R
RootKitWarrior
Guest
Heavily redacted Version
Can our democracy survive if most Republicans think the government is illegitimate?
- Status
P
PaulinVA
Guest
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
T
Theo520
Guest
Schiff and other leaders had the clearance to see all the pertinent details.
A name may have been redacted, but not the crime (if Mueller had found one).
Last edited:
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
The EC is not about one man one vote. We are not a Democracy. One man one vote is two wolves and a sheep deciding what’s for dinner.
P
PaulinVA
Guest
No.
The judiciary is appointed.
The House is elected by the popular vote.
The Senate gives every state, regardless of population, the same representation. This gives the less populous states outside representation.
The President is elected by the Electoral College, with less populous states having an advantage over the more populous states.
Sounds, actually, like the tyranny of the minority.
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
I disagree. We have three branches of government to prevent that.
Our founding fathers were very wise in how they set up our Constitution and government structure. The president is president of the whole country, not just the most populous states. The president and senate represent the whole country. The house represents the population. If we had only majority rule, the less populous states would never get their share of federal projects. The Midwest does not want to be ruled by California and New York. Different parts of the country have very different needs and should be equally enfranchised.
M
MikeInVA
Guest
Yeah, the 3 electoral votes in AK really overwhelm the 55 votes in CA.
P
PaulinVA
Guest
Absolutely. You’re right!
So, why does the midwest get to rule California and New York?
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
Does it? 123456
P
PaulinVA
Guest
Sure seems that way. By giving the less populous states outsized representation in the Senate and the Electoral College isn’t that what’s happening?
T
TMC
Guest
With the electoral college there is another phenomena that is important. It gives outsize importance to “swing” states. So Florida (the third largest state) gets more political attention than either California or Texas (one and two), because neither of those states are “in play.” The EC succeeded in ensuring all states mean something, but it has also created other, perhaps unexpected imbalances - like Florida.
(The imbalances in the Senate are arguably worse, but different enough to merit an entirely different conversation).
M
MikeInVA
Guest
I think you’re confused. Every state has 2 seats in the Senate. Citizens are represented in the House of Representatives. Our country is a union of sovereign states, not one one country with 50 administrative sub-areas.
S
sallybutler
Guest
But every state gets a minimum of 3 votes. per the 2010 census WY had 563,626 people and 3 votes. That is one vote per 187,875 people. California had 37,253,956 people and 55 votes, or about 1 per 677,344. So the representation isn’t equal.
If you take the majority of the voters in my state and award our electors to the other candidate, that’s voter suppression. Or worse. I won’t take your state’s electors, and you leave mine alone.
The EC prioritizes the selection each state makes for their electors. My vote counts exactly the same as everyone else in my state. Yours counts exactly the same as everyone else in your state.
I’m in favor of each person voting in their state for their state’s electors. That is one person one vote. The states choose the president in that basis, not a fictional national plebiscite.
Last edited:
M
MikeInVA
Guest
Let me try this again. All states get 2 votes, because they are states (we live in the United States of America, not the United People of America). Then, each state gets a vote for every member of the House of Representatives, which is supposed to reflect the amount of people in each state. It not only is a fair and balanced way to do it, it is the law.
S
sallybutler
Guest
It is not fair and balanced, but it is the law.
Suudy
Active member
If you think we are a democracy, or should be, then I can see why you think it isn’t fair.
But as @MikeInVA has pointed out we are the United States of America, and the states elect the president.
It is a matter of perspective. I happen to think that’s what the founders wanted, and it makes sense. And I think it a fair way to balance the state’s interests with the population as a whole. It leads to candidates seeking broader appeal, rather than focusing on the population centers.
T
TMC
Guest
It is the law, everyone gets that. The dispute is over the “fair” bit.
S
sallybutler
Guest
Or ignoring population centers.
I believe when it was originally conceived, the number was based on a solid number (45,000 if I remember correctly), not based on a proportion of the population with a minimum of 1 representative and 2 senators. That was changed when it became too hard to put that many people in a building.
So it could be changed again.
Oh, and my state (KS) gets a total of 6 in the electoral college or about 1 per 466,667. Under represented compared to Wyoming and over represented compared to California. If it were still 1 per 45,000, we would have 64 (62 + 2)votes compared to 12 (10 + 2) and California would have 829 (827 + 2)
I believe when it was originally conceived, the number was based on a solid number (45,000 if I remember correctly), not based on a proportion of the population with a minimum of 1 representative and 2 senators. That was changed when it became too hard to put that many people in a building.
So it could be changed again.
Oh, and my state (KS) gets a total of 6 in the electoral college or about 1 per 466,667. Under represented compared to Wyoming and over represented compared to California. If it were still 1 per 45,000, we would have 64 (62 + 2)votes compared to 12 (10 + 2) and California would have 829 (827 + 2)
- Status