proud republican Loc: RED CALIFORNIA

dongreen76

That in which you stated was what I was referring to that I read about concerning the framers debating as to the form of government we were to be governed by.
Only you made several arbitrary points that are assed backwards . The reason why they inserted a republic was to prevent the so call Mob rule.this attitude was merely a reflection of what I stated in a previous post of their attitude of the proletariat lack of intellect,this was second reason they decided to install a republica.,as opposed to the pure democracy; within the Republic lies certain rules that takes the advantage of the generic 51% into account.there by preventing what they thought could result in mob rule.I'm speaking of course of provisions that were installed and these provisions could only exist within the frame work of a republic .I'm speaking of course of that which negates the 51% total rule.A bill or law is not passed without a 3/5ths majority or the other fraction that either over rides or sustains a presidential veto.

The Critical Critic Loc: Turtle Island

My apologies, Don, but I can’t help but feel we’re talking in circles. How about we begin again, we can start with the points of mine that you found arbitrary, because, I thought I was being rather specific.

Your point about the course that negates the 51% total rule, is, Republicanism. I’m not sure if we’re agreeing or disagreeing ...

straightUp Loc: California

First of all, there has always been a fundamental concern about the EC. The reason why the concern was amplified by the 2016 election is because for the first time, the EC and the popular vote were at clear odds. It was the first time in living memory that one candidate won the popular vote by a significant margin but the EC gave the office to the loser. That didn't happen when Obama ran because Obama won the popular vote AND the EC, so there was no conflict. See how that works?

The fact that Trump has a chance in 2020 is all the more reason for concern, because that chance rests on the fact that he could lose by as many as 5 million popular votes and still win the EC. Keep in mind, this is only a concern for people who think every vote should be counted.

If Trump wins the popular vote then the EC will not be the point of contention and the Democrats would most likely accept defeat, (perhaps ungraciously, as they did in 2016 and as the Republicans did in 2008 and 2012).

So... are you actually suggesting a discussion about which approach to use, or is your title rhetorical? I'm asking because it seems any such discussion would require knowledge of the EC and you don't seem to have any.

jack sequim wa Loc: Blanchard, Idaho

If not for two states California and NewYork Clinton would have lost by ten million plus votes. Why would anyone want two state's deciding America's future?

Donald Trump won 3,084 of America's 3,141 counties in the 2016 presidential election; Hillary Clinton won just 57.

Understand now? The 57 counties with 48 in California and NewYork.

Based on anyone wanting the popular vote, they are saying 48 states shouldn't have a say in something as historic as a presidential election.
I have to believe that its ignorance driven by the media and ignorant exactly how as and why we have an electoral college.

Jack

debeda

Well said, Jack, and all true

straightUp Loc: California

Incorrect. Don't worry, it's a common misunderstanding...

According to the Constitution, the president is elected by Congress NOT the people. Nevertheless, the founders felt that this could lead to corruption (especially, in cases where congressmen and presidential candidates have developed relationships). So they created a system of surrogate voters called the Electoral College, where the voters are selected in much the same way a jury is, to be an unbiased surrogate vote, one for each representative.

People get confused because of the way the EC is linked to a different problem... the number of representatives per state. Originally, there was supposed to be a consistent ratio between the people and their representatives. Since the Northern states had bigger populations they were getting more representation. So to get the Southern states to ratify the Constitution, they had to agree to let the Southern states factor their slave populations into the ratio (albeit each slave only counted as 3/5ths of a human.)

So THAT is how the founders solved the issue of unfair population advantages... they counted slaves as partial humans to earn more representation. That was the ONLY solution the founders had for that problem. The EC had nothing to do with it.

So the issue was never the EC and it still isn't... Liberals that scream about the EC need to educate themselves. The issue has always been representation and it started long after abolition made the slave count obsolete. It started in 1913 when the government stopped using the census to add more representatives to the house and that's when the system broke because in any region where the population grew, representation weakened because the growing number of people had to share the same number of representatives. In regions that stayed sparse, representation remained stronger.

There is no excuse for this. People defending the broken system might be confused about what the founders intended but that in itself is no excuse either.

Because the Constitution says the president is elected by Congress, we cannot switch to a popular vote without an amendment. Tossing out the EC won't change anything. What needs to happen is a refactoring of congressional districts to represent America circa 2019 instead of America circa 1913. We can either start adding representatives to highly populated regions or start taking representatives away from less populated regions. We should be moving seats from places like Wyoming which should share one representative with Montana and the Dakotas to places like California, Texas and New York.

Bottom line is... there is no excuse for giving a farmer in Wyoming more representation than a firefighter in Los Angeles.


1. Obama didn't win in 2016.
2. As I've stated in another post, the reason why people weren't screaming about the EC in 2008 was because Obama won the EC AND the popular vote. Trump lost the popular vote by a significant margin so in this case the EC actually overruled the will of the people. So don't pretend the situations were the same, they were not.


Not true. It's the unfair distribution of representatives that have kept the larger states tied down. If not for that, the EC would not have made any difference.

Also, bear in mind the larger states are dealing with large state problems that two-bit states are never confronted with, so that's how you folks can cherry pick issues and laugh at the larger states (as if you could do any better) Overall, California and New York are doing WAAAAY better than the red states. Their economies are stronger, the people get better health coverage, unemployment is lower, mortality rate is lower AND they are all self-sufficient, something not many red states can say since most of them depend on federal funds provided by blue states.

debeda

States should never have to share representatives.

straightUp Loc: California

I'm not so sure about your numbers but I understand what you're saying. You think power should represent states not people. I'm guessing your a collective-type rather than an individualist. An individualist would count the people, not the states.


Dude, I have understood that retarded argument for years and I'm still not convinced that one county with 5 million people should get less representation than two counties sharing 10 people, 6 dogs and a bunch of frogs and crickets.


Well, obviously you don't know why we have an Electoral College so your kinda calling the kettle black here and your refusal to recognize the individual speaks volumes about your politics. If we went with the popular vote, every single citizen in every state, no matter how small would get one vote. I know for a fact there are gay people in rural America who might not vote the way his neighbor does and here's another fact... there are more Republicans in California than any other state. The only reason why California is always blue is BECAUSE of the EC. If we went with a popular vote, California would be purple. There's a LOT of farmers in California too that stand a very good chance of voting with the people in Kansas.

You're problem is that you don't want to recognize Americans as individuals.

straightUp Loc: California

Why?

jack sequim wa Loc: Blanchard, Idaho

Way better? Would you consider just a hair from being THREE TRILLION DOLLARS IN DEBT Better?
If red states ran debts irresponsibly as California then they to could offer the best medical, welfare , unfunded pensions.
My friend for you to make such an extreme statement and say how much better California and NewYork are doing compared to other red states tells anyone reading you are shamefully informed.
I read half a dozen financial periodicals plus daily on national, international financial, economic developments and the two states you claim are doing so well are mentioned several times on multiple financial fronts regarding their financial woes, bad polices , highest taxation, bankrupt pensions and on, and on.

Might be a good topic to bow out while your so far behind .

Jack

jack sequim wa Loc: Blanchard, Idaho

Again your reading comprehension is lacking or my writing so others can understand is that poor.

Try this again,
There are 3,141 counties in the United States.

Trump won 3,084 of them.
Clinton won 57.

There are 62 counties in New York State.

Trump won 46 of them.
Clinton won 16.

Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 1.5 million votes.

In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & Queens) Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump. (Clinton only won 4 of these counties; Trump won Richmond)

Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country.

These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles.
The United States is comprised of 3, 797,000 square miles.

When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election.

Large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, etc) don’t and shouldn’t speak for the rest of our country.

Your saying pro popular vote is your right to an opinion, just doesn't make sense compared to the Deep thinkers that created the Electoral College and why they did.

debeda

Because states are supposed to be sovereign entities. Beyond that, different states have very different, and even sometimes conflicting, interests

straightUp Loc: California

I dunno, let's have a look at some REAL numbers...

California debt = $471 billion
California population = 40 million
Debt per capita = $11,000

N. Dakota Debt = $8 billion
N. Dakota population = 775,070
Debt per capita = $11,000

So the impact on the individual is about the same. Wanna go back and look for a different argument?


First of all, if red states are so "responsible", why are they are so dependant on subsidies from blue states? https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/

Secondly, I'm curious as to why you want to pursue this argument. I thought you folks were done with "debt concerns" as soon as Trump started running up the debt up at a far greater rate than Obama ever did. The argument doesn't suit your side anymore. But hey... since you're here, let me ask you something... With all the strongest economies in the world also producing the greatest debts in the world... in fact, with the biggest national debt being that of the U.S., I wonder how your out-of-context "logic" arrives at the conclusion that debt alone is enough to call a government worse off.

Finally, the reason why Californians enjoy better health coverage isn't because they spend more money on it but because California didn't allow companies to monopolize the insurance industry like they did in a lot of red states, which makes California's insurance industry more competitive so the market-driven ACA works better.


I guess the difference between us is that when I read all those financial periodicals (which I do) I don't simply subscribe to what is being said. I actually put things in context. If you read like you say you do, (which I find hard to believe) then you would notice how economists are constantly at odds with each other. Financial journalists are almost as subjective as political commentators.

That being said... Yes, I've read plenty of articles about the financial woes of California and yet California remains the 5th strongest economy in the world. Maybe you need to read some difference sources to get a bigger picture and maybe understand that debt by itself doesn't say much.

Always nice pointing out the obvious to people who claim to be economically educated. ;)

JustMPat

Thank you for your comments.

1. Yes, the Electoral College is often difficult for many people to understand, but I do know that primarily it was established so that the less populous states would be more evenly and fairly represented. That was taught in our schools... before Core Education was implemented.
2. Obama won the Electoral votes in 2008 and 2012. I erroneously entered 2016. Again, there were no complaints about the Electoral College when Obama won in 2008 and 2012.
3. Also, California, New York and Illinois are not doing all that well. No one is "cherry picking" or laughing at larger states... the problems in those larger states are well known. Homelessness, filthy conditions on the streets, drugs, higher taxes, crime and violence are rampant in the big cities of those states. Many people cannot afford the rents of apartments or businesses. Many people are leaving California for red states like Idaho since the cost of living in red states is far more affordable than in blue states. I know that for a fact.