All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[Gray Lensman]

I am surprised. Given the number of big money donors, the GOP has like the Mercers, why don't these people just cut his a campaign a check or are they afraid he is going to steal their money?

They don't think there is going to be any return on the investment this time around.

Some are angry at the tariff war - the tit for tat has cost them money.

[zinderel]

Bear in mind that 4 million Californians voted for Trump in 2016, the largest for any state.

The stuff about CA's population cuts both ways. It has more people than many flyover states but less representation but that also includes Californian Republicans too.

Et in arcadia, ego.

Oh no, I agree! And thata fine! People have a right to vote however they like, even if I disagree. But if he's gonna 'argue' that California's 'size' has anything to do with why the popular vote never seems to go his way? I can argue the opposite. The EC was a good idea when we had a national population the size of the population of Delaware, today. It DOESNT work anymore, though, and in fact has proveably been the cause of the disenfranchisement of voters in several recent elections.

The only way to be GENUINELY fair about things is 'One person, one vote'. No restrictions other than 'citizen'. I understand and accept that things may not always go my way, but if history is any indication, progress will still occur, because MOST people dont like being stagnant. 'The left' won the popular vote four out of the last five elections, despite the EC (and/or the SCOTUS) handing the win to the losers repeatedly, anyway. I say remove the systems that allows Republicans to cheat, and maybe we'll see some HONEST conservatives again.

[Kirby101]

Popular vote, no, California is too big, that alone prevents it. For the EC, I see him take Fl, AZ, NC, Ga and Pa along with either MI or WI. Maybe both.

What polls do you see that point to that?

[Spidey5640]

Oh no, I agree! And thata fine! People have a right to vote however they like, even if I disagree. But if he's gonna 'argue' that California's 'size' has anything to do with why the popular vote never seems to go his way? I can argue the opposite. The EC was a good idea when we had a national population the size of the population of Delaware, today. It DOESNT work anymore, though, and in fact has proveably been the cause of the disenfranchisement of voters in several recent elections.

The only way to be GENUINELY fair about things is 'One person, one vote'. No restrictions other than 'citizen'. I understand and accept that things may not always go my way, but if history is any indication, progress will still occur, because MOST people dont like being stagnant. 'The left' won the popular vote four out of the last five elections, despite the EC (and/or the SCOTUS) handing the win to the losers repeatedly, anyway. I say remove the systems that allows Republicans to cheat, and maybe we'll see some HONEST conservatives again.

Popular vote would only ensure that the wants and needs of the most densely pointed states are addressed while the rest of the country is completely ignored. Preventing that is kind of the point of the EC. They knew what they were doing.

[Spidey5640]

What polls do you see that point to that?

Trafalgar polls going that way. He called 2016 correct but its more than polls. I see the enthusiasm at the rallies and have watched the coverage. Just seems to me Trump is gaining momentum late, with positive economic news giving him a boost. Ancedotetal I admit but don't see how anyone can go strictly by polls.

[Tami]

Popular vote, no, California is too big, that alone prevents it. For the EC, I see him take Fl, AZ, NC, Ga and Pa along with either MI or WI. Maybe both.

Looking at 270towin

The Polling Map has Biden with 278 and Trump with 125, with 135 as a tossup. Fl, AZ, NC, and GA are tossups. PA leans Democrat.

The best Trump is doing in in the Politico Scenario, where Biden gets 279, Trump gets 179, and only 80 are tossups. In this case, AZ, FL, and NC are still tossups. GA leans Republican, and PA leans Democrat.

Biden's best Scenario is from the Economist which has Biden with 334 and Trump with 164, only 40 a tossup which is GA and IA.

All three have MI and WI going to the Democrats.

Averaging all of the predictions, you have Biden with 302 and Trump with 160.

Check it out yourself.

If Biden just gets WA, OR, CA, NV, AZ, NM, CO, MN, WI, MI, OH, VA, PA, HI, and the Northeastern states from Maryland up to Maine, he'll have 288.

[Panfoot]

Popular vote would only ensure that the wants and needs of the most densely pointed states are addressed while the rest of the country is completely ignored. Preventing that is kind of the point of the EC. They knew what they were doing.

So...the party that gets the most votes from the most people would win. How vile!

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Popular vote would only ensure that the wants and needs of the most densely pointed states are addressed while the rest of the country is completely ignored.

Where before there was nothing but love.

"the rest of the country" is still largely ignored via poor infrastructure, shoddy laws, neglect and so on. Ever heard of the opiod crisis?

The EC ensures that rigid proceduralism is followed at the expense of passing real reforms.

Preventing that is kind of the point of the EC. They knew what they were doing.

Nope. The Electoral College was invented to protect and sustain the interests of slave states in the South in exchange for them joining the Union and accepting the Federal governments.

SO yeah, they knew what they were doing in terms of enforcing slavery but in terms of some high minded concern about some states not getting a voice at the table, that was never an issue nor is that likely to be a real problem if the EC is removed. After all, most democracies outside US don't have the EC and the issue of neglect is not to the same extent as you are making out.

[Spidey5640]

Where before there was nothing but love.

"the rest of the country" is still largely ignored via poor infrastructure, shoddy laws, neglect and so on. Ever heard of the opiod crisis?

The EC ensures that rigid proceduralism is followed at the expense of passing real reforms.



Nope. The Electoral College was invented to protect and sustain the interests of slave states in the South in exchange for them joining the Union and accepting the Federal governments.

SO yeah, they knew what they were doing in terms of enforcing slavery but in terms of some high minded concern about some states not getting a voice at the table, that was never an issue.

Amazing no one had an issue with the EC when Obama won, or talked about packing the court when SCOTUS had a liberal slant.

[Spidey5640]

Looking at 270towin

The Polling Map has Biden with 278 and Trump with 125, with 135 as a tossup. Fl, AZ, NC, and GA are tossups. PA leans Democrat.

The best Trump is doing in in the Politico Scenario, where Biden gets 279, Trump gets 179, and only 80 are tossups. In this case, AZ, FL, and NC are still tossups. GA leans Republican, and PA leans Democrat.

Biden's best Scenario is from the Economist which has Biden with 334 and Trump with 164, only 40 a tossup which is GA and IA.

All three have MI and WI going to the Democrats.

Averaging all of the predictions, you have Biden with 302 and Trump with 160.

Check it out yourself.

If Biden just gets WA, OR, CA, NV, AZ, NM, CO, MN, WI, MI, OH, VA, PA, HI, and the Northeastern states from Maryland up to Maine, he'll have 288.

We shall see come Tuesday...or Wednesday...maybe Thursday...

[ChangingStation]

Where before there was nothing but love.

"the rest of the country" is still largely ignored via poor infrastructure, shoddy laws, neglect and so on. Ever heard of the opiod crisis?

The EC ensures that rigid proceduralism is followed at the expense of passing real reforms.



Nope. The Electoral College was invented to protect and sustain the interests of slave states in the South in exchange for them joining the Union and accepting the Federal governments.

SO yeah, they knew what they were doing in terms of enforcing slavery but in terms of some high minded concern about some states not getting a voice at the table, that was never an issue.

There's a reason there's an agreement among multiple states to solve the problem with the Electoral College by making all their electoral college votes go to the popular vote winner. (Obviously this agreement will only kick in when they get enough states to make up 270 votes to agree with it.)

[ChangingStation]

Amazing no one had an issue with the EC when Obama won, or talked about packing the court when SCOTUS had a liberal slant.

Didn't Obama win both the EC and the Popular Vote (while there were complaints, just ones people didn't really listen to)? And weren't the courts not massively lopsided either way beforehand?

[Tami]

Amazing no one had an issue with the EC when Obama won, or talked about packing the court when SCOTUS had a liberal slant.

Everyone has an issue with the EC. It's never been popular with anyone except some southern states. And the SCOTUS rarely has a liberal slant, and rarely has there ever talk about packing since its never happened before that a party denied a President from the opposing party his choice just under a year from an election, then ramrodding another President's choice while Americans are already voting.

[Mister Mets]

Where before there was nothing but love.

"the rest of the country" is still largely ignored via poor infrastructure, shoddy laws, neglect and so on. Ever heard of the opiod crisis?

The EC ensures that rigid proceduralism is followed at the expense of passing real reforms.



Nope. The Electoral College was invented to protect and sustain the interests of slave states in the South in exchange for them joining the Union and accepting the Federal governments.

SO yeah, they knew what they were doing in terms of enforcing slavery but in terms of some high minded concern about some states not getting a voice at the table, that was never an issue nor is that likely to be a real problem if the EC is removed. After all, most democracies outside US don't have the EC and the issue of neglect is not to the same extent as you are making out.

Most countries don't have an electoral college, but that's because the states part of the United States is important.

Other countries have antimajoritarian outcomes. Parliamentary elections are still determined by who wins the most districts, not by the popular vote.

The idea that the electoral college was invented to protect slavery is a myth, according to historian Sean Wilentz.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/04/o...very-myth.html

First, the slaveholders did not need to invent the Electoral College to fend off direct popular election of the president. Direct election did have some influential supporters, including Gouverneur Morris of New York, author of the Constitution’s preamble. But the convention, deeply suspicious of what one Virginian in another context called “the fury of democracy,” crushed the proposal on two separate occasions.

How, then, would the president be elected, if not directly by the people at large? Some delegates had proposed that Congress have the privilege, a serious proposal that died out of concern the executive branch would be too subservient to the legislative. Other delegates floated making the state governors the electors. Still others favored the state legislatures.

The alternative, and winning, plan, which became known as the Electoral College only some years later, certainly gave the slaveholding states the advantage of the three-fifths clause. But the connection was incidental, and no more of an advantage than if Congress had been named the electors.

Most important, once the possibility of direct popular election of the president was defeated, how much did the slaveholding states rush to support the concept of presidential electors? Not at all. In the initial vote over having electors select the president, the only states voting “nay” were North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia — the three most ardently proslavery states in the convention.

Southerners didn’t embrace the idea of electors because it might enlarge slavery’s power; they feared, as the North Carolinian Hugh Williamson, who was not a slaveholder, remarked, that the men chosen as electors would be corruptible “persons not occupied in the high offices of government.” Pro-elite concerns were on their minds — just as, ironically, elite supporters of the Electoral College hoped the body would insulate presidential politics from popular passions.

When it first took shape at the convention, the Electoral College would not have significantly helped the slaveowning states. Under the initial apportionment of the House approved by the framers, the slaveholding states would have held 39 out of 92 electoral votes, or about 42 percent. Based on the 1790 census, about 41 percent of the nation’s total white population lived in those same states, a minuscule difference. Moreover, the convention did not arrive at the formula of combining each state’s House and Senate numbers until very late in its proceedings, and there is no evidence to suggest that slavery had anything to do with it.

But didn’t the college, whatever the framers’ intentions, eventually become a bulwark for what Northerners would later call the illegitimate slave power? Not really. Some historians have revived an old partisan canard that the slaveholding states’ extra electoral votes unfairly handed Thomas Jefferson the presidency in 1800-01. They ignore anti-Jefferson manipulation of the electoral vote in heavily pro-Jefferson Pennsylvania that offset the Southerners’ electoral advantage. Take away that manipulation, and Jefferson would have won with or without the extra Southern votes.

The early president most helped by the Constitution’s rejection of direct popular election was John Quincy Adams, later an antislavery hero, who won the White House in 1824-25 despite losing both the popular and electoral votes to Andrew Jackson. (The House decided that election.) As president, the slaveholder Jackson became one of American history’s most prominent critics of the Electoral College, which he blasted for disallowing the people “to express their own will.” The Electoral College system made no difference in deciding the presidency during the 36 years before the Civil War.

Didn't Obama win both the EC and the Popular Vote (while there were complaints, just ones people didn't really listen to)? And weren't the courts not massively lopsided either way beforehand?

While Obama won the electoral college and popular vote, his coalition was such that the electoral college benefitted him. A uniform swing could allow him to lose the popular vote but keep enough electoral votes.

It is worth noting that movement on the popular vote compact was active during Obama's presidency, so there were plenty on the left trying to get rid of the electoral college.

[Tami]

Didn't Obama win both the EC and the Popular Vote (while there were complaints, just ones people didn't really listen to)? And weren't the courts not massively lopsided either way beforehand?

Most presidents do win with the Popular Vote, with the EC being just a formality. There have been several exceptions, some close calls, others far more questionable.