We're already B-lining straight towards third world. I'm well aware it would be expanded left and right rendering it obsolete over time. When Harry Reid got rid of the 'supermajority' vote rule in the senate a decade-ish ago because the right puts their party over the country, McConnell when he took over Senate Maj leader burned dems with it before he does nothing with 400+ bills on his desk, takes millions of bucks from his wife's company, and will easily win re-election because Dems love running uninspiring, limpdick republicans against some of the most vile politicians alive. You do it because it gets things done when republicans go into 'resist' mode, and if it gets you healthcare or a big ticket policy item--once the people see the benefit, getting rid of it will be next to impossible. See Medicare/SS (even though shitty centrists and conservatives have been chipping away at both for decades and literally have to run on 'I wont touch your medicare/SS' before attacking it). It also stops the stupidity of gridlock. Something partisan ass clowns refuse to do in the name of "I'm a conservative" or "I'm a democrat." Executive branch/rule by decree has increased without packing the court. Executive Orders have been all the rage because of stupidity and partisanship, even though they aren't usually effective for now because an EO isn't a law, no matter how pretty you frame it to be. Its a matter of time with/without packing the court that they become stronger and stronger should Congress/Senate continue to never do their jobs. Back in the late 1700s, it was necessary and important because 'majority rules' meant Richmond, New York, and Charleston could call the shots if you didn't live there. Now the minority/conservatives desperately cling onto it because its the only way they can stay in power. Now? Yeah I got nothing. Updating the constitution wakes up the fear-induced rhinoceros up everybody's ass so nothing gets done.
That's a good question. And I don't have the answer. And being from Calif. I almost wish they would do just that.
Only Maine and Nebraska aren't "winner take all" states. The other 48 are (which is why I laugh when people tell me 'my vote counts.') More states doing that is fair, and its a hell of a lot easier than amending the constitution (where you need 66% of states to agree--which they never will) to get rid of the EC.
I can buy that. I certainly am no fan of the electoral college. That and partisan gerrymandering need to go ASAP.
Gerrymandering is probably one of the bigger issues. But for the EC....take a state like Illinois where there is basically one big blue dot for Chicago and the rest of the state is mostly red. Tennessee is the same...Nashville is blue and the rest of the state mostly red. If you divide the states EC votes up my territory then the whole EC starts to make a lot more sense. And candidates would have to work a lot harder.
Winning the popular vote doesn’t mean squat when most of the votes that give you the popular vote are from California where they don’t check ids let illegals vote, and have a lot of people rising from the grave to vote. One very corrupt state should never decide the election.
Gidion, this might all be a little above your head. Maybe read more, say less. And please read from the right sources. I'm willing to wager my paycheck you've been listening to a lot of crap.
It's facebook rhetoric like this that spreads and continues to widen the divide. California is a mostly liberal state. Their votes tend to lean left. No different than mostly conservative states leaning right. If every vote counts...then every vote counts. You can't say one state doesn't matter because their views are different than yours.
This is the part that I try and remind people of. Whenever someone defends the electoral college, I remind them that only 6-8 states actually get any attention from candidates, and usually very isolated counties within those states. I remember seeing the data from 2016, and it was astonishing. I don't remember where I saw it, so I'd have to find it, but it was very enlightening for me.
Winning the popular vote doesn’t mean squat when most of the votes that give you the popular vote are from California where they don’t check ids let illegals vote, and have a lot of people rising from the grave to vote. One very corrupt state should never decide the election. I do not understand the EC vote........as an example the State of Pennsylvania there are 20 EC Votes at stake. This is what I don't understand. Joe Biden gets 11 EC Votes Donald Trump gets 9 Votes. Joe Biden wins the State and gets all 20 Votes ???
Agreed. And because of the EC, it means millions of Trump voters like yourself virtually have no say in presidential voting outcome in said corrupt state. So folks like you are getting burned by it too.
Perhaps, but this is the path Republicans have put everyone on now with their narrow vision. What other reasonable alternative do you suggest Democrats have? To any objective outsider the behaviour of republicans re the SC over the last 4years has been an utter disgrace. It just has. You simply can't block a nomination for the better part of a year on the argument that there should be no nomination in an electoral year, and cite 80years of precedent to back it up like Cruz did publicly on multiple occasions, and then ignore all that to rush thru your own nomination in a fraction of the time during an election year. That's not just supremely hypocritical, it is morally and ethically bankrupt. That is what the dems are dealing with. Im sure someone knows more about this than me and can suggest a better alternative so im all ears. But otherwise the only logical course the dems can take now is to pack the court. Its really the only way of, eventually reaching a point like dline says where it becomes so unfit for purpose that it must be meaningfully reformed on a bipartisan nature. But you wont get republicans to that point by playing fair and asking nicely.
