Question: The Electoral College

[4Q Basket Case]

I have another post way earlier in this thread, but the bottom line is this: The Electoral College is working exactly as it was designed. It keeps a few large, mostly urban, states from essentially dictating everything to the rest of the country. They already have proportional (i.e., effective majority status) in the House. The EC keeps them from forcing their agenda on the rest of the population, which has entirely different priorities, precisely because it isn't urban.

The fact that it can't prevent a buffoon like Trump isn't a reason to throw it out. It's a reason to field an alternative candidate who isn't trying to blow up the whole economy simply because Trump is an idiot. The Democrats are about to fritter away the opportunity of a generation, responding to a crazy man by swinging so far left that it's hard to differentiate what they advocate vs. a socialist command economy. They're making the Clintons and Obama look like Joe McCarthy, and for the life of me, I can't understand why. This is an easy win if they just don't run on a platform that says that everything great the country has been built on for over 200 years is so flawed that we need to throw it out and start all over...preferably with economic policies that require compliance with a centralized federal authority, market forces be damned.

Anyway, the discussion is largely academic, carried on by people who don't like the EC. It's is in the Constitution, and that's intentionally and blessedly hard to amend.

To amend the Constitution and throw out the EC, you have to:
- Have a 2/3 vote in the House (possibly achievable) and
- Have a 2/3 vote in the Senate (highly unlikely), and
- Have the concurrence of 3/4 of the state legislatures....a practical impossibility.

The small states need to muster only a simple majority in 13 legislatures to maintain the status quo. No way they can't do that. They'll get most of the states in the southeast (maybe not Texas or Florida), and all of the large area, low population states between the Mississippi River and the non-coastal west.

I am, however, waiting for a judge with an agenda to declare that part of the Constitution un-Constitutional. I wish that last part was in blue font. It isn't for a reason.

 

[Tidewater]

I have another post way earlier in this thread, but the bottom line is this: The Electoral College is working exactly as it was designed. It keeps a few large, mostly urban, states from essentially dictating everything to the rest of the country. They already have proportional (i.e., effective majority status) in the House. The EC keeps them from forcing their agenda on the rest of the population, which has entirely different priorities, precisely because it isn't urban.

The fact that it can't prevent a buffoon like Trump isn't a reason to throw it out.

Anyway, the discussion is largely academic, carried on by people who don't like it. The EC is in the Constitution.

To amend the Constitution and throw it out, you have to:
- Have a 2/3 vote in the House (possibly achievable) and
- Have a 2/3 vote in the Senate (highly unlikely), and
- Have the concurrence of 2/3 of the state legislatures....a practical impossibility.

The small states need to muster only a simple majority in 17 legislatures to maintain the status quo. No way they can't do that. They'll get most of the states in the southeast (maybe not Texas or Florida), and all of the large, low population states in the non-coastal west.

The Constitution is intentionally difficult to amend, and it should be. I am, however, waiting for a judge with an agenda to declare that part of the Constitution un-Constitutional. I wish that last part was in blue font. It isn't for a reason.

Amendment via the congressional route requires 2/3 of both house and the 3/4 of the states.
A convention of states requires 2/3 of the state delegates to propose and amendment and 3/4 of the states to ratify. It bypasses Congress.

 

[4Q Basket Case]

Amendment via the congressional route requires 2/3 of both house and the 3/4 of the states.
A convention of states requires 2/3 of the state delegates to propose and amendment and 3/4 of the states to ratify. It bypasses Congress.

Thanks for the correction. The choking point is still the state legislatures, and is even harder than I erroneously thought. It requires 17 states to block just the proposal of the amendment, and only 13 to block ratification. Still a practical impossibility.

 

[CharminTide]

The fact that it can't prevent a buffoon like Trump isn't a reason to throw it out. It's a reason to field an alternative candidate who isn't trying to blow up the whole economy simply because Trump is an idiot. The Democrats are about to fritter away the opportunity of a generation

I never get enough of the standard conservative gaslighting: it's the democrats' fault that we vote for Trump.

Party of personal responsibility, folks.

 

[4Q Basket Case]

I never get enough of the standard conservative gaslighting: it's the democrats' fault that we vote for Trump.

Party of personal responsibility, folks.

Just for the record, I voted for Nick Saban. Really. I wrote him in.

My thinking at the time was that I wasn't going to be forced to choose between a buffoon and a money-hungry crook. I erroneously thought that Trump already has so much money that he would not be as prone to corruption. Since then, that's been shown not to be the case. If I knew then what I know now, I'd put on a hazmat suit and vote for Hillary.

BTW -- Just a suggestion: It's hard to insult the opposition into supporting your position. Offer a better alternative who campaigns on making the country better, as opposed to campaigning on buying votes with all the toys, paid for with other people's money.

It's not a real high bar right now, but the Democrats are having a hard time chinning it. I'm telling you, Biden can win. Warren and Sanders can't. They're both preaching to the hard-core base so hard that they ignore (or worse, denigrate) the folks they need to actually get elected. And that's what puzzles me. Why are they doing that? They'll get those votes anyway. Why alienate so many that they could get into the fold with less extreme positions?

 

[CharminTide]

If I knew then what I know now, I'd put on a hazmat suit and vote for Hillary.

I do applaud this.

BTW -- Just a suggestion: It's hard to insult the opposition into supporting your position. Offer a better alternative who campaigns on making the country better, as opposed to campaigning on buying votes with all the toys, paid for with other people's money.

It's not a real high bar right now, but the Democrats are having a hard time chinning it. I'm telling you, Biden can win. Warren and Sanders can't. They're both preaching to the hard-core base so hard that they ignore (or worse, denigrate) the folks they need to actually get elected. And that's what puzzles me. Why are they doing that? They'll get those votes anyway. Why alienate so many that they could get into the fold with less extreme positions?

See, I disagree here. Biden cannot win. You're looking at who can pull Independents and ignoring the number of Democrats who will just stay home if Biden's name tops the ballot. And even if he did win, the man is senile. He shouldn't be holding the office.

Bernie is no longer running a serious campaign. Literally every week he announces some multi-trillion dollar giveaway plan that reeks of desperation. Warren has been handled with kid gloves by the media so far, and she really needs to be pressed on how all her plans hinge on a wealth tax that, while I consider it to be a great idea, is constitutionally questionable and will very likely be struck down by this incarnation of SCOTUS. The only other candidate with enough money to go the distance is Buttigieg, who has the same pragmatic appeal as Biden in a much more palatable package for Democrats. But, he's gay, so people simultaneously like him and are afraid of supporting him because others might not.

According to Booker, no one else in the race has the money to go all the way, so this is our platter of choice for 2020. I keep hearing conservatives hope for a magic unicorn candidate who is without flaw and can "earn" their vote despite wearing the scary blue D, but that person does not exist. Around this time next year, those people will just have to look real hard in the mirror and figure out if they want to vote for a trash human being who locks children in cages, subverts our democracy, and has single-handedly begun the decline of the American experiment, or if they want to vote for someone they may not agree with entirely on method, but is at least a fundamentally honest person who cares about this country and our future. Abstention from this choice is not a noble gesture, IMO, because 2020 is probably our last chance.

 

[GrayTide]

If you don’t count illegal aliens those states would only outnumber Texas by maybe 25 million people.

81 said that New York, Illinois, and California outnumbered the biggest conservative state by 43 million people. You said "if you don't count illegal aliens those states would only outnumber (you said) Texas by maybe 25 million people". IF my math is correct, 81 said those 3 states had 43 million more people, and you replied that taking away the illegal aliens that difference was 25 million. The difference is 18 million. If I am wrong please explain. Thanks.

 

[Crimson1967]

I do applaud this.


See, I disagree here. Biden cannot win. You're looking at who can pull Independents and ignoring the number of Democrats who will just stay home if Biden's name tops the ballot. And even if he did win, the man is senile. He shouldn't be holding the office.

Bernie is no longer running a serious campaign. Literally every week he announces some multi-trillion dollar giveaway plan that reeks of desperation. Warren has been handled with kid gloves by the media so far, and she really needs to be pressed on how all her plans hinge on a wealth tax that, while I consider it to be a great idea, is constitutionally questionable and will very likely be struck down by this incarnation of SCOTUS. The only other candidate with enough money to go the distance is Buttigieg, who has the same pragmatic appeal as Biden in a much more palatable package for Democrats. But, he's gay, so people simultaneously like him and are afraid of supporting him because others might not.

According to Booker, no one else in the race has the money to go all the way, so this is our platter of choice for 2020. I keep hearing conservatives hope for a magic unicorn candidate who is without flaw and can "earn" their vote despite wearing the scary blue D, but that person does not exist. Around this time next year, those people will just have to look real hard in the mirror and figure out if they want to vote for a trash human being who locks children in cages, subverts our democracy, and has single-handedly begun the decline of the American experiment, or if they want to vote for someone they may not agree with entirely on method, but is at least a fundamentally honest person who cares about this country and our future. Abstention from this choice is not a noble gesture, IMO, because 2020 is probably our last chance.

Thanks to the electoral college, it is a complete waste of time for me to cast a presidential vote. The same goes for Trump supporters in California.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bodhisattva]

Around this time next year, those people will just have to look real hard in the mirror and figure out if they want to vote for a trash human being who locks children in cages, subverts our democracy, and has single-handedly begun the decline of the American experiment,

When you (speaking generally) want big government to solve all your real or imagined problems, you'll get government that creates problems that cause generational harm. Maybe big government is not the way to go.

or if they want to vote for someone they may not agree with entirely on method, but is at least a fundamentally honest person who cares about this country and our future. Abstention from this choice is not a noble gesture, IMO, because 2020 is probably our last chance.

I don't see the fundamental honesty you want to see. Bernie. Biden. Warren. Harris. All clown candidates. The "my team's a mountain of crap but slightly less so than the other team's mountain of crap" is not a winning argument for those of us who will not vote for crap. Mayor Pete seems to the only major candidate that does not repulse me. I don't agree with most of his politics, but he does seem like a normal, intelligent guy next to the rest. I don't think he will be the nominee, but if he does he may be the first Dem or Rep I vote for since 1992.

 

[4Q Basket Case]

...The only other candidate with enough money to go the distance is Buttigieg, who has the same pragmatic appeal as Biden in a much more palatable package for Democrats. But, he's gay, so people simultaneously like him and are afraid of supporting him because others might not.

... Around this time next year, those people will just have to look real hard in the mirror and figure out if they want to vote for a trash human being who locks children in cages, subverts our democracy, and has single-handedly begun the decline of the American experiment, or if they want to vote for someone they may not agree with entirely on method, but is at least a fundamentally honest person who cares about this country and our future. Abstention from this choice is not a noble gesture, IMO, because 2020 is probably our last chance.

I'm not sure that anybody who makes it to the short list of Presidential candidates is an honest person, as the average man on the street would define it. Warren's claim of minority heritage in order to gain government-mandated advantages is an example, and Trump will roast her on that. The fact that she doubled down and published the results of a DNA test is jaw-dropping. As with most lies, it's not the lie itself. It's what it reveals about the person. In her case, hypocrisy. You can't simultaneously (1) run as the intellectually pure alternative to a buffoon, and (2) have gamed the system to your personal advantage, transforming what was intended to be a shield, into a weapon, to get you what you wanted.

Sanders' wife's issues with Bennington College is something that he hasn't been pressed on. I know enough about it to know that, at best, she turned a willfully blind eye toward bank fraud.

Buttigieg might work, if he would stop trying to prove bona fides by appeasing the far left. Which I can't fathom....he gets their votes anyway. Why alienate the undecideds that he needs to win?

I think most of the country has moved past discomfort with gay politicians. That whole thing reminded me a bit of the fall of the Iron Curtain. It was there for a long time. Looked forever immovable and immutable. Until it wasn't, and then it crumbled and fell away into yesterday's thinking in an astoundingly short period of time. The parts of the country that haven't moved past that former discomfort don't matter for Buttigieg's presidential campaign because nobody (whether gay, straight, unsure, black, white, male, female, Hispanic, Asian...whatever) with a blue D next to their name would carry those areas, regardless of who they lay their head next to at night.

You're right that Elizabeth Warren has gotten the kid glove treatment from the media. She's been allowed to speak in sweeping utopian generalities without having to answer how she would implement the ivory-tower thinking. So far, it's just, "tax the rich," the definition of which she conveniently leaves up to the listener....who equally conveniently defines "rich" as somebody other than themselves. Then there's that troublesome Native American thing that she's pretty much skated on.

There's enough fiscal irresponsibility to go around for both parties. But to fund any new government expenditure, regardless of how noble, it comes down to three options: (1) Raise taxes, or (2) Cut other pre-existing programs, or (3) Borrow. All have advantages and disadvantages. Since WWII, both parties have consistently (though not exclusively) chosen Door #3. She, and all other politicians of whatever stripe, need to be pressed on how they plan to fund their pet projects.

 

[NationalTitles18]

I do applaud this.


See, I disagree here. Biden cannot win. You're looking at who can pull Independents and ignoring the number of Democrats who will just stay home if Biden's name tops the ballot. And even if he did win, the man is senile. He shouldn't be holding the office.

Bernie is no longer running a serious campaign. Literally every week he announces some multi-trillion dollar giveaway plan that reeks of desperation. Warren has been handled with kid gloves by the media so far, and she really needs to be pressed on how all her plans hinge on a wealth tax that, while I consider it to be a great idea, is constitutionally questionable and will very likely be struck down by this incarnation of SCOTUS. The only other candidate with enough money to go the distance is Buttigieg, who has the same pragmatic appeal as Biden in a much more palatable package for Democrats. But, he's gay, so people simultaneously like him and are afraid of supporting him because others might not.

According to Booker, no one else in the race has the money to go all the way, so this is our platter of choice for 2020. I keep hearing conservatives hope for a magic unicorn candidate who is without flaw and can "earn" their vote despite wearing the scary blue D, but that person does not exist. Around this time next year, those people will just have to look real hard in the mirror and figure out if they want to vote for a trash human being who locks children in cages, subverts our democracy, and has single-handedly begun the decline of the American experiment, or if they want to vote for someone they may not agree with entirely on method, but is at least a fundamentally honest person who cares about this country and our future. Abstention from this choice is not a noble gesture, IMO, because 2020 is probably our last chance.

If Biden can't win because D's won't support him then maybe some D's need to re-examine their own priorities.

 

[BamaJama17]

81 said that New York, Illinois, and California outnumbered the biggest conservative state by 43 million people. You said "if you don't count illegal aliens those states would only outnumber (you said) Texas by maybe 25 million people". IF my math is correct, 81 said those 3 states had 43 million more people, and you replied that taking away the illegal aliens that difference was 25 million. The difference is 18 million. If I am wrong please explain. Thanks.

Yes I was estimating that there could maybe be that many illegal aliens between those three states. Most of them being in CA...even if I’m off (which I addressed earlier) by 3-6 million that’s still a lot.

 

[CharminTide]

I don't see the fundamental honesty you want to see. Bernie. Biden. Warren. Harris. All clown candidates. The "my team's a mountain of crap but slightly less so than the other team's mountain of crap" is not a winning argument for those of us who will not vote for crap. Mayor Pete seems to the only major candidate that does not repulse me. I don't agree with most of his politics, but he does seem like a normal, intelligent guy next to the rest. I don't think he will be the nominee, but if he does he may be the first Dem or Rep I vote for since 1992.

Let's be clear that I was measuring honesty in relation to Trump, not any generic red politician. That resets the scale a bit, IMO.

Interesting take on Buttigieg. I agree with you. I think he's the best of the bunch, but he has the hardest road to the nomination of any in the top 4.

 

[CharminTide]

I'm not sure that anybody who makes it to the short list of Presidential candidates is an honest person, as the average man on the street would define it. Warren's claim of minority heritage in order to gain government-mandated advantages is an example, and Trump will roast her on that. The fact that she doubled down and published the results of a DNA test is jaw-dropping. As with most lies, it's not the lie itself. It's what it reveals about the person. In her case, hypocrisy. You can't simultaneously (1) run as the intellectually pure alternative to a buffoon, and (2) have gamed the system to your personal advantage, transforming what was intended to be a shield, into a weapon, to get you what you wanted.

Sanders' wife's issues with Bennington College is something that he hasn't been pressed on. I know enough about it to know that, at best, she turned a willfully blind eye toward bank fraud.

Buttigieg might work, if he would stop trying to prove bona fides by appeasing the far left. Which I can't fathom....he gets their votes anyway. Why alienate the undecideds that he needs to win?

I think most of the country has moved past discomfort with gay politicians. That whole thing reminded me a bit of the fall of the Iron Curtain. It was there for a long time. Looked forever immovable and immutable. Until it wasn't, and then it crumbled and fell away into yesterday's thinking in an astoundingly short period of time. The parts of the country that haven't moved past that former discomfort don't matter for Buttigieg's presidential campaign because nobody (whether gay, straight, unsure, black, white, male, female, Hispanic, Asian...whatever) with a blue D next to their name would carry those areas, regardless of who they lay their head next to at night.

You're right that Elizabeth Warren has gotten the kid glove treatment from the media. She's been allowed to speak in sweeping utopian generalities without having to answer how she would implement the ivory-tower thinking. So far, it's just, "tax the rich," the definition of which she conveniently leaves up to the listener....who equally conveniently defines "rich" as somebody other than themselves. Then there's that troublesome Native American thing that she's pretty much skated on.

There's enough fiscal irresponsibility to go around for both parties. But to fund any new government expenditure, regardless of how noble, it comes down to three options: (1) Raise taxes, or (2) Cut other pre-existing programs, or (3) Borrow. All have advantages and disadvantages. Since WWII, both parties have consistently (though not exclusively) chosen Door #3. She, and all other politicians of whatever stripe, need to be pressed on how they plan to fund their pet projects.

We disagree on the political potency of Warren's heritage. In a way, Trump used that attack so early that I'm doubtful it would have much impact in the general. Boston Globe, IIRC, investigated and found that she didn't profit professionally by claiming heritage. And I think her story -- my granny told me I was Native American and I had no reason to question her -- is a fairly compelling defense. The DNA test was a misstep, I agree.

On her wealth tax, I think Warren has defined that pretty well (LINK). It's an annual 2% tax on all assets above 50 million, and 3% above 1 billion. I support the concept. The issue I see is that it will be immediately challenged in court, during which time none of her programs will have a source of funding. Personally, I think the current SCOTUS will eventually rule this to be unconstitutional, which begs the question how she will get any of her lofty plans accomplished. And no one has really pressed her on that yet.

I also agree re: Sander's wife. There was something odd about her reluctance around financial transparency during 2016. But I don't see him as a serious threat for the nomination, so I'm not overly concerned. Warren does Sanders better than Sanders, and I think he's largely capped his support, apart from a smattering of Yang supporters who will flock to him after Yang drops. From polling, it seems like most people don't actually want another old white dude yelling at them on TV.

What left bona fides are you referencing with Buttigieg? Compared to Warren absorbing Bernie's M4A and Harris flip flopping on healthcare, I actually think Buttigieg has been pretty consistent in his views so far. I tend to think you're right with regard to the gay issue and the politics behind it (e.g. Pete won't win Mississippi, so who cares if they're uncomfortable with a gay man). But I think there would be some hesitation around nominating him. There was also hesitation when nominating a black man and a woman, though, so who knows?

 

[CharminTide]

If Biden can't win because D's won't support him then maybe some D's need to re-examine their own priorities.

I don't disagree, although one could say the same about independents if Trump wins again.

 

[92tide]

If Biden can't win because D's won't support him then maybe some D's need to re-examine their own priorities.

based on what we are dealing with today, i think the same can be said about the priorities of anyone who doesn't support whoever the dem nominee is.

 

[UAH]

We disagree on the political potency of Warren's heritage. In a way, Trump used that attack so early that I'm doubtful it would have much impact in the general. Boston Globe, IIRC, investigated and found that she didn't profit professionally by claiming heritage. And I think her story -- my granny told me I was Native American and I had no reason to question her -- is a fairly compelling defense. The DNA test was a misstep, I agree.

On her wealth tax, I think Warren has defined that pretty well (LINK). It's an annual 2% tax on all assets above 50 million, and 3% above 1 billion. I support the concept. The issue I see is that it will be immediately challenged in court, during which time none of her programs will have a source of funding. Personally, I think the current SCOTUS will eventually rule this to be unconstitutional, which begs the question how she will get any of her lofty plans accomplished. And no one has really pressed her on that yet.

I also agree re: Sander's wife. There was something odd about her reluctance around financial transparency during 2016. But I don't see him as a serious threat for the nomination, so I'm not overly concerned. Warren does Sanders better than Sanders, and I think he's largely capped his support, apart from a smattering of Yang supporters who will flock to him after Yang drops. From polling, it seems like most people don't actually want another old white dude yelling at them on TV.

What left bona fides are you referencing with Buttigieg? Compared to Warren absorbing Bernie's M4A and Harris flip flopping on healthcare, I actually think Buttigieg has been pretty consistent in his views so far. I tend to think you're right with regard to the gay issue and the politics behind it (e.g. Pete won't win Mississippi, so who cares if they're uncomfortable with a gay man). But I think there would be some hesitation around nominating him. There was also hesitation when nominating a black man and a woman, though, so who knows?

More of a question than a comment... It appears from personal experience that several states that do not have an income tax replace it with a Wealth Tax including Tennessee and Florida. I have not studied the matter but it would seem that a tax could be designed in such a way to avoid a Supreme Court ruling that would effectively throw out all wealth taxes.

 

[CharminTide]

More of a question than a comment... It appears from personal experience that several states that do not have an income tax replace it with a Wealth Tax including Tennessee and Florida. I have not studied the matter but it would seem that a tax could be designed in such a way to avoid a Supreme Court ruling that would effectively throw out all wealth taxes.

I've read a few articles like this one that make it sound pretty (constitutionally) controversial. Given the current court makeup, I think I know how they would rule.

 

[GrayTide]

Moved

 

[NationalTitles18]

I don't disagree, although one could say the same about independents if Trump wins again.

based on what we are dealing with today, i think the same can be said about the priorities of anyone who doesn't support whoever the dem nominee is.

I don't disagree, particularly in any swing state where it matters, but there's just no excuse for someone in the party - especially in those states. Obviously, I haven't decided whom to vote for yet and obviously it won't matter one iota here. Additionally, unless the democrats nominate Paul Pot I'll likely recommend everyone vote for that person where it matters. If they do nominate Paul Pot I could be swayed by his dead state limiting his ability to commit mass murder and therefore being a possibly better choice than the current White House resident.