There isn't more red. Some states shuffled to red, where other's shuffled to blue, but over all not much difference other than a lot more light blue turned dark blue in 2020. Also, Texas demonstrates the effect of their gerrymandering on the southern cost line where a lot turned red. Yet, the democrat's gained ground in Texas compared to 2016. Just think what would have happened if they didn't gerrymander the state in red's favor.This is the same map for '16. Note that the map for '20 has even more red::
Why would the votes of only NY and CA matter? You still have over a hundred million voters beyond those two states.
No, why would only they matter? I’ve seen people say this before and the only conclusion I can come to is that they have never bothered to do the very basic math that should tell you that’s nonsense.
Apparently despite only accounting for ~17% of votes New York and California would be able to somehow elect whatever president they wanted.Why would the votes of only NY and CA matter? You still have over a hundred million voters beyond those two states.
Population wise, TX is #2, FL is #3...then NY is #4.
People vote, not land. The EC gives smaller states a huge advantage in terms of representation. A vote in Wyoming or Alaska counts more than a vote in California or Texas.
This setup allows the presidency to theoretically be won with as little as 20% of the popular vote, which is very much the antithesis of being "representative" of the people in any way whatsoever.
and don't forget, there were more votes for trump in california than texas (6M in CA vs. 5.8M in TX)
Dirt doesn't vote.
Can you explain how that math works? When I add the population of NY and CA together, I get 48 Million people.. not 331 Million people. That is only 14.5% of the total population. Now, I know that not every person is a voter, but for argument sake, it's safe to conclude that voters come out to be simular percentage.
Considering I know where the population lives, yes, that looks like a minority. Land shouldn't have a vote.
Corn and dirt votes?
please: learn simple civic things like why something like the EC was crafted. The reasons are literally spelled out directly. This perversion of "preserving minority votes" is a late 19th, to now century retcon to act as support of this whole "States rights!" movement to further pervert the actual meaning of words, laws, and precedence.The EC worked as intended. It balanced the will of the people in less populous states with that of the people in more populous states. That was the whole point of it ... to make sure that a smaller numbers of states with more people could not determine elections regardless of how smaller states voted.
If there were a similar plan within states balancing county votes, the Orange Turd would have won GA, MI and a few others also.
Now on the point of unfitness to serve, you might make the argument it failed, but would probably still lose. We all knew he was total and complete trash, but that alone doesn't mean 'unfit'.
No, the risk was always from a few states.Right, but I strongly suspect your thought was that Trump would win outright, not that he would lose the popular vote but still squeak in.
Your ideas, promised by Newsom are now completely off the radar.I think my ideas are winning, and we are getting closer every year. It’s only a matter of time until the law moves dramatically in my direction.
But you have no objections to your own ideas which have also consistently failed. When have we tried a universal living wage?We have tried things like shifting job creation to currently less desirable states for years now and it’s nearly always failed at great expense
But that makes it a perfect showcase for my point too. The people of NYC must have wanted increasing density to stop and ceased to support it, no?It does have some pretty high density housing, and in the past when housing was being built quickly it was definitely affordable for regular people.Sadly, in recent decades per capita housing starts in NYC have cratered, which has caused housing costs to explode. It’s really a perfect showcase for my point.
Suppose by chance you bought a Datsun 510 and it became popular so as to be worth a million dollars. Would you want the government to step in and change the law so that every car had to be a black Ford? Why would people who for this or that chance reason live in sparsely populated states what to give up their greater proportional representation. They didn't steal it. Why do people who notice others have an advantage they did nothing personal to attain want to take it from them? A lot of the rationalizations people do in the name of the good always turn out to be what is good for them personally, not because of any universal truth. Naturally, since there is surely a real universal good, that can't always be the case. So how do we tell the difference?the basic premise of going to a pure popular vote eludes people. They get hung on the idea that California and NY will decide, but it is no longer a state issue. No EC= everyone's vote in every state counts. That seems to be a bridge too far.
Well if that’s the case can you show me a single post of yours before the election saying as much? Something like ‘I know Trump is unpopular, but he’s popular with the people in the crucial swing states’ or something like that.No, the risk was always from a few states.
Think again, a large number of them are back on the legislative calendar and more and more people are pushing for them as the crisis in California gets worse. In addition individual cities in CA are moving forward with repealing their housing bans. Sacramento, Berkeley, etc.Your ideas, promised by Newsom are now completely off the radar.
When have they failed? Really the reason I support them is their worldwide track record of success.But you have no objections to your own ideas which have also consistently failed. When have we tried a universal living wage?
No, it’s that incumbent property owners have large financial incentives to inhibit construction and they are disproportionately represented at these types of planning and zoning meetings because of it. If you look at the people trying to stop housing construction they aren’t the average person in the community, and they certainly aren’t the people being driven into homelessness by rising rents. They are the rich.But that makes it a perfect showcase for my point too. The people of NYC must have wanted increasing density to stop and ceased to support it, no?
The folk that want in will always close the door behind them when they do get in because high density creates stresses of many kinds. But then perhaps someday when people have completely forgotten what it is to be human they won't notice living like ants.
I also figure, that if I'd ever had to go that route I'd start by hooking up with an amateur theater group, get into the costume and makeup of things. You also have to consider the prospects of getting caught down the line when increasingly smarter AI's review video footage going back many many years.I went through a period of watching what I call American Murder shows. Almost 100% cell phone evidence gets them every time. And it's mostly just location meta data. No you weren't where you said you were when x happened.
But then we would have to modify the capital building to hold more people in the house chamber and that would be wrong because it would destroy the very fabric of our nation if the building was changed. Why do liberals hate history and America so much?A good condition 510 would be a sweet find these days. Not a million dollars, but just sayin.
As for EC, the problem is that there should be over a thousand EC votes, not just 538. In fact, going off the original ratio in the Constitution, there should be almost 11,000 EC votes (and members of Congress). I'm not saying that there should be quite that many, but that there are only 538 is the source of the problem.