Trump II

[JoeKitchen]

Yeah - that's imprecise language (at best) on the part of the writer, though the fundamental point is sound (though ultimately irrelevant) in that extremely minor alterations of borders would create vastly different outcomes, which in turn argues against the theory that the EC as construed is somehow a bulwark against "tyranny of the majority."

There are a host of other problems that come up when one looks at the origin of the EC - problems that it was meant to address that are no longer relevant today.  The fact that blacks counted as 3/5 of a white man, the fact that women could not vote, the fact that fundamentally correct information about the state of the nation was not available to the average citizen (maybe that one is true again)... etc. and perhaps (in my opinion) the most pernicious problem - that the founders of the United States never envisioned or intended (but did fear) that leadership of the country be dominated by partisan factions, nor did they ever intend that electors be beholden to a populist mob conned by a skilled, though vulgar and incompetent liar. 

In short, the "killer app" of the EC was intended to be an independent body with knowledge and a sense of responsibility above that often average man, and certainly not bound to a party.  Read Hamilton's rationale in Federalist 68 - it's obvious that the system is broken.

Edit - TL;DR - DDog is right - "one man one vote" is clearly NOT reflected in the EC, but you're right too - it wasn't really meant to be.  However, the reasons why that compromise was made are not particularly relevant today.

I would say that it was deliberately imprecise in order to catch eyes, which is journalistically disingenuous.  The problem with doing this so many people have very little knowledge on logic and debate.  So instead of parsing the argument down in the text, they see the headline and assume it is true. 

Insofar as your second paragraph, I disagree with most of it, or at least most of those points being issues with the electoral college.  The exception being what is in bold.  This may have been easily solved if all national politicians had term limits, but that will never happen.  No one would ever vote themselves out of a job.  The only time that could have actually happened was went the constitution was being written, and we can't go back in time. 

However, I think the current situation is probably made worse by so many cable TV and online new sources we have, which are not really news sources anyway.  Most are just commentary on new, which is much different. 

Insofar as the electoral college voting for whom they thought would be the best choice, regardless of votes, would be a very dangerous situation indeed.  We would end up in a country where government could run amuck. 

I like Mark Cuban's friend's analogy (which Cuban relayed).  Trump is chemo-theorpy, which is poison, and sometimes poison is necessary.  If both parties did not ignore the overall electorate, Trump would have never been elected, but they did.  Trump may be quite the shock to the system, but at least politicians will learn their mistake. 

[James Clark]

I would say that it was deliberately imprecise in order to catch eyes, which is journalistically disingenuous.  The problem with doing this so many people have very little knowledge on logic and debate.  So instead of parsing the argument down in the text, they see the headline and assume it is true. 

Insofar as your second paragraph, I disagree with most of it, or at least most of those points being issues with the electoral college.  The exception being what is in bold.  This may have been easily solved if all national politicians had term limits, but that will never happen.  No one would ever vote themselves out of a job.  The only time that could have actually happened was went the constitution was being written, and we can't go back in time. 

However, I think the current situation is probably made worse by so many cable TV and online new sources we have, which are not really news sources anyway.  Most are just commentary on new, which is much different. 

Insofar as the electoral college voting for whom they thought would be the best choice, regardless of votes, would be a very dangerous situation indeed.  We would end up in a country where government could run amuck. 

I like Mark Cuban's friend's analogy (which Cuban relayed).  Trump is chemo-theorpy, which is poison, and sometimes poison is necessary.  If both parties did not ignore the overall electorate, Trump would have never been elected, but they did.  Trump may be quite the shock to the system, but at least politicians will learn their mistake.

But you understand that was the exact purpose for having electors, right?   Again, from Federalist 68:

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.

To be clear, there are problems either way, but let's not pretend that the EC is some sort of "power to the common man" thing, when in fact our entire system of government was purposefully designed to thwart populist idiocy (and foreign interference).

[Alan Klein]

Now that's strange.  I could have sworn that you were in favour of free markets.

(Illegals or not illegals, by the way.  Those Indian engineers you mentioned aren't all swimming the Rio Grande.)

That's actually a very interesting question that I don't have a full answer for.  So let me play devil's advocate for both sides. 

In a perfect free market world, yes, it seems that companies should be able to hire whoever they want, including immigrants who they can pay less.    It would have the advantage of lowering prices of their products making them more competitive to be sold as exports.  It would also make these products cheaper for American buyers increasing their wealth because it lowers their cost of living. 

Of course free markets also mean that the government would have to do away with labor laws, immigration rules, minimum wage rules, hourly, Social Security, taxes, etc, as these too are contrary to free markets in an absolute sense as they are all government interference with the marketplace. 

I think that societies trade off complete free markets for a lot of reasons having to do with social policy and societal advantages as well as just common decency.  Otherwise, getting rid of government interference also means that you would have to again allow slavery.

If you open the borders to unrestricted legal immigration, then the social and cultural makeup of Americans will disappear as they are washed away with the blood of immigrants.  Who will salute the flag?    What will be left as a nation? Who will fight and die for its protection?  You have a little of this in the EU; look at Brexit.  Also, who pays for these immigrants?  While owners of companies can produce cheaper goods, the cost to care for these people is passed on to the rest of society.  Illegals or legal immigrants cost a lot of money.  Their children have to go to school at great expense.  Health care and other subsidies are paid for by society not the business owners. 

You also have social comity.  Trump was elected because many people feel that immigrants have cheated them out of a job.  Can you imagine the strife if we had unrestricted immigration? 

It's not politically feasible to do complete free markets.  There has to be some restraints.   We have to accept that there are always some limits on complete free markets and it seems reasonable to expect that competition and free markets be allowed in the context of providing Americans with jobs first.  There seems to be some opening for special workers from overseas.  But that will be kept at a minimum.  There is always legal immigration.  But that too must be reasonable. 

Free markets in an absolute sense won't work unless you're ready for groups of people taking up arms and shooting at other groups.   

[JoeKitchen]

But you understand that was the exact purpose for having electors, right?   Again, from Federalist 68:

To be clear, there are problems either way, but let's not pretend that the EC is some sort of "power to the common man" thing, when in fact our entire system of government was purposefully designed to thwart populist idiocy (and foreign interference).

Yes, I agree.  I just don't think if they ever exercised that power, it would end well. 

It could be the total destruction of the country.  Could you imagine what the diehards would have done.  We would be in a second civil war by now. 

Let's not forget, conservatives own many more guns then liberals.  I'm a conservative and own no guns, but I have a few friends and relatives that, given the chance, or need, could arm a militia of 20 to 30 people each them-self.  To tempt that would be dangerous, especially with such a decisive election like the one past. 

[Alan Klein]

Yeah - that's imprecise language (at best) on the part of the writer, though the fundamental point is sound (though ultimately irrelevant) in that extremely minor alterations of borders would create vastly different outcomes, which in turn argues against the theory that the EC as construed is somehow a bulwark against "tyranny of the majority."

There are a host of other problems that come up when one looks at the origin of the EC - problems that it was meant to address that are no longer relevant today.  The fact that blacks counted as 3/5 of a white man, the fact that women could not vote, the fact that fundamentally correct information about the state of the nation was not available to the average citizen (maybe that one is true again)... etc. and perhaps (in my opinion) the most pernicious problem - that the founders of the United States never envisioned or intended (but did fear) that leadership of the country be dominated by partisan factions, nor did they ever intend that electors be beholden to a populist mob conned by a skilled, though vulgar and incompetent liar. 

In short, the "killer app" of the EC was intended to be an independent body with knowledge and a sense of responsibility above that often average man, and certainly not bound to a party.  Read Hamilton's rationale in Federalist 68 - it's obvious that the system is broken.

Edit - TL;DR - DDog is right - "one man one vote" is clearly NOT reflected in the EC, but you're right too - it wasn't really meant to be.  However, the reasons why that compromise was made are not particularly relevant today.

James, you left out the main reason for electoral college and the distortion of votes value. And that is that we are a Federal system where each state is sovereign.  That regardless of geographic size or population, each State is equal to every other State.  Just like the General Assembly in the UN, tiny Jamaica has one vote just as China with over a billion people or Russia that spreads about 10 times zones. 

Also, if you do away with the unequal vote applied to each State, then you would also have to eliminate the Senate which was created as an acknowledgement that each State is equal sovereignly.  After all, regardless of geographic size or population, each State has two Senators.   Tiny Rhode Island has two Senators as does California, the most populous state as does Alaska the largest State.  By the way, the Senate was created not to represent people but their State.  The House of Representatives represent people.  In fact, this was so acknowledged that the original election of Senators was not by the people but by the Representatives of each State's legislature.  Of course, the Constitution was amended a while back to change that to popular vote of the Senate. 

Finally, although the number of electors are weighted due to the Federal system, they pretty much follow the popular vote in each state.  That whoever gets the most popular votes in the state, then all the electors for that state select the candidate of the popular vote.  So the electors are not, as you said, "beholden to a populist mob conned by a skilled, though vulgar and incompetent liar."  Just the opposite.  Actually there were some electors who didn't vote as their state popular vote demanded.  If you recall, Hillary tried to get a lot of the Trump won electors to change their votes to her.  Well they didn't.  In fact, of the few that did, more changed their votes from Hillary to Trump than from Trump to Hillary which was noticed by those who didn't read the bias news which mainly ignored that tidbit.  The rest of us had a good chuckle with that one. 

[James Clark]

James, you left out the main reason for electoral college and the distortion of votes value. And that is that we are a Federal system where each state is sovereign.  That regardless of geographic size or population, each State is equal to every other State. Just like the General Assembly in the UN, tiny Jamaica has one vote just as China with over a billion people or Russia that spreads about 10 times zones. 

Also, if you do away with the unequal vote applied to each State, then you would also have to eliminate the Senate which was created as an acknowledgement that each State is equal sovereignly.  After all, regardless of geographic size or population, each State has two Senators.   Tiny Rhode Island has two Senators as does California, the most populous state as does Alaska the largest State.  By the way, the Senate was created not to represent people but their State.  The House of Representatives represent people.  In fact, this was so acknowledged that the original election of Senators was not by the people but by the Representatives of each State's legislature.  Of course, the Constitution was amended a while back to change that to popular vote of the Senate. 

Finally, although the number of electors are weighted due to the Federal system, they pretty much follow the popular vote in each state.  That whoever gets the most popular votes in the state, then all the electors for that state select the candidate of the popular vote.  So the electors are not, as you said, "beholden to a populist mob conned by a skilled, though vulgar and incompetent liar."  Just the opposite.  Actually there were some electors who didn't vote as their state popular vote demanded.  If you recall, Hillary tried to get a lot of the Trump won electors to change their votes to her.  Well they didn't.  In fact, of the few that did, more changed their votes from Hillary to Trump than from Trump to Hillary which was noticed by those who didn't read the bias news which mainly ignored that tidbit.  The rest of us had a good chuckle with that one.

I didn't leave anything out - you'll have to take that up with Mr. Hamilton, or point out to me where, in Federalist 68 the election of the chief magistrate is tied to equitable representation from the states

[Alan Klein]

I didn't leave anything out - you'll have to take that up with Mr. Hamilton, or point out to me where, in Federalist 68 the election of the chief magistrate is tied to equitable representation from the states

What's your point?

[Alan Klein]

James. One comment about your: "...and perhaps (in my opinion) the most pernicious problem - that the founders of the United States never envisioned or intended (but did fear) that leadership of the country be dominated by partisan factions, nor did they ever intend that electors be beholden to a populist mob conned by a skilled, though vulgar and incompetent liar."

In retrospect, the electoral system demanded partisan politics, in fact two parties.  A president to be elected requires a majority of electors.  More than 50%.  So that encouraged grouping together people to insure you get the 50%.  It also caused there to mainly be two parties.  If you split away to a third, the third and the slit away party usually loses.  Congressional and Senate majorities required to pass legislation also need majority vote supporting the need for two parties. 

So how did the founders miss the math demanding a two-party system?

[Schewe]

Why do you think employers love illegals from Mexico? Do you think they have a fetish for Mexican men?   Well, maybe.   But I assure you it's mainly because they can pay less.  Duh.  Illegals put Americans out of work and drive wages down.  You don't need a PhD in economics to understand that.

Well, you didn't address the actual argument, you just did the typical "well of course illegals cost Americans job" even though the article point to a paper that basically blows that out of the water...and those people who did the paper DO have Ph.Ds

You see, the vast majority of immigrant workers both legal and illegal) are doing work that Americans either can't or won't do. The tech industry is trying to get a bunch more H-1B visa to bring more high tech workers that Americans aren't well, how to say this nicely, educated well enough to do...seems there's a sever shortage go all sorts of technical workers. Heck, even The Donald wanted to expand seasonal, foreign workers for Mar-a-Lago resort. The visas are meant for non-agricultural jobs in construction and the catch-all term: tourism. In the past, the US leader claimed he had to hire foreign workers for Mar-a-Lago because American workers were not available during busy tourist seasons in Florida. Hum...sounds, well a bit fishy..

Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort applies for 70 foreign worker visas during 'Made in America' week

The 'Winter White House' claims it could find no Americans to fill non-agricultural seasonal jobs

So, not enough American citizens to fill the jobs...are those  foreign workers taking American jobs? Donny says no...

Now, what about both legal and undocumented workers in agricultural...hum, seems there's a sever shortage of agricultural workers to the point where the agriculture industry is trying to use the lure of higher wages as an incentive to recruit more workers.

Can a pay raise fix agriculture industry’s labor crisis in California? Yes and no

GILROY – All over California, there’s a desperate labor shortage on farms, ranches, processing and packing houses.

But at Christopher Ranch — the nation’s largest producer of fresh garlic and co-founder of this weekend’s Garlic Festival — every job is filled. Even now, at the peak of harvest season, all 600 of its packing and processing positions are claimed.
Its simple yet oh-so-complex and controversial remedy: a pay increase. Faced with 50 empty positions last summer, in January it hoisted entry-level wages 18 percent, from $11 to $13 an hour — and applications flooded in, creating a wait list of 150 people.  Another increase is promised next year, to $15 an hour.

Remarkably, costs stabilized. And business grew.

As California moves towards a higher minimum wage, Christopher Ranch offers a glimpse of the future that could be brighter for both workers and farmers, with a more reliable workforce, bigger paychecks and rising standards of living.

So, there are a variety of reason why the ag industry is having a hard time finding workers...first and foremost is that field work is hard, back breaking work that even with wages over minimum wage, Americans are a lot less likely to do. And illegal immigration from Mexico has fallen considerably...and it's harder for illegals to find work.

Add to the fact that Mexico's economy is doing better and there's more work south of the border these days-partly because of NAFTA–for good or evil depending on your position.

The Pew Research Center has some interning data on illegal immigration from Mexico

There were 11.7 million immigrants from Mexico living in the U.S. in 2014, and about half of them were in the country illegally, according to Pew Research Center estimates. Mexico is the country’s largest source of immigrants, making up 28% of all U.S. immigrants.

With President Donald Trump’s administration taking steps to reduce the number of unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. — including through the construction of a wall at the southern border — here’s what we know about illegal immigration from Mexico:

1- The number of Mexican immigrants living in the U.S. illegally has declined by more than 1 million since 2007.

2- More non-Mexicans than Mexicans were apprehended at U.S. borders in fiscal year 2016

3- Mexicans were deported from the U.S. 242,456 times in 2015 – up from 169,031 in 2005, but down from a recent high of 309,807 in 2013.

4- Mexican unauthorized immigrants are more likely to be long-term residents of the U.S.

5- Unauthorized immigrants from Mexico make up at least 75% of the total unauthorized immigrant population in three states. This is the case in New Mexico (91%), Idaho (87%) and Arizona (81%). In California, Mexicans make up 71% of the state’s unauthorized immigrant population, and they numbered more than 1.6 million in 2014 – the highest total of any state.

And while Trump and it seems the GOP (based on polls) seem to think Trump's "WALL" is the answer, in point of fact it's not illegals crossing the border that's the problem it's people who enter the US legally and over stay their visas.

Staggering number of visa overstays now biggest problem in illegal immigration

The nexus of illegal immigration into the U.S. has shifted away from the southwest border and into the country’s air and sea ports, where more than 54 million visitors checked in last year — and nearly 630,000 of them didn’t go home, according to new numbers released Monday.

Known as visa overstays, the visitors present a different challenge than the border crossers, and one that Homeland Security officials are still trying to figure out how to handle.

“This report shows that we have a problem with visa overstays in the United States,” a senior administration official said in briefing reporters on the new numbers, vowing to step up enforcement to try to cut down on the violations.

So, how ya gonna build a WALL to keep out people who entered legally and stayed?

Trump is vastly understating the complexity of this issue...most of the actual scholarly research shows that increasing legal immigration is a net benefit to the economy. Yes we have illegals that either snuck in or overstayed...but what are ya gonna to. A large number of undocumented immigrants have families with children born in the US and thus are citizens. Wanna yank the parents away? Many are tax paying good citizens in every way other than the entered illegally and are undocumented. So, technically, they are criminals...

Sure, round up all the Bad Hombres and deport them...see if Trump can match the deportations Obama did...

But it's simply wrong to say "Illegals put Americans out of work and drive wages down." is simply not born out in the research...illegals may impact some American workers and not others and the shortage of workers is driving wages up both legal and illegal.

EDITED to add this comment:
If you've ever been to Gilroy during garlic harvest (and the festival) I hope you really REALLY like garlic. I was riding my motorcycle through Gilroy on the road to somewhere else )I don't remember where) and I see all the fields of garlic and the workers harvesting. I didn't think much about it till my eyes started stinging...a lot! I couldn't figure it out...since I sorta snuck up on the garlic in the air, my sense of smell was sort of numbed so I didn't even smell garlic, but my eyes were watering big time. When I stopped for gas, I asked if there was something like maybe ag chemicals that was in the air. They said garlic...so, I can image that it is a challenge for farms to get seasonal workers that are willing to put up with that. Seems like a good job for Americas? Yeah, prolly not...

[Schewe]

Our President is a 6 year old child...

Trump retweets meme of his Obama 'eclipse'

Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump  18h18 hours ago
I requested that Mitch M & Paul R tie the Debt Ceiling legislation into the popular V.A. Bill (which just passed) for easy approval. They...
7,405 replies 15,503 retweets 55,860 likes
Reply  7.4K   Retweet  16K   Like  56K

CNN IS FAKE NEWS ! 😂‏
@JerryTravone
Replying to @realDonaldTrump

5:20 AM - 24 Aug 2017


The meme was shared by YouTube personality Jerry Travone, who had previously shared an extremely anti-Semitic tweet on Sunday. This is not the first time that Trump has retweeted content from users known for making anti-Semitic statements.

[Schewe]

Is Donald Trump smart?

Washington (CNN)Donald Trump likes to tell everyone how smart he is.

Take Tuesday night in Arizona when he told a crowd in Phoenix this: "I was a good student. I always hear about the elite. You know, the elite. They're elite? I went to better schools than they did. I was a better student than they were."

For the public, Trump's intelligence is a bit more of an open question -- and becoming more open with each passing day in the White House.
A new Quinnipiac University national poll showed that 55% of Americans think Trump is intelligent while 43% say he is not.

Which is interesting. But not nearly as interesting as how rapidly the number of people who think Trump is smart has dropped since November 2016. In a November 22 Quinnipiac poll -- two weeks to the day after the election -- 74% said Trump was "intelligent" while just 21% said he was not.

That number has steadily declined over Trump's first 7 months in office. By March it had dipped into the high 50s and its continued to fall steadily.
Why does it matter?

It might not!

After all, being "intelligent" is not a prerequisite of being President. And intelligence -- who has it and who doesn't -- is a very, very subjective measure. (Do street smarts count as being "intelligent"? Or is it a pure IQ measure? Something in between? Neither?)

And, some of the question about how smart Trump winds up being a proxy for whether or not you like him. Nine in 10 Republicans say Trump is intelligent while just 25% of Democrats say the same. Fifty-five percent of independents say Trump is intelligent.

Still, the numbers -- and the rapid drop in them -- are interesting and telling. Take, for example, the fact that 42% of Democrats said Trump was intelligent in January and only 25% say that now. Or that 70% of independents called Trump "intelligent" in January, but only 55% say so now.

It's impossible to offer a foolproof conclusion that explains those dips.

Well, I suspect the reason the number of people who think Trump is smart is dropping is, well, DOOOH, he keeps saying and doing stupid things and since he's president, everybody finds out about it–even if you only watch Fox or read Breitbart, ya gotta see Trump's handling of things is something a bit south of optimal, right? I mean, he keeps stoping on his own, uh, message and fights the wrong fights over the wrong things instead of doing what he said he was gonna do.

Yeah, I know, CNN, #FAKENEWS #PollsSuck, but if they are right?

[Schewe]

I missed him....

Alec Baldwin reprises Trump 'SNL' role, spoofs Phoenix rally


Alec Baldwin impersonates President Donald Trump on "Saturday Night Live Weekend Update Summer Edition" on August 24, 2017.

Alec Baldwin reprised his impersonation of President Donald Trump Thursday for the final episode of "Saturday Night Live Weekend Update Summer Edition."

The cold open, set at Trump's rally in Phoenix earlier this week, poked fun at White House chief strategist Stephen Bannon's controversial departure, as well as the curious moment this week when Trump appeared to look directly at the total solar eclipse.

#WeekendUpdate

NBC.com will have the full episode available in a few days...

[jeremyrh]

more people voted for him than voted for the other one (understandably)

Nope. More people actually voted for Hillary. But the distribution of those votes was unfortunate.

[Chris Kern]

I’m chiming in on this part of the discussion a little late, but I’d like to point out that the electoral college is a brilliant political invention—assuming you’re a well-educated 18th-Century gentleman or wealthy merchant of English or Scottish descent, philosophically committed to self-government but somewhat uneasy that someday a demagogue might successfully appeal to your less-enlightened fellow citizens by boasting ridiculously that he knew more about fighting the British than General Washington or promising implausibly that he was going to push all French speakers back to Quebec and then build a big, beautiful earthworks to keep them from ever returning to New Hampshire.

So, you concoct a regime by which the people of each state vote for members of a “college”—people like you (in fact, you are quite confident you will be among the first chosen)—and then those electors representing the several states assemble and choose someone of impeccable judgment and probity to serve as the country’s “chief magistrate.”  Everyone still gets to participate in the selection of the president (well, at least everybody who is male and not enslaved or a member of an Indian nation), but men of discretion act as a buffer against the unbridled passions of the people.  Pretty ingenious, wot?

Over time, the country grows and the population changes as immigrants arrive from other parts of Europe, and eventually the citizens of each state become enamored of the democratic notion that they, themselves, should get to vote for the national president.  However, since basing the selection of the president on a series of separate state votes rather than a unified nationwide popular vote confers certain leverage on the individual states, the states keep the electoral college system but require candidates for elector to pledge in advance who they will vote for—and (with a couple of exceptions) decide to award all the electors pledged to a particular candidate to whoever wins the popular vote in the state.

Yes, theoretically this might make it possible for someone to be elected president with less than a majority of the popular vote, but that would require public opinion throughout the country to be rather deeply and evenly divided or for a large number of eligible voters who aren’t particularly motivated to fail to cast their ballots.  Very unlikely that will ever happen.  And, besides, now that there are independent news media staffed by professional journalists who can be relied on to report when candidates make outrageous claims or empty promises, there isn’t much risk that a demagogue could gain sufficient traction to win an electoral majority.

Nothing to worry about.

[JoeKitchen]

I’m chiming in on this part of the discussion a little late, but I’d like to point out that the electoral college is a brilliant political invention—assuming you’re a well-educated 18th-Century gentleman or wealthy merchant of English or Scottish descent, philosophically committed to self-government but somewhat uneasy that someday a demagogue might successfully appeal to your less-enlightened fellow citizens by boasting ridiculously that he knew more about fighting the British than General Washington or promising implausibly that he was going to push all French speakers back to Quebec and then build a big, beautiful earthworks to keep them from ever returning to New Hampshire.

So, you concoct a regime by which the people of each state vote for members of a “college”—people like you (in fact, you are quite confident you will be among the first chosen)—and then those electors representing the several states assemble and choose someone of impeccable judgment and probity to serve as the country’s “chief magistrate.”  Everyone still gets to participate in the selection of the president (well, at least everybody who is male and not enslaved or a member of an Indian nation), but men of discretion act as a buffer against the unbridled passions of the people.  Pretty ingenious, wot?

Over time, the country grows and the population changes as immigrants arrive from other parts of Europe, and eventually the citizens of each state become enamored of the democratic notion that they, themselves, should get to vote for the national president.  However, since basing the selection of the president on a series of separate state votes rather than a unified nationwide popular vote confers certain leverage on the individual states, the states keep the electoral college system but require candidates for elector to pledge in advance who they will vote for—and (with a couple of exceptions) decide to award all the electors pledged to a particular candidate to whoever wins the popular vote in the state.

Yes, theoretically this might make it possible for someone to be elected president with less than a majority of the popular vote, but that would require public opinion throughout the country to be rather deeply and evenly divided or for a large number of eligible voters who aren’t particularly motivated to fail to cast their ballots.  Very unlikely that will ever happen.  And, besides, now that there are independent news media staffed by professional journalists who can be relied on to report when candidates make outrageous claims or empty promises, there isn’t much risk that a demagogue could gain sufficient traction to win an electoral majority.

Nothing to worry about.

Lovely story. 

However, the fact is the electoral college dictates that our national politicians pay attention to all states, not just CA and the NE Quarter with possibly a stop or two in Chicago and Texas while flying back and forth. 

This is part of the beauty of it.  This is not to say it is without problems, but a popular election would ensure our executive office, over time, would only pay attention to the major population centers, because that is where the votes are, thus creating a tyranny of the majority. 

I can guarantee you next election, the democrats won't treat WI, MI and PA with the same hubris Hillary did this past cycle.

[Alan Klein]

Well, you didn't address the actual argument, you just did the typical "well of course illegals cost Americans job" even though the article point to a paper that basically blows that out of the water...and those people who did the paper DO have Ph.Ds

You see, the vast majority of immigrant workers both legal and illegal) are doing work that Americans either can't or won't do. The tech industry is trying to get a bunch more H-1B visa to bring more high tech workers that Americans aren't well, how to say this nicely, educated well enough to do...seems there's a sever shortage go all sorts of technical workers. Heck, even The Donald wanted to expand seasonal, foreign workers for Mar-a-Lago resort. The visas are meant for non-agricultural jobs in construction and the catch-all term: tourism. In the past, the US leader claimed he had to hire foreign workers for Mar-a-Lago because American workers were not available during busy tourist seasons in Florida. Hum...sounds, well a bit fishy..

Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort applies for 70 foreign worker visas during 'Made in America' week

So, not enough American citizens to fill the jobs...are those  foreign workers taking American jobs? Donny says no...

Now, what about both legal and undocumented workers in agricultural...hum, seems there's a sever shortage of agricultural workers to the point where the agriculture industry is trying to use the lure of higher wages as an incentive to recruit more workers.

Can a pay raise fix agriculture industry’s labor crisis in California? Yes and no

...

So, there are a variety of reason why the ag industry is having a hard time finding workers...first and foremost is that field work is hard, back breaking work that even with wages over minimum wage, Americans are a lot less likely to do. And illegal immigration from Mexico has fallen considerably...and it's harder for illegals to find work.

Add to the fact that Mexico's economy is doing better and there's more work south of the border these days-partly because of NAFTA–for good or evil depending on your position.

The Pew Research Center has some interning data on illegal immigration from Mexico

And while Trump and it seems the GOP (based on polls) seem to think Trump's "WALL" is the answer, in point of fact it's not illegals crossing the border that's the problem it's people who enter the US legally and over stay their visas.

...

So, how ya gonna build a WALL to keep out people who entered legally and stayed?

Trump is vastly understating the complexity of this issue...most of the actual scholarly research shows that increasing legal immigration is a net benefit to the economy. Yes we have illegals that either snuck in or overstayed...but what are ya gonna to. A large number of undocumented immigrants have families with children born in the US and thus are citizens. Wanna yank the parents away? Many are tax paying good citizens in every way other than the entered illegally and are undocumented. So, technically, they are criminals...

Sure, round up all the Bad Hombres and deport them...see if Trump can match the deportations Obama did...

But it's simply wrong to say "Illegals put Americans out of work and drive wages down." is simply not born out in the research...illegals may impact some American workers and not others and the shortage of workers is driving wages up both legal and illegal.

EDITED to add this comment:
If you've ever been to Gilroy during garlic harvest (and the festival) I hope you really REALLY like garlic. I was riding my motorcycle through Gilroy on the road to somewhere else )I don't remember where) and I see all the fields of garlic and the workers harvesting. I didn't think much about it till my eyes started stinging...a lot! I couldn't figure it out...since I sorta snuck up on the garlic in the air, my sense of smell was sort of numbed so I didn't even smell garlic, but my eyes were watering big time. When I stopped for gas, I asked if there was something like maybe ag chemicals that was in the air. They said garlic...so, I can image that it is a challenge for farms to get seasonal workers that are willing to put up with that. Seems like a good job for Americas? Yeah, prolly not...

What are you a farm hand?  You cherry picked my post.  You didn't address the huge cost to provide school, provide medical care, and supply other social services to the illegals and their families.  Those costs are much much greater than any taxes spun off their earnings even if they are reported in the first place.  Those social costs are borne by other wage earners while the profits of the owners of the business goes up.  The owners get richer at our expense.  Additionally, you realize of course that Americans at the lower end of the economic scale are the people who get hurt the most by illegals.  Don't you care about those Americans?   It's poor whites and black Americans who lose jobs to illegals.  If illegals weren't there, the owner's of the business would have to raise wages and that would attract Americans. 

This problem also occurs at the higher end.  If you pay Indians on work visas $65K instead of $100K+ that would go to Americans if the Indians weren't here, than more Americans would train for those jobs.  It's become a self-fulfilling prophesy.  The complaint of not enough engineers is partially caused by these industries artificially lowering wages so that students go into other fields for more pay.  You also didn't address how disgusting it is to force an American to train a foreigner as his replacement.  Apparently you approve of that too.   What kind of an American are you?  Why do you want to punish American workers? 

[scyth]

If you pay Indians on work visas $65K instead of $100K+ that would go to Americans if the Indians weren't here, than more Americans would train for those jobs.

so fat yankee rather sit unemployed (or make less) than make $65K 

[Rob C]

so fat yankee rather sit unemployed (or make less) than make $65K 

It's much the same deal as Brexit, especially at the low end of the earnings scale.

There are jobs that simply cannot afford to pay higher wages for hours worked. In Scotland, there's a region in Perthshire - the Blairgowrie area and the Carse of Gowrie, a tad further south-east - that's famous for its strawberry and raspberry growing. It was a very labour-intensive job, picking those things, and hard work. At least until the end of the 50s there used to be a rush to the area during the picking period where students and others would work their butts off to make money for whatever. It became the preserve (no pun intended) of so-called travellers, a gypsy sort of caravan-dwelling group, who'd also do that work for little money. Bit by bit, the cost of labour intensified and the product, the fruit, had to fetch a higher price. As a result, the once-great local jam-making industry folded... There is a natural ceiling for everything. It's simply unrealistic to think labour costs can always be passed on; no, folks just buy something else instead. I'm sure the same situation applies in other mediums across Britain.

It exists, for sure, in the hospitality trade, where maids etc. are mostly Asian and for the simple reason that they have a more realistic grasp of the level of reward the job can be expected to be worth. So, rather than do these sorts of jobs, many of our lot prefer unemployment because it doesn't offend their "dignity" whereas low wages do. For as long as governments refuse to grasp that nettle, unemployment payments will be an astronomical drain on the economy, and the same lazy sods will blame the "foreigners" for stealing their work! Exactly the Alan K belief. I would have expected more vision than that from a guy who claims to have been in business. I had imagined it was obvious that some jobs can't attract higher levels of reward because they are then too expensive for the market, and the company will not be able to sell the product. It's always a mistake to assume your company or product is indispensable, it's not.

As for Indian engineers: they are employed because they know their onions as well as anybody else, and often a damned sight better. If they did not, no company would employ them because it would be suicide. I watched the capping ceremony video where my granddaughter got her medical degree. The number of Chinese students getting honours degrees was very high. Don't imagine for a moment that brains are the province of the WASP. Neither should one forget how advanced early Islam was in all the sciences. We owe them a helluva lot of gratitude for that; what a shame they got shunted off into a diversion they really didn't need. A waste for both groups - them and us.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...

[Alan Klein]

I find it amazing that Democrats, liberals, Socialists and the left who would always support American workers before, now support employers.  Is this how they plan to win over workers in the rust belt of Ohio, PA, Wisconsin and Michigan in next election?  The hatred of Trump is so great, that they're throwing away their most basic philosophical and political beliefs. 

I can just see the next Democrat campaign slogan:  "More Work for Illegal Farm Hands and Engineers from India".    That'll be a real vote getter.