The American Constitution

[JoeKitchen]

You realize of course that a lawsuit is in the cards for 2020.  They will be filed immediately.  The winner of the presidency will not be able to be known until the Supremes vote.  Another 2000 mess.  It may turn out that the Court rules their methods are constitutional.  Who knows?  After all, the Constitution does not require electors to vote one way or the other. In fact, in 2016, a bunch of Clinton "faithless" electors voted for Trump and vice versa.  Perfectly legal. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_electors_in_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election

So who's to say how a state decides how their electors are selected in the first place?  Well, it will be worth another thread here and we'll get lot's of foreigner's opinions on what we should do.  It's going to be a lot of fun

I believe the pact does not actually go into effect until enough states sign on so a majority of electoral votes is guaranteed.  Right now, that pact has not gotten there yet, so any state that passed it will still have their electoral votes go to the state's winner. 

On top of this, many of the states that signed on switched democratic during the last midterms.  They could certainly switch back and cancel their alliance to it.  I cant see any relatively small swing state that is currently democratic that has aligned itself not cancelling it when the majority turns Republican.  Really this pact is only going to stay in those states that are liberal progressive states already, and more then likely there will never be enough states that sign onto it to make it actually go into effect. 

[Rob C]

You realize of course that a lawsuit is in the cards for 2020.  They will be filed immediately.  The winner of the presidency will not be able to be known until the Supremes vote.  Another 2000 mess.  It may turn out that the Court rules their methods are constitutional.  Who knows?  After all, the Constitution does not require electors to vote one way or the other. In fact, in 2016, a bunch of Clinton "faithless" electors voted for Trump and vice versa.  Perfectly legal. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_electors_in_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election

So who's to say how a state decides how their electors are selected in the first place?  Well, it will be worth another thread here and we'll get lot's of foreigner's opinions on what we should do.  It's going to be a lot of fun

And to make it even worse, it's a "foreigner" gave you the opportunity to shine forth on well over six hundred plus posts on the matter!

:-)

[Alan Klein]

I believe the pact does not actually go into effect until enough states sign on so a majority of electoral votes is guaranteed.  Right now, that pact has not gotten there yet, so any state that passed it will still have their electoral votes go to the state's winner. 

On top of this, many of the states that signed on switched democratic during the last midterms.  They could certainly switch back and cancel their alliance to it.  I cant see any relatively small swing state that is currently democratic that has aligned itself not cancelling it when the majority turns Republican.  Really this pact is only going to stay in those states that are liberal progressive states already, and more then likely there will never be enough states that sign onto it to make it actually go into effect. 

It's quite complicated and will create a lot of fun in the Supreme Court as they hash it out.  To me though, it seems like it would disenfranchise a particular state's voters since their electors would be selected on how other state legislatures determine their electors rather than on their own state.  ie. a Georgian's elector would be determined by a Californian legislature.  That's where the violation of the Constitution is. 

[Alan Klein]

And to make it even worse, it's a "foreigner" gave you the opportunity to shine forth on well over six hundred plus posts on the matter!

:-)

Well, it was your King George III who started this mess in the first place.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...

[Alan Klein]

That's not a fair representation.  Here's is a better representation of the electoral vote situation.  Each state gets two additional votes for each of their state's senators.  So while biased, it's much more slender than the original map you showed. 

[Alan Klein]

Another way of looking at it.
What each popular vote is worth per electoral vote in each state.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

That's not a fair representation.  Here's is a better representation of the electoral vote situation.  Each state gets two additional votes for each of their state's senators.  So while biased, it's much more slender than the original map you showed. 

I am not sure what you are contesting in the map I showed? My map shows what would happen if NO electoral college existed and only popular vote is used.

EDIT: Just to be sure, I am not advocating against electoral college, on the contrary.

[Alan Klein]

I am not sure what you are contesting in the map I showed? My map shows what would happen if NO electoral college existed and only popular vote is used.

Ok I understand, you're right.  I was looking at it from the standpoint of how it could make the electoral college look so much more unfair, when it isn't.  So I wanted to show the relative weight of the electoral college by comparison.  You popular vote map shows why candidates will only campaign in four states - California, NY, Texas and FLorida and ignore the rest of the country.  The electoral college forces them to at least think of the rest of the country and not forget their needs. 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Another infographic:

[Alan Klein]

Another infographic:

Not sure this means much.  There are 24 democrats running against one republican - Trump, who is also currently the president with no one running against him except maybe Weld.   

[jeremyrh]

Iran has been a bad actor in the Middle East.  They and their proxies have stirred up war and conflict in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and half a dozen other countries with their terrorist activities. 

The day irony died ..

[Alan Klein]

The day irony died ..

But their activities are against our interests.   

[rabanito]

Who's gonna cast that first stone?

There has been nothing new or great here for years; there has been nothing great or new almost anywhere I've looked recently. Frankly, it's as if everybody has deserted photography and has become camera/lens/tricks and Photoshop testers instead. What there is, however, is a raised standard of general stuff.

I broke my fast and bought Italian Vogue again some while ago, and all it had was Steven Meisel doing parodies of Steven Meisel. Anybody looked at the Pirelli Calendars of late? Where the friggin' magic these past ten or more years?

The medium seems to me to be as exhausted as I am. At least it makes me feel less like I'm alone in that sad state. The only photographic buzz that's still able to grip me comes from websites showing work by a few of the old greats. To me, they did stuff that's still timeless.

Rob

Rob, that's a figure of speech
I meant that better than nitpicking on alien subjects we should dedicate our time in what is of primary interest in this website, namely photography, great or not 

[rabanito]

America is a great constitutional republic.

Well, it is your country, you know better.

I see it from the point of view of the definitions of republic and democracy. Both conditions seem to be met.
1.Republic, form of government in which a state is ruled by representatives of the citizen body.The primary positions of power within a republic are not inherited, but are attained through democracy, oligarchy or autocracy.
2.Democracy is a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.

I wouldn't argue the point.

[rabanito]

Congrats, rabanito, you just confirmed the Godwin’s Law.

Ah, Slobodan, those are commonplaces.
I name Hitler because it's well known. If instead I put, say, Ante Pavelić the probability that anybody recognizes it is smaller

[RSL]

You realize of course that a lawsuit is in the cards for 2020.  They will be filed immediately.  The winner of the presidency will not be able to be known until the Supremes vote.  Another 2000 mess.  It may turn out that the Court rules their methods are constitutional.  Who knows?  After all, the Constitution does not require electors to vote one way or the other. In fact, in 2016, a bunch of Clinton "faithless" electors voted for Trump and vice versa.  Perfectly legal. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_electors_in_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election

So who's to say how a state decides how their electors are selected in the first place?  Well, it will be worth another thread here and we'll get lot's of foreigner's opinions on what we should do.  It's going to be a lot of fun

Happily, it's only deep blue states that are getting ready to do this. They'd vote Democrat in any case, so the result probably wouldn't change. But if, say, a majority in Colorado vote Republican and it turns out that the state's electoral college votes go to the Democrats because New York, California, and a few other high population states gave the national total to the Democrats it's gonna cause the equivalent of another civil war.

[Rob C]

Rob, that's a figure of speech
I meant that better than nitpicking on alien subjects we should dedicate our time in what is of primary interest in this website, namely photography, great or not 

No, that is not logical: those spending their time here on this thread do so because they want to; who amongst us has the right to tell them not to, to concentrate on making snaps?

If that's what you prefer, it's your call to disappear from this thread and to pop up in others. You see? Everybody free to do as they wish.

;-)

[rabanito]

No, that is not logical: those spending their time here on this thread do so because they want to; who amongst us has the right to tell them not to, to concentrate on making snaps?

If that's what you prefer, it's your call to disappear from this thread and to pop up in others. You see? Everybody free to do as they wish.

;-)

Rob, Rob, you played that tune before.
I am a friendly being.
Look:
"Of course this kind of debate brings us nowhere.
Let's do some more Great Photography instead?  "

That's the text.
It's a proposal! Just that! Look at the question mark at the end of the phrase!
And it was directed to ONE person with whom I was sustaining a conversation and not to the forum anyway...
Don't you think you are overreacting?
A figure of speech mustn't be "logical".
It is "A word or phrase used in a non-literal sense for rhetorical or vivid effect".
Ayayay... 

[LesPalenik]

Rob, that's a figure of speech
I meant that better than nitpicking on alien subjects we should dedicate our time in what is of primary interest in this website, namely photography, great or not 

I'm all for sharing great photography. But if it's not that great, I'd rather amuse and educate myself by reading some other topics.
Actually great photography and interesting political discussions are not mutually exclusive. Even on the same site.