A different Supreme Court.

[Mina]

While it can seem we're a nation almost evenly divided, the reality is that the people pretty consistently prefer the Democrats. The Republicans have only won the popular vote in a presidential election once in the last three decades.... and that was a very narrow one despite the lingering jingoism following 9/11. In every other election from 1992 onward, the people at least tried to choose the Democrat.

So, it's worth thinking about how the court could look today if the democratic process had actually worked democratically. We'd still have Roberts, Thomas, and Alito, of course. But Kavanaugh and Barrett were installed by a guy the people didn't want to have that power. Instead, we'd have two Clinton justices in those roles, to go along with Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. And, then there's Gorsuch, who only has his job because the Republicans effectively stole a slot from Obama, by forcing a vacancy until they could get the presidency back.

So, we could well have a 5-4 or even 6-3 Democratic edge in the high court today, doing things like striking down efforts by conservatives to make our elections even less democratic, by way of intensified gerrymandering and voter-ID hurdles. Instead, we have a court dominated by conservatives, setting the stage for a time when it will matter less and less what the people want.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

What you are claiming in the above is that the US should be ruled by direct democracy in elections at the national level. The problem with that is it results in a handful of states and large cities effectively becoming the arbiters of national government.

As for gerrymandering, both parties do it. Both Illinois and New York states gerrymandered the hell out of their congressional maps this year. New York's was so egregious that their relatively Democrat friendly courts tossed it out.

As for voter-ID, are you saying we shouldn't bother with that? How do you feel about the Democrat bills like HR 1 and 3 to establish national election standards? Are those bills something you'd support? What do you like about them, if you do?

 

[Celticguy]

those old coots were pretty darn clever to install the Electoral College. just no way around the need for broad appeal.

 

[Ross Dolan]

What you are claiming in the above is that the US should be ruled by direct democracy in elections at the national level. The problem with that is it results in a handful of states and large cities effectively becoming the arbiters of national government.

States are areas of land. Areas of land do not vote.

The people in the states vote...the humans above the age of 18.

That would make THE PEOPLE the final arbiter...and THE PEOPLE should be the final arbiter. THE PEOPLE should be the ones who decide what the laws are and what they are not.

Jesus H. Christ. What is so hard to understand about that?

 

[T. A. Gardner]

States are areas of land. Areas of land do not vote.

The people in the states vote...the humans above the age of 18.

That would make THE PEOPLE the final arbiter...and THE PEOPLE should be the final arbiter. THE PEOPLE should be the ones who decide what the laws are and what they are not.

Jesus H. Christ. What is so hard to understand about that?

But, the majority of Americans live in a handful of urban areas on the two coasts. That would make those areas dominant over the vast majority of land area of the US.

 

[Ross Dolan]

But, the majority of Americans live in a handful of urban areas on the two coasts. That would make those areas dominant over the vast majority of land area of the US.

LAND cannot be dominant. PEOPLE must be dominant in a democracy.

Why should people who live in lightly populated areas have so much power over people who live in high populated areas?

They do right now...that is the way our country works.

BUT IT IS WRONG!

 

[Code1211]

While it can seem we're a nation almost evenly divided, the reality is that the people pretty consistently prefer the Democrats. The Republicans have only won the popular vote in a presidential election once in the last three decades.... and that was a very narrow one despite the lingering jingoism following 9/11. In every other election from 1992 onward, the people at least tried to choose the Democrat.

So, it's worth thinking about how the court could look today if the democratic process had actually worked democratically. We'd still have Roberts, Thomas, and Alito, of course. But Kavanaugh and Barrett were installed by a guy the people didn't want to have that power. Instead, we'd have two Clinton justices in those roles, to go along with Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. And, then there's Gorsuch, who only has his job because the Republicans effectively stole a slot from Obama, by forcing a vacancy until they could get the presidency back.

So, we could well have a 5-4 or even 6-3 Democratic edge in the high court today, doing things like striking down efforts by conservatives to make our elections even less democratic, by way of intensified gerrymandering and voter-ID hurdles. Instead, we have a court dominated by conservatives, setting the stage for a time when it will matter less and less what the people want.

You seem to be saying that the elections that created the Republican Majority in the Senate, absolutely un-impacted by gerrymandering, are a bad thing.

Also that the Electoral College is a bad thing BECAUSE it is one of the fundamental foundations of Federalism.

The woulda, coulda, shoulda conclusions you present seem to be not based on reality.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

LAND cannot be dominant. PEOPLE must be dominant in a democracy.

Why should people who live in lightly populated areas have so much power over people who live in high populated areas?

They do right now...that is the way our country works.

BUT IT IS WRONG!

Because what works for a dense urban area may not work for a low population rural one. One-size-fits-all rules often fail. The objective of the system the founders set up was to try and balance that giving rural areas some say in national affairs.

If things were a straight majority rule vote, most of this nation would be ignored as irrelevant by politicians. They'd focus entirely on those dense urban areas and ignore everything else for the most part since they could get elected on the votes from large cities alone.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Because what works for a dense urban area may not work for a low population rural one. One-size-fits-all rules often fail. The objective of the system the founders set up was to try and balance that giving rural areas some say in national affairs.

Horse shit. The reason for the rules that create the gross unfairness...was so that slave owners could continue to own human beings as chattels.

If things were a straight majority rule vote, most of this nation would be ignored as irrelevant by politicians. They'd focus entirely on those dense urban areas and ignore everything else for the most part since they could get elected on the votes from large cities alone.

If it were a straight majority rule vote...THINGS WOULD BE MORE FAIR.

That is what people like you want to avoid.

 

[zymurgy]

While it can seem we're a nation almost evenly divided, the reality is that the people pretty consistently prefer the Democrats. The Republicans have only won the popular vote in a presidential election once in the last three decades.... and that was a very narrow one despite the lingering jingoism following 9/11. In every other election from 1992 onward, the people at least tried to choose the Democrat.

you are delusional

https://www.investors.com/politics/...pular-vote-win-came-entirely-from-california/

 

[Mina]

You seem to be saying that the elections that created the Republican Majority in the Senate, absolutely un-impacted by gerrymandering, are a bad thing.

I'm not saying that.

However, it's worth remembering that the senate isn't exactly democratic, either. During much of that era of Republican dominance, the Democratic (and Democrat-aligned independent) candidates had actually gotten more votes than the Republican candidates. Like take the three senate elections leading up to 2018 (at which point the Republicans still held the majority).

Over the course of those six years, when every seat in the Senate was decided, Dems and their allies got 125,461,013 million votes, and Republicans got 98,787,228. If seats were decided democratically, in a way that resulted in the parties getting them in proportion to their actual public support, we'd have had a senate, in 2018, with 56 seats in the hands of Dems and Dem-aligned independents. Instead, the Republicans had a 51-vote majority.

Because our system effectively considers small-state people superior to large-state people (in terms of giving them disproportionate voting share), the GOP can get away with appealing to a minority of people while still winning the senate -- the same way Gerrymandering makes possible for them in the House (and in state legislatures). And, of course, the unfairness of the Senate also gets replicated in presidential selection, since the formula for electors factors in two electors per senator, giving small-state residents extra voting power there, as well.

This all combines to give the American people an up-hill climb to make their will matter. It's not enough for them to reject the Republicans, as they pretty consistently do. They need to reject them by a substantial margin, to overcome the gerrymandering and the disproportionate power of small-state voters (who are more likely to be white and undereducated, and thus to vote Republican).

 

[Mina]

you are delusional

https://www.investors.com/politics/...pular-vote-win-came-entirely-from-california/

When someone recounts verifiable facts that your media handlers sheltered you from, that can come across as a delusion.

 

[zymurgy]

When someone recounts verifiable facts that your media handlers sheltered you from, that can come across as a delusion.

when your reply completely ignores how I destroyed your narrative = you are a retard

If you take California out of your retarded popular vote equation, then Trump wins the rest of the country by 1.4 million votes. America told you idiots to fuck off - California does not get to override the will of the other 49 states

now go fuck yourself

 

[Mina]

when your reply completely ignores how I destroyed your narrative

Yet, as you know, you didn't. Your comment is a bit like saying that the Bengals won the Super Bowl if you ignore the fourth quarter, and that we should ignore that quarter because otherwise it overrides the other three quarters.

Yes, if you cherry pick the results by excluding one or more states you wish didn't exist, you can come up with different popular vote totals. Like how would you respond if someone argued that Bush didn't win the popular vote in 2004, if you disregard Texas? Presumably, you'd just kind of snicker at such an imbecile for imagining he'd made a point.

 

[zymurgy]

Yet, as you know, you didn't. Your comment is a bit like saying that the Bengals won the Super Bowl if you ignore the fourth quarter, and that we should ignore that quarter because otherwise it overrides the other three quarters.

Yes, if you cherry pick the results by excluding one or more states you wish didn't exist, you can come up with different popular vote totals. Like how would you respond if someone argued that Bush didn't win the popular vote in 2004, if you disregard Texas? Presumably, you'd just kind of snicker at such an imbecile for imagining he'd made a point.

This is pure projection

You are the moron changing the rules to win. A popular vote isn’t a competition. If it were – Republicans would throw money into races in California, would always have someone on the ballot to vote for in every district and try to get votes knowing they won’t win the state – but would help with popular vote competitions

It’s like saying the winner of the world series is the team that scored the most points. The entire strategy would change - you are pretending these things matter – but they don’t so nobody competed for it

all you people do is lie like rugs. SHIT STAINS – all of you!

 

[Mina]

This is pure projection
If it were – Republicans would throw money into races in California[

Yes, and so would Democrats, who'd pick up a lot more votes that way than the Republicans did, further increasing the margin of their popular victory.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

But, the majority of Americans live in a handful of urban areas on the two coasts. That would make those areas dominant over the vast majority of land area of the US.

Which handful of urban areas on the two coasts are you claiming have the majority of Americans in them?
Of the top 25 urban areas in the US, only 13 would be considered close to either coast.
Of the top 100 Urban areas, east and west coast states urban areas have about 100 million and middle America states have about 70 million.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_urban_areas
100 million is not the majority of Americans. 100 urban areas is more than a handful.

Your argument is bullshit. Dallas, Houston and Chicago are all in the top 10 of population for urban areas.

 

[zymurgy]

Yes, and so would Democrats, who'd pick up a lot more votes that way than the Republicans did, further increasing the margin of their popular victory.

speculation is not how this works - yet here you are claiming a popular vote victory and saying democrats is who America wants

can you be any more retarded? I'm not sure.

 

[Mina]

speculation is not how this works

An hilarious little point coming from someone who just tried to build his argument on speculation.

 

[zymurgy]

An hilarious little point coming from someone who just tried to build his argument on speculation.

sure thing clown shoes

I am speculating that if we did away with the electoral college, the republican strategy would change. you got me - I am purely speculating

can you be any more retarded? I'm not sure.

apparently you can