Voting

[Kismet]

But its prejudice, voter suppression, and only republicans complaining : https://x.com/mitchellvii/status/1827470294245671293

Looney Tune Russell Brand, a trusted source of anything?
Actually he'd give RFK Jr a run for looniest loon on the planet.

Thx for sharing all of the weird stuff in your Elon feed.

[youthathletics]

But its prejudice, voter suppression, and only republicans complaining : https://x.com/mitchellvii/status/1827470294245671293

Looney Tune Russell Brand, a trusted source of anything?
Actually he'd give RFK Jr a run for looniest loon on the planet.

Thx for sharing all of the weird stuff in your Elon feed.

I know right.....all those politicians and even our current Democratic Presidential Candidate used her own words in those clips....but deny them all because someone other than Maddow presented it for you.

[Kismet]

But its prejudice, voter suppression, and only republicans complaining : https://x.com/mitchellvii/status/1827470294245671293

Looney Tune Russell Brand, a trusted source of anything?
Actually he'd give RFK Jr a run for looniest loon on the planet.

Thx for sharing all of the weird stuff in your Elon feed.

I know right.....all those politicians and even our current Democratic Presidential Candidate used her own words in those clips....but deny them all because someone other than Maddow presented it for you.

Sorry, I don't watch or follow Maddow at all. Try again.
I also certainly don't use Elon Inc as a source for any kind of truthful news.

[a fan]

But its prejudice, voter suppression, and only republicans complaining : https://x.com/mitchellvii/status/1827470294245671293

We've been over this......You understand that this indicts Russell, too?

All of them are lying. All of them. Russell thinks that the fact that Dems made the same stupid claims puts him in the clear.

Yeah, that's not how that works, YA: he's as big of a POS as the rest of them. And the worse part? When a TrumpFan hears Hill making claims about voting, they know she's lying...and yet they believe Trump. I hate it.

What's the plan when the left believes that our voting system is rigged, and aligns themselves with the far right? Every time I ask that, the usual suspects run away.

[youthathletics]

But its prejudice, voter suppression, and only republicans complaining : https://x.com/mitchellvii/status/1827470294245671293

We've been over this......You understand that this indicts Russell, too?

All of them are lying. All of them. Russell thinks that the fact that Dems made the same stupid claims puts him in the clear.

Yeah, that's not how that works, YA: he's as big of a POS as the rest of them. And the worse part? When a TrumpFan hears Hill making claims about voting, they know she's lying...and yet they believe Trump. I hate it.

What's the plan when the left believes that our voting system is rigged, and aligns themselves with the far right? Every time I ask that, the usual suspects run away.

Exactly!!! Bravo….you get it. Maybe you con convince the others around here to acknowledge it.

[Typical Lax Dad]

This is how the politicians pick their voters.

https://thehill.com/homenews/4847888-oh ... nitiative/

The ruling class picks the politicians who in turn pick the voters.

[3rdPersonPlural]

This is how the politicians pick their voters.

https://thehill.com/homenews/4847888-oh ... nitiative/

The ruling class picks the politicians who in turn pick the voters.

That's like 118k residents per State Rep.

I bet that Ohio (or any State for that matter) has exhaustive stats as to the needs and wants of each voter and can do a heat map for these voters over regions. So let's cluster the farmers, the meat producers, the educators, the manufacturers, the tech folks, the idle rich, the big families, the single professionals, the laborers, etc. and separate these into groups of 118k so candidates can propose policy and boast of clout for that demographic. These groups will probably have enough geographic coherence to create a geographic territory, but there are clusters of highly educated people, for instance, that will need geographic accumulation to reach the 118k figure

We couldn't do this a few decades ago, but now a single coder with access to the data can divvy up the State in an afternoon. It ain't hard.

[ggait]

But its prejudice, voter suppression, and only republicans complaining : https://x.com/mitchellvii/status/1827470294245671293

Boycott this stupid loser fascist racist a-hole troll. STFU and GFY and shove your gaslight up your butt. Sorry that you just can't handle democracy YA (aka Goebbels).

Notice there are no dates on any of that garbage content you posted.

FYI, Virginia "just" got rid of touch screen voting machines in...wait for it...2017!!!

Paper based ballot machines (audit trail and not connected to the internet) are now standard in VA and elsewhere and have been for years.

And here is the current state of play for VA voting processes, courtesy of current GOP Governor Youngkin. Paper ballots and drop boxes are the way to go troll boy.

For Immediate Release: August 7, 2024

Governor Glenn Youngkin Issues Executive Order to Codify Comprehensive Election Security Measures to Protect Legal Voters and Accurate Counts

RICHMOND, VA — Governor Glenn Youngkin today issued Executive Order 35, which codifies the election security procedures put into place during his administration, including stringent ballot security, complete and thorough counting machine testing, and best-in-the-nation voter list maintenance.

“The Virginia model for Election Security works. This isn't a Democrat or Republican issue, it's an American and Virginian issue. Every legal vote deserves to be counted without being watered down by illegal votes or inaccurate machines. In Virginia, we don’t play games and our model for election security is working,” said Governor Glenn Youngkin.

“We use 100% paper ballots with a strict chain of custody. We use counting machines, not voting machines, that are tested prior to every election and never connected to the internet. We do not mass mail ballots. We monitor our drop boxes 24/7. We verify the legal presence and identity of voters using DMV data and other trusted data sources to update our voter rolls daily, not only adding new voters, but scrubbing the lists to remove those that should not be on it, like the deceased, individuals that have moved, and non-citizens that have accidentally or maliciously attempted to register,” Governor Glenn Youngkin continued.

[Typical Lax Dad]

This is how the politicians pick their voters.

https://thehill.com/homenews/4847888-oh ... nitiative/

The ruling class picks the politicians who in turn pick the voters.

That's like 118k residents per State Rep.

I bet that Ohio (or any State for that matter) has exhaustive stats as to the needs and wants of each voter and can do a heat map for these voters over regions. So let's cluster the farmers, the meat producers, the educators, the manufacturers, the tech folks, the idle rich, the big families, the single professionals, the laborers, etc. and separate these into groups of 118k so candidates can propose policy and boast of clout for that demographic. These groups will probably have enough geographic coherence to create a geographic territory, but there are clusters of highly educated people, for instance, that will need geographic accumulation to reach the 118k figure

We couldn't do this a few decades ago, but now a single coder with access to the data can divvy up the State in an afternoon. It ain't hard.

That’s right. I listened to a program on NPR about 14 years ago that talked about it.

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C--V9wSJ ... BiNWFlZA==

[WaffleTwineFaceoff]

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C--V9wSJ ... BiNWFlZA==

Could a similarly clever, reductive, and purposefully misleading video be created showing people's "What the heck?" facial expressions upon learning what their lives under majoritarianism could look like? What film set would the hoops court be swapped out for? So many possibilities!

There are, in my opinion, some good food for thought ideas and discussion points floating around which don't rely on oversimplification and trite sound bites (hallmarks of our times, alas) designed to incite viewer's to react emotionally, and formulate directed path reasoning and understanding. Maybe I'm just cynical. The Quora post below goes more than puddle deep, and I'm sure many folks here can relate. YMMV. Just throwing it out there. What thinkest thou?

Culturally speaking, America is very different nowadays that it was at the time of the Constitution’s ratification circa 1787. A major difference between now and then is that, with the exception of Texans (and maybe New Yorkers), Americans see themselves as beholden to America, not the State of Minnesota or the State of Louisiana, or what have you.

This is exceptionally apparent during a reading of the preamble of America’s original, failed government, The Articles of Confederation, which is as follows. The delegates agree to certain articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia. The Constitution was seen by many, not as the framework of a new country, but as an exceptionally strong alliance between 13 independent countries. In fact, in many ways, the Constitution was a precursor to the European Union. Now, with the context of the previous information, I’d like to present a thought experiment.

Imagine that you are at the Constitutional Convention as a representative of one of the smaller colonies, like Georgia or Vermont. What motivation would you have to join this alliance, if you all but knew that the law of your land would be determined by the citizens of states of New York and Virginia? There would be no point. Instead of forming a new country in conjunction with the larger colonies, you would become a new territory of said larger colonies; your people would lose any political voice that they had under your colony’s government.

Enter the Electoral College. (And more importantly, the bicameral legislature, but that’s not relevant to the purposes of this answer.) The Electoral College existed as an incentive for the smaller states to join the newly formed country, while at the same time, not screwing over the larger states, by giving them the same power as the smaller states. It was revolutionary, and more importantly, it gave this great nation the opportunity to exist in the first place, and by doing so, the Electoral College achieved its primary function, only two years after its inception.

However, today, and especially after the elections of 2000 and 2016, many people have lost sight of the original purpose of the Electoral College, and have entertained it’s abandonment in favor of a presidential election that is won by the candidate who simply obtains more votes than everyone else. What many people haven’t realized is that this movement exists due to a large cultural shift in which Americans no longer see themselves first and foremost as citizens of their own states, but as Americans. The cultural divide no longer is built on state lines, and instead on the rural/urban dichotomy. Someone who lives on Lake Street in Minneapolis has more in common with someone who lives in another Midwestern city, like Chicago, than someone who lives in a rural part of their own state.

Which brings us back to the issue of the Electoral College, which still accomplishes its purpose, but often leaves some groups, like northern New Yorkers, urban Texans, and Southern Illinoisans, without a voice. These groups of people have different policy wants and needs than people in other parts of their state, however, because of the Electoral College, candidates only pander to their ideological different peers.

However many people get ahead of themselves and use this disenfranchisement as an argument for the total abolition of the Electoral College. This is a terrible idea. Abolition of the Electoral College would bring to the national stage the issues it creates at the state level. Candidates could win elections by promising policies that would only benefit people who live in densely populated areas, but would hurt everyone else. The result would be a classic example of the axiom, “The candidate who promises to rob Peter to pay Paul can always count on Paul’s vote.” This is why the Electoral College needs reform, not abandonment.

While there are many ways to go about this, my personal suggestion is that we adopt a blend between our current system and a proportional system of election, similar to Canada’s. The current Electoral College awards each state electoral voters based on its total congressional representation. For example, my home state of Minnesota has 10 electoral votes, two for each of its senators, and eight for its eight congressional districts. My proposal would entail each state awarding two electoral votes based on which candidate won the state as a whole, which each of its remaining electoral votes would be awarded corresponding to who won each of its congressional districts. This system, which I call ‘District+Two Representation’ (D+2R), would simultaneously maintain fair representation of each state, and give both urban and rural voters a voice in our federal leadership.

Please note, that while this sounds difficult to implement, it is not impossible. The Constitution gives each state the right to award its electoral votes by whichever method the state desires. Two states, Maine and Nebraska, have taken advantage of this, and award their electoral votes in similar fashion to my D+2R plan.

If it so desired, the federal government could incentivize states to implement this via federal funding, or through the much more difficult, yet more binding method of a constitutional amendment. I am a fan of the second one far more than the first, however the first is far more practical given our current political climate. While this system has weaknesses, namely Gerrymandering, it would be an excellent compromise between the current Electoral College, and a simple popular vote.

[Kismet]

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C--V9wSJ ... BiNWFlZA==

Could a similarly clever, reductive, and purposefully misleading video be created showing people's "What the heck?" facial expressions upon learning what their lives under majoritarianism could look like? What film set would the hoops court be swapped out for? So many possibilities!

There are, in my opinion, some good food for thought ideas and discussion points floating around which don't rely on oversimplification and trite sound bites (hallmarks of our times, alas) designed to incite viewer's to react emotionally, and formulate directed path reasoning and understanding. Maybe I'm just cynical. The Quora post below goes more than puddle deep, and I'm sure many folks here can relate. YMMV. Just throwing it out there. What thinkest thou?

Culturally speaking, America is very different nowadays that it was at the time of the Constitution’s ratification circa 1787. A major difference between now and then is that, with the exception of Texans (and maybe New Yorkers), Americans see themselves as beholden to America, not the State of Minnesota or the State of Louisiana, or what have you.

This is exceptionally apparent during a reading of the preamble of America’s original, failed government, The Articles of Confederation, which is as follows. The delegates agree to certain articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia. The Constitution was seen by many, not as the framework of a new country, but as an exceptionally strong alliance between 13 independent countries. In fact, in many ways, the Constitution was a precursor to the European Union. Now, with the context of the previous information, I’d like to present a thought experiment.

Imagine that you are at the Constitutional Convention as a representative of one of the smaller colonies, like Georgia or Vermont. What motivation would you have to join this alliance, if you all but knew that the law of your land would be determined by the citizens of states of New York and Virginia? There would be no point. Instead of forming a new country in conjunction with the larger colonies, you would become a new territory of said larger colonies; your people would lose any political voice that they had under your colony’s government.

Enter the Electoral College. (And more importantly, the bicameral legislature, but that’s not relevant to the purposes of this answer.) The Electoral College existed as an incentive for the smaller states to join the newly formed country, while at the same time, not screwing over the larger states, by giving them the same power as the smaller states. It was revolutionary, and more importantly, it gave this great nation the opportunity to exist in the first place, and by doing so, the Electoral College achieved its primary function, only two years after its inception.

However, today, and especially after the elections of 2000 and 2016, many people have lost sight of the original purpose of the Electoral College, and have entertained it’s abandonment in favor of a presidential election that is won by the candidate who simply obtains more votes than everyone else. What many people haven’t realized is that this movement exists due to a large cultural shift in which Americans no longer see themselves first and foremost as citizens of their own states, but as Americans. The cultural divide no longer is built on state lines, and instead on the rural/urban dichotomy. Someone who lives on Lake Street in Minneapolis has more in common with someone who lives in another Midwestern city, like Chicago, than someone who lives in a rural part of their own state.

Which brings us back to the issue of the Electoral College, which still accomplishes its purpose, but often leaves some groups, like northern New Yorkers, urban Texans, and Southern Illinoisans, without a voice. These groups of people have different policy wants and needs than people in other parts of their state, however, because of the Electoral College, candidates only pander to their ideological different peers.

However many people get ahead of themselves and use this disenfranchisement as an argument for the total abolition of the Electoral College. This is a terrible idea. Abolition of the Electoral College would bring to the national stage the issues it creates at the state level. Candidates could win elections by promising policies that would only benefit people who live in densely populated areas, but would hurt everyone else. The result would be a classic example of the axiom, “The candidate who promises to rob Peter to pay Paul can always count on Paul’s vote.” This is why the Electoral College needs reform, not abandonment.

While there are many ways to go about this, my personal suggestion is that we adopt a blend between our current system and a proportional system of election, similar to Canada’s. The current Electoral College awards each state electoral voters based on its total congressional representation. For example, my home state of Minnesota has 10 electoral votes, two for each of its senators, and eight for its eight congressional districts. My proposal would entail each state awarding two electoral votes based on which candidate won the state as a whole, which each of its remaining electoral votes would be awarded corresponding to who won each of its congressional districts. This system, which I call ‘District+Two Representation’ (D+2R), would simultaneously maintain fair representation of each state, and give both urban and rural voters a voice in our federal leadership.

Please note, that while this sounds difficult to implement, it is not impossible. The Constitution gives each state the right to award its electoral votes by whichever method the state desires. Two states, Maine and Nebraska, have taken advantage of this, and award their electoral votes in similar fashion to my D+2R plan.

If it so desired, the federal government could incentivize states to implement this via federal funding, or through the much more difficult, yet more binding method of a constitutional amendment. I am a fan of the second one far more than the first, however the first is far more practical given our current political climate. While this system has weaknesses, namely Gerrymandering, it would be an excellent compromise between the current Electoral College, and a simple popular vote.

Not to mention that the HoR has not been adjusted for population growth via the census for over 100 years, so the statements about proportional representation are also woefully out of whack from the original premise. This wildly exacerbate that original premise now almost exponentially which may explain why nobody wants to fix it to reflect the current population to preserve minority rule in many cases.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ho ... 435-seats/

Why 435?

"There have been 435 seats in the House for so long now that it might seem as if the Founding Fathers had foreseen it as a natural ceiling for the chamber’s size. But that isn’t the case: 435 is entirely arbitrary. The House arrived at that number because of political expediency — and it has stayed there because of it, too.

Up until 1910, when the chamber expanded from 391 to 435 seats,4 the size of the House had experienced a mostly unchecked pattern of growth. Only once, after the 1840 census, did the number of seats in the House not increase; 1910, however, marked the last time the House grew, even though the U.S. population has more than tripled since then, from over 90 million in 1910 to over 330 million today."

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C--V9wSJ ... BiNWFlZA==

Could a similarly clever, reductive, and purposefully misleading video be created showing people's "What the heck?" facial expressions upon learning what their lives under majoritarianism could look like? What film set would the hoops court be swapped out for? So many possibilities!

There are, in my opinion, some good food for thought ideas and discussion points floating around which don't rely on oversimplification and trite sound bites (hallmarks of our times, alas) designed to incite viewer's to react emotionally, and formulate directed path reasoning and understanding. Maybe I'm just cynical. The Quora post below goes more than puddle deep, and I'm sure many folks here can relate. YMMV. Just throwing it out there. What thinkest thou?

Culturally speaking, America is very different nowadays that it was at the time of the Constitution’s ratification circa 1787. A major difference between now and then is that, with the exception of Texans (and maybe New Yorkers), Americans see themselves as beholden to America, not the State of Minnesota or the State of Louisiana, or what have you.

This is exceptionally apparent during a reading of the preamble of America’s original, failed government, The Articles of Confederation, which is as follows. The delegates agree to certain articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia. The Constitution was seen by many, not as the framework of a new country, but as an exceptionally strong alliance between 13 independent countries. In fact, in many ways, the Constitution was a precursor to the European Union. Now, with the context of the previous information, I’d like to present a thought experiment.

Imagine that you are at the Constitutional Convention as a representative of one of the smaller colonies, like Georgia or Vermont. What motivation would you have to join this alliance, if you all but knew that the law of your land would be determined by the citizens of states of New York and Virginia? There would be no point. Instead of forming a new country in conjunction with the larger colonies, you would become a new territory of said larger colonies; your people would lose any political voice that they had under your colony’s government.

Enter the Electoral College. (And more importantly, the bicameral legislature, but that’s not relevant to the purposes of this answer.) The Electoral College existed as an incentive for the smaller states to join the newly formed country, while at the same time, not screwing over the larger states, by giving them the same power as the smaller states. It was revolutionary, and more importantly, it gave this great nation the opportunity to exist in the first place, and by doing so, the Electoral College achieved its primary function, only two years after its inception.

However, today, and especially after the elections of 2000 and 2016, many people have lost sight of the original purpose of the Electoral College, and have entertained it’s abandonment in favor of a presidential election that is won by the candidate who simply obtains more votes than everyone else. What many people haven’t realized is that this movement exists due to a large cultural shift in which Americans no longer see themselves first and foremost as citizens of their own states, but as Americans. The cultural divide no longer is built on state lines, and instead on the rural/urban dichotomy. Someone who lives on Lake Street in Minneapolis has more in common with someone who lives in another Midwestern city, like Chicago, than someone who lives in a rural part of their own state.

Which brings us back to the issue of the Electoral College, which still accomplishes its purpose, but often leaves some groups, like northern New Yorkers, urban Texans, and Southern Illinoisans, without a voice. These groups of people have different policy wants and needs than people in other parts of their state, however, because of the Electoral College, candidates only pander to their ideological different peers.

However many people get ahead of themselves and use this disenfranchisement as an argument for the total abolition of the Electoral College. This is a terrible idea. Abolition of the Electoral College would bring to the national stage the issues it creates at the state level. Candidates could win elections by promising policies that would only benefit people who live in densely populated areas, but would hurt everyone else. The result would be a classic example of the axiom, “The candidate who promises to rob Peter to pay Paul can always count on Paul’s vote.” This is why the Electoral College needs reform, not abandonment.

While there are many ways to go about this, my personal suggestion is that we adopt a blend between our current system and a proportional system of election, similar to Canada’s. The current Electoral College awards each state electoral voters based on its total congressional representation. For example, my home state of Minnesota has 10 electoral votes, two for each of its senators, and eight for its eight congressional districts. My proposal would entail each state awarding two electoral votes based on which candidate won the state as a whole, which each of its remaining electoral votes would be awarded corresponding to who won each of its congressional districts. This system, which I call ‘District+Two Representation’ (D+2R), would simultaneously maintain fair representation of each state, and give both urban and rural voters a voice in our federal leadership.

Please note, that while this sounds difficult to implement, it is not impossible. The Constitution gives each state the right to award its electoral votes by whichever method the state desires. Two states, Maine and Nebraska, have taken advantage of this, and award their electoral votes in similar fashion to my D+2R plan.

If it so desired, the federal government could incentivize states to implement this via federal funding, or through the much more difficult, yet more binding method of a constitutional amendment. I am a fan of the second one far more than the first, however the first is far more practical given our current political climate. While this system has weaknesses, namely Gerrymandering, it would be an excellent compromise between the current Electoral College, and a simple popular vote.

Not to mention that the HoR has not been adjusted for population growth via the census for over 100 years, so the statements about proportional representation are also woefully out of whack from the original premise. Exacerbate the original premise now almost exponentially which may explain why nobody want to fix it to reflect the current population.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ho ... 435-seats/

Why 435?

"There have been 435 seats in the House for so long now that it might seem as if the Founding Fathers had foreseen it as a natural ceiling for the chamber’s size. But that isn’t the case: 435 is entirely arbitrary. The House arrived at that number because of political expediency — and it has stayed there because of it, too.

Up until 1910, when the chamber expanded from 391 to 435 seats,4 the size of the House had experienced a mostly unchecked pattern of growth. Only once, after the 1840 census, did the number of seats in the House not increase; 1910, however, marked the last time the House grew, even though the U.S. population has more than tripled since then, from over 90 million in 1910 to over 330 million today."

I thought it was funny.

[MDlaxfan76]

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C--V9wSJ ... BiNWFlZA==

Could a similarly clever, reductive, and purposefully misleading video be created showing people's "What the heck?" facial expressions upon learning what their lives under majoritarianism could look like? What film set would the hoops court be swapped out for? So many possibilities!

There are, in my opinion, some good food for thought ideas and discussion points floating around which don't rely on oversimplification and trite sound bites (hallmarks of our times, alas) designed to incite viewer's to react emotionally, and formulate directed path reasoning and understanding. Maybe I'm just cynical. The Quora post below goes more than puddle deep, and I'm sure many folks here can relate. YMMV. Just throwing it out there. What thinkest thou?

Culturally speaking, America is very different nowadays that it was at the time of the Constitution’s ratification circa 1787. A major difference between now and then is that, with the exception of Texans (and maybe New Yorkers), Americans see themselves as beholden to America, not the State of Minnesota or the State of Louisiana, or what have you.

This is exceptionally apparent during a reading of the preamble of America’s original, failed government, The Articles of Confederation, which is as follows. The delegates agree to certain articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia. The Constitution was seen by many, not as the framework of a new country, but as an exceptionally strong alliance between 13 independent countries. In fact, in many ways, the Constitution was a precursor to the European Union. Now, with the context of the previous information, I’d like to present a thought experiment.

Imagine that you are at the Constitutional Convention as a representative of one of the smaller colonies, like Georgia or Vermont. What motivation would you have to join this alliance, if you all but knew that the law of your land would be determined by the citizens of states of New York and Virginia? There would be no point. Instead of forming a new country in conjunction with the larger colonies, you would become a new territory of said larger colonies; your people would lose any political voice that they had under your colony’s government.

Enter the Electoral College. (And more importantly, the bicameral legislature, but that’s not relevant to the purposes of this answer.) The Electoral College existed as an incentive for the smaller states to join the newly formed country, while at the same time, not screwing over the larger states, by giving them the same power as the smaller states. It was revolutionary, and more importantly, it gave this great nation the opportunity to exist in the first place, and by doing so, the Electoral College achieved its primary function, only two years after its inception.

However, today, and especially after the elections of 2000 and 2016, many people have lost sight of the original purpose of the Electoral College, and have entertained it’s abandonment in favor of a presidential election that is won by the candidate who simply obtains more votes than everyone else. What many people haven’t realized is that this movement exists due to a large cultural shift in which Americans no longer see themselves first and foremost as citizens of their own states, but as Americans. The cultural divide no longer is built on state lines, and instead on the rural/urban dichotomy. Someone who lives on Lake Street in Minneapolis has more in common with someone who lives in another Midwestern city, like Chicago, than someone who lives in a rural part of their own state.

Which brings us back to the issue of the Electoral College, which still accomplishes its purpose, but often leaves some groups, like northern New Yorkers, urban Texans, and Southern Illinoisans, without a voice. These groups of people have different policy wants and needs than people in other parts of their state, however, because of the Electoral College, candidates only pander to their ideological different peers.

However many people get ahead of themselves and use this disenfranchisement as an argument for the total abolition of the Electoral College. This is a terrible idea. Abolition of the Electoral College would bring to the national stage the issues it creates at the state level. Candidates could win elections by promising policies that would only benefit people who live in densely populated areas, but would hurt everyone else. The result would be a classic example of the axiom, “The candidate who promises to rob Peter to pay Paul can always count on Paul’s vote.” This is why the Electoral College needs reform, not abandonment.

While there are many ways to go about this, my personal suggestion is that we adopt a blend between our current system and a proportional system of election, similar to Canada’s. The current Electoral College awards each state electoral voters based on its total congressional representation. For example, my home state of Minnesota has 10 electoral votes, two for each of its senators, and eight for its eight congressional districts. My proposal would entail each state awarding two electoral votes based on which candidate won the state as a whole, which each of its remaining electoral votes would be awarded corresponding to who won each of its congressional districts. This system, which I call ‘District+Two Representation’ (D+2R), would simultaneously maintain fair representation of each state, and give both urban and rural voters a voice in our federal leadership.

Please note, that while this sounds difficult to implement, it is not impossible. The Constitution gives each state the right to award its electoral votes by whichever method the state desires. Two states, Maine and Nebraska, have taken advantage of this, and award their electoral votes in similar fashion to my D+2R plan.

If it so desired, the federal government could incentivize states to implement this via federal funding, or through the much more difficult, yet more binding method of a constitutional amendment. I am a fan of the second one far more than the first, however the first is far more practical given our current political climate. While this system has weaknesses, namely Gerrymandering, it would be an excellent compromise between the current Electoral College, and a simple popular vote.

Yes, that's the fatal flaw.

Get rid of gerrymandering and this sort of compromise makes some sense. Absent that, though, it simply doesn't.

That said, I disagree about the fear of a Presidential election resulting in candidates espousing policy positions that a majority of Americans would support (yeah, I know that common sense gun reforms supported by a majority of Americans freaks you out in specific). Having the singularly national positions of President and VP won by the slate whose aggregate positions are favored by the most Americans is entirely sensible, IMO. There are plenty of other checks and balances, including two Senators for each state regardless of population size, to create the sort of representation of differing states' own majority views that one could be interested in maintaining. Likewise, individual protections against harm of various sorts and in favor of various liberties are subject as well to class action in the courts and are an essential element not having anything to do with the Electoral College.

What we have now, IMO, is dangerously close to enshrining minority rule in America, which flies in the face of the principles of democracy and IMO increases the chances of violent instability...or violent suppression of majority preferences.

[WaffleTwineFaceoff]

I know that common sense gun reforms supported by a majority of Americans freaks you out in specific.

Just couldn't resist, could you? Supported by majority of Americans has been shown depends on how the poll questions are phrased, and to whom. Exhibit A of just that is the ex parte part of Red Flag laws in a poll in which the results changed dramatically when respondents were provided with clarity on that contentious aspect (ie: the steamrolling of one of their OTHER civil liberties as a feature). But you know that. And what freaks me out is folks who have 1) decided they have a right to define validity regarding why one chooses to legally own a particular firearm in common use and 2) lust for it being banned due even when one looks at the criminal actions carried out with that firearm A) statistically and B) without assigning it extra special powers of lethality versus other semi-automatic firearms. But you know that. Our politicians know that. Bloomberg's Lobbying army knows that. Mainstream media knows that. And anyone interested in reality knows that. The question is why the people who know that freak out when sensible proposals for root cause intervention and mitigation are put forth which don't bow down to their desired narrative and irrational enmity. But you know that, as solutions are sprinkled about all throughout Sensible, but rejected based on...emotions, and an irrational desire to impose sanctions on the law abiding and a specific tool you hate, instead of working together to make real progress.

[MDlaxfan76]

I know that common sense gun reforms supported by a majority of Americans freaks you out in specific.

Just couldn't resist, could you? Supported by majority of Americans has been shown depends on how the poll questions are phrased, and to whom. Exhibit A of just that is the ex parte part of Red Flag laws in a poll in which the results changed dramatically when respondents were provided with clarity on that contentious aspect (ie: the steamrolling of one of their OTHER civil liberties as a feature). But you know that. And what freaks me out is folks who have 1) decided they have a right to define validity regarding why one chooses to legally own a particular firearm in common use and 2) lust for it being banned due even when one looks at the criminal actions carried out with that firearm A) statistically and B) without assigning it extra special powers of lethality versus other semi-automatic firearms. But you know that. Our politicians know that. Bloomberg's Lobbying army knows that. Mainstream media knows that. And anyone interested in reality knows that. The question is why the people who know that freak out when sensible proposals for root cause intervention and mitigation are put forth which don't bow down to their desired narrative and irrational enmity. But you know that, as solutions are sprinkled about all throughout Sensible, but rejected based on...emotions, and an irrational desire to impose sanctions on the law abiding and a specific tool you hate, instead of working together to make real progress.

yup, you couldn't resist trying to refute the reality that a majority of gun owners don't agree with an absolute right to carry any weapon anywhere anytime and instead favor some level of reasonable regulation. We can debate what's reasonable, but it ain't absolute "2nd Amendment".

I'm right, that's what you are particularly concerned about re "majoritarian".

Have any comment on what else I wrote, or just freaked by this specific issue?

[WaffleTwineFaceoff]

Have any comment on what else I wrote, or just freaked by this specific issue?

Read. Acknowledged. Appreciate the take. Not fully sure what potential direction makes sense, or if opening the can of works will lead to a different set of issues and new problems.

[MDlaxfan76]

Have any comment on what else I wrote, or just freaked by this specific issue?

Read. Acknowledged. Appreciate the take. Not fully sure what potential direction makes sense, or if opening the can of works will lead to a different set of issues and new problems.

you raised the question, I responded in depth.

[dislaxxic]

“Stop the Steal” 2.0 Is Here and It’s Scarily Sophisticated

This is not the Four-Seasons-Total-Landscaping, Rudy-Giuliani’s-hair-dye-dripping form of election stealing.

This is a much more organized effort, because they have changed the laws in a number of places to make it easier to effectuate these outcomes. They don’t need to bang on the doors outside the polling place in Michigan anymore, because they’re inside the polling places in a lot of these places now. They are the election officials who will be counting the ballots, or election observers who will be much closer to counting the ballots.

That’s why they changed the rules in Georgia well ahead of time. To get ahead of the thing so they don’t need to challenge it after the election. They’re already laying the groundwork not to certify the election in Georgia. We don’t know if they’ll be successful—it’s very likely their efforts to try to not certify elections will be blocked by the courts ahead of time or blocked by the courts after the fact; I think most people are confident of that.

What I worry about most is that they’re also trying to send a signal to other states and other Trump people to do this ahead of time. I worry that the votes were counted in 2020 and then lawsuits were filed to overturn the votes, but the votes had already been counted. What if the votes aren’t counted? What’s a court going to do then? That changes the whole process. Then you might have disputes that look much more like Bush v. Gore as opposed to what we saw in 2020 and just outright trying to steal an election.

Just take Georgia, and these concerns about the election certification there. Post-2020, they passed a sweeping voter suppression law in the state. It included all of these different provisions making it harder to vote. I said at the time: “Pay attention to what they’re doing in terms of the administration of elections.” They kicked the Republican Secretary of State who stood up to Trump off the board of elections there. They did that for a very specific reason. They wanted to put a MAGA majority on the state election board in Georgia, and clearly that was the most important part of that law. It didn’t get as much attention, not nearly as much as the stuff about not being able to give water to people who are waiting in line to vote. But I guarantee you, this new MAGA majority in Georgia that’s passing rules to not certify an election is a whole lot more consequential than not being able to give someone a bottle of water in line. We need to pay attention to the most important parts of how the election process has changed since 2020.

..

[njbill]

Yup. Harris is not winning Georgia. If she has more votes, Trump will steal it. Bank on it. The Dems control the process in most of the swing states. She will have to win without Georgia.