Nader Still Gets It

[HI54UNI]

Scrap Electoral College. Check. Stop that nasty Republican gerrymandering (we all know those virginal Donks don't do it). Check. Yeah, JSO is a conservative.

Gerrymandering has been going on since at least as long ago as the 1700s (before the term was coined) and both parties have done it. I don't like gerrymandering for things like, for example, making sure Blacks get to elect a Black representative either.

I have no problem with having a buffer in the form of a Senate that has two representatives from each State regardless of population.

But I don't see the wisdom of continuing with the Electoral College. One of the arguments for having it, maybe the primary argument, was to make sure that candidates didn't ignore some States because they would just go to where most of the population was. And what we have is candidates largely ignoring most States because they identify the ones that are "swing" then focus their efforts on those.

In today's context, if we want candidates to be cognizant of trying to win every vote of every person regardless of the State they live in, we would go to electing the President via the popular vote.

Plus we just had a pretty self evident "fail" of the Electoral College system. It generated a pretty darned absurd result.

This post has reached spanos levels of stupidity. Stop it!

[GannonFan]

Gerrymandering has been going on since at least as long ago as the 1700s (before the term was coined) and both parties have done it. I don't like gerrymandering for things like, for example, making sure Blacks get to elect a Black representative either.

I have no problem with having a buffer in the form of a Senate that has two representatives from each State regardless of population.

But I don't see the wisdom of continuing with the Electoral College. One of the arguments for having it, maybe the primary argument, was to make sure that candidates didn't ignore some States because they would just go to where most of the population was. And what we have is candidates largely ignoring most States because they identify the ones that are "swing" then focus their efforts on those.

In today's context, if we want candidates to be cognizant of trying to win every vote of every person regardless of the State they live in, we would go to electing the President via the popular vote.

Plus we just had a pretty self evident "fail" of the Electoral College system. It generated a pretty darned absurd result.

John, the system works, just too bad Dems ran the worst candidate ever.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Oh, and the DNC cheated and picked their own candidate despite the wishes for the members of their party to elect the old dude from Vermont. That didn't help either.

[kalm]

Gerrymandering has been going on since at least as long ago as the 1700s (before the term was coined) and both parties have done it. I don't like gerrymandering for things like, for example, making sure Blacks get to elect a Black representative either.

I have no problem with having a buffer in the form of a Senate that has two representatives from each State regardless of population.

But I don't see the wisdom of continuing with the Electoral College. One of the arguments for having it, maybe the primary argument, was to make sure that candidates didn't ignore some States because they would just go to where most of the population was. And what we have is candidates largely ignoring most States because they identify the ones that are "swing" then focus their efforts on those.

In today's context, if we want candidates to be cognizant of trying to win every vote of every person regardless of the State they live in, we would go to electing the President via the popular vote.

Plus we just had a pretty self evident "fail" of the Electoral College system. It generated a pretty darned absurd result.

OK, John. You can't have it both ways. You claim that Democrats, whose constituencies (except the gays) either reproduce like rabbits or sneak across the border, are destined to dominate the political landscape going forward. You also claim to be a conservative. Yet you denigrate the Republicans at every turn, even though they are the more conservative of the two major parties, simply because Trump won on that ticket and carried the Electoral College. No minority party has any hope of getting electoral traction in our lifetime. So you've resigned yourself -- joyfully, I might add -- to the triumph of statist, liberal policies. Congratulations.

Thank you for highlighting why the duopoly sucks.

[Ivytalk]

OK, John. You can't have it both ways. You claim that Democrats, whose constituencies (except the gays) either reproduce like rabbits or sneak across the border, are destined to dominate the political landscape going forward. You also claim to be a conservative. Yet you denigrate the Republicans at every turn, even though they are the more conservative of the two major parties, simply because Trump won on that ticket and carried the Electoral College. No minority party has any hope of getting electoral traction in our lifetime. So you've resigned yourself -- joyfully, I might add -- to the triumph of statist, liberal policies. Congratulations.

Thank you for highlighting why the duopoly sucks.

Klam: for all your whining about the "duopoly," you haven't done much to change it. At least I showed up at a couple of local LP functions to see exactly how dysfunctional that group is!

[kalm]

Thank you for highlighting why the duopoly sucks.

Klam: for all your whining about the "duopoly," you haven't done much to change it. At least I showed up at a couple of local LP functions to see exactly how dysfunctional that group is!

Sure I did. I got half this board to vote for Johnson.

[Ivytalk]

Klam: for all your whining about the "duopoly," you haven't done much to change it. At least I showed up at a couple of local LP functions to see exactly how dysfunctional that group is!

Sure I did. I got half this board to vote for Johnson.

Meh. A one-trick RINO pony.

Aleppo, muthafuckas!

And I can't get the goddam bumper sticker off my car!

[HI54UNI]

Sure I did. I got half this board to vote for Johnson.

Meh. A one-trick RINO pony.

Aleppo, muthafuckas!

And I can't get the goddam bumper sticker off my car!

Have you tried Goo Gone?

[JohnStOnge]

Oh, and the DNC cheated and picked their own candidate despite the wishes for the members of their party to elect the old dude from Vermont. That didn't help either.

Actually, it was very clear form polling that the majority of Democrats wanted Hillary to be their nominee. I'm not saying that was smart. But it is what it is. The idea that Sanders was excluded by subterfuge when he was really the one most Democrats wanted is just false.

Now, the demagoguery about the situation did hurt Hillary. Even though the majority of Democrats clearly wanted Hillary to be the nominee, there's no question that there was a lot of resentment among Sanders supporters. I think it did impact Democrat turnout in the general election.

[AZGrizFan]

I don't think one can ignore structural system issues. The Democratic candidate for President won the popular vote but lost the Electoral College. Democrats lost the cumulative House vote by 1.1 percentage points but that translated into the Republicans holding a 11 percentage point advantage in the House (gerrymandering at work). Democrats won the cumulative Senate Race vote by 11 percentage points but they're in the minority in the Senate. Note that in the Senate Wyoming and California get the same number of Senators even though California has 67 times the population. At the State level you have stuff like Republicans winning something like 48% of the votes in a State Assembly election and ending up with something like 60% of the seats (gerrymandering again).

I think we're in a situation right now where the majority of the people in the country narrowly favor the Democrats but the structure of our system has created a situation in which the Party supported by the minority of the people is in pretty close to total control.

I also think it's just a matter of time before that changes because the majority of the people that supports the Democrats will continue to increase. At some point the dam will break. That is UNLESS the Republicans actually start to change minds. And right now they're not doing that. Not at all. All they're doing is reinforcing the ultimately irresistible tide of resentment against them.

Wyoming and California have the same number of Senators as this was agreed on at the time to protect smaller states. The house is based on population with Cali getting over 10% of the seats. Without this arrangement the country would never have come in to existence. Also the smaller states will NEVER agree to changing the Senate.

Also, there are 50 separate elections, Trump won over 30. maybe if the skank visited Wisconsin and other close states she may have won a few more of the elections. Take away the liberal bastion of California, the popular vote was very close.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Take away the liberal bastion of NY and the popular vote isn't really that close in the other 48.

[AZGrizFan]

Oh, and the DNC cheated and picked their own candidate despite the wishes for the members of their party to elect the old dude from Vermont. That didn't help either.

Actually, it was very clear form polling that the majority of Democrats wanted Hillary to be their nominee. I'm not saying that was smart. But it is what it is. The idea that Sanders was excluded by subterfuge when he was really the one most Democrats wanted is just false.

Now, the demagoguery about the situation did hurt Hillary. Even though the majority of Democrats clearly wanted Hillary to be the nominee, there's no question that there was a lot of resentment among Sanders supporters. I think it did impact Democrat turnout in the general election.

I find it fucking hilarious that you'd vote for someone who you KNEW to be a crooked, conniving, lying bitch on the premise that Trump MIGHT do something stupid or awful as president. One was a KNOWN, a GIVEN....the other was purely an assumption.

[GannonFan]

Oh, and the DNC cheated and picked their own candidate despite the wishes for the members of their party to elect the old dude from Vermont. That didn't help either.

Actually, it was very clear form polling that the majority of Democrats wanted Hillary to be their nominee. I'm not saying that was smart. But it is what it is. The idea that Sanders was excluded by subterfuge when he was really the one most Democrats wanted is just false.

Now, the demagoguery about the situation did hurt Hillary. Even though the majority of Democrats clearly wanted Hillary to be the nominee, there's no question that there was a lot of resentment among Sanders supporters. I think it did impact Democrat turnout in the general election.

All of it matters little - the DNC cheated, that's pretty much an accepted fact. If they felt as sure about the polling as you did/do then their cheating was unneccesary. Doesn't change the fact that they cheated in their own primaries.