By that logic, the POTUS election is “controlled by the popular vote” as well.
I worked in MOCO when DJT won the election. It was a glorious day November 9th 2016. Such a great day. Haha.
MD has its gubernatorial election soon. Seems Logan has a hefty lead in the poles. How do you feel about the candidates usmccds?
1 Like
Not, really. EC votes are weighted and at least two states aren’t winner take all. So some votes are more influential than others (the main gripe against EC as far as I can tell). That’s simply not true with Senatorial races. A vote is a vote is a vote. Senators win seats by winning their popular contest. It just so happens more states are currently red.
I think it further weakens state sovereignty, which is an important check against federal power/authority.
No, I don’t think so, but I think it helps ensure we continue to exist as a Republic.
Not in and of itself.
I generally like what Hogan has done as Governor and I think he’ll win fairly easily. Jealous is way to left for me. We just raised the minimum to $10.10 and he wants to push for $15/hour. That would cost the company I work for, at a minimum, $5M/year, but probably more like $7-$10M depending on how we handle wage compression. He also supports Medicare For All a big no for me. I don’t know anything about the other candidates, but they’re polling so low it’s not like they have a chance.
I believe that’s what they did, yes.
I was thinking more along the lines of one tribal group (whites) governing everyone; including, human beings that were treated as less than that. I think there’s a difference between a party/group that governs everyone (in the Executive branch) and the mob mentality of our past. I’m actually surprised at some of the responses in here.
We continue to see a shift towards, in this case, right-leaning populism. Not just here, but in other areas of the world. Christ, the President is a prime example of why we need checks on mob rule.
I didn’t criticize the popular vote for this reason. I don’t believe losing = wasting a vote. I went back and forth with Zeb about this for weeks regarding Gary Johnson.
My criticism of the popular vote is a) rural America, which makes up the vast majority of the country, gets very little to no say in national elections because large Urban centers would dominate the vote b) mob rule is a terrible idea (see the article I posted above) and there’s no reason why we should stop at a national popular vote just for POTUS, and c) I believe in states rights and the necessity of ensuring even the smallest states have a voice in national politics.
1 Like
Again, I’m referring to control of the Senate writ large, which is what counts. ‘Control of the Senate’ is the power equivalent of the office of the POTUS.
You just have to win more senatorial elections than the other party to control the Senate. I fail to see the issue.
Would you theoretically label said checks “SCOTUS” & “Congress”
I’ve never understood the rationale to have landmass override warm bodies
The article describes a political process than cannot happen by simply shifting the POTUS vote to popular
You mean like through Congress? Or by having their citizens vote for POTUS?
It takes 51 senators to control the senate.
California’s 50 kajillion citizens get to send two senators toward determining that control; North Dakota’s 146 voters also get to send two.
Now, in terms of relative power with respect to determining which party controls the Senate, do individual citizens of these two states have equal influence?
Why do we have States at all anymore? If they’re needed for describing where one lives, I think “Area 1,” “Area 2,” etc. would be fine.
The States voluntarily ceded their sovereignty when they became part of the United States of America(of course, that begs the question: Did the States actually exist prior to the United States of America, or has that narrative just been pushed by slave owners and white supremacists for so long that we no longer question it?). The Electoral College is a vestigial structure whose time has passed.
They are both supposed to be checks, among others, yes.
It’s not that landmass should override bodies. It just illustates how vastly different enviroments are across the US. Life in rural America doesn’t even equal life in other parts of rural America let alone life in Urban centers. California, New York, Florida, and Texas shouldn’t make the laws and pick the politicians for everyone simply because they have the most people. What does a Wall Street stockbroker know about farming in rural Montana, for example?
Why would we stop there? It sounds like @EyeDentist think Senators should be picked by total popular vote since the Dems have received 5M more votes than the Repubs; yet, don’t control the Senate. Maybe we should just put 200 Senators on a national election and the top 100 are elected?
In this case, I was referring to their equal vote in the Senate.
And California gets 53 reps in the House to North Dakota’s 1.
Senator’s represent their state. There are 50 states. Each state gets two senators. Every State gets an equal say in Senatorial matters base on how their populations voted in their respective senatorial races.
People are represented relative to their population in the House.
If the number of members of both houses of Congress was determined by population what would be the point in having two houses?
Funny enough, this is the first thing I saw on FB this morning (I don’t follow MAGAPatriotSteve if anyone is wondering. A friend reposted it).
1 Like
So with or without EC, we have checks on POTUS? Checks that EC doesn’t provide anyway?
So are you saying your article refutes the argument ED doesn’t seem to be making? Because it certainly doesn’t refute mine
Yes, there are a lot of checks.
I don’t even know what you’re asking here. The article just talks about the dangers of direct democracy (mob rule) as evidenced by Athenian Democracy and why a Republic is better. I agree. Feel free to disagree. That’s still allowed as far as I know in this country, for now.
Actually, EyeDentist’s goal is far more modest–he is simply trying to get you to acknowledge that the power to control of the Senate is not distributed evenly among citizens, and is instead skewed in favor of those living in less-populous states.
Everyone in this discussion has acknowledged that citizens of all states have equal power with respect to determining the party that controls the House.
So checking the ‘power of individual citizens’ scoreboard, we have:
Power per individual citizen vis a vis determining control of the WH: Those residing in more-populous states < those residing in less-populous states
Power/individual citizen vis a vis determining control of the Senate: Those residing in more-populous states < those residing in less-populous states
Power/individual citizen vis a vis determining control of the House: Push (ie, those residing in more-populous states ~ those residing in less-populous states)
Clearly, whether you slice it at the state or individual level, citizens residing in less-populous states have a greater influence over the federal govt than do those living in more-populous states.
Setting aside that you’re asking me to defend a position I haven’t taken…One point might be to bestow upon every citizen an equal portion of the power to influence the federal govt.
Okay. It’s not. I don’t believe I claimed it was. It’s evenly distributed among the states.
The votes of less populace states are weighted making them more influential; however, more populous states have a far greater number of EC votes. I think it’s more complicated than you’re making it out to be.
The Senate wasn’t designed to represent individual people. It was designed to represent the individual states, which is exactly what it does.
We must define “clearly” differently.
What was your point when you said Dems have lost the popular vote in total by 5M (or whatever) votes then?
Do you think direct democracy is better than a Republic? If so, why?
Okay…way off tract again (Can someone start an EC post: Say PART II?
Back to the Supreme Court.
If we proceed with the very (likely) idea that Trumps gets 2 terms…I think that he gets one…perhaps 2 more pics (3, if Thomas makes a “move” to retire).
Thoughts?
You keep talking about states when I make a point about citizens.
I never said the Senate wasn’t supposed to distribute power among citizens unevenly; I just said that it did.
My point was, and remains, the observation that the power to influence the Federal govt is skewed uin the favor of citizens residing in less-populous states.
I think each has its advantages/selling points.
OK, @Mufasa, I’ll drop it. Apologies.
You keep talking about a Senate that wasn’t designed to work the way you want it to.
If you went by percentage of population the D’s still don’t control the Senate:
You also have eleven states that get no representation in the Senate:
*Hawaii should be a D, but they don’t get a senator.
It will depend on the makeup of the Senate, but if the Republican’s retain control I think he’ll go much further right with his next pick.
1 Like
Hey, @EyeDentist…
No…don’t drop it!
It’s an interesting conversation (and an important one!)…and one in which there is a lot of interest and opinion.
Just asking if another thread could be started is all.
Indeed.
Trump does NOT forget what he perceives to be personal slights and/or attacks…and the Kavanaugh fiasco became just that for him. (IMO).