Tories 1 Labour 0

[MajGenl.Meade]

. . .. it's a republic, not a democracy.

.

That's bollocks Meade and you know it. If the definition of a democracy is that the people vote directly on every issue then there is no democracy anywhere and never has been. The US is the closest thing (IN THEORY ABSENT THINGS LIKE CITIZENS UNITED which I think is antidemocratic) to a practical democracy that there is. It's very flawed - I understand the principle behind the EC but you cannot replace the bullying of the small states by the big states with the bullying of the big states by the small states.

Well it's not bollocks because you just agreed that it's true. How odd. You wish to have the big states bully the small states. I don't. Good luck changing the EC - hope it never happens.

And Bill, give me a break. New York has voted D in every Pressy vote since 1984. Californians have voted D since 1988 every time for Pressy. And you still don't get the point - outside those two, more USians voted for The Fat Git than for HRC. So I give them full credit for their votes (even though they voted for the wrong person). You're the one who wants to turn it all over to the two biggies, not me

[Econoline]

Here's an idea for you: perhaps one of the two major U.S. political parties could just somehow manage to attract more supporters in THE MOST POPULOUS STATE IN THE UNION!!???

Yeah, yeah, I know...that's just *CRAZYTALK*, right?

Well, it's just a thought...

[BoSoxGal]

And there’s the rub; the majority of Americans don’t want what the MAGAts are selling and things are headed to where the EC won’t even matter all that much because only their votes will be counted.

The Republic is going to die; the normalization of political violence incited by hateful political rhetoric is the hallmark of this impending death.

[Jarlaxle]

Here's an idea for you: perhaps one of the two major U.S. political parties could just somehow manage to attract more supporters in THE MOST POPULOUS STATE IN THE UNION!!???

Yeah, yeah, I know...that's just *CRAZYTALK*, right?

Well, it's just a thought...

Of course...many people in states where the outcome is not in doubt simply don't bother to vote, vote for a third party, or write in someone, because they KNOW their vote is meaningless. (I certainly have.)

[Econoline]

For some reason, the phrase "self-fulfilling prophecy" comes to mind...

[Gob]

In addition to being the most qualified candidate of either sex for the presidency in the history of the country, Hillary Clinton is also one of the most attacked and maligned women in public life in the history of the country - yet she has never given up or whined.

So, still no woman President, 43 years behind the UK, and no candidate for President next election yet? Not doing very well on the equality front, are you?

[Bicycle Bill]

So, still no woman President, 43 years behind the UK, and no candidate for President next election yet? Not doing very well on the equality front, are you?

You ARE aware, are you not, that the next election for POTUS is still two years in the future (November 2024) and that the POTUS does not operate in a vacuum (with the possible exception of #45, where the vacuum was all in his head)?  The major political powers — and, of course, all the power brokers, financiers, and shady, sub rosa entities who really own and position the players — need to see what happens in another couple of weeks or so and use that as a bellwether to better position themselves for 2024.

Wait another six months or so, and we'll be up to our hips in candidates ... black, white, yellow, brown, male, female, them what ain't too sure, sane, insane, and everywhere in between.

-"BB"-

[Gob]

And then the chosen white, "Christian," male candidates of your two parties will see who wins the competition to buy the election.

[ex-khobar Andy]

. . .. it's a republic, not a democracy.

.

That's bollocks Meade and you know it. If the definition of a democracy is that the people vote directly on every issue then there is no democracy anywhere and never has been. The US is the closest thing (IN THEORY ABSENT THINGS LIKE CITIZENS UNITED which I think is antidemocratic) to a practical democracy that there is. It's very flawed - I understand the principle behind the EC but you cannot replace the bullying of the small states by the big states with the bullying of the big states by the small states.

Well it's not bollocks because you just agreed that it's true. How odd. Read and understand what I wrote, Meade. "If . . . then (this absurd thing) . . . " means logically and very clearly that the "If . . " bit cannot happen. You are smarter than that, Meade so "you just agreed that it's true" is dissembling at best. You wish to have the big states bully the small states. I don't. Nor do I: no one should be bullied. Everyone should have an equal voice and the EC and the Senate are furiously antidemocratic constructs. As an example, at the time of Kavanaugh's confirmation to SCOTUS, the 51 Senate Republicans represented 145 million voters while the 49 Democrats and Independents represented 179 million voters. In any other election a 55% to 45% majority would be a landslide victory but in the Senate it's a routine loss. Good luck changing the EC - hope it never happens.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Much stuff

"If the definition of a democracy is that the people vote directly on every issue then there is no democracy anywhere and never has been" is reasonably agreeable. Therefore, you and I surely do agree that the USA system is not a democratic system but a republican one.

If so, then "it's a republic, not a democracy" is a true statement and not "bollocks".

We agree again that the structure of political engagement for Presidential selection is anti-democratic. I put it rather bluntly as "the Constitution is designed to prevent mob-rule - it's a republic, not a democracy". .

The composition of the Senate is of course nothing to do with the EC. It is instead a balancing mechanism that the Founders created (like it or not) to act as a restraint on the House, which is elected by simple majorities. The House of course being either a sop or a mechanism to restrain the Senate (depending upon one's politics). Good luck on the necessary Amendments to bring in the dictatorship of the majority.

(edit: if the last para appears in italics, I've no idea why. I didn't do it)

[BoSoxGal]

What about the mob rule of a psychotic Christofascistic minority? How is that a lesser concern to maintaining an artifact of slavery like the electoral college?

[MajGenl.Meade]

What about the mob rule of a psychotic Christofascistic minority? How is that a lesser concern to maintaining an artifact of slavery like the electoral college?

I'm against mob rule of any kind. I don't understand the second sentence.

[BoSoxGal]

What about the mob rule of a psychotic Christofascistic minority? How is that a lesser concern to maintaining an artifact of slavery like the electoral college?

I'm against mob rule of any kind. I don't understand the second sentence.

The EC is one of the mechanisms that is enabling the minority rule that has come to pass in this country in recent decades. It isn’t the only issue obviously gerrymandering and dark money in politics are also huge concerns that require statutory changes to protect the right of citizens to vote and have those votes result in meaningful policies enacted by elected representatives.

I firmly believe that certain rights are fundamental and should not be subject to legislation by the majority - that was what our judiciary protected until very recently when the plotting of decades by the right wing resulted in the capture of our Court by the minority fringe religious nut jobs of this country.

The irony is that mob rule isn’t really a threat - the majority in this country want progressive policies that preserve fundamental human rights. It’s tyranny of the minority that threatens us and in just more than a week we will see if we can still save ourselves from the path they are desperate to drag us down. The minority are irrational cult minded and far too many are violent or eagerly anticipating the opportunity to be violent and have that violence against fellow citizens sanctioned.

It’s hard to believe this is even an argument.

[ex-khobar Andy]

"If the definition of a democracy is that the people vote directly on every issue then there is no democracy anywhere and never has been" was intended to carry the connotation/implication that the definition of a democracy therefore cannot be that then people vote directly on every issue. The only form of democracy under which the people* vote directly on every issue was the clumsy Athenian form and let's not forget 'the people' comprised only the male landowning class over the age of 20 (IIRC) who could be bothered to show up for a meeting at which a voice vote was taken so loud shouters were popular and well recompensed. Apart from that model, every democracy on the face of the earth has been a representative democracy of which the United States, however flawed, is certainly one. A representative democracy is a democracy. Certainly the US is also a republic and countries such as UK, Denmark, The Netherlands etc are democracies and not republics.

"The composition of the Senate is of course nothing to do with the EC." Oh please. In one very limited sense you are correct: the composition of the Senate is laid out in article 1 of the Constitution. But the composition of the EC and its skewness so that the average Alaskan's vote for president counts about three times the average Californian's is absolutely based on the composition of the Senate.

[MajGenl.Meade]

It’s hard to believe this is even an argument

I don't think it is an argument - at least, not in the terms that you laid out. I don't distinguish much of what the judiciary is doing these days as solely the province of the right, although your point is taken. One concern about the judicial system is the growing propensity of judges to intervene in matters that should not rightly concern them. Example: Trump's appeal to law to void a (Constitutional and) lawful Congressional subpoena. What business is it of courts to step into that? (No doubt a smart lawyer will be telling me soon enough).

"I firmly believe that certain rights are fundamental and should not be subject to legislation by the majority" sounds agreeable. Absent the EC, the decision on the Presidency will indeed be turned over to a majority. Do you not see any contradiction at all in those two positions? Or at least, a small hiccup?

But once again, the balance of power in House and Senate has nothing to do with the EC. So I am unsure that it has in any way brought about the enabling of "minority rule that has come to pass in this country in recent decades".

One caveat counting for your point; Trump's victory enabled him to nominate too many SCOTUS judges. I blame part of that on the Vainglorious RBG. Agreed on gerrymander and dark money.

[MajGenl.Meade]

More stuff saying the same and still agreeing that the USA is not a democracy as it is defined

OK then

"The composition of the Senate is of course nothing to do with the EC." Oh please. In one very limited sense you are correct: the composition of the Senate is laid out in article 1 of the Constitution. But the composition of the EC and its skewness so that the average Alaskan's vote for president counts about three times the average Californian's is absolutely based on the composition of the Senate.

So, in the very limited sense of my being correct, I am correct. Thank you. That the EC is absolutely based upon the composition of the Senate is not correct.

"Your State has the same number of electors as it does Members in its Congressional delegation: one for each Member in the House of Representatives plus two Senators". https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/about

So, in every state, the number of Electors is based on er . . . the popular vote for Reps and Sens. And there are a lot more House members than Senators in play here. And don't forget, "DC gets 3" and it's not even a state - but it does counteract Alaska's senators and half of another one. So there's that.

[ex-khobar Andy]

In simple and undeniable terms, the following is true.

In October 2020, California had 22,047,448 registered voters.

In 2020 the EC had 55 California voters.

This calculates out at 400,863 registered CA voters per electoral vote. (Source: me.)

In October 2020, Wyoming had 221,549 registered voters.

In 2020 the EC had 3 Wyoming voters.

This calculates out at 73,849 registered WY voters per electoral vote. (Source: me.)

This means that for the presidential election, the average Wyoming voter has 400,863/73,849 = 5.4 times the heft of the average California voter.

How is this remotely democratic? How can any fair minded person of any political stripe think this is reasonable?

[MajGenl.Meade]

How is this remotely democratic? How can any fair minded person of any political stripe think this is reasonable?

https://www.procon.org/headlines/electo ... rocon-org/

In 227 years, the winner of the popular vote has lost the electoral vote only six times. This proves the system is working.

Without the electoral college, groups such as Iowa farmers and Ohio factory workers would be ignored in favor of pandering to metropolitan areas with higher population densities, leaving rural areas and small towns marginalized

I do not want mob rule by the Left Coast and its ilk; that's a reasonable objection. I prefer checks and balances (although Hamilton's belief that the EC "ensures that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications" was proved wrong in 2016 )

[ex-khobar Andy]

In 227 years, the winner of the popular vote has lost the electoral vote only six times. This proves the system is working.

Or, to put it another way, in 227 years of the presidency, the loser of the popular vote has been elected six times amounting to 24 years of the presidency or about 10.6% of the time. If we had an airline pilot with a 90% success rate I think we'd question it. This proves that the system is not working. And of course since 2000 it's been 8 years out of 22 or 36% 'wrong' aka a 64% success rate. Meade: you have a very strange notion of a 'working' system.

Without the electoral college, groups such as Iowa farmers and Ohio factory workers would be ignored in favor of pandering to metropolitan areas with higher population densities, leaving rural areas and small towns marginalized

With the EC groups such as city dwellers are marginalized in favor of pandering to rural dwellers in smaller states.

I do not want mob rule by the Left Coast and its ilk; that's a reasonable objection.

So mob rule - and I think we saw the very definition of that on Jan 6 last year - by the Trumpistas is acceptable? Really? So it's necessary to give some people 5x the electoral weight of others to avoid this 'mob rule' of which you speak?

I prefer checks and balances (although Hamilton's belief that the EC "ensures that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications" was proved wrong in 2016 ) I share your thought but not the laughter. This stopped being funny long ago.

[Econoline]

OOH! OOH! OOH! I GOTTA IDEA!

How about we institute a system where *SOME* states' voters (I think you know what I mean ...states like California, New York, Illinois...maybe some particular cities in other states ) are only counted as, say, three fifths of a person for the purpose of voting in presidential elections? Perfect, right? It would standardize the percentage, and of course 60% is much better than 18.4% (73,849/400,863)! Who could object? What could go wrong?

Abso-fucking-lutely *BRILLIANT* compromise...right???