Nuclear Option

[ZeroJunk]

Originally Posted by nailer

No, they got you.

Yep.


You know the next one is going to be a move to abolish the electoral college by the left. And, despite what happened in 2000 and this year it is quite possible that in the long run a Republican has better odds in the popular vote since the Democrats get 100% of the electoral votes fairly reliably in the largest states with some variable percentage of the popular vote.

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by nailer

No, they got you.

Good one Robert, I think... but that's par for the course with you.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by ZeroJunk

Yep.


You know the next one is going to be a move to abolish the electoral college by the left. And, despite what happened in 2000 and this year it is quite possible that in the long run a Republican has better odds in the popular vote since the Democrats get 100% of the electoral votes fairly reliably in the largest states with some variable percentage of the popular vote.

I know that for right wingers political advantage is all that counts but I'd be willing to risk political advantage for the sake of fairness. There's nothing fair about a 'democracy' in which loser gets a couple million more votes than the winner.

[Pio1980]

Originally Posted by ZeroJunk

Jus wondering if you guys think Harry Reid was shortsighted when he abolished the Senate tradition on many appointees ?

Didn't seem to matter for an appointment to the Supremes by a POTUS the 'Pubs want to see fail.
I don't necessarily want to see the demagogue in waiting fail, I just don't expect much at all out of this admin of a positive legacy.


Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

[ZeroJunk]

Originally Posted by Boreas

I know that for right wingers political advantage is all that counts but I'd be willing to risk political advantage for the sake of fairness. There's nothing fair about a 'democracy' in which loser gets a couple million more votes than the winner.

They argued about that when it was originally designed. Hamilton wanted a balance between the popular voters rights and states rights as he described in the Federalist Papers.

Fair is relative I suppose. Is it fair for a handful of counties in a handful of states to tell the majority of states and counties what to do.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by ZeroJunk

They argued about that when it was originally designed. Hamilton wanted a balance between the popular voters rights and states rights as he described in the Federalist Papers.

Fair is relative I suppose. Is it fair for a handful of counties in a handful of states to tell the majority of states and counties what to do.

Why should someone in North Dakota's vote count more than someone's in California? We're long past federalism and the artificial measures, like the 3/5 rule, aimed at making all the member states equal.

[ZeroJunk]

Originally Posted by Boreas

Why should someone in North Dakota's vote count more than someone's in California? We're long past federalism and the artificial measures, like the 3/5 rule, aimed at making all the member states equal.

Because people in California might as well be on a different planet as people in North Dakota.

Not so much different than people in North Dakota being ruled by England.

[Pio1980]

Originally Posted by ZeroJunk

Because people in California might as well be on a different planet as people in North Dakota.

Not so much different than people in North Dakota being ruled by England.

Nor should England or California be ruled by North Dakota.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by ZeroJunk

Because people in California might as well be on a different planet as people in North Dakota.

Not so much different than people in North Dakota being ruled by England.

You've obviously never seen Kern county, California or most of the San Joaquin valley for that matter.

[barbara]

Originally Posted by bobabode

You've obviously never seen Kern county, California or most of the San Joaquin valley for that matter.

That's right.
A lot of California is red. The blue parts are concentrated in the Bay Area and LA.

My husband is a fourth generation Californian and his dad was involved in politics back in the late fifties and early sixties. Husband insisted that California was very much republican back then and I didn't believe him until I googled the political history of the state. He was right.