problems with Republicans

[Swerd]

I've heard the defense was to make the election "fair" and give other states a voice in the election. But I don't think that really holds true. CA, NY, and TX hold the most electorates because they have the largest populations. If it were fair than we'd just give each state the same amount of electorates regardless of population. I'm not really seeing a difference but am open to other thoughts.

I've heard those defenses of the Electoral College before – that it protects the minority from the rule of the majority. The Electoral College absolutely was a compromise in 1792. It was required to get the slave-holding states to join the union. They had smaller voting populations compared to the non-slave states, and they demanded greater representation in the proposed federal government than they deserved. That compromise should have ended with the elimination of slavery after the Civil War. Whenever I hear that bogus argument, I ask how fair is it for the minority to rule?

The Founding Fathers established the Electoral College in the Constitution, in part, as a compromise between the election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens. However, the term “electoral college” does not appear in the Constitution. Article II of the Constitution and the 12th Amendment refer to “electors,” but not to the “electoral college.”

Since the Electoral College process is part of the original design of the U.S. Constitution it would be necessary to pass a Constitutional amendment to change this system.

The ratification of the 12th Amendment, the expansion of voting rights, and the States’ use of the popular vote to determine who will be appointed as electors have each substantially changed the process.

Many different proposals to alter the Presidential election process have been offered over the years, such as direct nation-wide election by the eligible voters, but none has been passed by Congress and sent to the States for ratification as a Constitutional amendment. Under the most common method for amending the Constitution, an amendment must be proposed by a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress and ratified by three-fourths of the States.

Thanks for the link. Yes, a Constitutional amendment is needed to eliminate the Electoral College and replace it with a nationwide popular vote. That's not happening in the foreseeable future.

But there's another way to reform the Electoral College without amending the Constitution. Add more districts to the House of Representatives. There's nothing in the Constitution that says it must be 435. In the past, every time a new state was admitted to the USA, more congressional districts were added. The last time that happened was 1912, with the addition of New Mexico and Arizona, making the total 435. (If I remember correctly, when Alaska and Hawaii became states in 1959, the total number stayed the same at 435.)

Since 1912, the US population has roughly tripled, but the number of Congressional districts has remained 435. Why not double or triple that while keeping the same apportionment among the states? Keep the Electoral College as the Constitution now has it. It would make voting for president closer to one person – one vote. And it just might be a way to partially correct some the radical gerrymandering that we have.

 

[highfigh]

If you think for one effing second that she doesn't know which of the Koreas is a US ally, your partisan slip is showing. Just let it go. It isn't the big deal you seem to think it is.

With her record of saying things and going against them, her word salads (news dork characterization, but it works) and her lack of involvement in the one thing Biden said she was going to be involved with, I'm just tired of politicians making poop up and acting like it's what they were saying all along.

I don't give a crap which party is in the White House, I want them to be at the top of their damned game and we haven't had that in a while.

Don't be so eager to turn a blind eye to the faults of the side you agree with.

 

[highfigh]

If it were fair than we'd just give each state the same amount of electorates regardless of population.

How the hell would that be fair? If a state with very small population has the same pull as one that has 100 times as many people, I would be pissed as hell if they swayed an election away from my choice. Do you really want Wyoming to negate CA or NY?

'Fair' is when the electors reflect the voters and there's no way a state like CA should have the same number as WY, VT, etc- CA has areas that are the polar opposite of a place like San Francisco, yet there they are, in LaLaLand.

 

[mtrycrafts]

How the hell would that be fair? If a state with very small population has the same pull as one that has 100 times as many people, I would be pissed as hell if they swayed an election away from my choice. Do you really want Wyoming to negate CA or NY?

'Fair' is when the electors reflect the voters and there's no way a state like CA should have the same number as WY, VT, etc- CA has areas that are the polar opposite of a place like San Francisco, yet there they are, in LaLaLand.

More reason to abolish the electoral college business.

 

[Trell]

I've heard those defenses of the Electoral College before – that it protects the minority from the rule of the majority. The Electoral College absolutely was a compromise in 1792. It was required to get the slave-holding states to join the union. They had smaller voting populations compared to the non-slave states, and they demanded greater representation in the proposed federal government than they deserved. That compromise should have ended with the elimination of slavery after the Civil War. Whenever I hear that bogus argument, I ask how fair is it for the minority to rule?

And what happens in a country when an ever smaller minority rules? There are many examples around the world how that turns out.

A big part of the US problem is that it's a two-party state where it's next to impossible for any other parties to get represented at a national level (or state, as far as I know). So the stakes are very high in a zero-sum game and encourage shenanigans to stay in power, not that Europe is immune to that, mind you. In USA the term bipartisan is very often used but over here in Europe no one uses that term, for obvious reasons.

 

[Dude#1279435]

Fox "News" is also mainstream: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/mainstream-media

That won't fit into his narrative, though.

It's akin to politicians, especially Republicans, that are Ivy League graduates claiming that they're not part of the elite while taking advantage of all the benefits, and then some.

I think what he meant is he wants the left to report on the left.

 

[Trell]

I think what he meant is he wants the left to report on the left.

Well, they do, and @GO-NAD! even gave a couple of links as examples.

 

[Dude#1279435]

Well, they do, and @GO-NAD! even gave a couple of links as examples.

I meant conservative reporting of it isn't high on his list.

 

[highfigh]

And what happens in a country when an ever smaller minority rules? There are many examples around the world how that turns out.

A big part of the US problem is that it's a two-party state where it's next to impossible for any other parties to get represented at a national level (or state, as far as I know). So the stakes are very high in a zero-sum game and encourage shenanigans to stay in power, not that Europe is immune to that, mind you. In USA the term bipartisan is very often used but over here in Europe no one uses that term, for obvious reasons.

Part of the problem here is that a lot of people decide they don't want to be a member of either party, but the independent/other parties trot out nothing but wingnuts whose plans are so goofy that they can't work and they have no chance in a national election. We have a serious problem with the quality of our candidates from all parties- as I have posted before, the ones we need don't want the job and the ones who want the job aren't the ones we need.

If schools in the US would actually teach World History in a way that looks at more than wars and a few of the traditions that were common in some countries in the past, maybe we could see that what has become 'the norm' WRT politics is completely disfunctional. American schools teach history as if it's long and interesting. Well, it's not. The country is barely more than 250 years old as anything other than groups controlling relatively small regions that often changed after tribal battles and there was no single government until the Revolution whereas, Europe went through this phase well over 2000 years ago. People here still think that we have old buildings.

 

[Trell]

If schools in the US would actually teach World History in a way that looks at more than wars and a few of the traditions that were common in some countries in the past, maybe we could see that what has become 'the norm' WRT politics is completely disfunctional. American schools teach history as if it's long and interesting. Well, it's not. The country is barely more than 250 years old as anything other than groups controlling relatively small regions that often changed after tribal battles and there was no single government until the Revolution whereas, Europe went through this phase well over 2000 years ago. People here still think that we have old buildings.

Obviously the American Revolution turned out to be a big snafu. The solution is to return to the warm embrace of British monarchy, and a few decades with Boris Johnson as Viceroy of America should set you straight what good governance means for unruly colonists.

 

[Dude#1279435]

Part of the problem here is that a lot of people decide they don't want to be a member of either party, but the independent/other parties trot out nothing but wingnuts whose plans are so goofy that they can't work and they have no chance in a national election. We have a serious problem with the quality of our candidates from all parties- as I have posted before, the ones we need don't want the job and the ones who want the job aren't the ones we need.

If schools in the US would actually teach World History in a way that looks at more than wars and a few of the traditions that were common in some countries in the past, maybe we could see that what has become 'the norm' WRT politics is completely disfunctional. American schools teach history as if it's long and interesting. Well, it's not. The country is barely more than 250 years old as anything other than groups controlling relatively small regions that often changed after tribal battles and there was no single government until the Revolution whereas, Europe went through this phase well over 2000 years ago. People here still think that we have old buildings.

Small govt + pro-choice would really conflict with the two party system.

 

[Dude#1279435]

Since America was founded on a republic, you'd think....

- would have a much larger share of the media pie (especially online)

- more control in schools

- can articulate a message beyond grievance/owning the libs

Dem control and litigation, or when do you blame yourselves? Seems rather daft to me.

 

[Dude#1279435]

1 of the last 8 elections Republicans have won the popular vote? That's rather fucked up. For a republic.

 

[GO-NAD!]

With her record of saying things and going against them, her word salads (news dork characterization, but it works) and her lack of involvement in the one thing Biden said she was going to be involved with, I'm just tired of politicians making poop up and acting like it's what they were saying all along.

I don't give a crap which party is in the White House, I want them to be at the top of their damned game and we haven't had that in a while.

Don't be so eager to turn a blind eye to the faults of the side you agree with.

It's not so much turning a blind eye to the Dems faults, as cutting them a bit of slack after witnessing the absolute chaos and venality of TFG's administration.

The USA is at a crossroads. You can vote for a party that might be competent, or maybe not, with the option of tossing them out at a later opportunity.

Or, you can vote for a party that has tried several illegal paths to overturn an election they lost fairly and squarely. A party which has been blatantly endeavoring to tilt the scales in their favour in order to gain power and keep it. A party that expresses admiration for leaders like Putin and Orban. A party that stacks courts with justices who pay lip service to the law and the constitution.

Democracy and respect for the rule of law are in danger. I just ask you to keep that in mind.

 

[highfigh]

It's not so much turning a blind eye to the Dems faults, as cutting them a bit of slack after witnessing the absolute chaos and venality of TFG's administration.

The USA is at a crossroads. You can vote for a party that might be competent, or maybe not, with the option of tossing them out at a later opportunity.

Or, you can vote for a party that has tried several illegal paths to overturn an election they lost fairly and squarely. A party which has been blatantly endeavoring to tilt the scales in their favour in order to gain power and keep it. A party that expresses admiration for leaders like Putin and Orban. A party that stacks courts with justices who pay lip service to the law and the constitution.

Democracy and respect for the rule of law are in danger. I just ask you to keep that in mind.

"TFG"- fingers can't bring themselves to type 'Trump, eh?

I don't think slack should EVER be cut for government inaction, bad acts, deception, etc. I also think members of governments shouldn't be able to use their position to become wealthy or to become a career- it was supposed to be a position of public service, not lifelong influence peddling, deception and money grubbing.

Toss out the party later? How? Vote them out of office? With as many clueless voters as the US has? Good luck with that. Voting for a party because "that's the way I/we have always voted and it's not gonna change" is too ingrained in many peoples' minds.

You don't think the Democrats want to stay in office forever? If not, you don't understand them. If you don't like the attempts to stack the courts, what do you think Biden and others are trying to do by floating the idea of increasing the number of justices to 13, while they're in power? How would that help anything, other than possibly adding Democratic-leaning justices to the bench?

What we need, is members of government who actually understand that they work for US, not the other way around and we also need a way to remove them if they go off the rails.

 

[Dude#1279435]

Kind of the lack of conservative sources leading to demanding the left report it. But how are you going to grow your message??? Seems pretty dumb.

 

[GO-NAD!]

"TFG"- fingers can't bring themselves to type 'Trump, eh?

I don't think slack should EVER be cut for government inaction, bad acts, deception, etc. I also think members of governments shouldn't be able to use their position to become wealthy or to become a career- it was supposed to be a position of public service, not lifelong influence peddling, deception and money grubbing.

Toss out the party later? How? Vote them out of office? With as many clueless voters as the US has? Good luck with that. Voting for a party because "that's the way I/we have always voted and it's not gonna change" is too ingrained in many peoples' minds.

You don't think the Democrats want to stay in office forever? If not, you don't understand them. If you don't like the attempts to stack the courts, what do you think Biden and others are trying to do by floating the idea of increasing the number of justices to 13, while they're in power? How would that help anything, other than possibly adding Democratic-leaning justices to the bench?

What we need, is members of government who actually understand that they work for US, not the other way around and we also need a way to remove them if they go off the rails.

Of course party's want to stay in power; it's just that only one is willing to play by the rules. If you think it's just two sides of the same coin, you are not paying attention.

 

[highfigh]

Of course party's want to stay in power; it's just that only one is willing to play by the rules. If you think it's just two sides of the same coin, you are not paying attention.

I don't agree with your definition of 'play by the rules".

 

[GO-NAD!]

I don't agree with your definition of 'play by the rules".

You don't have to.

 

[Teetertotter?]

"Problems with Republicans"
1. Still believe in the big lie.
2. Want the power to initiate a totalitarian government.
3. Still believe the election was stolen.
4. No right for women, teenagers, and lessor juveniles to have the right to choose abortion.

Can you think of some other problems with Republicans? When you vote, vote all republican or democratic.