[NR] The ‘Burn It Down!’ Democrats: The Electoral College and Opposition to the Constitutional Order

People don’t seem to realize that the Greeks created Democracy as a form of government designed specifically around DEBATE.

If we didn’t debate these sort of things it would not be a sign of a healthy democracy. Where constitutional changes are dangerous to Democracy is when the minority is able to make drastic changes without majority consensus.

The National Emergy power grab being a perfect example. Being a minority approved position, the SCOTUS on merit alone should side against the decision because of this. If they side with Trump for some reason that wreaks of corruption to the system of Democracy where majority rule is the name of the game after healthy debate.

So let’s see where the national consensus is on the electoral college and then Congress should follow suite if there is majority consensus polled consistently. 19 states have already started creating a pathway to change. Look for more to jump on relatively soon if this polls popular.

 

The rural small town vote for the GOP is like the black vote for Democrats... Except there's a lot more of them and their inner party rebellions are more felt.

I'd say theyve been heavily marginalized over the last three decades. I mean their latest "populist" and radical movement, the tea party, has been focused on tearing down the same institutions you mentioned are heavily subsidized. This in turn forces mobile people to flock were the resources are more efficiently allocated, large cities.

If they were an ideal people party, Democrats would have capitalized upon this, but it's always more than one issue that defines a party.

Excuses aside, dim leadership was snobby enough to outright call them flyover states, and their allegiance to neo-liberalism and the billions of wall street money it offers doomed them from that vote.

 

The original article conclusion was how awfully unconstitutionally it would be to get rid of the EC, when
- the constitution provide an amendment method to change
- states can effectively enact popular vote without an amendment and remain constitutional

Of course, it also has history wrong
- the people has been in favor of ridding of the EC for decades now
- it wasn't a Democrat thing, but it looks more that way today because republican has changed their mind (now think EC is what protect the government from going into socialism, fascism, or other super scary thing)

Those are just simply a position based on ignorance (and fear). Now, if you want to shift the conversation to what make more sense for our democracy... EC, popular, some hybrid.. that's an interesting and worthwhile debate.

 

Again, rather than do away with the EC, the EC votes need to more fairly reflect current populations. The 2016 election made many people aware that the way electoral votes are distributed gives residents of sparsely populated states more clout than those in large states. To take the two extremes, California gets 55 electoral votes for 37.3 million people (2010 Census), or one electoral vote for approximately each 680,000 people. Wyoming receives 3 votes for its 568,000 people, or about one per 190,000. Better balancing the EC to populations will prevent the Wyoming voter from having almost three times the power of a California voter.

When the EC was originally created, the population may have had a more rural than urban mix. But rural areas are currently only 19% of the U.S. population (60 million people, only 47 million adult age).

 

While other minorities like Black Americans, Brown Americans, Japanese Americans (during WW2) et al have got no relief from the EC.

It appear that you are championing an opinion, not for its merits, but for its end results.

 

With the extreme partisanship that has the senate now breaking down upon party lines, and trending towards no blue senators in red states (there's 2 i think and one is almost certainly gone in 2020), and the same for red in blue (and who knows if she survives her next re-election), there's a few purple states, but it's conceivable the republicans dominate the senate for decades simply because there's a plurality of red states.

 

Hey... racial minorities get lots of relief in some of those in "flyover states" like Wyoming. All 6% of them (including African Americans 1.1%, 0.9% Asian Americans).

 

It's the GOP and the electoral college that ****s over rural voters like Devin Nunes, Devin Nunes Cow, and Devin Nunes Mom.

There are millions and millions of rural voters in blue states. New York alone has over a million reliably Republican voters upstate and in Western NY, many times the population of Wyoming. All of Illinois outside Chicago is pretty much as red as it gets.

During the presidential election they might as well throw their ballot in the trash.

Meanwhile over in Wyoming, each barn gets its own electoral vote.

 

That's some real bon mots.

I think the fact that the electoral college, along with the 3/5 compromise, was designed to protect the institution of slavery deserves its own thread unless you can convince me otherwise.

Tic-toc, friend.

 

Serious question, @Os Trigonum =- Do you honestly like basketball or are you here for the being a race-baiting douche part of it more?

It always amazes me how people can have an affinity for a sport that is closely tied to African American culture, - then through the power of anonymity, be horrible, trolling, annoying racists and say things they'd be incredibly embarrassed to say in real life.

First, they don't really teach "the electoral college" in Constitutional Law in Con Law 1 or 2 as far as I recall There aren't a lot of court cases aobut it so it makes a pretty sparse subject (and really, not a very interesting one)

Second, you're just dead wrong, and you're embarrassing yourself and your little red pill project with your cutesy digs.

Thread to follow.

 

I agree that the GOP have their own brand of identity politics.

Yea they oppose things like welfare but not Medicare, while taking advantage of both. They oppose things like education and training while loving agricultural subsidies.

They marginalized themselves and increasing trends towards urbanization and specialization have only marginalized them further.

They don’t want the type of help the Dems are offering, and if we were being honest then these areas don’t have much of a future without some seimic shift.

There are thousands of small towns in the US who will more than likely die a slow death with no hope for a turnaround.

 

Sounds like that hit a nerve? Or should I say, hit a bone?

 

No can do. Slavery is ALL YOUR FAULT.

 

As an aside, if a black person scores a 100 on Con Law 1 or 2 test, do they get a 60 instead (or is the grade rounded down to 0). Just curious.

 

I wouldn't assume that Trump could have won the popular vote. It is very unlikely as more people on the West Coast would have voted.

Yes, the Muller report and the general economy will be huge. Trump is an incumbent and that is a big advantage. Only two incumbents have lost in the last 45 years and both lost to very charismatic candidates (Reagan, Clinton).

 

I’d just argue you like the attention. Whatever gets you off.