The American Constitution

[Rob C]

That is not a "primer"; it's a partisan rant from an individual who disagrees with a decision.

Jeremy

Come on, Jeremy, that's no rant.

Rob

[JoeKitchen]

you misunderstood.   I was speaking of Moroccans living on The Netherlands.   There are c also people from former and present Dutch colonies,.  It is not as homogeneous  as you pprtrayed in the original post.

Okay, I get it now.  But how long have Moroccans been there in large enough numbers?  It could very well be that disenfranchisement has not taken root yet.  Remember, the Gauls originally saw themselves as part of Rome shortly after being assimilated into the Empire.  It took about a 100 years for the disenfranchisement to set in. 

[JoeKitchen]

In case any non-USAns are curious about what sort of black Alan and Co are attempting to portray as white this time me, here is a simple primer :

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/28/the-supreme-courts-shameless-and-shameful-endorsement-of-gerrymandering?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

This is kind of a bias article and completely misses the point of the ruling.  The courts have no authority to draw districts.  What were they to do?  No one likes a judge legislating from the bench, even if they do so in your favor.  Eventually they will be working against you, so best to not even go there. 

In response to your comment directed at the other Jeremy, there is a big difference from an opinion piece by a commentator and a legal analysis written by a lawyer and/or law expert.  This reads like the NY Times' original reporting on the Oberlin case, of which all lawyers and legal experts disagreed with and found the settlement justified. 

[JoeKitchen]

So your argument is that the Electoral College allowed a campaign to win an election by concentrating on three states? And you think this is good? Or am I misunderstanding you?

I was just pointing out that small states do have a say in the election, contradicting what you said.  Whether you think it is good or not, I'll let you decided.

But make no mistake, in a Popular vote, candidates could easily ignore the middle of the country and still win.  At this point in time, they cant.  Hillary did just that and she lost the rust belt and the election because of it.  I'd rather have a system that forces the candidates pay attention to the whole of the country. 

[RSL]

Right, Joe. Remember: "if you can keep it."

[D Fuller]

I was just pointing out that small states do have a say in the election, contradicting what you said.  Whether you think it is good or not, I'll let you decided.

But make no mistake, in a Popular vote, candidates could easily ignore the middle of the country and still win.  At this point in time, they cant.  Hillary did just that and she lost the rust belt and the election because of it.  I'd rather have a system that forces the candidates pay attention to the whole of the country.

I don’t think that’s at all clear. When you add a few million conservative voters from CA and NY to the mix, and make Florida and Ohio less important, then regional concerns become important rather than individual state concerns. What happens then? Does the entire “rust belt” (what an awful appellation) become a more unified voting block? If it does, the influence of those people would be increased.

I’d rather have a system that forces candidates to pay attention to the whole country too. If you look at what really happens in presidential elections today, that is not happening. Campaigns spend most of their time and resources in states they perceive as “swing” states. Conservatives take red states for granted, and liberals take blue states for granted.

What you and I both want is not happening now. Further, I’d argue that what the founders wanted (a guard against populism they feared) is not happening either.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Come on, Jeremy, that's no rant...

You are right, Rob, rant requires a modicum of reasoning. That was just mad blabbering from a loony-left UK newspaper, not understanding and not liking the SCOTUS decision.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... then regional concerns become important rather than individual state concerns...

The US is a federation of states, not regions. If you want a popular vote, you’d first have to get rid of the federal structure, get rid of the states and the Senate.

[D Fuller]

The US is a federation of states, not regions. If you want a popular vote, you’d first have to get rid of the federal structure, get rid of the states and the Senate.

That’s just nonsense.

[faberryman]

The US is a federation of states, not regions. If you want a popular vote, you’d first have to get rid of the federal structure, get rid of the states and the Senate.

Or you could just count the votes.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

interesting. So, what's stopping the other states from adopting a similar system?

Because it is just kicking the can down the road. Instead of, e.g., Ohio, saying “I want this guy for my president,” it would be like “Oh, I don’t know... let’s send both (or three, or four) guys and see what happens.” That ultimately leads to a popular vote and defies the purpose of the electoral vote, giving three or four most populous states all the power.

[Alan Klein]

interesting. So, what's stopping the other states from adopting a similar system?

Cheers,
Bart

Nothing.  They could do what Maine and Nebraska is doing. Maybe it's because Americans are gamblers.  When I go to the race track, I always bet the horse to Win so I can maximize the payoff if I win, not Place or SHow were I can get only a little winnings.  So if you have a process of winner take all electoral votes in your state, whichever candidate gets the most popular votes in your state gets ALL of your state's electors.  Your state votes as a whole.  This goes back to the Constitution which gave each states' legislature the right to select the electors, not the people by popular vote.  So a legislature would vote all the electors to one person.  (The Vice President use to be separate and not paired with the President.  But that changed by constitutional amendment.  A constitutional amendment also made Senators elected by popular vote rather than each state's legislature as original written.) 

Of course legislatures could change the rules as some have recently.  Some Democrat favoring states, about a dozen or so, have decided to assign their state's electors to whoever gets the majority of popular in the whole country.  So even if their state's popular vote goes Republican let's say, their electors would be assigned to the Democrat if the Democrat won the popular vote nationally as occured in 2016.  The legality of this novel approach to changing the Electoral system has not been tested in Federal and Supreme Courts.

[Alan Klein]

Just a point about a state voting all of it's electors rather than splitting them.  Remember, the USA is a Federal system.  Each of the States are sovereign.  Like a country.  When Italy votes in the UN on an issue, it doesn't say, well our people's popular vote on this issue was 60% for and 40% against, and then split their vote.  No..  That's not what happens.  Italy vote 100% For or 100% against the particular issue as a country.  So a state similarly votes 100% for a Democrat or 100% for a Republican even though their state's popular is divided like Italy's.  OF course, each state electoral values is different.  That's based on the number of people in their state offset by two for the two senators.

[Alan Goldhammer]

interesting. So, what's stopping the other states from adopting a similar system?

Cheers,
Bart

IIRC, this has been analyzed in the past couple of elections and even if all 50 states adopted it the results would be pretty much the same.

[Alan Klein]

So your argument is that the Electoral College allowed a campaign to win an election by concentrating on three states? And you think this is good? Or am I misunderstanding you?

If you take three swing states that might be concentrated on, Ohio, Wisconsin and Michigan, their total electoral votes are 42 out of a total of 538 for the entire country, or about 8% of the total.  Most national popular vote differences between the candidates are less than that.  3%-4%.  So there actually is more weight assigned to electoral votes if you consider it that way.  Just another way of thinking about it.  Also, 90% of the popular vite is usually fixed.  People vote the same party regardless of the candidate.  So even with the popular vote, only a very small percentage of them are "swing" votes.  So candidates would just concentrate on the issues in a way that the swing votes would be interested in.  That would "distort" the process as well.

Look how all the Democrat candidates are moving left from many of their original beliefs so they can win the Democratic nomination.  Then they will swing back to the middle in the general election to appeal to the general public.  It's all distorted.  Pick your own desert.  They're all be influenced one way or the other and distorted by whatever process you select. 

[OmerV]

Because it is just kicking the can down the road. Instead of, e.g., Ohio, saying “I want this guy for my president,” it would be like “Oh, I don’t know... let’s send both (or three, or four) guys and see what happens.” That ultimately leads to a popular vote and defies the purpose of the electoral vote, giving three or four most populous states all the power.

Yeah, well it’s politics Slobodan. You know, like Mitch and the less populous states controlling the federal judiciary.

This government defines the federal courts as:

The U.S. Courts were created under Article III of the Constitution to administer justice fairly and impartially, within the jurisdiction established by the Constitution and Congress.

I can imagine how amused Mitch is by the naïveté of those who believe that.

[Alan Klein]

Yeah, well it’s politics Slobodan. You know, like Mitch and the less populous states controlling the federal judiciary.

This government defines the federal courts as:

The U.S. Courts were created under Article III of the Constitution to administer justice fairly and impartially, within the jurisdiction established by the Constitution and Congress.

I can imagine how amused Mitch is by the naïveté of those who believe that.

The Constitution is the legal law of the land.  Since it defines the process, it's perfectly legal and fair.  All 13 original states of the union agreed to the process when they signed on and created the United States 200 years ago.  In fact, they never would have signed on and created America if the process wasn't set up to provide a weighted-balance between smaller and larger states.  Since then, another 47 States (smaller and larger) have signed on to become part of the USA.  They agreed with the process as defined in the Constitution.  They accepted the way it was to be done.  You can;t argue now that you don;t like it.  Well, you could argue.  But you have to change the process by Constitutional amendment. Until then it's legal and fair and playing by the rules.

[OmerV]

The Constitution is the legal law of the land.  Since it defines the process, it's perfectly legal and fair.  All 13 original states of the union agreed to the process when they signed on and created the United States 200 years ago.  In fact, they never would have signed on and created America if the process wasn't set up to provide a weighted-balance between smaller and larger states.  Since then, another 47 States (smaller and larger) have signed on to become part of the USA.  They agreed with the process as defined in the Constitution.  They accepted the way it was to be done.  You can;t argue now that you don;t like it.  Well, you could argue.  But you have to change the process by Constitutional amendment. Until then it's legal and fair and playing by the rules.

Mitch is happy with you, Alan.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... The U.S. Courts were created under Article III of the Constitution to administer justice fairly and impartially, within the jurisdiction established by the Constitution and Congress.

I can imagine how amused Mitch is by the naïveté of those who believe that.

Whatever Mitch did, and will do it again (adding more SCOTUS judges during Trump's lame duck year) is legal, based on the procedure established by the Constitution and Congress. You may not like it, you might think it is outright devious, but it is legal. Each party will use any procedural technique or loophole in order to achieve what they want. Filibuster is but one example. Ridiculous, but legal.

Remember, politics is not some lofty activity of "caring for the common good," whatever that might be, as the really naive would like to believe, but politics is a brutal contact sport of promoting interests of your constituents.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

IIRC, this has been analyzed in the past couple of elections and even if all 50 states adopted it the results would be pretty much the same.

Would be interesting to see such an analysis. But then the gerrymandering may have something to do with it ...

One could still decide to give less populous states a relatively larger number of total votes, but at least within the state they would be closer to the population's preferences of the day. And as it goes with adding averages of subpopulations, they approach the total population average pretty well.

Cheers,
Bart