It’s funny how his argument implicitly accepts that Republicans can’t win elections in a democracy if it requires getting the most votes.
It’s funny how his argument implicitly accepts that Republicans can’t win elections in a democracy if it requires getting the most votes.Really, so you belive Texas, Florida, the big red states would have no say in the election? You do realize that the only thing the electoral collage does is allows the minority to rule. That's it.. does nothing else. Why should the minority rule when it goes against the majority?
Because he thinks equality where everyone’s vote counts the same is oppression. He doesn’t want the GOP to change policy preferences to get more people to vote Republican, he wants the system to force people to accept them despite their unpopularity.People in those red states would get just as much of a say in the election as every other person in this country. One person one vote, why does that upset you? There's millions of Republicans in blue states who don't get a say in the election and haven't in decades, their votes essentially go in the trash.
Because the United States is exactly that, a union of fifty states. Each state gets representation in the federal government, each state has a say in who the president will be. Dump the EC and the low population states have no say in who's president. The same thing happens in the senate, each state gets two, doesn't matter what the population is.Why is it "fundamental"? It's a choice, and clearly a very poor one.
Haha - called it. Low population states have no say in who is president now. Really, about 44 of the 50 states have effectively no say. The only states that have a say in who is president are Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, Nevada, and Arizona.Because the United States is exactly that, a union of fifty states. Each state gets representation in the federal government, each state has a say in who the president will be. Dump the EC and the low population states have no say in who's president. The same thing happens in the senate, each state gets two, doesn't matter what the population is.
It's how the republic was set up, and it's worked for near 250 years. That's a good system. It's produced what's arguably the most successful nation on the planet.
Democracies consistently produce better results for their populations than autocracies so this is a remarkable claim. It flies in the face of centuries of massive evidence.I know a lot of people want a more democratic system, I don't , I like the one we have. Democracy is based on the idea that a million stupid people will make better decisions than one stupid person, I've never seen any evidence of that.
I know a lot of people want a more democratic system, I don't , I like the one we have. Democracy is based on the idea that a million stupid people will make better decisions than one stupid person, I've never seen any evidence of that.
Because the United States is exactly that, a union of fifty states. Each state gets representation in the federal government, each state has a say in who the president will be. Dump the EC and the low population states have no say in who's president. The same thing happens in the senate, each state gets two, doesn't matter what the population is.
I disagree. I think the party diehards should be the people selecting the party's candidates.Not only that, but the votes aren't secret and if you vote wrong you will be browbeat by your fellow party comrades to vote correctly on the next ballot.
The caucus system is designed to maintain party control by the faithful minority of active party members. It is an abomination.
If I’m Haley I would hang on and try to wait it out until Trump is convicted of one or more crimes, which is all but certain.Greenie gets this again for his odd ramblings this morning
View attachment 91978
But back on topic, do the others just drop out next primary state or attempt to hang on for a few more?
Big words from someone who is constitutionally worth 9 tenths of a voter from Montana.Not the way the system was designed, and not the way it operates. You want to change it because you're often unhappy with the results and want to be sure those stupid red states don't get a say in the elections. The people don't elect the president, the states do.
If we end political gerrymandering a large part of the EC problem will self correct.Not the way the system was designed, and not the way it operates. You want to change it because you're often unhappy with the results and want to be sure those stupid red states don't get a say in the elections. The people don't elect the president, the states do.
How would ending gerrymandering help?If we end political gerrymandering a large part of the EC problem will self correct.
No, gerrymandering in its current form was not part of the design
2/3rds of the Iowa caucus voters said conviction won’t affect their decision November. So unless the party is willing to hold him accountable, clinging on does nothingM
If I’m Haley I would hang on and try to wait it out until Trump is convicted of one or more crimes, which is all but certain.
The EC and Senate are gerrymanders written into the Constitution. The purpose was to protect slavery. The slavers lost a few years back so it is well past time to jettison both the EC and the Senate.If we end political gerrymandering a large part of the EC problem will self correct.
No, gerrymandering in its current form was not part of the design
If that number is accurate it means Trump has zero chance of winning in November and so his entire campaign is doomed. Smart to stick around and see if that’s the case.2/3rds of the Iowa caucus voters said conviction won’t affect their decision November. So unless the party is willing to hold him accountable, clinging on does nothing
2/3rds of the Iowa caucus voters said conviction won’t affect their decision November. So unless the party is willing to hold him accountable, clinging on does nothing
So why is popular vote used in every other election in the U.S. and not electoral college-type voting? Like for Senators, Congresspersons, Governors, police chiefs, dog catchers , etc if that system is so integral to the republic?It's fundamental to the republic. Why would any states give up their say in the presidential elections?
Yes, if even 10% of Republicans vote for Biden or even just stay home due to a conviction Trump has no viable path to victory.GOP caucus voters who show up in that weather are going to be the most hardcore slice of the party. It's possible, though I still think fairly unlikely, that a conviction could derail him.
What that 1/3rd number really says is potentially doom for the general election. Even if it's off by a large margin.
Yes, if even 10% of Republicans vote for Biden or even just stay home due to a conviction Trump has no viable path to victory.
Maybe they nominate him anyway and cross their fingers that it’s not true, but if I were Haley that’s how I would frame it.
I’m sure they will say ‘he’s just joking’ as if he didn’t attempt a coup last time he was forced to leave office.Has anyone mentioned Trump saying "Four more years and beyond"?
Yea I don't think he thought that logic through lol.Why didn't you just stick with an absolute monarchy then? What was the point of all that revolting?
I also have to say that the Democrats flushing the Iowa caucuses down the toilet was a correct and commendable decision. The whole thing sucks and I don't need the entire political press of the country to follow around people who are going to get 5% of that vote.