Hillary Clinton Now Leads by 1 Million in History-Making Popular Vote Total

[ZeroJunk]

Originally Posted by nailer

Still deflecting I see.

Deflecting from what. It worked the way it was designed to work as Hamilton noted in the Federalist Papers in the 1700's. States rights balanced with popular votes rights. Your disagreement is a couple hundred years old and certainly nothing that was not considered and actually part of the reason for it among others.


Be careful what you wish for. Change it and it could work out like the ultimate moron Harry Reid's decision to let a simple majority pass appointments.

[nailer]

Originally Posted by ZeroJunk

Deflecting from what. It worked the way it was designed to work as Hamilton noted in the Federalist Papers in the 1700's. States rights balanced with popular votes rights. Your disagreement is a couple hundred years old and certainly nothing that was not considered and actually part of the reason for it among others.


Be careful what you wish for. Change it and it could work out like the ultimate moron Harry Reid's decision to let a simple majority pass appointments.

What exactly is it that I'm disagreeing with?

FWIW, I was foolish enough to take a PoliSci course on The Federalist Papers.

[ZeroJunk]

Originally Posted by nailer

What exactly is it that I'm disagreeing with?

FWIW, I was foolish enough to take a PoliSci course on The Federalist Papers.

Well, I thought you were disagreeing with the role of the electoral college.

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by ZeroJunk

Deflecting from what. It worked the way it was designed to work as Hamilton noted in the Federalist Papers in the 1700's. States rights balanced with popular votes rights. Your disagreement is a couple hundred years old and certainly nothing that was not considered and actually part of the reason for it among others.


Be careful what you wish for. Change it and it could work out like the ultimate moron Harry Reid's decision to let a simple majority pass appointments.

I'm gonna have to wait until the cease fire expires before I respond to this one.

In the meantime, have a nice night.

[JCricket]

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

I'm gonna have to wait until the cease fire expires before I respond to this one.

In the meantime, have a nice night.

TJ,
Good job!!!!!

thank you!

[nailer]

Originally Posted by ZeroJunk

Well, I thought you were disagreeing with the role of the electoral college.

Where did I say that? Not in our current conversation which began with my pointing out an absurdity of something you claimed and you've been deflecting away from that ever since. You know, trying to change the subject which is done all the time here.

[ZeroJunk]

Originally Posted by nailer

Where did I say that? Not in our current conversation which began with my pointing out an absurdity of something you claimed and you've been deflecting away from that ever since. You know, trying to change the subject which is done all the time here.

Wasn't deflecting, you just lost me I suppose. I stay lost most of the time anyway.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

I'm fine with that. The problem with the house seats is Gerrymandering. That's another issue.


Doing it on purpose doesn't make it right.


Well that depends on who you ask.

I have a huge problem with Wyoming getting a Senator for every 192,000 population while California only gets one for every 19.4 million. That's a difference of about 100-1.

You think gerrymandering is bad now. Try it with both the Senate and the House with representation being determined by population.

And besides - what's to be gained by this other than adding a bunch more talking heads in the Senate? All I see is a larger vacuum cleaner that can be used to suck up lobbying money and campaign contributions.

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by whell

You think gerrymandering is bad now. Try it with both the Senate and the House with representation being determined by population.

I never said that Senate seats should be by district.

They would remain statewide offices.

Kinda hard to gerrymander a statewide office.

In fact, now that you mention it, maybe house seats should be statewide too.

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by whell

And besides - what's to be gained by this other than adding a bunch more talking heads in the Senate? All I see is a larger vacuum cleaner that can be used to suck up lobbying money and campaign contributions.

So?

Just leave it at 100 seats.

Give every state one instead of two and allocate the remaining 50 based on population. It would still be over representing the small states, but not as much as now.