• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Federal search warrant executed at Rudy Giuliani’s NYC apartment

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
10,917
1,070
126
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.
I have an idea that would make things make more sense and thus it obviously won't be done.
The minimum number of electors a state can have is 3.
The least populated state is Wyoming.
Their current population as of 2019 is 578,759 according to Google.
So how about, we make whatever the population of the least populated state divided by 3 equal to 1 elector. And we make each increment of that number for a state's population equal 1 elector. We can say 95% threshold gives you another elector so states that just barely fall short don't get all pissy.
So Wyoming can have their 3 electors, and California gets 204. Then electors are an even ratio and votes for President count equally.

Bet those bitching about it now would quickly want to move to a popular vote if the electoral college were actually fairly proportioned like this.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
29,095
9,227
136
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?

Conservative response
Actually what this pandemic has shown is that representatives can work remotely. Imagine the people they represent having access to them locally.
 

MtnMan

Diamond Member
Jul 27, 2004
5,743
3,964
136
Absolutely didn’t work as intended. Originally the electoral college actually had two purposes.

1) to incorporate the 3/5ths compromise into presidential elections in order to protect slavery. As slavery no longer exists, this purpose is both evil and moot.

2) to prevent a demagogue from seizing the presidency. I literally quoted one of the founders on this and it clearly failed in that respect.
The minorities have a leg up, in the Senate.

A senator from California represented 20,000,000 people.
A senator from Wyoming represents 290,000 people.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
29,095
9,227
136
I have an idea that would make things make more sense and thus it obviously won't be done.
The minimum number of electors a state can have is 3.
The least populated state is Wyoming.
Their current population as of 2019 is 578,759 according to Google.
So how about, we make whatever the population of the least populated state divided by 3 equal to 1 elector. And we make each increment of that number for a state's population equal 1 elector. We can say 95% threshold gives you another elector so states that just barely fall short don't get all pissy.
So Wyoming can have their 3 electors, and California gets 204. Then electors are an even ratio and votes for President count equally.

Bet those bitching about it now would quickly want to move to a popular vote if the electoral college were actually fairly proportioned like this.
I think each state should get one elector, chosen by their state house and confirmed by the state senate who then must be confirmed by their two senators and house members. Then the electors only have the ability to confirm the winner of the presidential election fit for office or not with the intention of being a final safeguard against a demigod type figure.
 
Dec 10, 2005
20,900
2,344
126
I think each state should get one elector, chosen by their state house and confirmed by the state senate who then must be confirmed by their two senators and house members. Then the electors only have the ability to confirm the winner of the presidential election fit for office or not with the intention of being a final safeguard against a demigod type figure.
Seems nice, but no way that would ever work. We're already electing demagogues to the Senate, House, and state legislatures. What would stop them from appointing their insane Q buddies? Why add more complexity to the situation? We already have a good solution: direct election of the president by popular vote.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
29,095
9,227
136
Seems nice, but no way that would ever work. We're already electing demagogues to the Senate, House, and state legislatures. What would stop them from appointing their insane Q buddies? Why add more complexity to the situation? We already have a good solution: direct election of the president by popular vote.
I agree but my suggestion was more of a solution to those that want an EC for its original purposes but also wanted it to be less partisan.
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
16,994
4,707
136
Very good opinion article explaining why Giuliani will have little choice in how to defend himself. He can say everything he did was at the behest of Trump, but then Trump would have to expose himself to all kinds of legal trouble to defend Rudy. We already know how that worked out for Cohen. Rudy's going to have to make a deal. And we know who that deal involves.

Opinion | Giuliani’s Legal Trouble Is Trump’s Too - POLITICO
 

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
15,744
5,698
136
So all these morons were warned by the fking FBI that they were being targeted by Russian Intelligence Disinformation campaign............ and went ahead with the disinformation anyway... on behalf of a hostile foreign nation.
Whats the US definition of treason again?
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
29,095
9,227
136
So all these morons were warned by the fking FBI that they were being targeted by Russian Intelligence Disinformation campaign............ and went ahead with the disinformation anyway... on behalf of a hostile foreign nation.
Whats the US definition of treason again?
Apparently that story has been corrected and Rudy was not informed about being a useful idiot. Apparently the information was known but not delivered because of how it might affect an ongoing investigation.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
27,373
8,624
136
Then again, you reject the intent of the founders and the constitution. Donald Trump is the exact, perfect example of the type of piece of shit scoundrel human that the EC was designed to protect the presidency against.

It isn't a matter of opinion, it is straight from their very mouths and pens. You may disagree with this, but "working as intended" is indisputably incorrect, if you actually know what the intent of the EC was. It appears that you do not.
He thinks it's working as intended because he thinks it's intended to give rural people more pull than city slickers, period.
 

MrSquished

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2013
9,678
5,552
136
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.



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.

Remember, all I’m arguing for is for you to stop telling people what kind of house you will permit them to live in. Surely you agree they should be able to make that choice without your permission?


When have they failed? Really the reason I support them is their worldwide track record of success.

Also, while I support universal basic income, the idea that zoning reform can’t be passed but UBI can is not grounded in reality, and UBI would not solve California’s housing crisis. The ONLY thing that will is more houses.


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.

When you look at polls my ideas for ending this sort of zoning are highly popular with the populace overall, it’s just that what regular people want is often overshadowed by the rich as you well know.
It's not just the rich. The middle class are NIMBY's about this issue a lot too. Talk about slightly more dense affordable housing near them and they are against it. Both Democrats and Republicans.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
53,827
6,726
126
So, you're saying that only the votes of people in NY and CA should matter?
This is 2016:

960537_81_90771_DrdO3qFgW.gif

This is 2020:

Screenshot 2021-05-02 175404.jpg


All the info you need to be less stupid.
 

Attachments

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
5,272
493
126
No, the electoral college has not worked as intended for a long while now. It's unconscionable that a voter from swing state is heavily weighted over another voter from a non-swing state all because of the electoral college system. Popular vote will put all voters on equal footing and my vote is equally important as yours. I would welcome your explanation why one voter is more important than another, let's hear it.
Obama had no problem winning twice in a majority white privileged racist country despite the evil electoral college and if he was legally able to run a third term he would have won easily over Trump.

Hillary was polarizing and carried too much baggage, but Democrats forgot that and how a nobody like Obama routed the chosen one in 2008, too bad Obama had to make deals with the Clintons, Wall Street, and those Goldman Sachs people which greatly compromised his presidency and angered much of the middle class whose standard of living greatly diminished while the Wall Street crooks got off with a slap on the hand.
 

Stokely

Senior member
Jun 5, 2017
878
753
106
Obama had no problem winning twice in a majority white privileged racist country despite the evil electoral college and if he was legally able to run a third term he would have won easily over Trump.

Hillary was polarizing and carried too much baggage, but Democrats forgot that and how a nobody like Obama routed the chosen one in 2008, too bad Obama had to make deals with the Clintons, Wall Street, and those Goldman Sachs people which greatly compromised his presidency and angered much of the middle class whose standard of living greatly diminished while the Wall Street crooks got off with a slap on the hand.

Agreed, Hillary was terrible and Biden was meh (as candidates)-- but just because Obama was an incredible candidate that overcame an unlevel playing field doesn't mean we shouldn't try to actually level the playing field.

Obama's competition was also "normal Republican" as well, who knew that someone with no redeeming qualities whatsoever was what would galvanize the good folk of the GOP voting base into action. Now they know--they can still win if they choose the most fraudulent lying, bullying asshole available. ie, a perfect representation of their own cultural "Conservatism".
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
61,686
14,711
136
Obama had no problem winning twice in a majority white privileged racist country despite the evil electoral college and if he was legally able to run a third term he would have won easily over Trump.

Hillary was polarizing and carried too much baggage, but Democrats forgot that and how a nobody like Obama routed the chosen one in 2008, too bad Obama had to make deals with the Clintons, Wall Street, and those Goldman Sachs people which greatly compromised his presidency and angered much of the middle class whose standard of living greatly diminished while the Wall Street crooks got off with a slap on the hand.
Hillary Clinton garnered millions more votes than Trump. The only thing polarizing about Clinton was the thirty year smear campaign by the Hillary-obsessed Republican Party. Even with that non-stop character assassination by the fascists, Hillary still got more votes than the Republican's best. The electoral college failed to stop a fascist demagogue whereas the popular vote would have.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
71,842
22,022
136
Hillary Clinton garnered millions more votes than Trump. The only thing polarizing about Clinton was the thirty year smear campaign by the Hillary-obsessed Republican Party. Even with that non-stop character assassination by the fascists, Hillary still got more votes than the Republican's best. The electoral college failed to stop a fascist demagogue whereas the popular vote would have.
You would think if nothing else the results of the electoral college would cause people to want to get rid of it. In the last 20 years it's given us:

1) a president who allowed the largest terrorist attack in US history, got us in two ruinous foreign wars of choice, and oversaw the largest economic collapse since the great depression.

2) an incompetent, mentally ill criminal who attempted to overthrow democracy.

Those results are really, really bad! Does anyone doubt even for a second that if the popular will of the country had been respected instead of deferring to an electoral anachronism designed to protect slavery that we would be better off?
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
27,373
8,624
136
You would think if nothing else the results of the electoral college would cause people to want to get rid of it. In the last 20 years it's given us:

1) a president who allowed the largest terrorist attack in US history, got us in two ruinous foreign wars of choice, and oversaw the largest economic collapse since the great depression.

2) an incompetent, mentally ill criminal who attempted to overthrow democracy.

Those results are really, really bad! Does anyone doubt even for a second that if the popular will of the country had been respected instead of deferring to an electoral anachronism designed to protect slavery that we would be better off?
At least we still have the right to shoot each other and die from easily treatable conditions that are too expensive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie
Feb 4, 2009
29,485
10,004
136
You would think if nothing else the results of the electoral college would cause people to want to get rid of it. In the last 20 years it's given us:

1) a president who allowed the largest terrorist attack in US history, got us in two ruinous foreign wars of choice, and oversaw the largest economic collapse since the great depression.

2) an incompetent, mentally ill criminal who attempted to overthrow democracy.

Those results are really, really bad! Does anyone doubt even for a second that if the popular will of the country had been respected instead of deferring to an electoral anachronism designed to protect slavery that we would be better off?
Totally worth the liberal tears.

Being serious how about this deal. Voter ID required and mail in voting only for those who truly can’t make it out of the house, staffing rules for voting places as in x staff/square feet for every y amount of registered voters for elimination of EC popular vote is the winner.

Deal, anyone?
 

compcons

Golden Member
Oct 22, 2004
1,818
522
136
Totally worth the liberal tears.

Being serious how about this deal. Voter ID required and mail in voting only for those who truly can’t make it out of the house, staffing rules for voting places as in x staff/square feet for every y amount of registered voters for elimination of EC popular vote is the winner.

Deal, anyone?
Add in enough voting locations to cover the population such that voting is not a massive time suck (1-2 hour max wait), election days are national holidays or voting period is 1-2 weeks long.
 

Homerboy

Lifer
Mar 1, 2000
29,501
3,242
126
Totally worth the liberal tears.

Being serious how about this deal. Voter ID required and mail in voting only for those who truly can’t make it out of the house, staffing rules for voting places as in x staff/square feet for every y amount of registered voters for elimination of EC popular vote is the winner.

Deal, anyone?
What's the # of voting locations per capita?
Is voting day a NATIONAL holiday which includes stores and restaurants etc being closed at least a partial day?
We have to allow FAIR and EQUAL access to the polls for ALL citizens, and mail in ballots allow that.
 
Feb 4, 2009
29,485
10,004
136
Add in enough voting locations to cover the population such that voting is not a massive time suck (1-2 hour max wait), election days are national holidays or voting period is 1-2 weeks long.
What's the # of voting locations per capita?
Is voting day a NATIONAL holiday which includes stores and restaurants etc being closed at least a partial day?
We have to allow FAIR and EQUAL access to the polls for ALL citizens, and mail in ballots allow that.
That is what I meant so it is a consistent experience for every let’s say 1,000 registered voters there is one worker/ballot person and let’s say 100 square feet of space (these are made up numbers). Basically forces places to either aggressively recruit volunteers or pay them more than coffee & doughnuts to ensure we all have a proportionally equal amount of space to vote and staff to handle the people coming in to vote. This should make a reasonably consistent wait to vote or at least set a bare minimum standard. No cramming 50k people to vote in a high school football storage shed staffed with two 80 year olds.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Homerboy

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
11,866
1,193
126
Coming from a smaller state that was one of the original 13 colonies I totally understand the value and purpose the electoral college originally. But face it -we have become a far more federal system in the last 150 years or so. Once the vestiges of slavery died out, frankly there is little social or political justification for the continued impingement of the electoral college upon the right of the voters to control their government. The fundamental underlying principal is that we are to be a government OF the people rather than being a governed people.

There are only two possible justifications for the continuation of the electoral college-(1) to preserve the two party (only) system and (2) to preserve the viability of the GOP to continue it's minority rule of the government. Neither of which is the least bit persuasive or desirable IMO.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,860
14,008
136
Please, gentlemen. 5 states vote by mail with drop boxes readily available, including my own. Our elections are squeaky clean. Prior to the Trumpian mind fuck, voting by mail was not a partisan issue in other states where it's widely practiced, like AZ & FL. Done well, it's more efficient & less expensive than in person voting.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY