Here was an interesting article that shows just how large Clinton's popular majority be when everything is sorted out.
Atlantic 1.5 million and Growing
And something interesting.
Atlantic 1.5 million and Growing
And something interesting.
"Do All States Distribute Electoral Votes That Way?
No, but almost all do: 48 of the 50 U.S. states and Washington, D.C., award all of their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote there.
Which States Don't Use the Winner-Take-All Method?
Only two states award their electoral votes in a different manner. They are Nebraska and Maine.
How Do Nebraska and Maine Distribute Electoral Votes?
They allocate their electoral votes by congressional district. In other words, instead of distributing all of its electoral votes to the candidate who wins the statewide popular vote, Nebraska and Maine awards an electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district. The winner of the statewide vote gets two additional electoral votes. This method is called the Congressional District Method; Maine has used it since 1972 and Nebraska has used it since 1996.
Doesn't the U.S. Constitution Prohibit Such Distribution Methods?
Not at all. In fact, it's just the opposite.
While the U.S. Constitution requires states to appoint electors, the document is silent on how they actually award votes in presidential elections. There have been numerous proposals to circumvent the winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes.
The Constitution leaves the matter of electoral-vote distribution up to the states, stating only that:
"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress." The key phrase pertaining to the distribution of electoral votes is obvious: " ... in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct."
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the states' role in awarding electoral votes is "supreme."
Are Electors the Same As Delegates?
No. Electors are not the same as delegates. Electors are part of the mechanism that chooses a president. Delegates, on the other hand, distributed by the parties during the primaries and serve to nominate candidates to run in the general election. "
21 comments:
Republicans have proposed it many times, but Democrats usually block it. Wonder why?
Probably the same reason the GOP members block it in strong RED states... :-)
Good point. Not sure if it is factual, but it's certainly a reasonable presumption.
MP What Sort of Mandate
So I post 3 comments and only get one through the Moderators... I will never understand...
So here goes:
"Well done Trump voters. All we have to do to see what total conservative control of government looks like is to see what conservatives have done in Kansas. Its hard for people who don't believe in government to run the government competently." Lee
My thought:
Point of Reference. If we use MN as an example. It seems easy to govern in the short term when you are willing to pass HUGE bonding bills, build stadiums, etc and charge it all to our children. And then to increase taxes on businesses and successful people... That does some seem simple though I wonder what the longer term impact will be...
The obvious thing to notice here is how simple labels can tell us very little except about the author's viewpoint. In this case it is almost laughable to hear "total conservative control." Only a liberal would think Trump is a conservative, since doctrinaire conservatives are among his biggest critics. Both Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell have been chastised as "not conservative" or at least "not conservative enough." I've long used the same label-- conservative-- for myself, but only because the long series of pragmatic positions I have taken lead me to that "side" of the political divide. I count myself a pragmatist, and I think Trump is one, as well. By his actions you will know, and if your reaction is other than knee-jerk opposition, maybe this country will be better off.
First, I owe the MP Moderators an apology. All 3 comments did show up.
Second, someone over there said that Ryan was a hard righter... I of course pointed back here.
Apparently I was wrong. No WONDER Democrats in Minnesota block allocation of Electors by Congressional District.
HOW DID MINNESOTANS VOTE FOR PRESIDENT:
MN Congressional District 1 -- Clinton 38% / Trump 53%*
MN Congressional District 2 -- Clinton 45% / Trump 46%*
MN Congressional District 3 -- Clinton 50% / Trump 40%
MN Congressional District 4 -- Clinton 61% / Trump 30%
MN Congressional District 5 -- Clinton 73% / Trump 18%
MN Congressional District 6 -- Clinton 33% / Trump 58%*
MN Congressional District 7 -- Clinton 38% / Trump 54%*
MN Congressional District 8 -- Clinton 38% / Trump 54%*
Trump would have won FIVE of MN's 10 Electors.
From MP
"I don't know where this going. Trump is proposing $500B in infrastructure? Seems it is also easy to destroy a govt by allowing the well to do to pay nothing: example Trump, billionaires that pay $0, laws that allow them to pay significantly less than the average American, and accordingly a vote for him was a vote to increase that disparity! Have you considered that the reason our kids and us pay all the tax is because the well to do don't pay a fair share?" Dennis
"I always love that term... How do you define fair?
1. Cover charge - everyone pays same amount because we all live here
2. House gets fixed percent of winnings = Everyone pays same %
3 Progressive: More successful pays higher rate
How do you wrestle that low income people tend to get far more back in insurance, credits, cash, government assistance, etc than they pay in? Is that fair?
And by taking more from the wealthy than they receive... We are able to pay those costs and so much more?
My point is that even if Trump paid no income taxes... (ie not proven yet as far as I know) He still pays HUGE taxes in actual dollars relative to people like you and me. (ie property taxes, etc)" G2A
Typical liberal silliness. We've been trying to make the tax code "fair" for generations and every time we do, it gets more complicated to the point that it cannot POSSIBLY be fair by any reasonable measure. The two most obvious proofs: cut taxes on the rich and government revenues go up. Raise taxes on the rich and it yields only a tiny fraction of the revenue projected. People react to incentives, and the rich are better able to hire accountants and exploit the "loopholes" that Congress /deliberately/ wrote into the tax code to encourage or discourage this or that, and that they then complain about when people do what Congress wanted. You want a perfectly fair tax system? Pass the FAIR tax into law. It's a transparent tax on disposable income.
Tell Dennis that the top 1% now pay 46% of the taxes. How fair is that?
Same old same old... Prove your opinions with sources...
"top 1% now pay 46% of the taxes"
The question is what percentage of the nation's income do they receive? More or less than 46%?
I did look it up; I am sure you can find a source. The last I checked the top 1% take something like 30% of the income. And that seems high.
And all this talk of income inequality is, again, silly, but it should also be noted that in times of low growth, as Obama has so skillfully managed, income inequality goes UP. As JFK said, "a rising tide lifts all boats." Penalize the rich with high taxes and growth slows and inequality grows. Even if inequality were a problem, the liberal prescription makes it worse.
I have seen several articles lately about "how to deal with your liberal relatives around the Thanksgiving table." Generally, the advice is to avoid the subject entirely but if it cannot, then try to "find common ground" by agreeing on an objective, and then illustrating by anecdotes why their solution is flawed-- "my neighbor lost his health insurance that he liked and cannot afford Obamacare" for example.
After a few of these, I formulated my own illustration for the income inequality warrior. Serve them first. Then tell them they must share that "income" equally with everybody else at the table. They're bound to ask why others cannot get their own plate, to which the answer is, "But they might get more or less than you. How is that fair?"
Apparently the upper 1% get ~49% of the income. Wiki Household Income
Meaning they pay about what they get...
By all means let us be thankful, which is the link you provide, but if you want to provide sources you will have to do better. Happy Holidays.
Or try this one:
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/04/13/top-1-pay-nearly-half-of-federal-income-taxes.html
Need source that shows more than just income tax. It is pretty much the only progressive tax we have.
I think your first number is closer.
Sorry, but since the only "progressive" tax we have is the major source of federal revenue, and the one liberals ALWAYS want to adjust to make it more "fair" (by making it more complex and therefore less so), we need to stick with the numbers we can easily get. Here in MN, the AFL-CIO-DFL troika is fond of showing how the total tax burden is actually regressive. That includes FICA, which is highly regressive. The nice thing about the FAIR tax is that all of these taxes are eliminated and the resulting sales tax (and essentially the total tax load) is made "perfectly progressive."
I am happy ignoring FICA since we all get something back from that. (ie insurance and benefits)
But one can not ignore sales taxes, property taxes, fuel taxes, sin taxes, etc and only focus on income tax if one wants to determine if the system is fair.
Just like can not ignore all of the cash receipts and benefits the poor receive from the tax payers.
Maybe I will do a bit of research and post on this.
You can and MUST ignore state taxes, local property taxes, and sin taxes because they are all state and local and we are discussing federal tax policy. (actually electoral college reform, but...).
Yes, the total tax "system" is unfair, with the federal taxes (including federal gas tax) being by far the largest component of that system. That is why a complete overhaul, eliminating federal gift tax, estate tax, excise tax, FICA and the entire IRS code and replacing it with a single-rate retail sales tax (on which states can piggyback) is the right approach. And the "poor" would receive a benefit out of it, as well as having work encouraged, not to mention eliminating most of them from the tax rolls entirely. Imagine the poor fellow making $10/hour, who would suddenly get to take home 100% of his paycheck, rather than the 78% or so he now gets after withholding and FICA?
Post a Comment