Jump to content

The Next President is...


disgruntledemployee

Recommended Posts


Or maybe California should just split into 5-10 smaller states so that their voices are heard.

Tempted to "like" your post just for this alone. I would have had you said, "should just fall off into the ocean..."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, SurelySerious said:

Nope, it should function as written no matter what the leaning of the metropolis. Those are the rules and how our country operates. 

Except, it hasn't functioned as written in over 100 years, when the number of representatives was capped at 435. Anyone who claims to support the idea of the electoral college due to founding principles has to at least acknowledge this disparity, that gives a Wyoming resident 3x the voting power of a Texas resident. 

The "Wyoming Rule" is a workable fix for this, but I doubt we'll see it. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Pooter said:

You're arguing on principle, but if we applied that principle evenly, why don't they have a problem with Rhode Island, Vermont, and Connecticut electors or the senate in general? Is every not perfectly representational part of our government bad or just the parts that don't currently benefit the left?

I agree.

Delaware, Vermont, Rhode Island, DC, Hawaii. All more examples of places that have more voting weight than they should.

Edited by Negatory
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Negatory said:

I agree.

Delaware, Vermont, Rhode Island, DC, Hawaii. All more examples of places that have more voting weight than they should.

Be careful, you're going counter to the tribal narrative that one can only support a change that benefits their team. 

PYB will unlikely be able to process this disconnect! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't "absolutely still make sense." There have been over 700 formal proposals to get rid of the electoral college since 1800, with it almost happening in the Bayh-Celler amendment of 1970. Which was only defeated due to a real philosophical and legal marvel - the filibuster. It's not like it is some philosophical truth.
In my opinion, it's antithetical to true democracy.

The US isn’t and shouldn’t be a true democracy. Not sure anyone claims it is.
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites


I gotta disagree with you on this one. The country is not evenly divided, and it is unhealthy for all the big cities to be making the legislation that governs the rural areas. Electoral college is the best prevention against one specific ideology running the country while alienating an entire half of the country. It's a good way to keep the masses from voting mob rules.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Let it be recorded that I agree with you. Glad you think this way on this topic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's fine, you guys are cleared to disagree. I still think you're wrong. There are more republican voters in California, whose votes don't matter at all, than those in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and West Virginia combined.
If you look into it, you aren't really following the constitutional founding fathers' intentions. The number of electors was always intended to be the number of senators plus the number of representatives. As our society grew from about 35k people / representative to the 700k people / rep that we have now, the impact of the people should have increased proportionally because the number of representatives should have increased. George Washington argued that there should be a representative for every 30k people. But in  1913, # of representatives was capped arbitrarily to 435. This contributed, strongly, to the undue voter weight of extremely small portions of America and the disregard for vast sects of society. 
Now the tyranny of the minority has resulted in 2 of the last 3 presidents being elected by the minority of voters. Before, this had only happened 3 times. I'm doubtful this was the intent of the constitution or the founding fathers.
Or maybe California should just split into 5-10 smaller states so that their voices are heard.

Pretty sure people hear California’s voices.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope, it should function as written no matter what the leaning of the metropolis. Those are the rules and how our country operates. 
 
The idea of California being at least three states, however, is definitely a good academic exercise because of how different things are in all those areas. 


I propose it becomes “Cal” in the north, “Ifor” in the middle, and “Nia” in the south.
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Waingro said:

Except, it hasn't functioned as written in over 100 years, when the number of representatives was capped at 435. Anyone who claims to support the idea of the electoral college due to founding principles has to at least acknowledge this disparity, that gives a Wyoming resident 3x the voting power of a Texas resident. 

The "Wyoming Rule" is a workable fix for this, but I doubt we'll see it. 

So would you say there is a set of rules that we’ve been following? Cool...because that’s what I said.
 

I didn’t cry when Clinton, Bush, or Obama won by the set rules...it works. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So would you say there is a set of rules that we’ve been following? Cool...because that’s what I said.
 
I didn’t cry when Clinton, Bush, or Obama won by the set rules...it works. 
I think his point was that what the founders intended was the electoral college, not the modified version we have now.

The electoral college rightly favors smaller states, but the numbers cap created by congress was not what the founders had in mind.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Baseops Network mobile app

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, N730 said:

I think his point was that what the founders intended was the electoral college, not the modified version we have now.

The electoral college rightly favors smaller states, but the numbers cap created by congress was not what the founders had in mind.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Baseops Network mobile app
 

How far back do you want to go with that? Repeal the 12th A and go straight back to the original constitution text? My original point was the system in place works, not sure why the other guy wants to argue like I erroneously said originalism was the only way as if that’s still in play. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How far back do you want to go with that? Repeal the 12th A and go straight back to the original constitution text? My original point was the system in place works, not sure why the other guy wants to argue like I erroneously said originalism was the only way as if that’s still in play. 
Well I think a constitutional amendment carries a little more weight than a law. Especially one that created an arbitrary cap on the number of representatives just before we add the 47th and 48th states.

But he probably shouldn't have replied to you. Especially if his intent was to target his comment at those in this thread arguing originalism.

I donno man, haha I was just trying to provide another view point of his comment.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Baseops Network mobile app

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, N730 said:

Well I think a constitutional amendment carries a little more weight than a law. Especially one that created an arbitrary cap on the number of representatives just before we add the 47th and 48th states.

But he probably shouldn't have replied to you. Especially if his intent was to target his comment at those in this thread arguing originalism.

I donno man, haha I was just trying to provide another view point of his comment.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Baseops Network mobile app
 

Amendments do to a certain extent, but at times when one party or the other has controlled both sides of congress and the presidency no one has tried seriously to change that cap...so it seems that much like immigration no one cares enough to spend the political capital for a change. 

Edited by SurelySerious
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amendments do to a certain extent, but at times when one party or the other has controlled both sides of congress and the presidency no one has tried seriously to change that cap...so it seems that much like immigration no one cares enough to spend the political capital for a change. 
Agreed. Sadly we have passed the age of bipartisan work in the interest of the country.

I'm not necessarily saying changing this rule would benefit the country, I don't know. But generally, the parties seem to want to maintain the status quo so they don't lose their talking points.

Plus, in this instance, congresspeople would be diluting their own power. So, like term limits, it's probably never going to happen.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Baseops Network mobile app

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Prozac said:

This. This is the most coherent argument against the Left. Those of us who are left of center need to internalize this message. If you’re on the other side, don’t worry, you’ve got plenty of your own wackos to recon with (see pretty much all of Sim’s posts above). 

The difference is "our" (I'm not really a Republican) wackos aren't mainstreamed by the party.

 

Seriously, you don't see proud boys or white nationalists doing interviews on Fox news. And you don't have a hard time finding Republican politicians who actively condemn them.

 

Conversely, critical race theory and all the other harmful, lunatic propositions are advocated for at the highest levels of power within the Democratic party. And it's a lot easier to find mainstream politicians who will outright refuse to acknowledge the violence of antifa.

 

As usual, Bill Maher is spot on in his criticisms of his own party.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Pooter said:

I'm inclined to agree with you, but let's be honest with ourselves here. In an alternate reality, if big cities skewed heavily republican, you and I both know the right would be railing against the electoral college as un-democratic. 


This is the most annoying part of politics to me: anyone that pretends that either party actually has principles. Pragmatic opportunism drives 100% of politics. 

Doesn't matter. In that alternate world the EC would protect the rural Democrats, as intended. 

 

As you say, politicians, with few exceptions, say whatever they think will win. So if course the (R) would be complaining. Doesn't affect the merits of the system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sim said:

I hear some people like a monologue when it's done by talking heads. Probably will not like this one. 

 

I like him too. Important to remember that he's not talking about (D) voters, he's talking about the (D) media and politicians.

 

I also like that he actively makes fun of his profession with things like the "Period!" animation at the end. 

 

The sooner we can realize, as voters on both sides, that there is no longer a connection between the political/media class and the citizenship, the better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Sim said:
I hear some people like a monologue when it's done by talking heads. Probably will not like this one. 
 


You guys take him seriously? Talk about a vitriol fueled rant...

He has some decent points, but when he's so incredibly angry, hard to take it seriously.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited by slackline
grammar and stuff
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

The difference is "our" (I'm not really a Republican) wackos aren't mainstreamed by the party.

 

Seriously, you don't see proud boys or white nationalists doing interviews on Fox news. And you don't have a hard time finding Republican politicians who actively condemn them.

 

Conversely, critical race theory and all the other harmful, lunatic propositions are advocated for at the highest levels of power within the Democratic party. And it's a lot easier to find mainstream politicians who will outright refuse to acknowledge the violence of antifa.

 

As usual, Bill Maher is spot on in his criticisms of his own party.

I don’t follow politics hardly at all, but whatever happened to the Tea Party within the Republican Party? Don’t hear about that anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

I've always loved him. Disagree on almost everything, but he's consistent and honest, and he's never bought the whole intersectional coalition BS his party adopted.

Him yelling at the 9/11 truthers to "get the fuck out" is one of my favorite things.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

What part of the tea party was radical? Real question, that was a while ago.

This is a matter of perspective answer.  Some people will find them radical, some won't.  I surmise most won't care.

Tea Party kinda died after Ted Cruz caused the gov't shutdown, and the R's took both houses of Congress.  I imagine we'll be hearing from political scientists/historians how it paved the way for Trumpism, where the Tea Party ideals were abandoned for the "most conservative president ever."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...