they stop one party from accumulating too much power. It is certainly possible that Obama's unilateral governance over the past eight years had a lot to do with the pushback of three consecutive losses in the Senate and Congress, and the election of Donald Trump.

To some extent, the Electoral College impels presidents and their political parties to consider all Americans in rhetoric and action. By allowing two senators for both Wyoming, with a population of less than 600,000, and California, with a population of more than 38 million, we create more national cohesion. We protect large swaths of the nation from being bullied. We incentivize Washington, D.C.—both the president and the Senate—to craft policy that meets the needs of Colorado as well as New York.

Moreover, besides protecting the rights of Americans who reside in those states, it should also remind us that smaller states have industries and functions that outweigh a measurement in population alone—the agriculture sector of a state, for instance. In a world with increasing productivity, this matters more than ever. Smaller states are laboratories for ideas, as are bigger ones. If they become marginalized and then coerced to embrace the policies favored by the people in urban areas, the nation loses valuable resourcefulness, imagination and brainpower.

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.

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.

Come on now Jimmy, you haven’t explained how changing up the game would result in a Democrat victory yet.

[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:

If it needs repeating, in the United States of America, we have an Electoral College, wherein the president and vice president aren't elected directly by the voters, but rather by electors who are chosen through the popular votes from each state. Your state's portion of electors equals the number of members in its congressional delegation—one for each member in the House of Representatives plus two for your senators. We have 51 separate elections. This is done so that every part of the nation has some kind of say over the next executive. The president, after all, is not a monarch. He does not make laws. Not even President Barack Obama was supposed to do that. Voters need to view the system as a whole to understand why this is "fair."

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.

To some extent, the Electoral College impels presidents and their political parties to consider all Americans in rhetoric and action. By allowing two senators for both Wyoming, with a population of less than 600,000, and California, with a population of more than 38 million, we create more national cohesion. We protect large swaths of the nation from being bullied. We incentivize Washington, D.C.—both the president and the Senate—to craft policy that meets the needs of Colorado as well as New York.

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.

So? Democrats were not complaining when the won back in 2008. Besides, it was the democrats that changed the senate rules and introduced the nuclear option. Because the democrats didn’t think beyond the last election cycle and just did it to push through whatever they wanted. Gosh it sucks when the republicans use your own rules against you, huh? Why do you ignore that the Supreme Court setbacks are the results of democrats own attempts to change the rules? Haven’t you learned yet to be careful what you wish for because you might get it?

[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.

There’s a liberal again, assuming changing the rules of the game will favor him while ignoring how badly that’s playing out right now.

[JimL]

So? Democrats were not complaining when the won back in 2008. Besides, it was the democrats that changed the senate rules and introduced the nuclear option. Because the democrats didn’t think beyond the last election cycle and just did it to push through whatever they wanted. Gosh it sucks when the republicans use your own rules against you, huh? Why do you ignore that the Supreme Court setbacks are the results of democrats own attempts to change the rules? Haven’t you learned yet to be careful what you wish for because you might get it?

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.

My dear Jimmy, I answered it quite well, the problem is you don’t like the answer. Do you know why the democrats lost this latest battle? It’s because they changed the rules of the game. Did that teach you a lesson or do you need to get taught a new one?