Could this be the end of the Electoral College?

[ivwshane]

It was made for one primary purpose - the protection of slavery. Why would we want to keep those institutions?

I disagree. Having black people be equal to 3/5 a person was done because of slavery. The electoral college was a compromise between having Congress elect the president or the people directly electing the president.

I think it's important to understand the motivation behind the electoral college even though no matter what you think the reason was for its creation it's been a complete failure.

 

[Jhhnn]

You are assuming that a Congress won't approve it at some point before it goes into effect.

He's assuming Congress has anything to say about it. States have the right to choose electors any damned way they please-

Article II

Section 1. The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

 

[theeedude]

We'll see where it goes. Worst comes to worst and Federalists Society SCOTUS gets too uppity, just pack the daylights out of it.

 

[Thump553]

We'll see where it goes. Worst comes to worst and Federalists Society SCOTUS gets too uppity, just pack the daylights out of it.

If FDR couldn't do that in the 1930s-when he was widely viewed as the savior of the USA, had safe majorities in both houses of Congress and was an extremely effective politician, the chances of anyone doing that in this era are nil.

 

[Brainonska511]

If the Electoral College is abolished both the Dem & GOP parties will splinter shortly thereafter, and our system will be similar to most European democracies.

I don't see how that would come to pass - our elections would still be under a winner-take-all system; we'd still have congressional districts that are winner-take-all as well. We don't assign representation based on overall vote proportions.

 

[Jhhnn]

If FDR couldn't do that in the 1930s-when he was widely viewed as the savior of the USA, had safe majorities in both houses of Congress and was an extremely effective politician, the chances of anyone doing that in this era are nil.

The SCOTUS defused the situation by upholding the Wagner Act.

 

[theeedude]

If FDR couldn't do that in the 1930s-when he was widely viewed as the savior of the USA, had safe majorities in both houses of Congress and was an extremely effective politician, the chances of anyone doing that in this era are nil.

This era is ending. GOP's baby boomer base is slowly but surely relocating to the cemetery, and young people aren't sold on hating everyone around while waiting for trickle down for another 40 years. Also, the threat of packing moderated behavior of FDR's SCOTUS, even if it didn't pass. That may happen with our SCOTUS, but if not, it's going to get packed eventually with a simple majority of both houses after the filibuster is killed. Biden might not get it, but the new generation of liberals has watched Mitch McConnell, and they are learning no holds barred politics from him.

 

[zinfamous]

One day a Republican might win the popular vote but not the electoral college, if and when this day comes you will not hear a peep out of the left about ending the electoral college.

Being that the majority of domestic terrorist attacks are carried out by radical right wing white males, Slow, please get help. Facts are facts, you're statistically more likely to end up being a terrorist than just about any other demographic in the US.

 

[fskimospy]

I disagree. Having black people be equal to 3/5 a person was done because of slavery. The electoral college was a compromise between having Congress elect the president or the people directly electing the president.

I think it's important to understand the motivation behind the electoral college even though no matter what you think the reason was for its creation it's been a complete failure.

I agree it is important to understand the reasons it was created, and the primary purpose was the protection of slave power.

The 3/5ths compromise was also to protect slave power but that only dealt with apportionment for the House. The electoral college was the mechanism used to carry over the 3/5ths compromise to the election of the president.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Being that the majority of domestic terrorist attacks are carried out by radical right wing white males, Slow, please get help. Facts are facts, you're statistically more likely to end up being a terrorist than just about any other demographic in the US.

Over the last 20 years, if you were to die from terrorism the body count is overwhelmingly higher for those killed by Islamic terror than any other form.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Over the last 20 years, if you were to die from terrorism the body count is overwhelmingly higher for those killed by Islamic terror than any other form.

Guess what, Islamic terrorism is still conservative terrorism. And your statement says what, Islamic terrorism is less frequent, but they plan better? Whatever dude...

 

[fskimospy]

Over the last 20 years, if you were to die from terrorism the body count is overwhelmingly higher for those killed by Islamic terror than any other form.

How about in the last 15 years? 10 years? 5 years?

 

[soulcougher73]

Being that the majority of domestic terrorist attacks are carried out by radical right wing white males, Slow, please get help. Facts are facts, you're statistically more likely to end up being a terrorist than just about any other demographic in the US.

Slow is even more likely to be a terrorist as well, not only due to his skin color, but also the side he politically aligns himself with. Double whammy. Dude is defiantly on FBI watch list...

 

[Fenixgoon]

How about in the last 15 years? 10 years? 5 years?

slow's on full alert 100% of the time, and doesn't care about the "mundane". he needs to be ready for that 1 in 1 billion event.

slightly humorous aside, this is how i interpreted slow's mentality, and hypothetically, how he might prepare for, and respond to, something as minor as a pest control problem:

 

[fskimospy]

slow's on full alert 100% of the time, and doesn't care about the "mundane". he needs to be ready for that 1 in 1 billion event.

slightly humorous aside, this is how i interpreted slow's mentality, and hypothetically, how he might prepare for, and respond to, something as minor as a pest control problem:

I don’t think that’s the case, he’s just trying to push propaganda. If it were liberals that had committed the majority of the post 9/11 terrorist attacks he would have no problem focusing on that. It’s because the largest terrorist threat in America today is far right terrorism, specifically white nationalist terrorism of the kind that Trump encourages, that he has to deflect.

 

[sdifox]

Over the last 20 years, if you were to die from terrorism the body count is overwhelmingly higher for those killed by Islamic terror than any other form.

Pay attention people, this might be the first time Snowball McMelty admitted being inferior to bown people.

 

[ivwshane]

Over the last 20 years, if you were to die from terrorism the body count is overwhelmingly higher for those killed by Islamic terror than any other form.

Like most of your posts, you are wrong.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics...ernment-focus-jihadis-islamic-radicalism.html

I'm sure you'd like to revise your statement to include deaths from terrorism around the world but nobody is talking the rest of the world, we are talking about the US.

 

[Greenman]

We'll see where it goes. Worst comes to worst and Federalists Society SCOTUS gets too uppity, just pack the daylights out of it.

You don't detect the flaw in that plan?

 

[fskimospy]

You don't detect the flaw in that plan?

What is the flaw? Conservatives have already violated the norms that governed SCOTUS appointments. You think they are going to decide to stop on their own? It’s important to pack the court to signal to conservatives that violating those norms has consequences so that they see the value of adhering to them going forward.

When McConnell denied Obama a SCOTUS appointment so that conservatives would fill it people correctly pointed out this was within McConnell’s constitutional powers. So is packing the court.

 

[Greenman]

What is the flaw? Conservatives have already violated the norms that governed SCOTUS appointments. You think they are going to decide to stop on their own? It’s important to pack the court to signal to conservatives that violating those norms has consequences so that they see the value of adhering to them going forward.

When McConnell denied Obama a SCOTUS appointment so that conservatives would fill it people correctly pointed out this was within McConnell’s constitutional powers. So is packing the court.

And then when the republicans are back in power they'll do the exact same thing. Never ending escalation rarely solves a problem.
I agree that Obama was cheated out of a SC appointment. It was chickenshit maneuver, but building on that foundation isn't going to be a winning strategy.

 

[ch33zw1z]

And then when the republicans are back in power they'll do the exact same thing. Never ending escalation rarely solves a problem.
I agree that Obama was cheated out of a SC appointment. It was chickenshit maneuver, but building on that foundation isn't going to be a winning strategy.

Lol, I think you're underestimating the extent to which the GOP will go to retain power while their numbers dwindle. As the older generation dies out and the younger population continues to take over, the likelihood of the GOP grabbing power in the same way again is slim. Ensuring they have less influence is a good thing. At this point, they weild too much power for being a minority.

 

[fskimospy]

And then when the republicans are back in power they'll do the exact same thing. Never ending escalation rarely solves a problem.

Untrue. This is classic game theory - in a repeated cooperation game if one player pays no price for defection then they learn to eternally defect. See: Mitch McConnell.

The optimal long term strategy for both players is often ‘tit for tat’, which is whenever your opponent defects you punish them by defecting yourself, then return to cooperation. It teaches your counterparty that cooperation is the best for everyone.

I agree that Obama was cheated out of a SC appointment. It was chickenshit maneuver, but building on that foundation isn't going to be a winning strategy.

Exactly, therefore you take back the seat that Republicans stole and then add a few more. You then offer a truce where you remedy the stolen seat and everyone acts responsibly going forward. If they play ball, everyone is better off. If they retaliate then you retaliate twice as hard.

The idea that simply sitting there and accepting McConnell’s actions will yield a better result is true only if you only care about conservatives dominating the Supreme Court. If you care about a functioning system then McConnell needs to be shown his actions come with a price.

 

[theeedude]

And then when the republicans are back in power they'll do the exact same thing. Never ending escalation rarely solves a problem. I agree that Obama was cheated out of a SC appointment. It was chickenshit maneuver, but building on that foundation isn't going to be a winning strategy.

So they can do the same thing, then court will go back between right and left, still a win for Democrats vs status quo. Also Republicans won't win as much without a right wing SCOTUS green lighting vote suppression, gerrymandering, and political corruption. The solution is for this current court to heal itself before reform is inevitable. They are acting as Republican partisan agents, not as honest arbiters, and if they don't stop themselves, then their political actions will get a justified political response.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Untrue. This is classic game theory - in a repeated cooperation game if one player pays no price for defection then they learn to eternally defect. See: Mitch McConnell.

The optimal long term strategy for both players is often ‘tit for tat’, which is whenever your opponent defects you punish them by defecting yourself, then return to cooperation. It teaches your counterparty that cooperation is the best for everyone.



Exactly, therefore you take back the seat that Republicans stole and then add a few more. You then offer a truce where you remedy the stolen seat and everyone acts responsibly going forward. If they play ball, everyone is better off. If they retaliate then you retaliate twice as hard.

The idea that simply sitting there and accepting McConnell’s actions will yield a better result is true only if you only care about conservatives dominating the Supreme Court. If you care about a functioning system then McConnell needs to be shown his actions come with a price.

if they send.one of yours to the hospital, you send one of theirs to the morgue 😉

 

[Greenman]

if they send.one of yours to the hospital, you send one of theirs to the morgue 😉

You've been watching to much TV, and listening to to many keyboard tough guys.