T Nation

2020 Presidential Race


#444

If you say so

Because you seem to be under the impression the Federal Government isn’t constructed the way it is…The US is a federation of independent political States … The Federal Government wasn’t meant to govern the entire country (not a micro manager) but make sure the States didn’t infringe on the rights of the People and maintain the integrity of said structure…

There wouldn’t be a balance of power if all the power were centralized into a few large metropolitan areas…

You’d probably agree with some of them on these matters as some of (even) the slave owning ones did not like the practice, but you and I have the privilege not to having to deal with those issues in any real sense and still try to build a sovereign nation


#445

I’m aware of how it’s constructed. I’m just not a fan of it.

Except it does?

I’m not suggesting we do away with Congress or the SCOTUS. Just transitioning POTUS to pop vote.

Plus metros aren’t actually all Democrats. Nor are rural areas all republican. It just appears that way because the current system has made the minority vote worthless in each state.

Nah.

Lol that’s a brain teaser for sure.


#446

Fair

and doing this would transfer more power to the POTUS … Congress has already deferred much of its power to the executive branch … doing this would further that, that’s how I see it.

I never said they were … all I said was large metropolitan areas interests would be catered too over the interests of a large swath of the country not within that large voting bloc (well, that’s what I meant anyway).

Go read Madison’s comments, Washington’s comments, etc etc and tell me they weren’t conflicted…


#447

I disagree. It would make the POTUS less likely to bow down to rural (less populated) areas and more likely to bow down to urban (more populated) areas.

That doesn’t make POTUS inherently more powerful. His abilities/authority would go unchanged.

Is this to be interpreted as a bad thing? That the POTUS would cater to the majority over the minority?

I get that they said they were conflicted.

If I was from that time period, and was conflicted about owning people, I’d probably not own people.


#448

Yes. He’s elected to head the executive branch. His job is to oversee execution of law, not legislate on behalf of the people - that’s Congress

Fair I’d imagine I’d do the same … fortunate for us we don’t have to deal with the complexities they faced wrt that particular issue.

I see it as giving POTUS leverage to legislate through Executive order: “The people voted for me 50% + 1 - it’s what most people want there fore I am doing this” … it’s rule by mob at that point and in the wrong hands (shit in most hands) this will be abused at the expense of the 50% - 1 - exactly what America is supposed to avoid.


#449

Can you expand on this? When we elect the President currently a large amount of the nation is ignored with our winner take all system. I live in Kansas. Why come to Kansas in 2020? We go red and we go red big. It’s a waste of time and money to court my vote in Kansas. That’s money and time that will be spent in the few battleground states. Everything else will be ignored.

Large population areas would surely be visited more than rural areas like where I live in a popular election. But why neglect the state? 2.5 million is a decent number why not make some counties in Kansas. Why not say you’ve been to all 50 states?

Again I am simply arguing about how we elect the President and nothing else.


#450

And transitioning from EC to pop vote somehow changes that? To reiterate, I’m suggesting a sole change of EC -> pop vote. Zero recommend changes to which branch does what coming from my side.

I agree it was complex IRT legality. I fundamentally disagree (if it’s even what you’re saying) that the individual ownership of people was complex. It was absurdly simple. Do your own chores.

As opposed to now where they already do it except with minority support?


#451

That is not the perspective of a lot of people in Texas. He raised A TON of money and I thought (I live in Texas) was not what is wrong with Dem politicians. He almost won a very red state against a well known incumbent.

If dems go with identity politics due to extremism taking over the party (likely scenario imo) with Warren/Booker/Harris (as you mentioned) I think Trump has a chance. I’m with @pfury and @H_factor, if the dems don’t mess this up Trump is very beatable.


#452

You think your vote doesn’t count now wait until it won’t count for a vast majority of the country as it is and elections will largely hinge on what happens in LA NYC Houston and Chicago.

That being said - I tend to not place much weight on who the President is … Federal policy SHOULDN’T influence my life (I’m of the persuasion that Feds influence too much and power and influence is too centralized). I’d much rather a lot of the issues ‘we’ seemingly face should be handled at MOST at the State level (to include welfare, education, energy, agriculture, etc.) and at best at the municipality level - I know what issues affect me and my community a lot more intimately than some bureaucrat in Washington who’s operating with much less of the information I am for my community … i.e. there’s far too much variability in preferences, even political, for the vast majority of issues we as a society seemingly face for any centralized legislation to consider.

All the Feds should be doing is ensuring our Rights are not violated by State or Local legislation they should not be dictating, for instance, education policy for each of the States.

Point is, you living in Kansas, your vote won’t matter much anyway even in a national election … it’ll get gobbled up by the major population centers. If you’re upset by not having a Dem candidate campaign in your State, just wait until both parties are largely only courting the large metro areas…

But that’s irrelevant because it probably would. That’s my point. Congress will still be operating in a largely divided body (by design) while the President can act on decree by the plurality of The People.

Oh no. I was not saying owning these people was complex. It was a terrible system, both from a moral perspective and an economic one. It made absolutely no sense but was a hold over from a different world…

Yes. I see a single political figure being elected by the masses (a plurality or a simple majority) would give that individual more leverage and thus more weight to their executive orders … I’d say it’d evolve into a decree … I’m not saying WE’D see it devolve into that, but it would, I’d think.

Shit at the rate we’re going now, we’re slowly going down that road, but I think doing away with the EC would accelerate that process


#453

Ah. So it would probably do something the system has no built in function to change.

This would not be new to a pop vote POTUS. The only difference would be they are acting on behalf of the majority instead of the minority (theoretically).

Does the reach and ability of an EO open up with a higher headcount?

Happy to agree to disagree here. Really no way to prove either side

It would definitely be a concern of mine as well.


#454

Therein lies a HUGE “if”, @Drew1411

They (the DEMS) are showing signs of catering to an extreme…

Forget the “moderates”…independents (like myself)…who go essentially for center-right to center-left…are being turned off BIG time by the DEMS and the Trumpublicans…

Are the numbers large enough…or vocal enough…to make a difference…I have no idea…but screw voting for any of these clowns, Trump included…

The only “hope” for the DEMS is in the personage of an almost 80 year old Firebrand named Nancy Pelosi who is trying the best she can to reel in these Pseudo-Socialist in designer suits and designer Burkas…while at the same time giving the finger to Trump as much as she can.

Love her or hate her…she is doing her damn job

But in the end, I don’t think it will be enough to save the Voters from themselves…


#455

Why? It’s not like someone in Chicago’s vote matters anymore than mine. 1 is not more than 1 even though Chicago has more people than where I live. Both have equal value. No one’s coming to my area of rural Kansas in either scenario. Right now my vote is guaranteed to go to the Republican candidate whether I vote for him/her or not.

Maybe some type of proportional manner would be better, but the EC imo has big flaws. I think Republicans would be banging this drum more if they had been on the other side in 2000/2016.


#456

I would be 1000% alright with a middle ground that boils down to “you get the same % EC votes as you got pop vote within the state.”


#457

In your next sentence you mention how the GOP has done this, and I would argue continue to push it even further now that Trump is in office (cough cough emergency declaration for a pet progect).

If both sides leave moderates disgusted, it would come down to which base is energized more. I would put my money on an anti-Trump energized Dem base vs. Trump trying to do it again. Even with Hillary, who everybody on the right hated, Trump barely squeaked it out. That energy won’t be the same against somebody who isn’t a Clinton villain.


#458

Don’t some states somewhat do that? They have the EC votes split among congressional districts.

I think it would be much more likely for this to be a state-by-state change than federal pushing it down.


#459

Push?

Do you mean the extremes?


#460

yes, apologies for not being clear.


#461

They do. I’m a big fan. Iirc it’s less than 10 states.

Edit: also iirc the split between districts is super manipulatable via gerrymandering. I don’t think it really does much in it’s current form beyond proof of concept

Which means it won’t happen. The GOP has a vested interest in never getting rid of the EC. They’re the only ones that benefit from it.

Which means Dems won’t go first for fear of immediately losing all future POTUS elections while the GOP digs in their heels.

There’s no way in hell the party of gerrymandering gives up the EC when they’ve pushed the opposite narrative forever.


#462

Agree.


#463

While we are at it let’ss make voting a national holiday. I think Democrats pushed for this recently but I’m not sure what all was in the bill.

Why don’t we just add it or if we have to add one tell Columbus Day or Presidents to fuck off.