Exactly. I read this somewhere and it rings extremely true to me in light of NC and elsewhere.
‘If conservatives discover they can no longer advance their ideology democratically they won’t abandon their ideology, they will abandon democracy.’
meh. The R's will just overturn whatever rules benefit D's during the lame duck session prior to whatever D wins a governor's seat in Alabama (lol, right?)
NC knows how it's done...
Exactly. I read this somewhere and it rings extremely true to me in light of NC and elsewhere.
‘If conservatives discover they can no longer advance their ideology democratically they won’t abandon their ideology, they will abandon democracy.’
Tho the GOP betting that there will never be a D in the governor's office who might end up appointing a senator isn't without risk, to say the least.
i won't claim that the democrats won't do it going into the future, but there's a huge difference in the ability to gerrymander now, with big data, than there was back in the day when the demos were doing most of the gerrymandering.The sad truth is, though, to one extent or another, both parties will. Democrats have been guilty of extreme gerrymandering and rule changing too to maintain power.
But yes, the GOP is being far more blatant and shockingly quick about it recently.
Have Republicans denied they supported a child molester yet?
The sad truth is, though, to one extent or another, both parties will. Democrats have been guilty of extreme gerrymandering and rule changing too to maintain power.
But yes, the GOP is being far more blatant and shockingly quick about it recently.
i won't claim that the democrats won't do it going into the future, but there's a huge difference in the ability to gerrymander now, with big data, than there was back in the day when the demos were doing most of the gerrymandering.
this article is pretty interesting (in the pennsylvania gerrymandering thread):
https://newrepublic.com/article/118...iciency-gap-better-way-measure-gerrymandering
north dakota and alaska have so much impact right now.You had me right up to the elimination of the EC. If that goes away, states like North Dakota and Alaska would have zero impact on the election. The point of the EC wasn't to give slave owners more votes, it was to give each state a say in the election. The US is 50 states, every one of those states want's a say in who sits in the big chair. That's also one of the reasons each state gets 2 senators. The more populous states get their advantage in the House with more representatives based on population.
We don't need to change the rules of the game, we just need better players.
You had me right up to the elimination of the EC. If that goes away, states like North Dakota and Alaska would have zero impact on the election. The point of the EC wasn't to give slave owners more votes, it was to give each state a say in the election. The US is 50 states, every one of those states want's a say in who sits in the big chair. That's also one of the reasons each state gets 2 senators. The more populous states get their advantage in the House with more representatives based on population.
We don't need to change the rules of the game, we just need better players.
1. The framers created the electoral college to protect small states - Myth
The delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention had a variety of reasons for settling on the electoral college format, but protecting smaller states was not among them. Some delegates feared direct democracy, but that was only one factor in the debate.
Remember what the country looked like in 1787: The important division was between states that relied on slavery and those that didn’t, not between large and small states. A direct election for president did not sit well with most delegates from the slave states, which had large populations but far fewer eligible voters. They gravitated toward the electoral college as a compromise because it was based on population. The convention had agreed to count each slave as three-fifths of a person for the purpose of calculating each state’s allotment of seats in Congress. For Virginia, which had the largest population among the original 13 states, that meant more clout in choosing the president.
The electoral college distorts the political process by providing a huge incentive to visit competitive states, especially large ones with hefty numbers of electoral votes. That’s why Obama and Romney have spent so much time this year in states like Ohio and Florida. In the 2008 general election, Obama and John McCain personally campaigned in only five of the 29 smallest states.
The framers protected the interests of smaller states by creating the Senate, which gives each state two votes regardless of population. There is no need for additional protection. Do we really want a presidency responsive to parochial interests in a system already prone to gridlock? The framers didn’t.
The EC has failed in selecting candidates with “eminent qualifications”.Hamilton viewed the system as superior to direct popular election. First, he recognized, the "sense of the people should operate in the choice", and would through the election of the electors to the Electoral College. Second, the electors would be:
"...men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice."
Such men would be "most likely to have the information and discernment" to make a good choice and to avoid the election of anyone "not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications."
Corruption of an electoral process could most likely arise from the desire of "foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils." To minimize risk of foreign machinations and inducements, the electoral college would have only a "transient existence" and no elector could be a "senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States"; electors would make their choice in a "detached situation", whereas a preexisting body of federal office-holders "might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes".
The framers protecting the smaller states through the EC is mostly a myth:
I’m also going to stick with what Alexander Hamilton said Federalist 68 about the EC:
The EC has failed in selecting candidates with “eminent qualifications”.
States are made up of individuals. Every citizen 18 and up has a right to vote. The EC says John Smith in ND gets more say on who is president than Bob Johnson in Texas. In what way do you feel that is anything approaching equality under the law? No one’s vote should count more than yours Greenman, neither should anyone’s count less.
The framers protecting the smaller states through the EC is mostly a myth:
I’m also going to stick with what Alexander Hamilton said Federalist 68 about the EC:
The EC has failed in selecting candidates with “eminent qualifications”.
States are made up of individuals. Every citizen 18 and up has a right to vote. The EC says John Smith in ND gets more say on who is president than Bob Johnson in Texas. In what way do you feel that is anything approaching equality under the law? No one’s vote should count more than yours Greenman, neither should anyone’s count less.
As opposed to right now when the only states that matter to anyone are Ohio, Florida, Iowa, Penn and NC? People in any non-swing state have zero power or impact on the election and ignored. How many general election campaign rally's were held in California, Texas, North Dakota, or Alaska? The answer is none.You had me right up to the elimination of the EC. If that goes away, states like North Dakota and Alaska would have zero impact on the election. The point of the EC wasn't to give slave owners more votes, it was to give each state a say in the election. The US is 50 states, every one of those states want's a say in who sits in the big chair. That's also one of the reasons each state gets 2 senators. The more populous states get their advantage in the House with more representatives based on population.
We don't need to change the rules of the game, we just need better players.
This is a very good point that I hadn't considered. Thanks for tossing that out. The allocation of EC votes should be consistent across all of the states. The best part is that it wouldn't take a constitutional convention to do it.While I agree that history proves the intent of the EC was not to ensure representation for small states in the electorate, the effect of it is something I like. The problem with the EC in my mind is the difference in how states apply their electoral votes. For winner-take all states, this marginalizes every state except for swing states regardless of size. Certainly, what states are swing states does evolve over time. Personally, I would like something like proportional distribution of EC votes + fixed contribution to the state's overall winner. The population-based contributions would be fractional, to avoid the sampling problems in allotting EC votes based on population. This puts third-party candidates in an interesting position. My hope would be an automatic runoff system where a person prioritized as many candidates as they like and at each stage the lowest vote getter was eliminated and their votes reassigned to the person's next highest choice until only 2 candidates remained. This would certainly be much more favorable to third party development, and it would remove fear that split votes between 2 similar candidates would end up electing the less popular 3rd choice. But I can see that it might be desired to have a system which encourages 2-party stability.
There is absolutely no surprise here. If he doesn't act and vote like a Republican, they'll elect a child molester instead. Heck they'll probably still elect a child molester because it is better than a Democrat, even one that acts like a Republican.Very disappointed in Senator Doug Jones.
Democratic senator may vote to acquit Trump
Personally, I'm more than irritated with these so called democrats that act more like republicans than democrats.
We put up with them during the Obamacare legislation i.e. ACA.
They were called BLUE DOGS back then.
I call them A-holes and traitors and who the hell needs them anyway?
And, who needs Doug Jones?
We might as well had Roy Moore win that Alabama senate election. At least we'd have know what we were dealing with.
All of these "defectors" or so called democrats that call themselves democrats but act and vote like republicans, I hope they all are defeated when the time comes around. Any democrat that shows an inkling of sympathy towards Donald Trump MUST GO.
Democrats don't need this.
Democrats should not put up with this.
I hope Roy Moore decides to run against Doug Jones next time around and Moore wins Doug Jones senate seat. I'd rather have a child molestor who every one knows is a child molestor than a wolf in sheeps clothing.
At least Jeff Van Drew had the balls to come out and admit he has been a republican all along, and I expect Jeff Van Drew will be easily defeated when his time comes.
These guys... These guys...
These guys should all be defeated.
They are not democrats and not really republicans, so why should the republicans want them anyway?
Defectors and party traitors should be not tolerated and they all defeated.
I expect they will be defeated.
Was going to say what about a Russian child molester .. but then I remembered... whats the difference?There is absolutely no surprise here. If he doesn't act and vote like a Republican, they'll elect a child molester instead. Heck they'll probably still elect a child molester because it is better than a Democrat, even one that acts like a Republican.
It actually sounds like he is keeping an open mind .. and like, havent made up his mind on the outcome of the trial ... before the trial has even started.. That is what we are blaiming Moscow Mitch and Leningrad Lindsey etc. of, is it not?
What Doug here is assuming it that there WILL be a trial of course, with witnesses and shit.
Very disappointed in Senator Doug Jones.
Democratic senator may vote to acquit Trump
Personally, I'm more than irritated with these so called democrats that act more like republicans than democrats.
We put up with them during the Obamacare legislation i.e. ACA.
They were called BLUE DOGS back then.
I call them A-holes and traitors and who the hell needs them anyway?
And, who needs Doug Jones?
We might as well had Roy Moore win that Alabama senate election. At least we'd have know what we were dealing with.
All of these "defectors" or so called democrats that call themselves democrats but act and vote like republicans, I hope they all are defeated when the time comes around. Any democrat that shows an inkling of sympathy towards Donald Trump MUST GO.
Democrats don't need this.
Democrats should not put up with this.
I hope Roy Moore decides to run against Doug Jones next time around and Moore wins Doug Jones senate seat. I'd rather have a child molestor who every one knows is a child molestor than a wolf in sheeps clothing.
At least Jeff Van Drew had the balls to come out and admit he has been a republican all along, and I expect Jeff Van Drew will be easily defeated when his time comes.
These guys... These guys...
These guys should all be defeated.
They are not democrats and not really republicans, so why should the republicans want them anyway?
Defectors and party traitors should be not tolerated and they all defeated.
I expect they will be defeated.
God save us from pence, lest we need to serve additional penance. We have enough as it is.I think two things are going to happen, one quickly and one slowly:
- McConnell is going to speed through tax cuts ASAP before Doug Jones is seated in the Senate to make sure they go through.
- Trump is now more vulnerable than ever to impeachment. Not only is there one more senator not on his side, but the reasons for Republicans to back him just decreased remarkably. He was a fluke and everything he touches turns to the opposite of gold. Maybe Pence would do better.