• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Utah pushing to make sure gerrymandering helps them with Senate elections

Repeal the 17th Amendment? So those lousy, corrupt state governments can go back to putting their corrupt buddies into the Senate, like the good old days?

moneybagssenate.jpg


There is some odd notion that some people have that senators no longer represent the interests of the state. I posit that they represent the state better today then prior to the 17th Amendment. We're giving all the people of a state the choice of their senator instead of just a portion of people (ie: the majority party in a state legislature).
 
Utah Republicans wants to be able to use their gerrymandered district advantage to select Senators now, too:
http://www.sltrib.com/news/3576711-155/utah-senate-votes-to-repeal-17th

The argument:
US Senators represent moneyed interests instead of the state.

I'm sure the Utah Senators don't represent moneyed interests, though, right?

I'm fine with them advocating for repeal of the 17th which would mean going away from direct election of U.S. Senators and reverting back to selection via state Assembly. I put the odds of it being adopted by other states and ratified as being somewhere between "diddly" and "squat" however. Proposals like this or to do away with the Electoral College are just pet rock causes anyway.
 
I'm fine with them advocating for repeal of the 17th which would mean going away from direct election of U.S. Senators and reverting back to selection via state Assembly. I put the odds of it being adopted by other states and ratified as being somewhere between "diddly" and "squat" however. Proposals like this or to do away with the Electoral College are just pet rock causes anyway.

Doing away with the electoral college is a very real possibility.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

There is still a good bit to go as states worth only about 30% of the electoral votes have enacted laws to this effect and of course you need 50.1%, but still they are well on their way to effectively abolishing the electoral college.
 
States can abolish the winner takes all approach to assigning electors and go with proportional representation. No Constitutional amendment needed.
 
Doing away with the electoral college is a very real possibility.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

There is still a good bit to go as states worth only about 30% of the electoral votes have enacted laws to this effect and of course you need 50.1%, but still they are well on their way to effectively abolishing the electoral college.

A voluntary agreement wouldn't "do away with it" and would be unenforceable in any event. That sounds like a great plan for addressing the last war (the 2000 election) but a recurrence of that scenario is highly unlikely IMHO. The only way it would be honored in practice is if doing so didn't directly cause an "unfavorable outcome" from the POV of the state who did so.
 
A voluntary agreement wouldn't "do away with it" and would be unenforceable in any event. That sounds like a great plan for addressing the last war (the 2000 election) but a recurrence of that scenario is highly unlikely IMHO. The only way it would be honored in practice is if doing so didn't directly cause an "unfavorable outcome" from the POV of the state who did so.

What do you mean voluntary agreement? It is legally binding on all the states once states that account for 50.1% of the electoral votes have passed this law. In order for it not to be honored, a state would have to pass a new law withdrawing from the pact when confronted with an electoral outcome. That's highly unlikely.

If you think states would withdraw from this as soon as they get an 'unfavorable outcome' then why don't states change how they award their electors now when confronted with an 'unfavorable outcome'. The process and the incentives for doing so are literally identical. Therefore saying they would not honor this makes zero sense.

So yeah, hopefully we can say goodbye to the electoral college in the near future. It's existed for far too long as it is.
 
Utah Republicans wants to be able to use their gerrymandered district advantage to select Senators now, too:
http://www.sltrib.com/news/3576711-155/utah-senate-votes-to-repeal-17th

The argument:
US Senators represent moneyed interests instead of the state.

I'm sure the Utah Senators don't represent moneyed interests, though, right?

In Utah, the monied interests are represented by the Mormon Church & they basically run the place, including the state legislature. This move would merely allow them to tighten their grip.
 
Fuck the GOP and all it's corrupt, power hungry theocrats. This proves evangelical baptists don't corner that market I guess.

Social authoritarians and the religilous stink of fear right now; look at them scrambling to game the system even more because they know their party policies have been losing support for years.

Another vote here for the electoral college to go away, it's time has clearly passed.
 
Fuck the GOP and all it's corrupt, power hungry theocrats. This proves evangelical baptists don't corner that market I guess.

Social authoritarians and the religilous stink of fear right now; look at them scrambling to game the system even more because they know their party policies have been losing support for years.

Another vote here for the electoral college to go away, it's time has clearly passed.

Social issues are merely a smokescreen for true intent, the intent to tear down the power of the govt of the people & replace it with corporate power.
 
Back
Top