Senate and the EC are extreme examples of the same DEI that the right constantly complains about.

Interesting responses. If population is all that matters, then let’s vote county by county and let voters decide which of a two-state solution they want to be a part of. No? Of course not, because landmass and resources matters as much if not more than population.

Landmass shouldn't matter when it comes to social issues.

Then free us all, disband the EC and allow us to reform our perfect unions.

I mean, I don't think anyone is saying disband the Senate (well, some may). Sure, keep your two senators there, even if state borders are arbitrary and other countries are fine with redrawing them. But president is a nationwide office. There is no reason anymore why states should have a weighted say on that outcome (and even within the current system there is no reason states need to be winner-take-all).

I can accept a counter-majoritarian element to the system, even though I don't really think it's the best process. We, though, have so many counter-majoritarian elements that a winning party can't do much of anything, and that helps breed the cynicism with the system. I think it's much better for a party to present a platform, if elected implement that platform, and then have the populous evaluate and vote again. When a party wins a majority and then isn't able to pass laws because of the Senate, the filibuster, gerrymandering, etc. it makes people give up on voting.

And this results in the party willing to game the system and ignore the norms being the party that is able to establish the most control.

In our current system, the minority is pushing nationally unpopular policy and decisions on the minority. That's not democracy in any functional form.

The reason is in our name. The United States. We are a Republic and we not only were formed to defend the weak but to give them a stake in the process. If the Democrats believe they have acquired enough people in New York, Chicago and LA to rule everyone, all the time, then disband the EC. It’s that simple.

re·pub·lic
/rəˈpəblik/
noun
a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.

Say anything about an electoral college in there?

Is France a republic? They elected Macron based on popular vote. Brazil? I believe their executive selection is based on majority/plurality. Hmm, what about Mexico? "The president is elected by plurality voting in a single round."

I dunno, according to this link there are a lot of republics out there.

Republic Countries 2024

Do all of them have electoral colleges?

Going back to the definition of a "republic" - is there anything in there that stipulates that selection of an executive can't be by direct vote? Yeah, wiki isn't the end-all be-all on things, but:


Direct vote on president...we still have political power resting with representatives, no?

https://www.threads.net/@mrhunterwal...SNanhz92tHJlVA

These are the people who have put in their names to compete for the Democratic nomination. It does certainly look like Kamala Harris will win. But let’s wait until it’s official.

[quote=Dutch;3438203]
If you ever forced a vote based on sheer population we would no longer be a Republic and would force all states to re-evaluate their entry into this Union.
/QUOTE]

A republic is a representative democracy and does not require an electoral college system. For example, no state uses a similar electoral system for local elections (they are prohibited from doing so per Baker v. Carr and Reynolds v. Sims) and yet they are still republics.

Dont count out Robbie and Robby if they decide to run together.

Well this is pretty disconcerning

I can't wait to hear from the right what he really meant.

Why would the default definition a republic have language about the very unique implementation of our Federal Republic? The great compromise ensured smaller states that it wouldn’t be a nation run by Pennsylvania and New York. They didn’t believe those population centers would even care what people in Maine or Georgia or Rhode Island thought. Which was true before the compromise. Afterwards, those big population centers at least cared a little bit more, which was all the less powerful asked for. They knew Democracy large population centers would harvest the smaller states resources for their own gain but at least the smaller states had been granted some ability to ensure the the new boss wouldn’t be the same as the old boss. The gained a small sense of representation.

A truly unique form of the classical Republic.

The removal of the EC would eliminate the American version of the Federal Republic and embrace True Representative Democracy, no doubt, but make no mistake, we are a big country with two different very powerful population blocks that want two different things. A power grab by one 50% group would be nothing short of a dissolution of one of the bedrocks of our constitution and one of the most important reasons why we even got to a place where anybody would want to do such an all-in power grab. But we shouldn’t be tempted by more power at the reduction of anyone’s representation.

Instead its been chipped away with power grabs though the judicial branch and gerrymandering.

What we need is doing away with the electoral college going hand in hand with the reducing of presidential power. We also desperately need to fix gerrymandering to make congress more accountable to the people.

Ahh, yes - we ARE a Federal republic. But...I thought your emphasis was on the Republic part, not the Federal part? (I don't see "federal" in that sense in a search of the last three pages of the thread...)

Anyway yes, yes we are unique in that regard. But apparently, we didn't used to be.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...still-has-one/


Countries tend to lose this sort of system...after some sort of emergency/catastrophe. The question is if we are going to head for one or not. Obviously something like doing away with elections altogether would qualify (they could well be reinstituted under a differently functioning system). Would the pressure of a system where a minority party regularly wound up in power? Dunno.

Nahhhhh, we just have corporations for that.


(edit: which are all probably headquartered in Delaware)

The three top vote count states in 2020 were the same for both parties, CA, FL, TX for Dems and CA, TX, FL for the GOP. We live in a country where 55-45 is the extreme split. Either party could win a majority, they just may need to moderate their most extreme positions to do so.

Already heard it. He’s going to permanently fix the issues that important to christians in a way that democrats will never be able to overturn with legislation and so it won’t matter if they vote again or not.

That's Vance talking about his wife. He's so bad at this.

That’s fair, I wasn’t clear that I meant in the context of our form of Republic.

What would be the point in having a national bitcoin stockpile?

This:


and this:

How is this different from the current situation where you get special benefits as a swing state? The auto industry doesn't get their $25 billion bailout from Obama if they're not a vital state to his re-election hopes. We don't have this huge welfare system for farmers if they aren't located in vital swing states (including Iowa which was vital in the primary cycle). And a huge chunk of our military spending goes to curry favor with specific districts and areas that are important.

This doesn't balance power in the country, it just shifts it. Your vote for Senate is 80 times more powerful in Wyoming as opposed to California. We have like 7 states that even matter in an election and both candidates will cater exclusively to them. Large states have to provide billions in welfare to smaller states.

If you like the system, that's fine. But don't pretend it's being done to be fair. Most of this shit was put in place to protect slave states anyway.

Welfare for cryptobros.

Each square mile of land should be worth 3/5 of a vote. States can decide how that land decides to vote on their own.

Closing remarks in Minnesota from JD Vance tonight.

Kamela Harris questioned my loyalty to this country. That’s the word she used, “loyalty”. It’s an interesting word … Semper Fi … loyalty, because there is no greater sign of disloyalty than what Kamela Harris has done at our southern border. And the question I have for the vice president, is what has she done to question my loyalty to this country? I served in the United States Marine Corps for this country, I went to Iraq for this country, I built a business for this country, and my running mate took a bullet for this country. And my question to Kamela Harris, is what the hell have you done to question our loyalty to the United States of America? And the answer my friends, is “nothing”.

JD Vance also looked up dolphin porn for this country while maybe banging a couch for this country.

lol he was a photographer for the Marines in a war we lost. And his business was a vulture VC firm funded by Peter Thiel. Thank you for your service JD. Not sure we would have survived without you.

Sir, permission not to take rafterman with me?

I didn’t know that was his job. My son serves in the military as a photo-journalist right now. Why is that funny? Or why should he feel ashamed of that and not mention it? And does that open him up to being called disloyal?

No, but saying he'd do what Pence refused to do would count as disloyal to the Constitution/USA in my book.

She said Vance would be loyal to Trump instead of the country. Wouldn't both Donald and JD agree that he'll be loyal to Trump first? I mean he's already said repeatedly that he would have refused to certify the election.

Kamela refused to secure the border like Trump would do. We can play that game all day I suppose and we perhaps you’re right. But if you are, can you think of anything Kamela has done that you would consider disloyal?

Anyway, for those making fun of Vance for being proud of his time served, here a glimpse into what he gained from it. It’s not a story about Sgt Rock, it’s a story about everyday Americans that choose to serve.

J.D. Vance: What I Learned in the Marine Corps | Military.com

THAT's your "both sides" argument? Holy crap, dude.

Also, LOL at "like Trump would do." You mean, like he would have stopped Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 1 day? Suuuuure.

It is good that he served. It is sad that he is betraying that service for a 4 time draft dodger that called military members that gave their life to their country "losers" and "suckers" and mocked John McCain for being a POW.

My EC solution

Keep the Electoral Votes the way they are (i.e. giving advantages to rural states)

Every state allocates their EVs proportional to the percentage vote in that state.

One of the problems with the current system is that a 10,000 vote margin in one state can flip the entire election. That is less likely to happen under my system.

My system also keeps the whole country in play. Suddenly, the GOP has an inventive to campaign in Los Angeles and Chicago. The Dems have an incentive to campaign in Oklahoma City and Nashville. And the voters in those states will matter.

This system is better than a national popular vote because each election is still administered by 50 different states, making it much harder to hack.

Are you purposely misspelling Kamala or do you just never read and don't know how to spell it?

Did you serve? Don't shit on someone's military service unless you were in.

We're talking about a guy whose running mate shit on the service of millions of veterans, most notably John McCain's. I don't think Vance has any moral high ground here, unless he's going to upbraid Trump for his far worse crimes against veterans.

Not relevant in this case. Attack the candidate all you want (and I personally think he is a terrible VP pick), but I take specific issue with the "lol he was a photographer" comment. You don't make fun of someone's service record unless you too served (or if they are blatantly lying about what they did, and even then, that's better left to being challenged by actual veterans).

What, like this? The States That Are Most Reliant on Federal Aid

There you go again, trying to educate someone with FACTS!!!

You can make fun of anyone, whether it is respectful or not is another matter. I think this whole you can't mock or be critical if you weren't in the same shoes is a bullshit argument.

He may have been dilligent in the service, but when I read what he tries to imply and what his actual work was, it's bullshit.

This is no different then when Hillary claimed she was working "under fire" as Secretary of State but then it turned out while she may have been in a hostile area, she wasn't under fire. Splitting hairs but over embellishment of service.

Lee Harvey Oswald, Charles Whitman and Tim McVeigh all served in our military and each of them was a piece of shit. It's not a badge that gets you out of criticism for doing or saying stupid or shitty things.

Agree with CW on this matter. But I also think it's cheesy to brag about your service

Im sorry, wasn’t meant to offend you.

Here’s Kamala’s plan to secure the border.

"I am meeting with a lot of folks. And the work that we have begun is the work that is going to be ongoing. There is no question, and I said this from the beginning, that our approach to this issue has to be with a commitment to a long term investment and it has to be a commitment to consistency, the United States has to be consistent. There were times when were more engaged and we saw good results, less engaged, and we can see where the work and the partnerships then deteriorate. So I am committed to ensuring that we engage in an active way on the root causes, on addressing the cause and effect, and also being partners in the western hemisphere, understanding that we have a responsibility and if we ignore that responsibility it will visit itself upon us in a very domestic way."

Thank God for the EC. Yes, we know the vast majority of the rich and the biggest GDP is secured in Blue States. I can imagine without the USA’s version of a Republic, that the money would dry up in a heart beat. So again, if you want all the power, do what you think is best to secure it and if the poor are of no value, then break them off. Your disdain for the flyover states is noted.

This isn't a policy, it's from a speech in 2021. Nice try but I see who you follow on twitter now.