Voting Rights

[HooDat]

Point is, those states control 27 electoral college votes. For what I take as Los Angeles county only controls 18 electoral college votes. Gives lie to the one man one vote non-sense. Each individual in those 7 states counts as 1.5 Angelinos.

it's nonsense because your premise is faulty. you assume it always was and should be one person one vote. it's not.

What I find nonsensical about this blabbering about the electoral college process is that it comes up as a whining point for the sole reasonof the fact that the Dems lost.

The US is a democratic republic. Power emanates from the people through local representation and ultimately to the federal government. Originally the president was intended to be chosen by congress, they added the electoral process to make sure it was more localized.

The entire point of the republic part of our system is to stem the tyranny of the masses - a concept that SHOULD be near and dear to every liberal's heart.

ah, but there's the rub - Dems are no more liberal than the GOP is conservative.... bang1

[ChairmanOfTheBoard]

agreed.

[holmes435]

I think there is a distinct difference between the tyranny of the masses (democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what's for dinner) vs. an inconsistent and flawed EC system where one or two or three states currently decides the president. Checks and balances (not the Electoral College) are supposed to prevent tyranny of the majority.

I think it's fair to give Democrats a bone when Republicans have only won one popular election since 1988, yet have held three presidential terms since then, one decided by a Republican SCOTUS.

More and more states have adopted the winner-take-all stance for their EC votes, which I feel is terrible (yes, even California's 55 winner take all EC votes too).

I'm a broken record with this, but we need more instant runoff elections in our lives to make sure candidates are winning at least 51% of the vote. And congress and potentially the supreme court needs amendments ensuring that they need some kind of supermajority votes to decide things.

[ChairmanOfTheBoard]

I think there is a distinct difference between the tyranny of the masses (democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what's for dinner) vs. an inconsistent and flawed EC system where one or two or three states currently decides the president. Checks and balances (not the Electoral College) are supposed to prevent tyranny of the majority.

I think it's fair to give Democrats a bone when Republicans have only won one popular election since 1988, yet have held three presidential terms since then, one decided by a Republican SCOTUS.

More and more states have adopted the winner-take-all stance for their EC votes, which I feel is terrible (yes, even California's 55 winner take all EC votes too).

I'm a broken record with this, but we need more instant runoff elections in our lives to make sure candidates are winning at least 51% of the vote. And congress and potentially the supreme court needs amendments ensuring that they need some kind of supermajority votes to decide things.

ive always thought of checks and balances as preventing tyranny of one branch. but understand your point nevertheless.

i dont think two or three states decides the president; i think each state can decide how to apportion their electoral votes, and then you add them up. so they all count.

pop vote simply doesnt matter except in a few circumstances, which havent occurred in a while. if we wanted it to matter, the compromise wouldnt have happened. but it did.

id be ok with runoffs. but the danger is the gaming/scheming may lead to some interesting results- read, unintended consequences.

[jhu72]

Point is, those states control 27 electoral college votes. For what I take as Los Angeles county only controls 18 electoral college votes. Gives lie to the one man one vote non-sense. Each individual in those 7 states counts as 1.5 Angelinos.

it's nonsense because your premise is faulty. you assume it always was and should be one person one vote. it's not.

I assumed nothing. I did simple arithmetic. There was no premise. My point was the same as yours. There is no such thing as one man one vote. For anyone who thinks differently, see my proof of the case.

[jhu72]

Point is, those states control 27 electoral college votes. For what I take as Los Angeles county only controls 18 electoral college votes. Gives lie to the one man one vote non-sense. Each individual in those 7 states counts as 1.5 Angelinos.

it's nonsense because your premise is faulty. you assume it always was and should be one person one vote. it's not.

What I find nonsensical about this blabbering about the electoral college process is that it comes up as a whining point for the sole reasonof the fact that the Dems lost.

The US is a democratic republic. Power emanates from the people through local representation and ultimately to the federal government. Originally the president was intended to be chosen by congress, they added the electoral process to make sure it was more localized.

The entire point of the republic part of our system is to stem the tyranny of the masses - a concept that SHOULD be near and dear to every liberal's heart.

ah, but there's the rub - Dems are no more liberal than the GOP is conservative.... bang1

[jhu72]

I think there is a distinct difference between the tyranny of the masses (democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what's for dinner) vs. an inconsistent and flawed EC system where one or two or three states currently decides the president. Checks and balances (not the Electoral College) are supposed to prevent tyranny of the majority.

I think it's fair to give Democrats a bone when Republicans have only won one popular election since 1988, yet have held three presidential terms since then, one decided by a Republican SCOTUS.

More and more states have adopted the winner-take-all stance for their EC votes, which I feel is terrible (yes, even California's 55 winner take all EC votes too).

I'm a broken record with this, but we need more instant runoff elections in our lives to make sure candidates are winning at least 51% of the vote. And congress and potentially the supreme court needs amendments ensuring that they need some kind of supermajority votes to decide things.

I don't believe the nation can survive with this happening 40% of the time, as it has in the 21st century. At some point the majority will make meaningful protest if it continues.

[thatsmell]

ah, but there's the rub - Dems are no more liberal than the GOP is conservative.... bang1

agreed.

This is what people miss. No one is trying to govern, they are all trying to "win" and belittle the other side.
Even on this forum.
Republicans en mass are silent about the deficit climbing. Because they dont want to call out their own party who lets it happen.
And suddenly Democrats give a rat's ass about deficit spending- just to call out the silent republicans.
It's the bs of everyone playing poltics.

[foreverlax]

ah, but there's the rub - Dems are no more liberal than the GOP is conservative.... bang1

agreed.

This is what people miss. No one is trying to govern, they are all trying to "win" and belittle the other side.
Even on this forum.
Republicans en mass are silent about the deficit climbing. Because they dont want to call out their own party who lets it happen.
And suddenly Democrats give a rat's ass about deficit spending- just to call out the silent republicans.
It's the bs of everyone playing politics.

True!!

For those of us who feel they have little in common with either party, currently, its very frustrating.

[Trinity]

After he saved the crashed economy Obama and sequestration cut the annual deficits. Trump’s cut tax revenues and upped government spending. This massive debt jump is all his.

[Brooklyn]

voting rights in Georgia, today:

[jhu72]

I think there is a distinct difference between the tyranny of the masses (democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what's for dinner) vs. an inconsistent and flawed EC system where one or two or three states currently decides the president. Checks and balances (not the Electoral College) are supposed to prevent tyranny of the majority.

I think it's fair to give Democrats a bone when Republicans have only won one popular election since 1988, yet have held three presidential terms since then, one decided by a Republican SCOTUS.

More and more states have adopted the winner-take-all stance for their EC votes, which I feel is terrible (yes, even California's 55 winner take all EC votes too).

I'm a broken record with this, but we need more instant runoff elections in our lives to make sure candidates are winning at least 51% of the vote. And congress and potentially the supreme court needs amendments ensuring that they need some kind of supermajority votes to decide things.

I don't believe the nation can survive with this happening 40% of the time, as it has in the 21st century. At some point the majority will make meaningful protest if it continues.

So the question is, how long will the states who are supplying the federal government with the bulk of its funding, continue to do so, given what they see as a lesser voice in how those funds are used? This of course assumes we continue the modern trend of the voting minority winning national elections through the EC. When does their patience run out? If Trump wins again in 2020 as he did in 2016? This has pretty much been a non-issue to this point, the pols have not focused on this. I would not count on that remaining the case with younger, less patient, democratic leaders emerging. With such an effort to defund the government being pushed by disenfranchised liberals what would the Tea Party Trumpnista do?

I doubt this will be an issue before 2020, and only if the republicans win again with a minority of the popular vote, but I would expect, if the democrats win the House in a month, we will see spending reigned in. The Senate and President won't spend money on the things the House will want (with the possible exception of infrastructure), so why should the House spend money on the things the President wants?

[dislaxxic]

Election Officials Sued For Georgia County’s Mail-In Ballot Rejection Practices

..

[Bandito]

Election Officials Sued For Georgia County’s Mail-In Ballot Rejection Practices

..

This is fake news. Nothing of the sort occurred and all 53,000 mail in votes will be counted.

[youthathletics]

This is why the electoral college must never go away: https://www.nbc4i.com/news/u-s-world/st ... 1064794299

Study finds surprising number of Americans think chocolate milk comes from brown cows

No matter what your argument is to abolish it, this will always win.

[jhu72]

This just makes it easier for those who want to make the argument in the disenfranchised states, to make and convince people of the truth of the matter, the people will believe anything -- witness the current president. It's easy to convince people they are victims. Anybody can play that game.

[holmes435]

This is why the electoral college must never go away: https://www.nbc4i.com/news/u-s-world/st ... 1064794299

Study finds surprising number of Americans think chocolate milk comes from brown cows

No matter what your argument is to abolish it, this will always win.

Unfortunately it's not just the voters - there are idiots all the way to the top of the political chain. The congressman who thought Guam would tip over? Or the congressman who thought women couldn't get pregnant if it's an actual rape? Sarah Palin?

We have plenty of idiots in the electoral college.

[dislaxxic]

Now HERE'S some voter fraud for ya

"Since news first broke in early August that some of Rep. Scott Taylor’s (R-VA) paid campaign staffers had allegedly forged signatures on official election filings, the congressman has promised to hold anyone involved accountable.

Filings from Taylor’s campaign Monday night, covering campaign expenses from July 1 through Sept. 30, show the opposite happened. Taylor’s campaign paid more than $40,000 to four of the staffers involved in the forgery allegations during that period, with payments continuing long after the staffers’ alleged involvement in the massive scheme was public knowledge and the subject of a lawsuit and special prosecutor’s investigation.

The payments for all four staffers occurred as recently as Sept. 12, weeks after the staffers’ alleged forgeries were known, after the Democratic Party of Virginia collected affidavits from dozens of voters who alleged that their signatures had been forged, and after a state judge said Taylor’s campaign had engaged in “out and out fraud.”

..

[Brooklyn]

more on vote suppression:







Right wingers on this forum have often praised those who fight overseas supposedly for our freedoms - but those same freedoms are often suppressed here at home and we see no objection from the right wing about it ~ why is that so?

[Brooklyn]

Is this why our forces are fighting overseas???