Now I am a big supporter of what I call region weighted voting as you know. (ie electoral system) Where a citizen's vote for President in low population states have more relative power than similar citizens in a high population state. And yet the high population states still have more overall power because of their large populations. I think it helps to keep America stable and cohesive. And it ensures that the parties / presidential candidates need to pay attention to low population states as well as large population states.
However Hiram reminded me of some stupid hypocritical rhetoric that the GOP have been using during the Impeachment Proceedings.
Now as I noted to Hiram, Trump is our legal President because he won by our chosen weighted system, but to deny that more citizens really disapprove of him than approve is silly.
I keep wondering if Trump and the GOP are working to make sure they lose a couple of more states. Though Trump likes to say he had some over whelming win, the reality is that he barely got over the finish line. And he sure has not been doing anything to gain supporters among Moderates. The only chance Trump has in 2020 is if the DEMs go too Far Left with their nominee.
2016 Vote Results
RCP Impeach Poll Summary
However Hiram reminded me of some stupid hypocritical rhetoric that the GOP have been using during the Impeachment Proceedings.
Stephanie Grisham, the White House press secretary, called the articles a "baseless and partisan attempt to undermine a sitting president" when the articles were unveiled.They seem to have forgotten that far more American citizens voted AGAINST Trump than voted FOR Trump. Where is there concern for the voices of the 66 million citizens for Clinton?
“House Democrats have long wanted to overturn the votes of 63 million Americans," Grisham said. "They have determined that they must impeach President Trump because they cannot legitimately defeat him at the ballot box."
Now as I noted to Hiram, Trump is our legal President because he won by our chosen weighted system, but to deny that more citizens really disapprove of him than approve is silly.
I keep wondering if Trump and the GOP are working to make sure they lose a couple of more states. Though Trump likes to say he had some over whelming win, the reality is that he barely got over the finish line. And he sure has not been doing anything to gain supporters among Moderates. The only chance Trump has in 2020 is if the DEMs go too Far Left with their nominee.
2016 Vote Results
33 comments:
about " And yet the high population states still have more overall power because of their large populations. " that is false. The system is anti-majoritarian across the board.
about 2018 election:
"Among the most eye-catching was a statistic showing Democrats led Republicans by more than 12 million votes in Senate races, and yet still suffered losses on the night and failed to win a majority of seats in the chamber."
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/08/democrats-republicans-senate-majority-minority-rule
Guardian Dems GOP Sen
Laurie,
As I keep explaining, don't blame the time tested system because the DEMs choose to focus on the wants of urban / coastal voters.
And it definitely is not "anti-majoritarian" across the board since Californian gets 53 Representatives to Wyoming's 1.
It will be interesting to see if the DEMs ever learn to adjust their platform to attract voters from all areas of the country, instead of just the urban centers...
It would be unfortunate if the Trump became our President for another 4 years because the DEMs went even further Left.
Trump is our legal President because he won by our chosen weighted system,
But Trump lacks political legitimacy because the American people chose someone else.
The founders created a system where the votes of people living in only three or four states matter. Curiously, some of those states didn't even exist when the constitution was created.
--Hiram
Hiram,
We will have to agree to disagree as usual.
You can disagree with the rules of the game, but they are still the rules.
Every vote still matters in this system, though it does give more influence to people in moderate states. Which from my perspective again is a wonderful thing.
I really do not want Far Left or Far Right States trying to control the whole country. I think that would end poorly.
Every vote still matters in this system, though it does give more influence to people in moderate states. Which from my perspective again is a wonderful thing.
Hillary won the popular vote by three million. If those votes mattered, if they were not thrown out simply because the people who cast them lived on the wrong side of arbitrarily lines drawn on maps, Hillary would have been president.
The framers created the electoral college to give more political power to states in which their fellow human beings were held in bondage. I can think of a lot of terms to apply to those states but "moderate" is not one of them.
--Hiram
You can disagree with the rules of the game, but they are still the rules.
When Frederick Douglass spoke against slavery, I am sure many people said to him, "But it's a rule. It's even in the constitution. That's why I only have to pay attention to three-fifths of what you have to say."
--Hiram
Hiram,
I may dislike some rules of that football game, however I don't deny that Green Bay won when they do. I encourage the Vikings to change their plan, method and performance.
The DEMs won California by 3 Million votes because they cater their platform to cities in that region. That is a choice they make... Just like when the Vikings make a bad decision.
If the DEMs want to win and influence more of the laws, they need a message that appeals to the people in more states / regions. The results are in their hands.
I may dislike some rules of that football game, however I don't deny that Green Bay won when they do
Well, that the president shouldn't commit crimes is a rule too. The fact is, I don't deny that Trump is president, but I deny he has a mandate and there is no rule that says he does. Unlike his Democratic critics, he wasn't the choice of the people he governs. That's why it's so important that his actions be monitored closely, according to the rules established by the constitution.
--Hiram
Again with denying the rules.
He has a weighted vote mandate of 302 to Hillary’s 232, them’s the current rules.
Deny them and continue to lose.
the house is anti-majoritarian as well (as are many state legislatures)
AP: GOP won more seats in 2018 than suggested by vote share
the vote favors the GOP at all levels of govt and is anti democratic.
Your strong defense of a system that gave us Trump and refuses to hold him accountable makes no sense
"I may dislike some rules of that football game, however I don't deny that Green Bay won when they do."
Funny thing about this example is that the NFL takes a look at their rules on a yearly basis and adjusts them to ensure fairness. They don't just say "that's how we've always done it".
The Electoral College and the Senate both function in an anti-Democratic way. Do we really need both checks? Effectively, since the Senate controls judicial nominations, all three of our branches of government are subject to anti-majoritarian rules.
If you read my link you will learn that the GOP usually is awarded more house seats than their share of the vote would predict. With the worst cases of gerrymandering the results have been very disproportionate in some states. So I will restate my point our system of elections gives the GOP an advantage at all levels.
Republicans held over 55 percent of the seats in the House after 2016’s elections despite winning only 49.9 percent of the popular vote.
Again with denying the rules
I don't deny there are rules. Trump is president according to the rules, and I don't deny that. But he doesn't have political legitimacy because the rules say he isn't chosen by the voters. Its why they don't hit home runs in football games.
He has a weighted vote mandate of 302 to Hillary’s 232, them’s the current rules.
In a country of 300 million you are certainly free to argue that the votes of three hundred individuals should be given weight, but there is no rule that says that should be granted any sort of political legitimacy. And bear in mind, the representatives who the rules say should decided whether Trump should be impeached were elected by real, unweighted voters. And more recently. Those are rules too.
--Hiram
All,
If you don't like the USA's political system, please feel free to change it.
To do so your party will need to get more support in more States.
That means focusing on the will of all citizens, not just those in the cities and on the coasts.
I truly wish you luck.
Well, or you could move a country where the urban voters can dominate control of the country.
Until then Trump is our legally elected mandated President according to the current rules of the game.
By the way, I am fine if the Senate gives him the boot...
However it is looking really unlikely, so your team had better field a good moderate "champion" in 2020 or we may end up with 4 more years of Trump.
I think the Liberals in Great Britain offer a good learning opportunity.
They went Far Left with their "champion" and the questionable Conservative "champion" killed them in the election.
"Conservative "champion""
You mean the guy who has vowed to "massively increase" spending on the nationalized health care system and make the UK carbon neutral? That ain't exactly a win for American conservative politics.
If you don't like the USA's political system, please feel free to change it.
Or at least try to reverse it's unjust outcomes, I suppose.
--Hiram
I think the Liberals in Great Britain offer a good learning opportunity.
Corbyn didn't offer leadership. I would think it would be very hard to vote for a candidate who didn't take a position on the leading issue of the day, in his case, Brexit. They would prefer even turning Britain into a rump state to that.
--Hiram
The Guardian Summary
VOX Corbyn Explained
VOX Fall of Corbyn
Corbyn was too concerned about leading his party and not nearly enough concerned about leading the country. Obviously, I would have voted Labour but it would have been that Corbyn utterly failed to provide the leadership the country needs. At least Boris, or as he is known to his friends, Al took a position on the central issue of the day.
What I wonder is where does Britain go from here. Scotland wants to stay in the EU, and Northern Ireland desperately needs to remain in the EU. Will Boris be able to hold them hostage in his negotiations with the EU? Will Europe do the job Boris won't? It remains to be seen.
--Hiram
Impeachment Effect
"To do so your party will need to get more support in more States.
That means focusing on the will of all citizens..."
As soon as Republicans care about the will of the majority, I'll care about their political fate.
For the sake of our Country, Republicanism can't die soon enough.
Moose
"To do so your party will need to get more support in more States
Presidential elections are decided in four states: Ohio Pennsylvania Florida and Michigan. None of them are among the original 13 colonies. Only one was a slave state, interestingly enough.
--Hiram
Moose
I would not hold your breath, it may be awhile given people like yourself trying to pull your party even further Left.
Hiram,
Actually they are chosen based on the results in 50 States.
Per the rules of the game, it would be wiser for the DEMs to alienate some of their Far Left voters in California in order to pickup more voters in the Heartland.
Or they can keep wasting 3 million votes winning very Liberal regions.
FOX Friends Host Stunned
Actually they are chosen based on the results in 50 States.
Possibly, but not in ways that reflect election results. Although Minnesotans gave Mr. Trump nearly half their votes, none of Minnesota's electors voted for Mr. Trump. Oddly enough, Minnesota Republicans strongly support this system which has denied they any representation at all in presidential elections since 1972.
It's okay for games to have unfair rules that undermine fairness, because the results of games don't matter. That doesn't work for politics, where outcomes do matter. The founders in their wisdom, understood that the president lacked legitimacy because he wasn't elected by the voters. That's why they made the president impeachable.
--Hiram
I am okay that my Trump vote was thrown away. Minnesotans liked Hillary better and that is how the system works. Us Minnesotans determine where our 10 votes go.
"Unfair Rules"... As you know I think the rules are wonderfully fair and very rational.
Just because the rules are not as you wish, it does not mean that they are not fair.
Now I realize that you are fine with coast citizens and states ordering us heartland citizens and states around... But I think that would very unfair.
I am okay that my Trump vote was thrown away.
You can waive your own constitutional rights, but you shouldn't be able to waive the constitutional rights of others.
"Unfair Rules"... As you know I think the rules are wonderfully fair and very rational.
It's a hard argument to make, and an easy argument to attack, I have to say. Today's electoral college bears no relationship to the way it was supposed to operate as laid out in Federalist 68. It failed in it's intended purpose, to preserve slave, and it was indirectly one of the causes of the Civil War. The after the fact rationales for it simply don't correspond to reality. The argument that it nationalizes elections by enhancing the importance of small states fails because of course, candidates ignore the small states paying attention mainly to large states. And not all large states get attention, just the ones where the vote is evenly divided, and that's just a function of demographic chance.
--Hiram
Hiram,
There you go... You should sue the government...
"waive the constitutional rights of others"
Apparently the current system is aligned with the US Constitution, or I am most certain that California would have filed suit by now.
EC Lawsuits
Post a Comment